Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #1 
Remember the great feedback  by David  on the  wrong term non-involved.
 I absolutely agree and  I love this direction as it is  crucial we do not make the same mistake again as we do  with the classical idea of  zoning  and  anaerobe threshold  for example. So lets  read  again Davids  great comment

I agree some of this discussion is one of terminology.  While I understand the need to have easy to understand terms, it is also important to make sure they are correct.  I think we all agree that the term non-involved is not accurate.  My fear is that continued use of this term will limit the credibility of people talking about the use of the sensors.  This will be more true among the most educated of users, who may also be the most influential.  

Now  let's throw this out to all  Seminar  and MOXY summit  people but as well to all readers

I am pretty sure many of the summit people  will use the  word  anaerobic  zone  or  anaerobic threshold since many years as we did , because  we learned it and never challenged it.

 Because we  or many still follow this  wrong idea  we have some major  problems  to  actually move forward  so we can use lactate as well as a part of  physiological guided  stimulation.

Now lucky  for  some more open  minded  readers  is, that we have some great  researchers  out there  questioning  classical ideas like lactic acid  or VO2  max  or in our case here the notion  that we can  create aerobic  and anaerobic  training zoning.

 Here a very short  review  as we showed it on this forum already many times but I  never ever had  any feedback  on  why  we still believe in anaerobic  and  why we  never challenged this great group.
 Do we simply  have relative  selective hearing  and if it fits in our theory  we take it  if  not w it is not existing  ( Smile ) are we all  sometimes like this  ? )

Richardson et al have concluded that: ‘‘…intracellular pO2 remains constant during graded incremental exercise in humans (50–100% of muscle VO2max)’’ so that: ‘‘With respect to the concept of the ‘‘anaerobic’’ threshold, these data demonstrate that, during incremental exercise, skeletal muscle cells do not become anaerobic as lactate levels suddenly rise, as intracellular pO2 is well preserved at a constant level, even at maximal exercise’’ (p. 63168). They also conclude that: ‘‘Net blood lactate efflux was unrelated to intracellular pO2 across the range of incremental exercise to

exhaustion’’ but was ‘‘linearly related to O2 consumption’’ (p. 62768). Another study confirmed these conclusions: ‘‘…consequently these data again demonstrate that, as assessed by cytosolic oxygenation state (deoxy-Mb) during incremental exercise, skeletal muscle cells do not become ‘‘anaerobic’’ as lactate levels rise, because intracellular PO2 is well preserved

at a low but constant level even at maximal exercise’’


Now  if we are already  here  how  about the still used idea, that we go " anaerobic "   see above  and if  we go " anaerobic " we will deplete  the high energy phosphate  like Cr.P  and ATP.


Again many times  showed in this forum never  any feedback Remember Connett at all

Plan is a match between ATP supply and demand-by decreasing

ATP consumption rather than by increasing ATP production.

The principal feedback signals appear to be pH

and Pi (7, 67).

So the  goal seems to be  to maintain ATP  and avoid  depletion   on all costs. The graph  shows it much nicer  ATP  stable  Cr.P  initial drop  and than stabilizes it and we showed  some interesting studies  showing how in  many cases  SmO2   can be used  to  have it as a feedback on Cr.P  recovery but as well as  a sign , when we not longer  have optimal O2   levels for  the " rebuild " of  Cr.P

atp crp.jpg 


SmO2  and  recovery dynamic  of  Cr.P on three different  people

overlap  smo2  CrP.jpg 

an
d below the same, but you can see different tHb reactions  on each of the  people.

overlap thb  smo2  for crp  idea.jpg 

Summary :
 We  should  and will change the name NON involved to  another better  term like   for example lower priority  muscle  or  come up with a great term.

This is important  as  David  points  out  for  sure
This will be more true among the most educated of users, who may also be the most influential.  

The reason is  clear  there is always  some activity in any muscle in any activity level.

Now where I struggle is :


We  will keep the anaerobic   terminology  because of the mainly EDUCATED  people  as they are the most influential once !!!

Help !!!

Be  ready  as in case  people like to  try  physiological stimulation instead of physical zoning  stimulation  you may have to   look closer  at physiological reactions  and anaerobic is not  in the terminology.

If we see more and more  NIRS user  stating, that  at the end   of a step test , where we see a  drop in SmO2  the best  explaining that we see now  the " anaerobic " zone  as no  O2  is used anymore  than  NIRS  fails terribly. A  drop in SmO2 is  the most  and   safest  sign of   the  metabolic  situation that in fact we  actually use O2  so  we are  not  anaerobic  at all. We  in fact use more O2  at that moment   than we  can deliver. 

Have  fun  going though this messy  thoughts.



Jiri Dostal

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 51
 #2 

Just a  follow up based on my recent weekend full of work with one ice hockey team. I have do 25 RIP tests on the Wattbike ( our famous 4times30ses all out+2min rest), and I am now in the middle of writing the final report and summary to the head coach, GM ,and the owner, who did not attend the testing, se they did not see what I was explaining to the "lower" members of the team.

I know, I know... we should use the skating instead of Wattbike, but there were several reasons, why it was not possible, so we took a compromise. 

However this is not a point of my comment.  I 100% agree with Juerg, that we should try to avoid the whole discussion about aerobic and anaerobic. However I really struggled in very simple terms ( understandable to average ice hockey player and coach) explain , what, and why we are doing RIP and not VO2max. At the end of the day, they did it with me, not because I convinced, them, but due to the fact, that they simply trust me. Nothing else. This is very nice ?.), but I am not happy with that. The test should not be about the trust to the doctor, but about the understanding of the background and application of such approach

So I would like to follow up on the Juergs discussion. I feel it is somehow our responsibility to create a new terminology and clearly communicate with the Moxy ( or even non Moxy) users. I agree, that the concept of anaerobic-aerobic can kill the whole NIRS. 

I use now the terms oxygen dependent, and oxygen independent, however I also not happy with that, as this is just somehow mimicking the AE and AN status… because the O2 independent is in fact very much O2 dependent…  Unfortunately I do not have better idea now, but any suggestion from our colleagues here would be very welcome J

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #3 
Jiri as usual this is great and a  great  point to start out I will give some ideas tomorrow  as  one of the big discussions  is as well the  what some call basic endurance ,where  some exercise  physiologist  working  with ice hockey team  believe  or even in downhill ski  teams, that the  athlete  needs a base  endurance  no idea  what that actually  means  and they suppose  to do long and slow endurance  work. . Downhill ski race  and  for sure ice hockey is a  question of aerobic  ability  and how  to plan  the recovery  so refuelling  O2  and  Cr.P.
 I will  show  some interesting  stdueis   HIIT versus   slow endurance  and more discussions  on the  terminology   like O2  deficit  versus  EPOC  and so on.
 The key is  really  to  develop a simple to understand, but proper  terminology  ass suggest  as well by David.
So let's  see, where we  go  from here.  Jiri thanks  for the reply.
Andri

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 65
 #4 

During the Moxy conference I spent sometime discussing definitions and terminology, especially anaerobic-aerobic and touched on lactic-alactic. So as Juerg points out the term anaerobic in applied sport physiology is non-sense as in-vivo you cannot uncouple the energy pathways from one another so they are all aerobic. Now of course you can make a biochemical argument that pure glycolysis is not incorporating O2, but this is never isolated so it really makes to sense to thing of it in this way if you are working in the real world. The term alactic is also a funny one, since no one ever measures 0.0 lactate, meaning lactate is always produced regardless of intensity, so that term is really non-sense as well. So we are left with all athletes always work aerobic and lactic. Now, we do however understand that different intensities have different effects acute and chronic and therefore we like to someone differentiates between what we see in training to somehow document our procedures, and part of this is using language. Juerg and many others have tried to change this terminology by introducing non-involved, or O2 independent, to break the mold of these non-sense terms. But again, as David pointed out in the forum, non-involved?? what is that. So maybe a term like non-primary mover for example is better. This is where I agree with Jiri the term O2 dependent and independent is really not that great, sorry Juerg. It is clearly piggy backing of aerobic-anaerobic, which made sense as a transition phase. But is there really O2 independent work? I always look at the work down, which is traditionally called anaerobic, more as a mismatch work between rate of glycolysis and La- production vs. oxidative phosphorylation. Now, instead of just complaining I will offer my solution, to be ripped apart [smile]. For the Moxy we should define terms or identify changes by using words that directly reflect what the Moxy is doing. So for example, if you do a long sprint and you create a minimum SmO2 plateau, I would call this point, the point of muscle oxygen desaturation or maximal muscle oxygen desaturation. And therefore if you want to do a training with the goal of reaching and maintaining this pictures, you would be doing an extended desaturation training, in comparison to just dropping down and coming back up, this would be a desaturation-re saturation training. Thoughts? 

 We could talk about desaturation phase and rate of desaturation, which would obviously be linked to greater O2 extraction and utilization than O2 supply, and would be seen when SmO2 drops. As long as this is happening, however, you still have the ability to extract more O2 to support ATP production.

The when you plateau SmO2 during high intensity work you have now reached maximum desaturation or maybe just desaturation. This is perhaps close to what Connet el al. (1990), when he defines dysoxia: “range of dysoxia with unimpaired cell function, where the mitochondrial ATP flux varies with PO2 but the total ATP flux and cell function, i.e., tension development, are unchanged because glycolytic ATP production compensates for O2-limited cytochrome turn-over.”

The finally we would have re saturation phase or rate of re saturation, seen as SmO2 recovery. This is where we also need to clearly state that when we talk bout recovery using the Moxy, we talk about the re saturation of SmO2; and while correlations to for example PCR this is not perfect and variations must be considered. Anyone pushing an athlete hard for a long time, can tell you if re saturation time is enough or not. 

Andrew

Study Participant
Registered:
Posts: 45
 #5 
I am really interested in this topic, both from an educational stand point, and as an end-user still trying to make best use of this great equipment. 

The only problem I have with the terms "saturation" and "desaturation" is that for the average person, they will equate the term "desaturation" to a lack of available oxygen. Even is using this term with the small number of athletes I help train, the word becomes associated with a "lack of oxygen" in the muscles, which comes back to reinforcing the delusion of "anaerobic". I think it would help if we can avoid reference to the complexity of the situation, by using terms which describe the trends, and the values being reported. This would be better than pushing terms that can lead to erroneous conclusions from even some of the "well educated", who continue to rely on aerobic/anaerobic descriptions of exercise in sport.

I would like to suggest that we use terms that refer to the description of the "trends" in SmO2 value. As both Juerg and Andri have pointed out, the cause of the trends we see can be complex, and needs a great deal of insight in order to make conclusions as to the cause. So, just as we did a way with the term lactate threshold, and replaced it with an understanding of lactate trends, I believe we should do the same with SmO2 as well.

Here would be my suggestions for terminology on SmO2.
Where a "F" value refers to a FLAT set of points or a plateau, "T" refers to a trend (either up or down), and a "P", for a value at any single point in time.

resting flat (RF)
stable flat during activity (SF)
elevated flat (any flat line above resting plateau (EF)
depressed stable flat (DSF)
lowest sustainable flat (LSF) (sustainable meaning the values were maintained for greater than "x" amount of time)

downward trend, dropping trend (DT)
upward trend, rising trend (UT)

lowest achieved SmO2 value (LP)
highest achieved SmO2 (HP)
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #6 
This is  absolutely great and where I would love to go  whit NIRS. A  completely "unbiased" terminology  completely separating  from classical terms, as there are  confusing  for all  if not    even wrong.
The   idea  could be  that we create  an international terminology  with the   groups we  work since many years  and find  some decent  consent.

Reason. NIRS is NIRS  and the  mistake we see coming up no is  to move an advanced technology  in an out dated  physiology.

Example .   Anaerobe in graphs  where  SmO2  drops , when in fact that is the  most  save  trend , where we  are sure  we  are  still working  with O2  for the activity  we perform.

Terms like O2  deficit  where some change  to EPOC  but you can go in any  big conference  and  top  people will talk about  O2  deficit  still.
  Here so  key steps.

If we accept

Richardson et al have concluded that: ‘‘…intracellular pO2 remains constant during graded incremental exercise in humans (50–100% of muscle VO2max)’’ so that: ‘‘With respect to the concept of the ‘‘anaerobic’’ threshold, these data demonstrate that, during incremental exercise, skeletal muscle cells do not become anaerobic as lactate levels suddenly rise, as intracellular pO2 is well preserved at a constant level, even at maximal exercise’’ (p. 63168). They also conclude that: ‘‘Net blood lactate efflux was unrelated to intracellular pO2 across the range of incremental exercise to

exhaustion’’ but was ‘‘linearly related to O2 consumption’’ (p. 62768). Another study confirmed these conclusions: ‘‘…consequently these data again demonstrate that, as assessed by cytosolic oxygenation state (deoxy-Mb) during incremental exercise, skeletal muscle cells do not become ‘‘anaerobic’’ as lactate levels rise, because intracellular PO2 is well preserved

at a low but constant level even at maximal exercise’’



Than we have  to review O2  deficit  and the historical  situation , when it was created.

Deficit  : Most used in connection with money.
a) you spent more than you actually earn  and you  go into a deficit trend.
a 1 )  if you spent  before you actually have it  you  are immediately in a deficit.
a2) if you have some on the bank and you spent more than you actually get in you are in a deficit  trend but you are NOT in a deficit.
 If you stop  spending more than you can  earn you  stop the deficit  trend  and you are NOT in a deficit. You  balance income and spending you are balanced  if you go back to  higher earning than spending your account goes   back up  to be ready  for  a new deficit  trends.

In physiology  we do not have banks having fun if you are in a real deficit. In physiology the Brian  does not allow  you to go into a O2 deficit . So if we  accept Richardson's   great research and many more   current studies on the O2  integration all the  time the  O2 deficit  is  really  a nonissue  anymore.
 Why  do we ended up  with an O2 deficit idea.

Douglas.jpg 


The science  was unreal and great when we look the  time. So the graphs  would look like this

class VO2.jpg 

The  problem was  or  better  now is the technology.

30 second studies.jpg 


so this created the dilemma between the classical picture above  and the  direct feedback of  for example NIRS

moxy VO2.jpg 


overlap VO2.jpg 


There  is much more to come we have to tackle like the idea off a lactate curve.

Summary. We will see   still   great people  talking  about  O2 deficit  and than get in some major  dilemma  when we look  W' bal and other ideas   with the  attempt  to  name them anaerobic  power.

Wingate a test  for anaerobic  power ?

deoxy N.jpg 

  Andrew   absolutely needed  points you make .
NIRS  has to separate  from classical great ideas  which are  outdated now .
 The reason why   many struggle  with physiological  workout  designed is  the  lack of physiological updated  ideas.


juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #7 

Below is a  super great discussion from an absolute  top  site  golden cheetah software
It is  an incredible dedicated  work  from an incredible group of people world wide.
It as well shows  the very interesting and fascinating difference between the drive  to  calculate  and predicts  mathematical based  performance  and the  physiological ideas and looking on what we  see we have and take it from there


Hello, from Max Muselman  from the golden cheetah   discussion  site

i am a little step forward.

The estimator maybe based on the model from Monod and Scherer:

Time = (W_prime)/(Power-CriticalPower) 

Multiplikation the equation with the Differenz (Power-CriticalPower):

Time x (Power-CriticalPower) = W_prime

Time x Power = W_prime + CriticalPower x Time 

Work_limit = Work_anaerobic + CriticalPower x Time 

The units: Time in seconds, Power in watts and Work in joule 

This is a linear function with 

W_prime is the y-axis (the anaerobic work capacity) in joule

Critical Power (CP) is the slope (aerobic capacity) in watt 

A lineare function ist determined with 2 points of the graph, so you need two tests:

For example:

1. Test: CP5: 5min with 281 watt: 281 x (5 x 60) = a +(5x60) x b

2. Test: CP20: 20min with 245 watt: 245 x (20x60) = a + (20x60) x b 

so the  result of the linear system of equations:

a =  14400 J = 14,4 kJ= W_prime

b = 233 W = CP

 

The result of the CP and W_prime Estimator in GC provide the same values:

CP: 233 W

W_prime: 14 kJ

 

As far as i understand the model based on the following assumption:

- the anaerob capacity is constant and will be full exhausted by each test

- the efficiency factor of the muscle is constant during the duration of the complete test.

-  the aerobic capacity is full usable already at the beginning of the tests.

 

Some publications criticize that:

- the efficiency factor is variable, depends of the work intensity. The muscle fibre types IIb has a three times higher ATP-consumption.

- the aerobic capacity has a delay, what you can see on the O2-deficit.

 

 

Now  i am looking for some information, which value of the measured power are used in the equation. The average or xPower or Normalized Power (NP).

If it is the xPower or NP i am very interested of the algorithm of this values.

 

Kind regards

Max


You can see the  2  red sections , where  the discussion is  fun  to have.
 The  anaerobic  idea  and the group we often  use  
Richardson  et all and there is never  an anaerobic  state.

Than  the section we see in many  theories  as well in golden cheetah  where we  deplete  the " anaerobic " high energy phosphates  like Cr.P  and ATP, where  other groups  around Conett  with  great new technology  question  the  depletion of atp
 Than some statements who move towards the idea  that w' Bal is NOT the anaerobic feedback we thought it could be.

 
- the anaerob capacity is constant and will be full exhausted by each test

 the aerobic capacity has a delay, what you can see on the O2-deficit.

And  above as you can see O2  deficit  which still lingers  around  may be replaced  now  by EPOC  and  was  developed   due to the  lack of direct  live feedback  from the  equipment  we used.

This creates a  fascinating dilemma  as we move ahead. What do we do  , when technology and newer Methods  show some  problem with the classical believes. ?

Do we  simply force  the new findings into the  "old ' Ideas  to defend  desperately  where we build over so many years a  great  concept  , or  shall we try to open up the possibilities  that we  can or may have to rethink certain concepts  and ideas.
Are we ready  to do this or  is  our own EGO  so settled  in, that  in now  way  we   entertain the option to  rethink  and perhaps  use  some new directions?

So  this is  what  so often goes through my mind.

ZONING.
  can we use  physiological ideas  to  decide the  intensity we  try to achieve rather than  force a  performance upon us  to hope to  stimulate  the physiological  target we  try to improve.?

I  will show  some real live  feedback's  we do  daily  by  guiding the  stimulation over physiological feedback's  without any performance feedback.

IF we like to  look at this options, than we   may have to  look much closer to the physiological responses we  actually can see  or have.
 In a  first step really is  the  critical look on past ideas like LT2   and LT1  and understand the dynamic of lactate and the accuracy  and timing problem  we  have with any blood testing. So  I will try again to show   in another   write up the dilemma.

I  try here again

IF  the MAXlass is  what most of us  would  agree is the highest intensity, where the  production of lactate, who ever and where ever it takes place, is  in balance  with the recycling or utilization of lactate  than :

a) what happens  when we  take lactate  below MAX LASS  in a  lower intensity  than the optimal balanced intensity  and we take it  very 1 min for 10 min. 
 What  do we see ?

b)  what  happens if  we  go an intensity just above MAXLASS intensity   when  we take lactate every  min for  10 min ?


c)  What happens  when we go  at MAX lass intensity over  60 min and more   when we than take every 10 min  from the  resting lactate on a  lactate sample..

 Is lactate a great energy source ?



 

 

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #8 
I made a  mistake  with  the name it is  mustermann


 Now below another interesting section showing our  classical dilemma. You  can see the wife is a  Sports med  doctor
 But than we have a great feedback below  that.  


Derrick Filmalter
 
[image]
 


 
Thanks!
 
After to talking to my wife - Sports Med Doc and my competition on the cycle!! - It seems there are two systems at work here. Aerobic and Anaerobic. Aerobic being below CP effort and Anaerobic above. The "battery" would start dropping when pushing Anaerobic effort and would recover during Aerobic effort. The thing I missed and that caused my confusion are those two separate systems. Again I am very new to this so, learning alot! 
 
I see Aerobic as the capacitor to Anaerobic work. May still be somewhat incorrect but its making much more sense now.
 
Thanks for the link!
 
Cheers
 
[image]
Nathan Townsend 
[image]
May 8
 
Think of W' as being a mathematical representation of high intensity exercise type "fatigue" not anaerobic energy per se. It is the fatigue that limits performance, not running out of anaerobic energy supply.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net