Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3

Development Team Member
Posts: 168

Here's our third report on the innovative SV workout idea with same client as below.

For this third part of this experiment we set out to inspect 3 different methods to reduce delivery and increase utilization. Let's call these:

Method 1: Client's choice
Method 2: Coaches 1st
Method 3: Coaches 2nd

Circled on first chart.

Same set as previous: 3 min calibration (thx Rudd), 3-5 1 5 steps to achieve highest %SmO2, employ the 3 methods above to gauge response OR until physiological feedback suggests stopping the experiment, finish with 2 min warm down and 3 min recalibration.

Goal: Determine if method 1, 2 or 3 is best for the client.

Go-forward: 8 weeks of NIRS guided exercise using the method determined best.

SV Workout 3?.jpg     

For folks who like this alternate view of reactions: 

SV Workout 3? O2 Biased.jpg    

All thoughts are welcome. Kindly please come back with comments, questions, etc. etc. 


Attached Files
csv SV_Workout_3.csv (128.20 KB, 18 views)


Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
I like to  come back here to "chef' Fred's Kitchen in Halifax
 On the menu  for today

Method 1: Client's choice
Method 2: Coaches 1st
Method 3: Coaches 2nd

As  in  any great  cuisine you can go  and eat  and enjoy  and taste, but you not  will get the ingredients.
 So other  chefs  will go there and taste  and learn  and often  find out the ingredient  to add than  some of their own.

 What I love on Fred's  kitchen is the fact , that average  me  and you   get an incredible  quality one  by one coaching  and  I  doubt  we will find easy  any thing just like that.
 The  ability  Fred  has  to  include  his clients  and they  actually seem to  enjoy it to be able to  think together  for their own health  and fitness benefit  is  for me the A  and O  of  future training concepts  as well as rehabilitation  concepts. Not thrill no gimmicks  just  basic  clean  and great information  paired  with fun  and  new  technology  is the  future  and it  is easy fast  and  can be done   with a huge  benefit  for anybody. True  you do not turn thousand  of people over  and you actually could not do that anyway, as you deal  with individual people  and not  with a   mass production.
The fact that we still have system, where you  send inn age  and  max  HR  and shoe  size  and what ever sounds individual  and you get a training plan  sent to you is  for me  just hard  to swallow.
 The fact, that you  can sent  data in  and information  and you not even  have to do a test  and you can get a  lactate  threshold result back  is  for me  ??????

 And it feels great to see, that it is not just me  but   at least some  more people ( Thanks )

 So  here I like to add some  additional ingredients  to Fred's  information. I offer his  data in a different view  and you can go with it  and think it through.

But  first  some basic information  on  Stroke volume.

 To make it  simple :Stroke volume is determined by four factors:

  1. The volume of venous blood returned to the heart
  2. Ventricular distensibility, or the capacity to en-large the ventricle
  3. Ventricular contractility
  4. Aortic or pulmonary artery pressure (the pressure against which the ventricles must contract)

The first two factors influence the filling capacity of the ventricle, determining how much blood is avail-able for filling the ventricle and the ease with which the ventricle is filled at the available pressure.

The last two factors influence the ventricle's ability to empty, determining the force with which blood is ejected and the pressure against which it must flow in the arteries.

So  even body positions  can have therefore  an influence  on filling but as  e well ejection.

SV CO HR in different position.jpg 

Now   Stroke volume  can change  due to training

Change in SV with training.jpg 

So in a  theoretical graph it would look like this

Change in SV graphic with traiing real.jpg 

Now  very interesting is  hat we  learn in school  still in many places. A  top  certification   organization in the USA  explains  that  SV is indirect related  to HR.  So  as  higher the HR will go as  more likely the SV  will drop.

 I learned in school an din the latest    edition of   one of the Physiological Bibles    we had,  the section SV is s till repeated as  40 years ago. Your Stroke volume increase till to a HR  of  130  and than it will be flat.

 Reality  once you  work  with live  feedback on SV  is  the below  graph.

different   trends in sv in step test.jpg 

So  when we use  live feedback on Stroke volume  workouts  paired  with NIRS  and VO2  and so on the graph looks like this  below. This are 2   assessments  one before  and one  after  a  training   section to improve  stroke volume.

GK SV HR EF comp 2 intervall - Copy - Copy.jpg 

left is  HR  same assessment , middle is  SV  and  rights  is  Ejection fraction %.
. What we did  in the second assessment  was a  short  live test  to see, how much we   are able  to  change  SV in 2 rets periods. You can easy see where this happened. At the same time  we where looking  what other  parameters  besides  cardiac   feedbacks  would be involved  so  like NIRS  reactions as well as  respiratory reactions.

So this some feedbacks  and now  back to the basic  idea of Fred  and some  ingredients  from our  side on where to look for when  you have only  MOXY  on hand .

The three choices   all had  to try to create a  delivery limitation  so  to enforce utilization.
 A  very fats way to see, whether we  have a  delivery  limitation of  O2  is a biased  view  so we see immediately , whether  the start  situation (  zero ) is the highest  level of O2  I have at rest  and all what  I do  from there  O2Hb will drop  or  HHb  will go up.  Lets' see and the graphs  are base don the  three choices.

bias  one.jpg 

Very nice a  very small start moment  as you  can see, where delivery tried  to  win  and than  it  was the end of it. even in the "recovery " situation  no   good delivery.  Below a  TIP  form a assessment  sent to us  from Daniele  and you see what I mean  in recovery  and  O2Hb.

biasee  recoveyr 5  sets.jpg 

So next thread up  to not overload the  2  coaches   choices in a biased  version.


Development Team Member
Posts: 168

Juerg, hi, g'morning and thanks for the ideas and O2 biased review of the attempts to stimulate a greater O2 delivery over periods of increased utilization: 

A little from your info:

"To make it simple :Stroke volume is determined by four factors:

1. The volume of venous blood returned to the heart

Good muscular compressions, but avoid venous restraints / pooling ? 

2. Ventricular distensibility, or the capacity to en-large the ventricle

Pre-load ? Respiratory influence to effect the reload time ? 

3. Ventricular contractility

Load ? Increase sympathetic activity without increasing HR too quickly ? 

4. Aortic or pulmonary artery pressure (the pressure against which the ventricles must contract)

Afterload ?  Respiratory influence to effect for aortic pressure ? 

Just an attempt at discussion to break these components into set of more practical tools ?



Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
Fred  , great   points, there are some more options   for  any of the  4 points   on how  to attract them  and we  for sure over time  will get all there.
 Here  the follow up , where I started yesterday.

 the 3  menus  all biased  one after the other

bias  one.jpg

menu  2  coaches  1 below

bias  two.jpg 

Below  coaches  2

bias  three.jpg 

As you can see Fred reached  with all three options a  delivery   restriction  and a  utilization  enhancement

 Now  let's look how  they  reacted  when we compare the SmO2 trends  and overlap them.

smo2  all three.jpg 
Now  as I  can remember there was  all three down  with no change in MOXY placement  so great comparison  for sure.
  Now  lets look at thb  reactions  and trends.
 Again in contrast to Ruud  who had a  few  weeks   in between  data collection so  some open  questions on comparison in tHb  due  to placement  and other factors.  in Fred's  case  no change in  MOXY  placement as I recall so  great   comparison how  tHb  reacts.

thb all three overlap.jpg 
And last but not least a  part  of  CO  the  HR trends  in all three overlap.

hr all three.jpg

Next up  we  will look at  each  alone in tHb  and SmO2 trends.


Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
I like to  close up this  thread  with some additional thoughts.

Cardiac  training  or  remodeling is a  fascinating topic  and with the development of  live  equipment we now  can actually see  how  each individual client is reacting  on the different options we have.

t The 4  options in pre and post load open a wide  variety on    training ideas  and    stimuli  and with live  feedback   we can see which pone is reacting  on  what day  and how  good  or  how " bad "  so we can correct as we go. We as well can see that one  specific stimulation today  does not show the same respond tomorrow.  Example:
 If  I use  my respiratory system  to stimulate  cardiac  respond, than I use   respiration  and will  in many cases push respiration to its limit to stimulate an improvement of the  current  limiter cardiac  (SV) for example.
 Now  if  the respiratory system is NOT recovered  when I start the next  planned  similar  load, than the compensator respiration is NOT a compensator  but it could be the limiter. So there is no way  how I can create the same outcome.  So you see how  the different discussion really overlap  as it is all about  physiological stimulation.
 In Ruuds  case  his  cardiac system in 2  of his assessment showed a  not  yet  fully recovered situation. If he now goes out  and pushes   the same wattage  he    did  to "  fatigue " or overload the cardiac system  than he  pushes  far harder and has to look for possible  compensators  as the  cardiac system will need  help.
 One of the compensation  we can see is a  vasoconstriction. This  on the other hand  creates a  shear force  respond  and as  such a  stimulation  to build more blood vessels  which he already has  IN A Great NUMBER.
 a  Very COMMON  PICTURE IN Endurance SPORT  AND   REALLY Very COMMON IN  SPORTS Like  CYCLING , WHERE The training IS BUILD ON KM  BIKED  PER YEAR  and wattage pushed  per kg body weight. WITHOUT  Any Physiological ideas BEHIND  with exception of  experience (  which is good in some cases)
 so  Vascularisations great, Mitochondria density great  , CARDIAC SYSTEM OVER Load  Respiratory  System OVERLOAD  SO Delivery LIMITATION.
 solution . inject OF FEED  ANY    Substance WHO Can Improve Deliver  LIKE epo  FOR Example.

Cynic  yes  but please  ask  any " great"  cycling coach  on how he plans  to  increase you   SV  or you  vascularisation  without going all out . If you have a training plan  show it on here    and we  can start looking  at  many endurance sports somewhat less cynically.
Which limiter  can ask  for an NO  enhancer ?

Now  below the  1/2  and 3  versions of  Fred's  ideas in tHb  and SmO2  reactions.

thb smo2  1.jpg

thb smo2  2.jpg 

thb smo2  3.jpg


Development Team Member
Posts: 168
Juerg, thanks for showing the bias and zoomed overlays. 

We'll be motoring on with this for a series of workouts, hopefully until the live info shows it's time to stop and reassess. Will bring each weekly info back once complete. 

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter -