Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
stuartgiere

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 19
 #1 
Over the past two weekends, Larry, Roger and I have been working on a 5-1-5 that can be done with a runner on a reasonable flat trail.  We struggled in the first attempt to get the paces (steps in "power") set up right for the athlete (loosly speaking, me). 
We got some interesting results, but I don't know 1) were we successful in our last attempt?, and 2) am I seeing useful information about my fitness status, and finally 3) is there possibly a power imbalance showing up between right and left leg, or are the readings just biased due to placement?

Here are the graphs - let me know if you want raw data...

 
Attached Files
xlsx 515.xlsx (391.98 KB, 84 views)

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #2 

Hallo Stuart :
 First sorry for the late response. The data collections you sent  to  the forum is super interesting and it will allow  me to show you some fundamental answers on some now more and more occurring questions.
 I am getting flooded with emails all showing a similar direction.
 This is :
 a)   many many readers start to understand  and start thinking in the direction, that  " classical" ideas where great  at the time but new technology may have given us the opportunity to review  some of the " classical " ideas  and  may have opened the door  for some interesting new directions and ideas.
 I have less and less mails  trying to " defend" the idea, that we test for a single number, value  or point.
 Than name this threshold or maximal and from now on using a calculator to define what we call training zones.
The fact , that with NIRS/MOXY we now have a cheap affordable tool to get real time feedback during a workout or an assessment with no  open question of time lag between the physiological reactions in the working muscle  and the actual  test result in our equipment.( Blood or VO2  at the masks)
 opens a  fundamental change in the way we asses,  train and observe effects.

I like to take your data to  offer a discussion on this fundamental changes.
 I will answer  direct your question in BLUE
The Blue  answer  will be most likely a "classical" answer  and  much easier  accepted  from the readers, than the follow up

Red answer, which will be  fundamentally different  and may cause some interesting discussions.

I hate my Blue answer but I will start with it. It is a " cheap " compromise  between what i learned    and most people  will accept  and what i think is not  really  physiological acceptable but  for organizational reasons used and as well for business  purposes.

Here the question from Stuart :
1) were we successful in our last attempt?, and 2) am I seeing useful information about my fitness status, and finally
Yes very successful and I like that part of my blue answer.
The success is in the second  part of the question : Useful information:
Fitness status: MOXY / NIRS  can't give you an actual fitness status  per see. We can give you a status on how your body  handles  energy demand  and  energy utilization  or  the famous  idea  of energy delivery and utilization. This can give us some indication on where you can easier improve  as it may be a clear weakness and where you  may have to invest a lot of time for a small improvement as you are already very efficient.
 The fitness part would come  more into the discussion, when we  would compare  the NIRS trend   and the actual  performance in wattage or  speed  or   repetitions. To  make a definition on  actual performance , physical information like time , speed  and    others  are very objective  still. Alone they mean nothing when looking at the performance  in a feedback on how you  have created  this performance physiologically. So here the " classical " way  of a assessment  feedback.
delta zoning.jpg 
Red is your HR trend  and green is your SmO2 trend of your  delta muscle , which is not severely involved in the running ( if you take the delta pars acromialis ).
In a  full body  sport (  more than 60 % )   of muscle mass involved, you can set your MOXY best  on a non involved muscle. This way you can get out of the risk , that you may be very  asymmetrically trained in your main   muscles  and you may  get two different  "zoning's".
 One of the more typically sports, where this is the case is speed skating  and mainly short track ,as  the inner and outer leg  will be very different trained.. But  you can imagine many other sports, which are not  symmetrically challenging the  performance. So for   basic " zoning " purposes  you would take a non involved muscle.
 Bbelow an example of a bike workout  from the same group  showing a very asymmetrical   blood flow situation on a bike.

thb.jpg 

This gives you an answer to a certain extend   to :
 3) is there possibly a power imbalance showing up between right and left leg, or are the readings just biased due to
placement?

Yes
 for both questions.
 You can have a very asymmetrical  muscle situation ( and most have   a difference ) but as well you  can have a different  readings  due to placement of the MOXY..
 How can I   distinct this 2  options.
 : If you are symmetrically you  simply may have different absolute numbers  but you are very    much in the same trend . So you look at SmO2  and tHb  and see,, whether you could overlap  or close to overlap the traces  if you would get rid of the   absolute numbers.
 So in the above case you clearly can't  and this is most likely a very different  blood flow situation between  left and right leg.
So lets' look at Stuarts  data from his left and right leg.( including the delta muscle).
 SmO2  first followed  by tHb
SmO2  all three.jpg  In SmO2 you can see that the left leg  ( light green )clearly   drops  much steeper and earlier. as well as the peak SmO2 in the recovery is not  reaching back to the start peaks in the recovery !( see recovery SmO2 of his  right leg !!!
 This is  sign of ????.
 Now if your answer  was  correct you will see the confirmation nicely in the trend in tHb ( Blood flow . volume ) See below  tHb thb all three.jpg  You can see, that the load  traces  of both legs are very close but the  " deload " phases  are very different. This creates  the difference in   deoxygenation  and reoxygenation. So we have a very useful feedback  when  designing a program for Stuart as we have a limiter   in his  assessment.
Now in any current assessment we may not be able to  find this    interesting situation. Give me  any example, where you run outside  with any tools you can buy  where you get this feedback. Even if you take  a  VO2    mobile equipment  or even if you take a SEMG  you will not get this physiologically info just moxy can give it to you.
 So if we you look on  other classical indication like   lactate for example we would have a summary    of a lactate  sample  as we  do not   make a  difference  from who  and where the systemic lactate is coming from.
 We have no clue  and no way   to design a program to   fix this  difference.
 We just make a  " Zoning "

NOW : we make the same basic mistake and  look for a zoning  for  future workouts.

 With this idea we destroy the fundamental advantage MOXY brings into the future of training   applications  and  physiological  controlled  workouts.
There is no such thing like zoning.
Zoning is most likely an ugly old relic based on the idea  of 220 - age + calculator, or FTP  plus calculator or VO2 max plus calculator.
 We all accept , that a  workout or race will change the  bodies   performance  and as such we can be the next day  better or worse, based  on the actual assessment we did.
 So zoning is already out the window  as the  one  single  point we base the zoning with 100 %  just changed  due to recovery or overload.
 Even during an actual workout the zoning  can get obsolete.
 See the comment of this  PRO cyclist  at the Vuelta.

Martin was not the only rider to struggle with the high temperatures in which the Vuelta peloton has basked for successive days since leaving Jerez de la Frontera on Saturday. Nairo Quintana (Movistar) and Roberto Gesink (Belkin) also confirmed that they had suffered due to the heat, though Martin was reluctant to place too much emphasis on the conditions.

“I don’t want to make excuses because
I just didn’t have the legs yesterday,” he said. “It was a strange feeling when I started the climb, and my body just stopped working with 2k to go.”

Hmm   did he used wattage  or HR  or what  biofeedback did he used before he  fell apart and did not had  his legs  anymore.
 Who   decided  that   his legs  may have to  work less  and why ?
 Here a small  feedback from   2 case studies, one from Australia  and one  from our  lab.

heat  and  glucose.jpg 
Red is the Australian study  with  the influence of temperature on the performance in wattage  so 294 watt was the FTP by 20  degree and 257 was  the FTP by 35 degree. Now look how the zoning  and with it the wattage  changes  and this could happen in the same day in the same race.
In the green  squares the reaction based on nutritional intervention.

 This  will create again a very different  zoning if we base it on HR or wattage.
 So wattage is  a very poor  indicator  to control training intensity based on physiological  needs.
 Nevertheless it is the most used  idea of training intensity control in cycling.
 Can you imagine in real live how many other factors besides   nutrition  and heat can influence your FTP  and as such your calculated  training zones ?????

So when we go back to Stuart and we use  his  answer to the above   information , than we see, that  using zoning, even if it is individual tested  with MOXY and not calculated , does not make any sense. If we use the  assessed MOXY zones  an than  use HR or wattage to  "train" in this zones  we  get pushed back to where we  try to escape  from. The old believe, that we can have a training zone   fixed over a few weeks  and the zone is always where it suppose to be.

With this idea, we destroy the MOXY advantage  completely.
 So here the " zoning "  from Stuart
Zoning.jpg  Here based on HR or we  can use wattage in a  cycling assessment

Terrible step back wards, no different from what ever we did with the small positive argument , that we "found" the zones individually due to the SmO2  or  tHb or combined trend.

OKAY:
 what do we do ???
We use the trend information   we gather in the assessment. In Stuarts  case the HR, in cycling cases  HR or wattage  and so on.
 Than we use the live feedback during the workouts  from MOXY  and we train  in the physiological proper  zone by starting with HR  and SmO2  or  Wattage and SmO2
 So for Stuart that would mean:
 If  he likes to   make an STEI   workout [wink] for example .e    goes for a run. By a HR  below  to 135 to 155 or a wattage   designated to this intensity
The physiological feedback has to be, that he sees a flat SmO2  and tHb  as an indication of a balanced  energy  ( O2 delivery )  and utilization.
 So he will start out relaxed and watches his HR climbing as well as his SmO2  and tHb.
As he reaches  140 HR he suddenly sees a drop in SmO2 despite being in the middle of his STEI zone.. Same could happened when  the workout is based on wattage. HR and wattage wise he is still in the "ZONE" but physiologically he is outside the ones  normal energy demand  and delivery.
 With MOXY he  now can make a decision :
 I like to go into the FEI zone despite a very different wattage or HR but I know I am there, or I have to slow down and accept, that  I have to  go a lower wattage  or a lower HR but I  am in the STEI zone.

Summary:
 If I have a MOXY than I use the direct feedback  to tell me whether I am in the intensity I planned to be, rather than using  "zoning" information and hope that I am in the intensity  I believe to be.


This is the oldest idea from the Greeks time:  The  Unreal seen ( looking at wattage ) which is not  the real seen physiological load but looking now the unseen real as MOXY makes it real to see the unseen.


 unseen real  and unreal seen.jpg 
So for Stuart we now have a guidance for his workouts by using  MOXY  and HR.
 IN a  recovered stage he will see the MOXY trends we see in the assessment. So speed, HR  will guide  and MOXY will decide, whether the zoning is  still okay or not.
 If by a  certain speed  and HR  MOXY shows a  drop or a further increase  he than  has an immediate feedback  to speed up or slow down  to  stay in the tested zone  an d he has an immediate feedback, whether his performance is improving or   whether he may need a  rest   due to a hard workout the day before.

Now to avoid questions where the  "zoning "would be  when looking at each leg. Very small if any difference, as the leg difference is not  too much  and   it can easy be trained now  by looking at the limitation.

 First zoning guidance based on SmO2  r  and left leg VL
rVL zoning.jpg 

l VL zoning.jpg  and here just for fun the O2Hb  and HHb reaction of  right and left VL biased at the start
r l bias  z.jpg 
L l bias z.jpg 


stuartgiere

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 19
 #3 
Juerg
Thanks for the reply and great detail.  So now I need to take Moxy and HR, design a training plan (say for the next 30 days) and come back with another 5-1-5.  Is that correct?

Normally I have a mix of training methods, including hill repeats (all out for about 90 seconds on a tough hill), endurance runs - running 4 to 6 miles (longer than my 5k races), and tempo runs where I just try to run at or close to my racing pace.  That's not what I think you are telling me to do for the next 30 days.

With HR and Moxy, I need to set targets - for example STEI, and run in the zone for my training.  So if I plan to do a 4 mile run, I would run at that HR range, and use Moxy to get system challenged and improving.

So if I am a trainer, and I have 15 minutes to consult after assessing the first 5-1-5, I would tell the athlete "do this, and this and this, then come to me in 30 days and I will re assess your 5-1-5 to show you where and how you have gained in performance."  Juerg - what are those 3 or 4 things I would have to do as directed by my trainer?

Also - training an imbalance between R and L leg?  Is that a mental game of making sure I focus on equal exersion - or is it generally a physical issue, like strength or coordinations that is getting in my way?

Thanks very much!

Stu

PS - failed to include the fact that I raced the day before the 5-1-5 was done.  I ran a 5K.
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #4 
Will be back later  and  break my   idea of not showing  training idea. . Did you had the MOXY on during your 5 km  run ? if yes that would be fun to see the  csv  file.
stuartgiere

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 19
 #5 
I did not use Moxy for that 5k.  I will run a "trail" 10K tomorrow.  Would that data be useful?  Just SmO2?  Or THb too?  Very hilly run - does that help with defining the status as well? Thanks!
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #6 
Just   short here:
  Very simple:
 MOXY is the real thing, meaning that we  actually create a assessment or test system too have something we can repeat  to see changes. That's where  speed or power helps as well.
 For actually looking at limiter we  do really not  always  need a test but simple a race intensity like workout  like you plan to do. Sent the csv file  so we can see all and  if you can  take  HR as well.
  Have fun  on your run.
  PS If you have 2 moxy's put one on a leg  and  one on a not involved muscle so if you do a trail run   possibly better on your triceps  than  delta  pars  acromialis  as if you  are out of balance you will activate the Delta  for  adjustments  but  not the triceps  as easy.
Andrew

Study Participant
Registered:
Posts: 45
 #7 
Juerg, after looking through this post, I had a question about the "zoning" you summarized in the final slide of the R vs L. 

For the "biased R O2Hb and HHB" I think I see how you set the beginning and end of STEI. This was the intensity at which the O2HB was stable through the 5 minute of work, while THB also showed no significant changes during those work periods. When the trend began to show a dropping O2Hb and a rising HHB, you then indicated this would be the FEI zone.

My question pertains the the STEI and FEI zoning for the L leg.
Midway through the 2880 interval, there was a significant and sustained drop in O2Hb, with a corresponding rise in HHB. In the following interval, the trend was flat, though the absolute numbers were significantly higher than the previous intervals. The next interval was indicated as the beginning of FEI. IS this because the TREND of O2Hb was dropping through the interval, while the trend for HHB was rising? I think, I could easily have made the mistake of looking at the dramatic shift two intervals earlier, and coming up with a different conclusion to the "zones" on the left leg vs the right. Whereas in your conclusions the L and R FEI zones began at exactly the same point. With the aid of the colour zoning, I can see how you determined this if I am correct with my questions above. Can you help me understand what might have happened to cause the changes in values at that point midway through the STEI Zone on the L leg?

Thanks for your time sharing this. I am just trying to ensure I don't make the same mistake in data interpretation DURING a training session, and think I have reached FEI when in fact I am only midway through the STEI zone.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #8 
As usual  , and in this case  Andrew's great feedback  and involvement in our  ongoing process  to improve  simple applications  for physiological testing.
We are just in the midst of our   first international MOXY seminar in Europe  and have a room full of   exclusive bran power people  from all over Europe. So we will back on here soon to show you some incredible case  studies  and serial studies  with numbers  up to 500 MOXY tests done by Jiri   in His  Prag  center. We  just had a  over 1 hour presentation  by the  Swinco  director  Andri. Creator of the e books ). In simple terms.  He did together with all participant a critical review  of  the theory of zoning  and whether we  are  drawn into a  situation, where e stick with zoning just because we  are   as well  in the "traditional " ideas of "book keeping " versus physiological reality. Here  very short  the outcome with the risk  to  as so often confuse people.

There  was  clear consent  after the discussion, that  using NIRS(  MOXY) the creation of zoning is a  contradiction on what we  can  and will achieve  by using moxy.
 So if we  go an argue, that a test idea like we  all did  like VO2  max  or  Max HR  or   a Lactate threshold idea   just finds  one point  in a load  and than we  assume , that % of this one point definition will  create  " physiological  " zoning and than with a lot  of imagination  talk our self into the  idea, that  we daily  will be the same  and the " zoning " will fit    therefore  for any workout,  we may in fact stick with  how you feel and save all the testing  and coaching money.

If  we now argue , that we  are  somewhat smarter  and use MOXY  for an assessment, than  look at the  physiological reactions to create a zoning  as we show here , but than move back to where we where using a surrogate like watt or HR or speed to replace a information we  can have live  and direct feedback, whether  we are still in the  planed intensity , than we destroy the immense  progress we  can make  with NIRS info.

Or again in other words. Why do I take HR  with all the open questions on what influences  HR  or why to I take speed or wattage with all the unknown  reactions  of a  training we did the day before, recovery  before this workout  and so on, when we  have on our  wrist the  direct info what is going on , no matter what   we did  before or during , we simply see, what is going on.
 LIVE info  instead of calculated  info  and  hope it may be still  the same.
 In all the other  former ideas  like VO2  max testing , lactate testing we  had a result from the lab  and than used HR  or wattage to replace the  info we got from a very different testing. Reason was the problem to run with a VO2  equipment   daily  or   get blood taken a few times daily during a workout  to  assure our self , that we  are still in the planned physiological zone.???

 Why would I  translate something into English , because my partner speak English  and I  sent the message  there, when my partner is besides me  speaks  german  like me ???

MOXY solves the problem of Zoning speculation  and is the zoning control itself  daily as we use it like we may use a HR  before or a wattage computer  and so on. No need for zoning per see. We simply assess  as  above, look at that's day physiological reaction  and now plan ten workouts.
 Summary  till here.
 1. f  you  own a MOXY you assess and look at physiological trends  ( Limiter and compensator)  and than  use MOXY  the next day or days  to see live, whether you are in the stimulation  intensity you like to use  for the assessed  limitation or compensation.

If you do not won a MOXY  but got tested   in a center with MOXY  you have to make a compromise ( Till you own a MOXY 0  and step a little bit back  using R or performance  as before, but with the   small advantage that the  zoning is NOT calculated  but  follows physiological trend information's from your body.

In the  above assessment . look  rather than the  " zoning the physiological reaction, which creates a  left  and right   difference.
. Before looking short on this . Tell me  how  with a  VO2 max test , a lactate test, a MAX HR test    a FTP  test  you ever would have FIGURED OUT  The DIFFERENCE. ??
 if  YOUR ANSWER IS  WE  ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE WHAT WE SEE here, THAN YOU Understand  Why  WE  HAVE NO QUESTIONS IN The  TRADITIONAL TESTING. iT IS SIMPLY BLACK AND WHITE. you FIND ONE POINT , YOU NOT EVEN DISCUSS  WHETHER IT S A PROPER  INFORMATION  AND YOU USE A LOT  OF FANATASY    AND Than YOU  HAVE The CALCULATED  NON DISCUSSABLE  ZONING SET  WITH NO RISK OF  Positive CRITICAL DISCUSSON AS WE  OPEN HERE.

 We have situation, where we test non existing physiological imagination's , like lactate threshold, use a lot of more imagination to find threshold  and than move that towards other technology  to avoid  asking questions   on evidence of  lactate thresholds  and options, whether a direct  and  an indirect technology like NIRS  and lactate or VO2  can actually simply be forced upon each other to please our ideas ?


Back to the top  now. Look where Andrew  looks  with a very critical  view the zoning.?
would not be the case in a calculated  zoning at all, but it is reality.
 Look what happens  when you go  and assess the same  step   on how the blood flow is reacting in the  left and right leg  not  number comparison but trend. Look mainly  at the recovery reaction of tHb and   than the  first  few second in the new load. ??? Than look where the incredible drop in SmO2  starts to take place. ?
 This is what we look physiological reactions and what may have caused this reaction  and what  does this tell us ?
 

thigger

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 37
 #9 
If you're interested I've done a running 5-1 on a treadmill and have uploaded the data in my thread in this forum.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #10 
Thigger , here a very short  fats version of your  running assessment. Just  simple graphs  and simple  cook  book  ideas. Remember all this  iss  one single assessment  and  Limiters  can change  depending how tried  you are  so  it iss great  to do   in each workout a  kind of  an individual standardised  easy assessment. How  you do what you planned  and than  in a higher inetsity  yon simple stop   rest and see reactions as a confirmation.

thb alone  smo2  alone  expl.jpg
I  separated  tHb  and SmO2  and made some observation lines  and arrows. You comment   why I did  this  and what  can  cause this reactions.

discussion  end  respiratory  smo22  thb.jpg 



Than  I  zoomed in  to the last  2  heavy loads. Look  2200 where he stopped  or reduced  speed  and  how tHb reacts  and how  SmO2  reacts. Than look thee  SmO2  " hesitation  in the recover  time. There are  some easy   exercises  you can do to  see, whether your idea  holds  true  ( theory  versus  real  world ) Now  below , where we looked  as so often mentioned  VO2  . Physio flow SEMG  blood and NIRS  all together  till we  had a  descent idea, that  a lot  of information  can ebbs tracked  back  by just using MOXY  Now the cae below is a  respiratory limitation  NOT  metaboreflex,  but actually  too weak  respiratory  work  too low  ability to move  VE efficient. Key  word  dead space TV  RF
 This is  from our  Italian friends  Andrea

italia  respiratory limitation.jpg 

You look  explain  and  see, In this case  classical   friends  will say . See VT = LT. but  this is  because the VT  is the limiter  so  metabolically we will have a change in blood values   can be lactate can be glucose  can be  epinephrine    and more.

Here a  short  inside  view   in Andreas  and Cesare   " secret "  cuisine   working  with a  top Asian  MTB  athlete R0011062-thumb-500x375-3529_500x375.jpg 


Andrew

Study Participant
Registered:
Posts: 45
 #11 
Here is my stab at the trends outlined in the two graphs from Juerg's last post...

1) tHb trend shows increasing values during recovery phase throughout test (with the exception of the second rest interval, and the final one). Increase in delivery during rest is a result of strong supply and relaxed muscle tension. Each subsequent step likely has caused an elevated cardiac output, and when the tension of the muscle is removed during the rest phase, this increased cardiac output is seen as tHb increase in the legs. I will go out on the limb and say it appears that during the load phase of each interval, there appears to be a balance that is reached, with a relatively stable trend throughout the interval. These two simple observations would lead me to suspect there is not a cardiac output limitation in this athlete.

2) dropping trend in SmO2 recovery spikes from high at rest period #4 through to #7
with my limited experience, and keeping in mind there is MORE blood flowing to these muscles (as witnessed from the tHb recovery spikes), this athlete is having trouble reloading the oxygen onto the Hb in the lungs. Possibly a result of shift of O2 dissociation curve towards the right, due to higher CO2 values, and increasing temperature. Therefore more difficult to load, but easier to unload O2 from Hb. This would also explain the dramatic drop in SmO2 (red arrow) during 6th work interval. This could indicate possible respiratory weakness.

I think these conclusions would also explain the "zoomed in" graph #3, and the delay in recovery of SmO2, despite the rising tHb.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #12 
What  can I  add other than , no experience needed  when you have brain power. Great  easy  to understand  and in proper  English. Thanks  for this great  feedback
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net