Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
jeffwink

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 10
 #1 
Hello All,

I am new to Moxy/NIRS but am an experienced cycling coach and former professional athlete. I have had multiple conversations with a coach colleague who has been a long-time Moxy user. I have a single sensor that I've been using to get a sense of the possibilities. I have read through much of the forum trying to learn what can be achieved with this device. Several thoughts and questions have arisen:

1.  How to set the starting load (watts)

Is this a trial and error process? Obviously, one needs to have the initial steps be low enough to show an upward response from SmO2 during that step. Many of us have experience with using power to estimate FTP and other FTP-derived zones. Even though the goal of using the Moxy for zone setting is to move away from the FTP derived zones, would they provide a reasonable starting point?

2.  How to set the increment

It seems there is a conflict here. On the one hand, the smaller the steps the more likely you are to identify the load associated with a change to the next zone. However, making the steps small leads to an extended test that may introduce failure or measurement effects that are related to duration as much as intensity.

3.  Standards for interpreting the SmO2 curves

Are there any objective standards for what constitutes 1) an "upward curve" corresponding to ARI, 2) "flat curves" corresponding to STEI and FEI, and finally 3) the "clear and continuous decrease" associated with HI.

And related to that, are there any "best practices" for filtering or smoothing the data prior to interpretation?

4. Distinguishing between STEI and FEI

If you have more than 2 pairs of steps with decreasing but "plateaued" SmO2 data, where do you draw the line between the 2 endurance zones.

See the attached 5-1-5 as an example. Step 1 is probably too high because it is a flat SmO2 response. Steps 2, 3, 4, and even 5 appear to "mostly" flat even though the SmO2 percentage is lower in each step. Background: test performed at 1620m in a semi-rested state. sensor on VL. (Blue area = SmO2, Yellow = Power, Red = HR, Purple = tHB)

Screen Shot 2017-06-07 at 6.54.33 PM.png 

5. Numerical relationships 

It is clear that we can't look for absolutes on the SmO2 scale itself since it varies between individuals, sensor location, elevation?, etc. However, does the underlying physiology support making numerical comparisons to baseline? Example: if baseline SmO2 on the VL for cycling is 65% and max desaturation seen in a test is 10%, can we say something important is happening at landmarks between these two extremes? I am thinking something similar to the Heart Rate Reserve approach.

From reading the forum, my concern is that the answer is no. It would appear that different limiters/compensators come into play and therefore a different combination of underlying physiological states could contribute. Perhaps multiple metrics could be combined to reach this point?

6. Training Prescription

Although I have gathered from the forum that taking the discussion to detailed training advice is discouraged, I am concerned that the value of this device (and approach) is diminished without a bridge from the "theory" to the "practice". Given that statement, I am not necessarily holding it to the standards utilized in other systems. I am well aware of the shortcomings of those systems and the leaps they make from the underlying physiology in the effort to provide a coherent and marketable "system". Nonetheless, it would be awesome to be able to do the following:

1.  identify common patterns that illustrate specific limiters
2.  describe of training strategies and Moxy/NIRS techniques to implement those strategies
3.  describe patterns that show progression in the specific limiters (and overall)

7. Conclusion

It seems that some of these items can be found in the forums and with research into the scientific literature. Are there any efforts to compile this information? I am not opposed to "doing the work" to get to this place, but was curious if I have missed something that is already moving in this direction.


Cheers!









ryinc

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 349
 #2 
Hi Jeff

Welcome to the forum. I will have a go at answering some of your questions.

How to set the starting load (watts)
Using FTP as a rough guide to set load steps is reasonable. The starting load would normally be in the region of 40-50% of FTP. Be careful to assume that you WILL definitely see Sm02 rising steadily as per the "textbook" case. Each athlete tends to have individual profiles, different muscles tend to show up differently etc, so even at a low intensity it is possible you won't observe this trend strongly.

How to set the increment
Each load is 5 minutes, two times with a minute recovery each time. So each step of intensity is about 12 minutes which means that 5 loads is about 1 hour. Its often useful to have 1 load just below an FTP type load, and then at least one above so you might have a profile of FTP being 45%, 65%, 85%, 105%, 125% as an example. There is a degree of personal preference on the starting load, number of load steps, finishing load - so this is just an example (for example, once i have the steps set up i actually prefer to keep them fixed rather than tying into % of FTP e.g. 100w, 150w etc, so that i can see how the data changes for the same absolute watts.)

Questions 3&4
In general there is not actually that much discussion of "zones" on the forum. Generally the discussion is more tied to some sort of continuum between oxygen delivery and utilisation, where Sm02 increasing is indicative of supply being more than utilisation, Sm02 decreasing indicative of supply less than utilisation. At the extremes high Sm02, or low Sm02 you can get plateaus because these relationships bottom out - so for example its unlikely that a flat Sm02 at very low levels (say single digits) could be interpreted as reaching a form of equilibrium - its more likely that its just reached the end state of the continuum.

The suggestion would be to worry less about precise zoning and more to try and see where you see noteworthy changes in the data this extends beyond Sm02 and THb, it can include HR, and becoming "in-tune" with what is going on with breathing etc even if you don't have metrics for it. Having the Sm02 and THb data (particularly graphs) is helpful to "learn"' what is going on in real-time.

You noted the point about the starting load in the graph you included possibly explaining no phase of increasing Sm02 and i agree, but i also think consider having a look at what the profile looks like on a different muscle e.g. rectus femoris (RF) - on a well trained cyclist you might get a different Sm02 profile on this muscle. Having a look at the shape of the trace on a non-priority muscle too e.g. Deltoid can also provide some interesting insights.

Questions 5
Not sure i understand the question

Question 6
Point 1, is already taking place on the forum. If you go through the case studies you will start to learn some of the patterns of limiter. The culture on the forum Juerg has built on the forum is to think these through from first principles rather than just listing them - although it can feel frustrating at times, but develops a much deeper level of insight when there is an aspect that becomes understandable. Point 3 is related to point 1, since if your training intervention is effective, the degree of limitation will decrease (or limiter will even change) so the observation pattern will change accordingly. As one example if oxygen utilisation is identified as the limiter, and extensive training work is done on this and it is effective you would start to see changes in the Sm02 profile that show better utilisation.

For point 2, if you think about it, the training prescription is:
If respiration is the limiter, find ways to train the respiratory system
If cardiac is the limiter, train the cardiac system
If muscle utilisation, strength or co-ordination is the limiter then train those accordingly
Etc

Ideally find ways to isolate the system, without stressing the others.

Of course the question is HOW to do each of these effectively. A couple of points here:
 - This is not straightforward for certain limiters. To demonstrate the point, EPO doping is effectively a response to a supply side limitation. The reason it works so well for some athletes is that it significantly reduces the extent of the limiter. If coaches and athletes at the highest level are resorting to make the gains this way rather than on limiter specific training, it makes one wonder whether training techniques to address specific limiters are widely known at all, or fully discovered yet. I do think we will see this area evolve,  similar to how we saw training ideas for power meters evolve (although it less clear that the power community, and i include myself in this, fools itself into thinking why it understands why certain training prescriptions work).
- I don't have the training answers, but if I did this would surely represent quite substantial IP and i would also be cautious of simply making it a commodity on an internet forum. 
 - Be careful to hold Moxy to a different standard to other training devices/measurement tools. For example when you buy a power meter you understand that the value that the manufacturer is bringing is a measurement tool. You would not expect the manufacturer to provide the training prescription. I think that Moxy has created this forum for discussion on interpretation is already a massive step.
 - One approach i have found useful is to think about existing training methods, consider what you think the training method is focused on, then review the Moxy data and apply your mind as to whether what you are observing is aligned to what you would have expected. If you give it time, i have found that it starts to open your mind about the possibilities why certain training ideas might be effective for some athletes but not others etc. Just by spending some time on the forum, you will develop your own ideas. 







jeffwink

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 10
 #3 
@ryinc 

Thanks for the comprehensive response!

A few followup thoughts/questions:

How to set the starting load (watts)

Understood. So, if different muscles exhibit the trend differently, is it appropriate to think of this as some sort of limiter or is it more likely just a coordination/recruitment shift. I guess this should be visible with multiple sensors being applied simultaneously?

Be careful to assume that you WILL definitely see Sm02 rising steadily as per the "textbook" case.

Would the same caution be required at the end of the test? Your comment "its unlikely that a flat Sm02 at very low levels (say single digits) could be interpreted as reaching a form of equilibrium - its more likely that its just reached the end state of the continuum" suggests that a "clear and continuous decrease" may not always happen.

How to set the increment

This is how I approached it except that in theory the 125% step would be a throw-away. If FTP is accurate, no one should be able to hold 125% for 5 minutes. My experience would suggest the maximal last step to be in the neighborhood of 115% of FTP. I also agree with the approach of fixing the watts (once identified) to expose improvement in the physiological response in subsequent assessments.

Do you think the concept of threshold or FTP translates to interpreting SmO2? In simple terms, that once intensity/load crosses this landmark supply no longer keeps pace with demand/utilization and SmO2 should exhibit a "clear and continuous decrease"? 

Questions 5

This question is probably arises out of a desire to map power-based zones to SmO2. It may be that this is the wrong way to think about it, but an example might be:

Assume the 5-1-5 assessment shows a baseline functional range of 65 - 10% SmO2. Therefore, 10% represents the scenario where utilization/demand far outpaces supply and 65% represents the scenario where supply is sufficient for demand. Could we say something like "training at 20% SmO2 creates a particular type of strain on this balance that is fundamentally different than 40%, and, therefore, you should train at these two different landmarks in some specific way"? 

Thanks again...looking forward to getting involved in the case studies section...
CraigMahony

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 159
 #4 
@jeffwink

Regarding your second question 5. I do not think that you can say in absolute terms that training at 20% or 40% causes a specific effect. It will depend on what the limiter is as to what is being stressed or maybe overstressed. Everyone is different. Not everyone will start at the same SmO2 level at rest or achieve the same maximum SmO2 level. Even for an individual, SmO2 levels may be different from day to day for a given workload, possibly from fatigue or some other reason. So I tend to look at how much levels drop rather than levels reached.

You can probably make a general case of what level reached/dropped means XYZ but will need to realize that it does not always apply.

I know this is frustrating, I am having the same trouble applying it all to my track and field athletes as well.
ryinc

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 349
 #5 

Quote:
How to set the starting load (watts)

Understood. So, if different muscles exhibit the trend differently, is it appropriate to think of this as some sort of limiter or is it more likely just a coordination/recruitment shift. I guess this should be visible with multiple sensors being applied simultaneously?


Well a co-ordination/recruitment shift could be viewed as a limiter potentially.

As some ideas,  check out some of the case study threads started by Sebo2000, where the outcome was dominant VL muscle, and he then did some work to try to balance this out (as it turned out he then got an old recurring injury which led him to hypothesize that his dominant VL was a compensation from a previous injury).  I think Juerg has also made the point on the forum that one of the things that really separate out great cyclists from good cyclists is more efficient muscle co-ordination.

As another example, there have been some discussions on the forum about left right balances, where Sm02 traces are very different for the left and right side. They sometimes start off similar but when the load gets hard, one compensates for the other.

This is not to say that all such co-ordination/recruitment shifts are a limiter, but where they happen at the high intensities of a 5-1-5, it does raise the suspicion that it might be a compensatory reaction because something else is reaching its limit. 

Obviously multiple sensors is ideal, but there is a lot that you can do to get some perspective even with just one sensor. E.g. even doing a simple ramp test consecutively on different muscles often shows reasonably clear the point at which  one muscle gets more involved to help make sure the load is executed (check out Daniele's RF vs VL threads as an example of some of the ideas). 


Quote:
Would the same caution be required at the end of the test? Your comment "its unlikely that a flat Sm02 at very low levels (say single digits) could be interpreted as reaching a form of equilibrium - its more likely that its just reached the end state of the continuum" suggests that a "clear and continuous decrease" may not always happen.


Yes, when Sm02 has "bottomed out" into the single digits on a muscle, its unlikely that you would see a clear and continuous decrease in a 5-1-5 - there is nowhere left to go down! Very often you might see a clear and continuous decrease on a different muscle though!

Quote:

How to set the increment

Do you think the concept of threshold or FTP translates to interpreting SmO2? In simple terms, that once intensity/load crosses this landmark supply no longer keeps pace with demand/utilization and SmO2 should exhibit a "clear and continuous decrease"?



This is similar to lactate threshold type ideas, and the general consensus on the forum seems to be that these ideas are flawed and that there is not some single magical threshold point. Day to day it can be different, the Sm02 profiles can look completely different for different athletes and different for different muscles - which then start to make it quite difficult to reconcile to some of these ideas about this FTP point. 

Instead i would say that as intensity increases the limiter becomes a problem, and at some point compensations for the limiter don't work anymore and it becomes a "time bomb" about how long the performance can be maintained.  Its much more likely a continuum than a specific point. 

If you have FTP well and truly dialed in - why not experiment for yourself, and see what the Sm02 trace (and THb) looks like doing intervals at 90%, 95%, 100%, and 105% at FTP. What does it look like on a day when you are fully recovered vs after being in a completely fatigued sate. What does it look like on a priority vs a non-priority muscle.

One point - you mentioned that "supply no longer keeps up with demand/utilisation." Note that it might not be the case that supply is not keeping up with demand. In utilisation limited athletes the supply is available, but their limiter is that they do not have further capacity to use it.

Quote:

This question is probably arises out of a desire to map power-based zones to SmO2. It may be that this is the wrong way to think about it, but an example might be:

Assume the 5-1-5 assessment shows a baseline functional range of 65 - 10% SmO2. Therefore, 10% represents the scenario where utilization/demand far outpaces supply and 65% represents the scenario where supply is sufficient for demand. Could we say something like "training at 20% SmO2 creates a particular type of strain on this balance that is fundamentally different than 40%, and, therefore, you should train at these two different landmarks in some specific way"? 


One of the fascinating things would be to see how different Sm02 reactions might look for different people in the "same" power zone. Or another example that if you repeat intervals in the same power zone, the Sm02 traces can look quite different. 

its often more about Sm02 trends than the specific level during an interval (i.e. is Sm02 decreasing, stable or increasing through an interval as a basic supply/demand analysis, how fast or slow is it decreasing or increasing etc). This is perhaps over-simplifying as also need to consider the the THb trend (since Sm02 could be falling but if THb is increasing overall oxygenated hemoglobin might still be increasing).  

Again a good way to starting to integrate these into your thinking is to use the power based training ideas , and simply observe what happens on different varieties of this training - e.g. what does Sm02 and THb trends look like on 3 min hard V02 interval, vs say doing 6 x 30 second on/off intervals vs a 20 minute "sweet spot"  interval. Then think about whether they intended to be supply side or utilisation focussed training, does the Sm02 and Thb trend corroborate it? Over time, i found the physiological ideas, start to  incorporate, and mould into, existing power-based ones.

This all takes time, viewing data multiple times, doing experiments, participating in the discussions here etc and even then the answers are often not clear and only partial understanding so view it as a journey rather than as a destination to immediately reach...

sebo2000

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 204
 #6 

Hi Jeff,

 

1.I have experimented with different % of FTP and different amount of steps, depending on time and individual fitness, some people will simply fail at 2h on the trainer.

 

Here are my personal conclusions:

 

Shortest possible % of FTP for  5-1-5 assessment containing data needed for interpretation and detection of possible limiters are:

 

44%

66%

88%

110%

132%

 

44% is easy enough for initial zone, you will see changes in 88% and 110% and failure at 132%, tests takes 60 min and in majority of cases will have enough quality data to take a stub a limiter. This might not be enough to determine high “quality zoning” as the steps are too far apart, but if someone uses Moxy for training that would not be necessary anyway.

In the case where you are trying to define power zones for training for people without Moxy, more steps would provide better quality zones (I hate that word since it would be inaccurate day to day anyway)

 

 

2. In the context of single individual and same precise sensor location placement, YES, I would not call that baseline, since it will\might change depending on training, but you will be able to determine what muscles are engaged and when. At the beginning of my training I was able to desature my VL to 0% , Now I can do it only to about 20% minimum 15%, my 60min and 20sec power increased, other muscles especially hamstrings and RF are way more engaged than before, I'm more flexible then ever, I feel I have room to grow, but I need to take it easy to avoid the injury.

 

7. Any training recommendations would be similar to advising Gordon Ramsey how to cook… pointing to good local organic ingredients yes, but how much parsley\salt\pepper he should use…. It is all his secret.

jeffwink

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 10
 #7 
"I think Juerg has also made the point on the forum that one of the things that really separate out great cyclists from good cyclists is more efficient muscle co-ordination."

There are studies that support this conclusion. However, now that we are getting feedback from individual muscles (rather than the system as a whole), we have to ask the question what does "more efficient muscle coordination" look like?

Is it simply "balanced" SmO2? I would think not. 

We have recently had the addition of left/right power data on the bike. The assumption was that 50%/50% should be the goal, but there is plenty of anecdotal feedback that there is no benefit to striving to get into perfect balance.

sebo2000

I disagree on the Training Prescription point. While every coach may come up with a different mix and timing of various training stimuli, the training techniques would be fairly universal.

Example:

If we assessed that a "utilization" limiter exists, and let's say this individual's SmO2 values range from 80 -> 40%. Would we be able to say something like:  sessions that include 5-8 minutes at 50-60% SmO2 will place stress on the "utilization" system (for this individual and sensor location) and lead to improvements over time.

This is just an example, but if we can characterize a particular limiter by describing the underlying physiological structures, energy systems, etc. then shouldn't we be able to develop an example of a pattern of work that will stress these elements and describe that work with the Moxy variables?
sebo2000

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 204
 #8 

I think it would be also important to define what type of cycling are we talking about:

Road racing, triathlon, Criterium, track, Cyclocross, BMX , MTB 

Each of above disciplines produces energy differently and requires different training of different muscle groups, some might even require training of nervous system where in triathlon we could probably skip that step. 

If we assume low SmO2 indicates well train muscle (not necessarily it might actually be limiter, but let’s assume that, depending on muscle type etc), we check leg muscles while rested and have VL-55%, RF-66%, VM 75%, GM-80%, Hamstrings 80%. 

Bring other muscles closer to VL % and results will improve.

There are many ways how this could be done, each way would have different efficiency: gym, training different sport, specific pedaling exercises, bike position adjustment: In other words customized training.

One could suggest hit the gym to improve hamstring work, other could say use different pedaling technique and try intervals with pulling on your pedals, in both cases you will improve hamstrings, which method is better? I do not know.

Others would suggest 5x10min at 65% of SmO2 if you take 10 people everyone will respond differently to that stimulus, one might need less time other  might need more time, “template training” with Moxy is kind of waste of time and $. The same person will respond to the same training differently on day to day basis.

 

One great thing about Moxy is live feedback, eg: if we see our SmO2 is not recovering the way it should: stop, or if we see during calibration session we are not ready for hard efforts do not perform hard efforts, alternate to different set of exercises or go home all together and rest, do not stick to daily plan at all cost.

 

On another had I have really good day, fresh and recovered why would I stop after 5-8min at 50%? I could go for another 20 min easily?

 

For template training you do not need Moxy, you can get 40$ plan online and hope you will improve, many people will improve, some will be called non responders… but with Moxy you can really maximize the training time.

 

Additionally while working on one limiter we might very quickly discover another limiter. Example: While working on muscle imbalance, quickly (about 2 weeks) I discovered respiratory issues when more leg muscles got engaged, also my back issues came back.

 

Moxy is really revolutionary in real life physiological training, template training will always have place for many.












jeffwink

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 10
 #9 
Just to clarify my earlier posts, I am not asking about training theory in general. 

I'm not sure why my post raised the issue of "template training"? My example of "5-8mins at 50% SmO2" is not a template, it is the description of an individual load (or perhaps more specifically, the individual system's response to a particular load).

If it wasn't clear, I picked this particular example (from the spread of 80-40% in the example) to suggest a non-trivial intensity level, i.e., one that could not be maintained for an overly extended period of time (certainly not a 500% variation from day-to-day with the same RPE). 

Also, my example was not suggesting to apply the same 65% SmO2 to 10 different athletes. However, I certainly would hope that the same "relative" SmO2 values should indicate a similar underlying physiological stress in distinct individuals and the same individual from day-to-day.

I would assume that for the Moxy to be of any use that we should be able to say (after adequate baseline data collection) that a particular SmO2 correlates to a particular intensity (setting zones) and that this correlation tends to be stable over some time frame. This would then allow for training intensity to be directed by the Moxy data as opposed to power targets (which don't take into account the readiness of the system to handle that load on a given day) or heart rate targets (which may change slightly from day-to-day for reasons not specifically related to the imposed load).  Re-assessment would track improvements (in terms of external load metrics, i.e., watts) and update training prescriptions.

Perhaps this is an invalid assumption about how the Moxy data will look from assessment to assessment? I am in the midst of my own testing, but nothing so far las led me to believe that if I did 2-3 separate 5-1-5 assessments (where readiness/freshness was similar) I would end up with large variations in SmO2 values for a particular load in watts. 


Quote:
One great thing about Moxy is live feedback, eg: if we see our SmO2 is not recovering the way it should: stop, or if we see during calibration session we are not ready for hard efforts do not perform hard efforts, alternate to different set of exercises or go home all together and rest, do not stick to daily plan at all cost.


Actually, I'd say it is an additional channel of live feedback. Power, heart rate and subjective perceptions also give you live feedback in the ways you describe. My hope is that it is a channel with greater granularity or provides unique feedback that will help direct training.




jeffwink

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 10
 #10 
Quote:
If we assume low SmO2 indicates well train muscle (not necessarily it might actually be limiter, but let’s assume that, depending on muscle type etc), we check leg muscles while rested and have VL-55%, RF-66%, VM 75%, GM-80%, Hamstrings 80%. 

Bring other muscles closer to VL % and results will improve.


Is this an appropriate assumption? Maybe it is true but it seems rather simplistic to simply be attempting to achieve lower SmO2 at rest in all leg muscles regardless of their different contributions and activation patterns in the pedal stroke. 

Isn't the measure of efficiency in cycling a reduction in VO2 for a given workload? Wouldn't this imply a higher SmO2 (holding workload and cardiac output constant) correlates with a more efficient (fitter) muscle?


sebo2000

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 204
 #11 

I would assume that for the Moxy to be of any use that we should be able to say (after adequate baseline data collection) that a particular SmO2 correlates to a particular intensity (setting zones) and that this correlation tends to be stable over some time frame. This would then allow for training intensity to be directed by the Moxy data as opposed to power targets (which don't take into account the readiness of the system to handle that load on a given day) or heart rate targets (which may change slightly from day-to-day for reasons not specifically related to the imposed load).  Re-assessment would track improvements (in terms of external load metrics, i.e., watts) and update training prescriptions.

I think many people will have different experience and different observations and conclusions. In my winter training going at 40% SmO2 some days it was power Z2 and others high Z3
Depending on training day before, recovery, sleep, hydration and few other factors. Difference could be up to 30-40wats, while someone could say it is insignificant, I would argue. 30-40W at the end of the week might produce quite large difference in TSS and CTL when following power based plans, it could be easily leading to overtraining.

We all agree physiological load is the same when holding 40%, but power output might not be. When training with Moxy we look at physiological load, not power output which is performance metric. Mainstream power plans are all around performance metrics.

You are 100% correct, you can easily design plan around Moxy, and this plan will have very precise physiological load, I would say much closer from power meter driven plan.

 
Based on 5-1-5 you can design plan, in many cases there is more than just one way (plan) to obtain desirable results.


We have recently had the addition of left/right power data on the bike. The assumption was that 50%/50% should be the goal, but there is plenty of anecdotal feedback that there is no benefit to striving to get into perfect balance.

 

Most of the time anecdotes get started due to people not having full understanding how something could be used, they simply laugh at it.

 

My own example:

During easy pedaling in Z2 at 190W my Left/Right power ratio was 45-55% left leg was weaker, my right leg is dominant, so it seemed normal.

 

During hard efforts starting at 280W difference was less and less, at VO2 max level 340-360W and up difference was not existent.

So according to many experts I was fine, I heard multiple theories on why at higher loads I was closer to 50-50%, they were all wrong. I liked those explanations, because they were all phrasing my abilities at higher loads. “Your body knows best when it matters….” I was living with it for 2 years since I first discovered it with Garmin Vector pedals.

 

 

 

 

With help of Moxy and few experiments last winter, I was able to determine my right dominant leg was actually slowing down (going easier) to match my left leg max.

 

With few off the bike exercises, I was able to improve my power by 10-15W in just 2 weeks, I’m still not perfect at 50-50% but that was low hanging fruit.

I totally agree 50-50% at all cost is stupid and impossible, you go for best bang for the buck. Identification and understanding potential imbalance is important and might spark some other training and limitation ideas.

 

Is this an appropriate assumption? Maybe it is true but it seems rather simplistic to simply be attempting to achieve lower SmO2 at rest in all leg muscles regardless of their different contributions and activation patterns in the pedal stroke. 

Try placing Moxy on different muscles (legs/arms) and write down the results, share it if you can.

 


Isn't the measure of efficiency in cycling a reduction in VO2 for a given workload? Wouldn't this imply a higher SmO2 (holding workload and cardiac output constant) correlates with a more efficient (fitter) muscle?

 

This is complex question. (“given load” makes it tricky, VO2max would be easier to answer)

 

Try experimenting with Moxy and strong and weaker muscle, see what happens. Try placing Moxy on different muscle groups while pedaling the same load and observe Smo2 and tHb, try go off the saddle, in droops, hoods etc, TT.

Try biceps and triceps with 20 reps of the same load.

 

Actually, I'd say it is an additional channel of live feedback. Power, heart rate and subjective perceptions also give you live feedback in the ways you describe

 

 

Power does not give any physiological feedback, it gives life performance feedback, HR Absolutely, HR is very helpful in conjunction with Moxy. Heart rate by itself is less ideal.

Let’s say after 2 months of training your HR at the same load is reduced from previously, what that really means? Is your cardiac system overloaded and you are just overtraining, or your cardiac system improved and your stroke volume increased, or maybe your plasma volume increased?  Hard to say by looking only at HR.

 

 

My hope is that it is a channel with greater granularity or provides unique feedback that will help direct training.

 

Don’t hope you got it, in my opinion this is the best tool for physiological driven training on the market now, but years of training with power, makes people look at Moxy through the prism of training with power, still going back to zones etc. and applying the same/similar training strategy as with power. Moxy is much more capable than that.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net