Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #16 
Now  back to the second case we  have  data  here to  discuss thanks  to Balance point racing  group. By the way  small PR here, but if  you look  for a  far ahead of common coaching ideas  group  and real individual  coaching  options  for  endurance sports    visit the   website of this group
http://www.balancepointracing.com)

 They are  not franchisees  , they are real "CHEFS"  cooking  very unique  training plans  with very unique  taste  , just the way we all like to  get , when  looking for coaching. Otherwise  go to Wall mart , they have  for the moment  some calculators  on sale.

f  and f.jpg

\

Here the  case we may name PW

Again let's start with the basic  " zoning"  which I hate.
smo2  all plus  commments.jpg 

1. If it was a TIP  he seem to have done  10 double loads  so  2  times  same load  and  at the end  he  tried the highest load  and  than he  decides  ( His ECGM )  decides  to  call it a  day.
 Now here an interesting observation.
 The   maximal wattage or speeds  which can be achieved  with this  5/1/5  are not  that impressive  high but we  do not really care. You can use it for  some  comparison  if you repeat them   to see, where and how  " zoning's" move  to.
 But many   athletes  are very  disappointed  when we do this test  from the wattage they can push. The most  common  " excuse" is: I  could have  gone  one more  set. !!! Over time  you actually will  be able to predict , when  the athlete will start to   suffer  and than you have a pretty good time line, when he  actually will quite but will follow up  with the  words: I could have gone  one more   step. try it  out. Once  you  get comfortable to see the Limiter   getting to  his limit an you see  how the compensator   get involved  you pretty much can see, how the  body will have to get back to priority  versus  biking or running  and you  have the  time line of the rest of the  test.
 The  most impressive  way is , when you have the muscle on a non involved  muscle.

RED  circle and Blue  Circle
So the first  2  double  loads ,which in a TIP  would be   the first 2 loads  same wattage and than the second  2 loads  same wattage  with  always a  1m  min rest in between.



What we clearly see  is how  he  delivers  more O2 than he  seem to need for this 2 loads.
What we  miss is the "cookbook"  drop in SmO2  at the start  and we miss a clear   increase in SmO2  in the one Min rest.
 We see the 5 min place  and we see a  drop in SmO2 . Which could be the cookbook  drop  but with a very limited   reaction/
Why.
 Here we  can  just speculate  and a better answer  would come  form HR reaction  but as well from tHb reaction. HR  would tell us, whether he may  drop  very fast  as he may  work  over SV  and as  such  we do not have that extreme reaction. tHb  would tell us , whether  at last   increase tHB  in the  1 min rest.
 If that would be the case we  have some open  questions. So let's see tHb  reaction as I have no HR  information.
pw thb all.jpg 
I assumed  the red line  I made is the start of the assessment so we have a kind of a calibration of his body. Now  woww  you really can see here in contrast to the SmO2  that e   actually had a  1 min break with a very nice increase in tHB  as he stops cycling as a sign of  reduction in muscle compression due to muscle contraction..
 So  we have some  questions here.
 a) He  actually delivers  in the  1 min rest  nicely more blood.
 That blood  comes  from his heart and therefor   from his  lungs  where  we hope he  was able  to  load the  Hb  as good as possible , for sure in this  slow speeds.
 So  why do we  not see an increase in SmO2  as a peak.  So more tHb ( blood  and  same  SmO2  relative spoken  as we  not see an increase.. This theoretically  would indicate, that in the one min rest he  reduced  muscle contraction but   used  somewhere still O2    so  we  can not see the overshoot.
 Hmmm that is strange  and may throw  a lot of what I  tell here over board.
 There is the odd   situation, where the person on the bike has a very high   HR  and VE  so TV  and  RF  so the vital system use a  lot  of O2  as it is very inefficient. This can be the case, when they are stressed out like the high BP  when you are in your doctors  office ( White coat BP )

Now   no clue  why y this happened     and he may have  done some  additional   loads  somewhere in this  section   so the O2  supply  in the one Min rest  was not possible as a peak. Standing up   form the bike   or   aero position or change in RPM and so on. You can see, that in the first load  tHb  drops  , second  load   he creates   a stable  situation. Third load normal accepted  compression decompression as we see in the rest  but 4 th load  a kind  of a  slightly different picture of decompression.
 So  why  do we have in the first load  only compression  and   why not ?. Did  he  do something  in the load there  which   created a   higher compression than needed / I  do not know.  We may find out  as the reaction is not  very common  in fact in  an athlete  who shows s after  this  average normal expected  reaction.

Green circle
goes over three steps
7  and  8  with same load  possibly  and than a new  step  9  with a higher load.
 7  and  8 are  just showing a trend of  having trouble  keeping SmO2 in a balance.So that's' where I overlapped  STEI  and FEI. Now  I am not sure what  step increase in wattage they did , but if they do as we often use  50 wattage we may be just  a little bit above  balance  for  proper STEI  definition.
 What we see next is a very clear  drop in SmO2  indicating a  high demand of  O2  but a  not  good delivery.
. This will be the stage , where we    have a limiter  and  either or a   compensator  , or a compenstaor  who needs  time to kick  in. The fact that he did  another 2 steps   indicates, that he found a compensator  as you cant' go  easy or  actually at  all that long if all system  would  be  on their own limitation. So you can see in   step 10 the drop in SmO2  is  at the start after 1 min the same  but than he somehow  was able to   slow the drop down.  He  may 
 A ) reached his limitation in  utilization./
\ b)  found  somehow a way  to deliver  more  blood  to   stop the drop and keep it in a balance.
.
 Or  it is a combination? .
 Combination ?? In the next step  which is the next higher level he  does not really drops  more than before  so  this indicates a  limitation for now in the desaturation ability  ( utilization )
  Delivery   and what happens there.?  We  again would benefit  from HR  but  we still have tHb  so look there. You can see  after the load  with the extreme  drop an incredible search of tHb  in the rest period as a sign of  a  sudden increase in delivery   ability.  ?
 Cardiac out put :  we have to look for HR  as SV  is   not  supported  at first.
  Vasodilatation due to  CO2  levels which could be the case as he has a high CO2 level  which could help  vasodilatation ( But  he would not  go  so high up  with SmO2   at the next rest.)
 So high utilization due to lack of delivery and  he kicks  in a  delivery  system  somehow  to compensate  for that  and can sustain another 2 loads.

 So more options  why:
 He could have changed the RPM  from a  slow RPM  with lot's  of  contraction force  to a higher RPM  so less  compression due to   higher RPM. ( easy to  say yes or no when you are there.)
 One part  but I hate that one. Calibration of the  wattage trainer  due to  warmer    motor. If that is the case we would see it on the  HR  as it would not stay linear..
 If it is  RPM  we would see it  on the HR as well as  HR may  as well change  form linear to s  step..
 He could have changed respiration   but would have to change a lot   from 20  up to  30  or  40 RF  and same TV  which would help to bring  blood back   and changes the way the  SV would react.
 Again easy to find out when you are there  and you need an athlete  who is respiratory  trained  to be able to do this.
. Last but not least he  could have changed  position  on the  bike  from upright to handle  bar or vica  verca as well he could have changed the  cycling technique . More pull    to add to the push which than would release  some  tension in the vastus  lateralis  and would open   it up for a higher tHb   See the ideas we showed  from some research.
 So  by adding a non involved muscle to it  we would find out, whether it is local or  more systemic.
 Here the overlap  of tHb  and SmO2.

pw thb  smo2 all.jpg


So   lets' overlap Q  and pW  and look where they may be or may not be different.

smo2  comp Q  and PW.jpg 
see above . They   may or may not have pushed  the same  wattage.  I do not know   and we really do  not care  for this here.
We would care if this is the same athlete after a certain training intervention time.
I give some hint here  in  2   green  sectores ???? Remember the Q   has most likely a  utilization limitation.
Now lets  see how the  delivery ( Blood flow )  compares.

thb Q  PW comp.jpg 
woww  that is  for today  to digest have fun.
Remember if you have a stomach burn use goat milk pure  as it is  alcalic.
l goat.png 

Andrew

Study Participant
Registered:
Posts: 45
 #17 
OK...wow...again...
To answer a few of the open theory questions that Juerg suggested based on PW and Q results, with no access to HR or other data...

1) The order of the 6 questionable short intervals at the end of Q test, were 300 watts for 30 seconds, with Moxy placed on VL/RF/Ham/Deltoid followed by Biceps isometric, and finally on the VL of the tester to show that desaturation in the legs IS actually possible (as Q did not believe it, so I placed it on my RF and did isometric [smile]

2) PW has had a LOT of respiratory training using Spiro Tiger. He uses 4L bag for coordination work 45-55 bpm, and uses a 5 and now 6 litre bag for volume sessions.

3) As far as I noted, he made no significant changes to body position or cadence throughout the test, though he did sit up during the rest period a number of times, to aid in comfort, and also I believe to make better use of diaphragm which is unloaded in this position on the trainer.

4) Q and PW did do identical wattage steps, though PW is much stronger and slightly bigger athlete, so completed 2 more full steps, and attempted two more steps after that, but failed to complete them, as Juerg was able to see from the attempts.
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #18 
Thanks great feedback  and I will try  to find the 6  attempts in the Q  dates  to see, where they are. and I think  we can find them  can't remember  and I have to go back how many  I set up  with the different questions on it.
2. Will be nice to see, whether the low tHb at the rest periods  where , when he was sitting up  and the last 2 where  when he was down. When you try MOXY  look how  extreme the tHb reaction  will be   whine you  just do that sit  up  free  no hands on bar  versus   arms on handle bar.
 The last  part free sitting would in fact be much harder  for the diaphragm as you now need a  core stability  which is the diaphragm  and you will as well have some  abdominal activity to see  up  right no hand son the bar. Easy to check  is this with a VO2  equipment where you get VE  and RF  so therefor TV  and you will see e that TV  drops.
 Another way to see that is  with a bio harness  processed  respiratory wave , where you will see a drop in amplitude.
. Sitting upright  as well will for sure change RF  activity but with it often as well VL.
 So when we  do TIP it is  crucial  to have a set of   information with you , so  when you go though the interpretation we know  that we  do not  change   demand  for O2  as well not utilization... So you can see   how nice it is  to be   when  they do the assessment there.
 Now in PW's case we should  just let him ride a few minutes  in handle bar , than  1 min rest  with same leg up  and than  1 min sit up  with same leg up  and than repeat  that a few times  either  1 min rest  down  one minute rest up  and so on to  see, whether there is a pattern in the tHb reaction. The other  important  part is  to always  do a few assessment  to see, whether one  specific  trend  comes up all the time in 4  / 5  or more assessment  or  whether it was  one unique  feedback  . Than  go back and look  what was the potential trigger of that unique feedback.

So PW I think  did  2 assessment so  sent the  first csv  and we can overlap  and see  how  thb  reacted  and than again was it a habits to sit up  at the 1 min rest. As usual thanks  so much . I will  look  further on what we have  and  will show  some  questions  why the AS  may be able to desaturate  much more than the rest of them.


Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #19 
Okay here short  my  failed attempt  to  find which muscle  and the correction what they did. What  I was able to read out  are the 6  loads .
300 watt loads.jpg   Let's go back wards.
 Last load D ?  was RF  isometric or ?   finally on the VL of the tester to show that desaturation in the legs IS actually possible (as Q did not believe it, so I placed it on my RF and did isometric [smile]

 Second last D ?  was Biceps  isometric  and  as biceps I assume biceps brachialis ?  so  arm muscle

Third last was Ham  was Deltoid on Q
 forth last was Ham  strings
  first  and second  where as on the graph. But I may be a phase of  as the first drop in tHb  could be the  first    load.
This is fun as you can see there are direct feedbacks    and if you actually  are there you can see how  the feedback shows up depending  how you manipulate  some thing.

Andrew

Study Participant
Registered:
Posts: 45
 #20 
I believe your most recent description of the 6 loads after the 5-1-5 was completed on Q are corrected. Second last was biceps brachii (on the arms) of the athlete, last one was VL on tester.

I will send the two PW cvs files in a separate e-mail for comparison.
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #21 
Okay  here some incredible data   and I am really happy that I can show them here, as they are  collected completely independent  from  any  MOXY biased  groups..
Here  first the  pictures  to  show you  before  we    talk about it. It shows  2  assessments  done in a  time  frame of January and March this year. same person  same  leg   I assume  and same muscle possible  good  orientation to  move it close  to the same  location as well.

2 test overlap jan march.jpg

Above  as you can see  SmO2 trends . What you think  about  ability  to repeat  physiological  information?  Now  let's see the blood  trend reaction when using tHb.

2 test overlap jan march. thb jpg.jpg 

Is  that  not incredible  for a   overlap  of   data  from physiological reactions?
 Now you can see, why we  use MOXY  daily as we  can see live  during workout , whether we  actually influence this feedback information.
.
 True  if we take wattage we  would have the  same feedback , meaning same  end wattage  in both tests.. Now  if we   see a higher wattage  as  once pointed  out we are happy. We  do not know  why we  really improved  wattage  and what really changed  but we  made progress.
. If we  do not improve  wattage  like in this case  we  do not know  why we  not made  progress and  with MOXY  we see  why. Because  we did not  stimulated perhaps  long enough or not  at all , what we assumed  is the limiter..
 So no change  means  that we  did  not  create any stimulation's in any directions.
 What  IF we push less wattage. Now  with wattage we just  know  it was not a good training plan. With MOXY we    would see, what    did not  allowed us to push the same wattage.
 So no change is perhaps  the  least  desirable out come, Better or  worth performance  and therefor   information , what the training stimulation did   is  most likely favorable.
 . Now   in this case here, before being frustrated  on the   no change  I would  do  a few  of the workouts  which where done  but would  fix MOXY  on the  athlete  during the workout to see, what the   target stimulation may actually have created.
 In other words. Here  an example.
  So his  " Zoning " is very stable.

smo2  all plus  commments.jpg


Now  form our  take on " Zoning",  ARI   is  an intensity in HR or Wattage 'where we  do not challenge  any system  hard  enough to reach   a  limitation.
 So ARI  upper level , so in his case  the second double load   shows  an optimal  SmO2  situation. It shows  surprisingly the same  tHb  blood flow situation as  at the end of the full assessment in the highest load  ??
.
So   the first  step is  to  try to find  out why?
 Is it a time  limitation of a test protocol  , who does not allow sufficient  vasodilatation .
 So here what you do.  Start as in the assessment  but keep the first load  for 10 min  , than go to the second load  for  10 min  and look live tHb trend.
 Here  an example  of a similar  workout .


10 min  to level 4 leg  mid  fed low thbfeb.jpg 
Above a test  from a few month  back
  than below   a most resent  assessment. Always  same  wattage  load   for  10 min duration in the workouts. Now look at the change in tHb reaction? What do you see.?
10 min  to level 4 leg  3 march plus  co2.jpg 
Now the   first question is:
 a)
Is tHb low  during load and at rest because we  do not have  a  proper capillarisation ?
 In that case tHb  at rest  and during load is about the same. Most seen in very out  of  shape    people . We than  have the same reaction in an involved  and non involved muscle.
b)
 Is the thb  low  due  to low  CO  ( use as well HR ).?
 Now  if  CO is low and we  load in a very low intensity  , than the muscle compression will easy overrule the  CO  and the vasodilatation from CO is not sufficient  to overrule  the  muscle compression from contraction.
 From this  we  actually will see a drop in tHb  compared  to the baseline  calibration.
 In the  non involved  muscle we  would see  little to no change  and  perhaps a little to minimal increase in tHb.
c)
Is the tHb low  due to  muscle strength weakness, meaning ( or  coordination  ) , that I use a relative  high %  of my  muscle contraction for the current  load to be achieved, which creates a relative stronger compression on the muscle and  this overrules the cardiac output pressure  for that  load.
Example   too slow running  so  too much eccentric  in quad  to slow  you artificial  down.
 In cycling too low wattage  to really get all the  muscle involved  and you simply only push  as there is no need  nor good feeling to as well pull up? ( coordination)

 Practical  approach in this case.  Ride  ARI  and STEI  intensity  with different   coordination approaches  and see, by what techniques  tHb  will decrease  and will increase. Can we influence  the tHb trend  and can we reach above   base line calibration ?
d)
How is  his tHb in an active muscle compared  to a  non involved muscle. Make a TIP  and  fix  it on a delta    muscle , either if you have 2 MOXY's   both at the same  time leg  and  arm  or  as we can see  we know the leg reaction so just on the arm.
 Look , where  and by  what intensity we  may  or may not see  a  reaction for tHb  and SmO2   from the  arms  as  an  indication that the main delivery systems like cardiac  and respiratory  will need help as they reached a limitation ?

  Summary.
 What we see here in a tHb  trend indicates  for that muscle a limitation in blood flow  on the one  side, or  perhaps a limitation in its  use  during cycling.
 As mentioned    somewhere  above.
 I  strongly believe, that the Vastus  laterailis  we are  all kind of  forced  to use on cycling because    all the research is done on this muscle is not  an optimal representative for cycling  activity.
 Yes   if we  use 4  or  6 or  as we did  8 MOXY's  we  see, that the trend is  very similar  with exception of  calf    and tib anterior  muscle, which depend  very strong on  the integration of the  talo crurale  joint. All other upper leg muscles  show a very similar trend  and can be used for " Zoning" ideas.

What we  miss  in muscle , which are  NOT that  involved    in  the specific  sport is a  really nice trend.
 This can create a  situation , where we may make a wrong interpretation. For example we may see  a limited  de saturation in one athlete   at the same  muscle compared  to  an other athlete
 You can take both  and  make a simple  test. Isometric  contraction so you see, how one or the other simply  can't  optimally activate  this muscles  so one has a great activation ability  so  low SmO2  the other a poor    activation ability  so    high SmO2. In a  complex  motion like   rowing or  cycling  where many muscles can support the movement to create  power, we  may just find this . So  very different  inter muscular coordination   during the cycling motion.
 Here to end a long ongoing story . look again this three athletes,  some are pretty close to  the same performance but very different desaturation pattern  in the  same muscle.
 So first question: do they bike the same  ??
 A last example.  Swimming : You may have some swimmers using the legs  just to have a decent  balance  in the water position. Other swimmers  create  a  whirl pool  as they use  legs  very hard.
 They  may swim the same end time  but very different  pattern on how they move ?
all three athelets  thb smo2.jpg


Now really last,.  I got the question:
 How  do you make the tHb  so smooth.
 . First  I  do not smoothing it at all but it looks different smooth  from different athletes.
 In this three cases: The AS  tHb  never looks  smooth  at all even if  I  filter it to 10 seconds  compared to the other 2 . And even in the 60 second filter as above it is   the least  smooth  trace.
 . Speculation but often seen.
 In athletes in cycling who drop SmO2  very low  we see the  same tHb    behavior.
 Question. Is this an  indication of a  very  strong involvement of   the VL  in this athletes  and as  such   SmO2  can drop  much  further , versus the others  who use   VL but  not as intense. So different down stroke  pattern and different upstroke pattern. ?  A  left  right  wattage    scan   or SEMG  would give a fast and easy information or using a MOXY  on  RF  and VL  and  Hamstrings  to see  the difference.

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #22 
First   I Ike to thank  Andrew  for sending me  some  internal feedback.
 Here  where I  am happy as  I like to try to assess, how far we can go  with MOXY alone  to see potential connection    in the behavior  of  an athlete  without  even being there just  from NIRS trends.
 Here the point  we discussed :
 So more options why:
He could have changed the RPM from a slow RPM with lot's of contraction force to a higher RPM so less compression due to higher RPM. ( easy to say yes or no when you are there.)
One part but I hate that one. Calibration of the wattage trainer due to warmer motor. If that is the case we would see it on the HR as it would not stay linear..
If it is RPM we would see it on the HR as well as HR may as well change form linear to s step..
He could have changed respiration but would have to change a lot from 20 up to 30 or 40 RF and same TV which would help to bring blood back and changes the way the SV would react

 So here the  feedback

Juerg, it may not add any further information to what you have already posted, but we did collect HR and cadence data from PW for his 5-1-5 test.
As you can see, he did in fact increase his cadence through the 300w step, in an attempt to compensate for the failing legs I presume (utilization limitation). And though this graph does not show HR very clearly, you can see he maintained fairly low HR, with a nearly linear trend throughout the entire test, with a steeper rising HR during the 300 watt intervals.

Now I like to add some thoughts  to this.
 1. This is  what i referred  to limitation and compensation. Different systems if  they still have  some option can  compensate  for other   systems which may have hit a limitation.
  Now  crucial is  to see how that works. So in the above  case the RPM  increase  reduced  the duration and the compression on the blood vessels  allowing a better  blood  flow seen in the tHb reaction.
 This  than   increases  venous blood return  to the right ventricle  which  than   helps to  at least maintain SV  and therefor   CO..
 Now the   higher  Respiratory frequency  can be  good  or bad.
 a) good  if  the RF goes up  but the athlete  can maintain  the TV. Bad if  RF  goes up  and TV  drops.
 This will create  an increase in dead space  and  will create  a  respiratory problem with  CO2  up.
 Now CO2  up  has a  short term positive effect as  we can release   O2  better  (9 SmO2 )  drops  and it may create as well a  vasodilatation  so  tHb  up.
 Negative. We  have a problem to load  O2  from lungs  to  blood and we create a  right ventricular overload  as we  pump against a a vasoconstriction  blood system in the lungs  due to high CO2.
. So the cardiac system is getting pushed.
 Now  all this positive  and negative  reactions  can be    reversed  as a negative reaction can suddenly be positive as we  can use this  reaction to actually stimulate  exactly this  weakness.
  This  is a  further hint  how you can train  limiters.. So replace your calculator    with  some    high CO2  again  and you have  an increase in blood flow in the brain.
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #23 
I like to add  some    feedback info  here.
 Remember the 6  x  30 seconds     playing with  different muscles   after a  TIP. Here a  close look once more as we  have now the info  on what they  did.
last section 6  loads.jpg  Now keep in mind, that the  switched the MOXY relative  fast  and 6  x  so we do not have  an optimal   calibration of the assessed muscles.
 Nevertheless s we  have a general trend  on  how the muscles reacted.
 VL = Vastus lateralis  during a  load on the bike
RF  = rectus femoris  during  same load
Ham = hamstrings  during same load
 Delta =    deltoideus   perhaps pars  acromialis  same load
 than 2  x  isometric   contraction of  biceps  and  VL   of  another person
 Now  we always or often look at SmO2  reaction.
 
BUT we argue , that certainly in  short intense  loads the tHb  may give us a lot of feedback why or why we  do not have   expected SmO2  reactions.
 So  let's look closer  to tHb reaction.   I  take the last  2  isom  and the    previous   ham and delta  as a closer look.
6  load thb reaction.jpg

Now keep in mind    not optimal resting calibration  but look   at Bic  isom . What  causes  the drop in SmO2  in this case.?

Andrew

Study Participant
Registered:
Posts: 45
 #24 
I believe the athlete achieved an arterial occlusion in the later stages of the isometric biceps brachia challenge.
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #25 
Here  Andrews  comment in a picture  and you see, why we  have a  very low  SmO2.
biceps  isom.jpg 

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #26 
I lie to add  one additional   feedback to the   RPM change in the PW  case study.
 I got  an email today  from a  friend    form Japan  and he sent me  this  short abstract  after  he  was reading our  comments.
  Interesting  how   we connect   all over the world  in small groups  and feedbacks.

Effect of cycling experience and pedal cadence on the near-infrared spectroscopy parameters.

Takaishi T1, Ishida K, Katayama K, Yamazaki K, Yamamoto T, Moritani T.

Author information

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Previously we demonstrated that the method to reorder near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) parameters against crank angle could serve as a useful measure in providing circulatory dynamics and metabolic changes in a working muscle during pedaling exercise. To examine further applicability of this method, we investigated the effects of cycling experience and pedal cadence on the NIRS parameters.

METHODS:

Noncyclists (NON), triathletes (TRI), and cyclists (CYC) performed pedaling exercises at a work intensity of 75% VO2max while changing pedal cadence (50, 75, 85, and 95 rpm). Physiological and biomechanical responses and NIRS parameters were measured.

RESULTS:

NIRS measurements determined with the reordered NIRS change demonstrated significant differences depending on the factors. The bottom peak of reordered NIRS changes in muscle blood volume and oxygenation level shifted upward with an increase in pedal cadence in NON but remained unchanged in CYC. The reordered NIRS change demonstrated a temporary increase at the crank angle corresponding to the relaxation phase of the working muscle. This temporary increase was observed even in the highest pedal cadence in CYC. The difference in levels between the peak of the temporary increase and the bottom peak of reordered NIRS change (LPB-diff) for CYC at 85 rpm was significantly larger than that for NON. The results with NIRS parameters corresponded to changes in pedal force and myoelectric activity during pedal thrust.

CONCLUSIONS:

The bottom peak level of the reordered NIRS changes and LPB-diff determined for blood volume are available to detect noninvasively the differences in circulatory dynamics and metabolic change during pedaling exercises performed at different pedal cadences and also to estimate the difference of physiological and technical developments for endurance cycling in athletes.

 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net