Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #1 
I got  a nice email  with the  question  whether I had some comments on the following test idea.  First I  do not like to   give a comment  whether it is good or  bad but simply  like to show you what my thought  are   and what is easy to understand and where I had some  clear  questions.
 The  great  section was the introduction  as  the key  for this coach is to  work  one  by one individually  and nothing more. Absolutely  true  and that is the goal  of any physiological testing. 
So here the  individual test.

Physiological testing is simply a RAMP test … For those who are new to this sort of Scientific Testing , the Ramp test is a fantastic piece of Software as used by the British Cycling Team and the Sky Team … This particular Software was written by Peter Keen and Macolm Firth and will give you all the Information as seen below .. The test is very simple.. You will use your own bike and warm up on the Computrainer for 10-15 minutes and then , when the RAMP test is brought onto the Monitor, the bike will be Calibrated and then all you do is choose a SPEED you can handle without getting out of the saddle and no change of gearing,, We then begin at 100 Watts and you hold the speed you have chosen for AS LONG AS YOU POSSIBLY can , as the Watts will increase by 20 Watts per minute (hence the name RAMP TEST!)  … Until your legs or your Cardio Vascular reaches it’s max! Don’t panic as this doesn’t take that long , but it HAS to be 100% .. AAA will then work out all the relevent info and this will be your “Form” at that moment in time …

So lets  say  you  start  by 100 watt and go  to 320

12 min later    and  you paid

Just great value from ” THE COMMON SENSE COACH!”

Consultation & Analysis Session

£295



Now  what  kind of  common sense  do you get  for this price ?


  • Maximum Heart Rate      Are  you sure ?
  • Maximum Power Output  Are  you sure
  • Power to Weight Ratio     True
  • 6 WCPP Training Zones  Great based on what  calculation  ?
  • WCPP Fitness Index     ?????
  • VO2 Max. (Estimated)    HMMMMMM
  • Full constructive advice for your season or you opt to come onto the one to one coaching where you will receive a weekly training plan etc. (See “One to one coaching”.)  And pay more !

 Now  here a  simple  question , based on a  great  case information   we  got  from Red Bull . They used  here a  Portamon. 

2 test differetn MOXY information.jpg


S
ame athlete  same location of Portamon Yellow is  thb  purple is  trend  of SmO2 red is O2Hb  and blue is HHb  First  circle  is a   ramp test with longer   steps  and second  is a  short step ramp test.
 Why do we see this  difference  and  why   will the result  for  any  individual information really be limited.

I hope   many readers  can see, that we fundamentally   use  assessments  for a  very different purpose   and it is   most likely very individual . ???

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #2 
So in case  you had  an answer  to the graph  and what happens  between  short steps  and longer steps  , than I like to add some additional  ideas  too it.
 Some  may remember  :
 Brian less test.
 A ramp test,  as  they do with  the cyclist is a  typical brainless test. The  central Governor really has not a  chance  to actually react as we start  from the onset a  situation, where we  will have a  delivery limitation or better a problem  as the delivery systems  never  have  a chance to pick up.
 The result is a  very different outcome in O2 utilization  and delivery  and as  such as well in the respiratory  respond , when we look at maximal VE  and therefor  maximal VO2 used.
. A  brain involved assessment  will give  your body  a chance  to react  and as  such  you will have a  very different outcome  and as well a training stimulation.
 
 VO2  peak  testing is much higher if  you let athletes  decide  or better, the brain decide, whether it has  to protect pO2 in vital systems or whether  you can keep cranking up  CO as  you have not  yet  reached  your  cardiac  or respiratory metaboreflex reaction.
 So  Vo2  " max " estimation is not  just questionable,  but  is  very unlikely reached in a   ramp  test  with this short  ramps.
 . This is  well documented  since  the  idea  we often show  here  from Dal Monte  in the late  1960  but  slowly shows up again in  some studies . Here a  back up of the claim  based on a newer  date  but really a repetition of historical studeis  as so often.

Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2013 Dec;38(12):1211-6. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2012-0384. Epub 2013 Jun 6.

The efficacy of the self-paced V̇O2max test to measure maximal oxygen uptake in treadmill running.

Mauger AR1, Metcalfe AJ, Taylor L, Castle PC.

Author information

Abstract

The novel self-paced, cycle-based maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) test (SPV) has been shown to produce higher V̇O2max values than standard graded exercise test (GXT) protocols. This study sought to ascertain whether these observations would also be apparent in a self-paced, treadmill-based test design. Fourteen trained male runners performed a standard GXT on a motorised treadmill and a self-paced V̇O2max test on a nonmotorised treadmill in a counter-balanced design. The GXT included a plateau verification and was designed to last between 8 and 12 min. The self-paced test included 5 × 2 min stages and allowed participants to set their own running speed based on fixed increments in rating of perceived exertion. Significantly higher V̇O2max values (t[13] = 3.71, p = 0.003) were achieved in the self-paced test (64.4 ± 7.3 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)) compared with the GXT (61.3 ± 7.3 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)), and 13 of the 14 participants achieved the same or higher V̇O2max values in the self-paced test. Higher (p = 0.01) maximum heart rates were observed in the GXT (191 ± 10 beats·min(-1) vs. 187 ± 7 beats·min(-1)), but no differences were observed in any other recorded variables. The self-paced V̇O2max test may provide a more valid means of measuring V̇O2max than the GXT and suggests that a V̇O2 plateau during a GXT does not always signify achievement of a definitive V̇O2max. These results provide further support that self-paced V̇O2max testing produces higher values for maximal oxygen uptake.

 

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #3 
Now  just  an add on.  If  we  talk short  than we  should not look at time but at  physiological  reaction  so  short  for one person and an  other is different as well as long.
 Here an example  to show  how  a test protocol  completely manipulates  the outcome   when we use  performance  or  VO2  max  or Max HR as a guide  and than  %  calculation.
 I hope regular readers  slowly can see,  what the difference is between classical testing ideas  and  our  approach of  physiological assessment.
 If  we look really at performance  than go and perform in your sport. Why would  you use a  computer  program  to theoretically calculate a   wattage level  , than use this   calculated  performance  to  calculate even more to find your  intensity zoning ?????
 Physiology is  that you look now live what happens and  don't'  hope what some  statistic may  give you a performance which may really reflect your   performance today.?


Comparison of W(peak), VO2(peak) and the ventilation threshold from two different incremental exercise tests: relationship to endurance performance.

Bentley DJ1, McNaughton LR.

Author information

Abstract

This report presents data comparing the peak rate of oxygen consumption (VO2(peak)), peak power output (W(peak)) and the ventilation threshold (VT) obtained from two different incremental cycle exercise tests performed by nine well trained triathletes (Mean +/- SD age 32 +/- 3 yrs; body mass 77.4 +/- 4.9 kg and height 185 +/- 3 cm). Furthermore, the relationship between these variables and the average sustained power output (W) during a 90 min cycle time trial (TT) was also determined. The two incremental exercise tests involved a 'short' test, which commenced at 150 W with 30 W increments every 60 s until exhaustion. The second ('long') incremental test commenced at a power output representing 50% of the W(peak) obtained in the short test. The subjects were then required to increase the power output by 5% every 3 min until exhaustion. The results showed the W(peak) (W) in the short test was significantly (p < 0.01) higher than in the long test. However, there was no significant difference in the VO2(peak) (1 x min(-1)) between the two tests. There was a weak but significant correlation between W(peak) (W) and VO2(peak) (l x min(-1)) (r = 0.72: p < 0.05) in the short (60 s stage) test but not the long (3 min stage) test (r = 0.52). There were no significant differences and good agreement between for the heart rate (HR) (b x min(-1)) and oxygen consumption (VO2) corresponding to the VT. In contrast, the power output (W) corresponding to the VT was significantly different and not comparable between the long and short incremental tests. The cycle TT performance was most correlated to the W(peak) (W) (r = 0.94; p < 0.01) and the VT (W) (r = 0.75; p < 0.05) from the long test as well as the VO2(peak) (l x min(-1)) obtained from the short incremental test (r = 0.75; p < 0.01). These data suggest that the length of stages during incremental cycle exercise may influence the W(peak) and in turn the relationship of this variable to VO2(peak). Furthermore, the W(peak) obtained from a test incorporating 3 min stage increments represents the best indicator of 90 min cycle performance in well-trained triathletes.

 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net