Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


 
Poll Results
 
 Would you contribute (data, research or analysis expertise etc) towards answering questions posed on the development forum?
 Yes 7 100%
 No 0 0%
Total votes: 7. This poll has been closed.


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Etiennebest

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 34
 #1 
Hi,

It has occurred to me that there is a substantial userbase and a wealth of expertise and passion around here - it is only matched by the amount of unanswered questions we bump up against time and time again.

I have no idea of how to make it work (yet). Challenges such as hypothesis, methodology, research ethics etc are plentyful,  but would any of you be interested in tackling some of these questions more directly?

Examples:
http://forum.moxymonitor.com/post/moxy-data-fatigue-7798810
http://forum.moxymonitor.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1285469048&postcount=18

To gauge interest I'm creating a poll - it will be open for the next 30 days.

Regards,

Etienne.
bcoddens

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
 #2 
Good plan !

I can help with the technical aspects. As I work with computer systems on a daily basis.
Etiennebest

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 34
 #3 
Remember to vote [smile]
bcoddens

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
 #4 
Mark Liversedge (lead developer of golden cheetah) posted this question on the wattage group:

Hi,
 
[I also posted this to the much smaller cycling physiology group, but seems relevant here too]
 
I'm the lead developer for GoldenCheetah and I am going to create an open data resource of athlete performance and training data. It will be an open resource for all.
 
Essentially it will be an online store of ride metric and aggregate data. The data will be anonymised but will be identifiable to a unique athlete identifier. The identifier is likely to be a GUUID (e.g. 30dd879c-ee2f-11db-8314-0800200c9a66).
 
We want to collect data from our users and share it with everyone interested. The primary driver is to collect performance and training data to use as inputs into research, machine learning and basic normative data. We also want to use the data collected to test and validate models. Our user community has already given feedback to suggest they are willing to share data (so long as it is opt-in, transparent and anonymised).
 
So the $64m.
 
What data should we collect that will be useful ?
 
As a bare minimum I think each data point (which might represent an activity) should include:
- identifier
- athlete age, sex, weight
- modality
- device
 
But then the metrics to collect get interesting, I think we should collect
- average, min, max - Power, HR etc etc
- basic metrics - Distance, Duration, Elevation Gain, Work
- peak powers* 1s,5s,10s,20s,30s,1m,5m,8m,12m,20m,30m,60m,90m,120m,150,180m
- distributions** - Power, HR etc etc
- popular stress/load type metrics etc - NP,VI,xPower,TSS,BikeScore
 
What would you add to this list ?
 
Thanks
Mark
 
* MMP data is something we might also collect if it adds more value than the peak powers ?
** Binned totals

I think that moxy could be a great addition to this.
An open data sharing system where all data can come together
Etiennebest

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 34
 #5 
That would be an excellent way forward, and I would also really like to see even more metrics supported.

Obviously as the amount of possible metrics per person grows, the fewer the data points (not everybody has access to an HRM, Moxy, Physioflow, Portamon, spirometers etc...).

A limitation though - they are primarily interested in metrics related to the cycling community. I would like to see something wider e.g. other sports or even non-sport applications.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #6 
That is  so great ,
  We  finally have some feedback  and support , as we do this  now  since so  many years and  when  you work in a  very small group you  do not  see the   ability  to move it into a bigger space.
 We  use all  or many of the above ideas   on what  to do since so many years  daily in workouts.
 So it will be  great to see the outcome  of a new independent group and whether they find the  same results and   reactions  with their ideas  than what we found.
 Example. Specific  loads  for stroke volume improvement.
 Specific  loads  for  right  or left  ventricular  stimulation.
 Improve  of   systemic   desaturation , and   many more. We have  workouts  we do  and we see and check live the  results . So  combine  with Physio flow  NIRS,  VO2   power  and  blood values as well SEMG. That is  what we did  and the result is to try  to move  it back down to NIRS feedback and that what we discuss here.
 So great to see that  people have now the same   questions  we had  and  work on finding  a potential solution.Will be fun in 1  - 2 years to see, what we  can compare from this great  ideas    and work  and see, whether we  have  same similar or very different outcomes.s
So this is great as I can retreat here and move   forward  with   many other  applications  and leave the cycling section to the cycling pros. Will be great  for me  to just  read and see and  as usual learn  as  this great ideas move  ahead.  My job here is  to show you   how to read  NIRS  and what  can be done. Than it is  up to the coaches  to use the feedback  from NIRS  and look  at the outcome using  classical or  new ideas of  stimulation. or  combine
bcoddens

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
 #7 
I will reach out to my alma mater.
They have a big cycling center: 

http://en.bakala-academy.com/?language=en

The leading professor there is Dr Hespel.  I will try to point all the heads in the same direction.  This could be fun.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #8 
bccoddens .
Thanks so much.I love the  link  and I love it as well because it shows  again the fundamental  view difference on  what we look in  exercise physiology.  and what is often looked  at.

 This is the article  I  like, because  we where looking at potential reason why  some  players  do this  extreme  and some no too much.  So here the difference.
 . The great  study  shows  it is beneficial  and improves    performance.
 That is  great  and    is potential  what they feel  and tested   and  are doing it.
   What we look is  what  causes  the  actual  change in performance physiologically  and not performance wise.
 The " classical " performance driven studies  show  they perform  better but no answer  why   just they do.
 When you look  what causes the performance change  than you look what  happens physiologically.
   So  you can use  NIRS /MOXY  and  SEMG and some  ideas on what core  stability really is  and what muscle;  So  where  would you  fix  MOXY's  and what would you expect  to see.
 
What is the  first  muscle  who contracts  always  for any motion we do  prior to any other muscles.
?
Think  core muscles as  from  the inside  out.
Think DNA pattern in  muscle  motion.  Here the great article .  and look for  physical   information as a reason  why they do it  to what we look for  physiological reaction.
Swinco  in Switzerland  with Andri  did some  super interesting assessments  with Tennis in Switzerland. I am not user,whether i showed some of the results.? 

Here the article

Grunting, the hidden 'muscle power'

Fen Lasseel, Bakala Academy – Athletic Performance Center, KU Leuven

 

Grunting is a recent and growing phenomenon in tennis. Spectators often complain about the fact that “the so called ‘decibelchampions’ ruin the experience”, while opponents quote distraction and unfairness as major complaints. Maria Sharapova – who is in run for the decibel title – reaches 101 decibels during competition, which is louder than a drill and even corresponds to a subway passing by! But, does this complaint make sense, do we have to put limits or even eliminate decibels? Is grunting helping you in achieving a competitive advantage to hit the ball even harder or is it just a strategy to distract your opponent?

 

Well, research supports the ‘decibelchampions’. O’Connell and co-workers examined the effects of grunting on velocity and force production during tennis strokes in collegiate tennis players (16 males, 16 females). The findings demonstrate that grunting increases tennis ball velocity on average by +5% during forehands and serves. Practically this means that a ‘grunting Sharapova’ may serve almost 10km/h faster and speed up her forehand winner by 7km/h, compared with a ‘non-grunting’ Sharapova. Those findings can also be at interest for athletes involved in other ballistic sports such as powerlifting, shot put, javelin, baseball, etc…

 

Take home message:

Grunting may allow tennis players to strike the ball even harder. However, whether or not this results in better tennis play will depend on the impact of the grunting on stroke precision.


And  here a  typical DNA pattern in tennis  first  and than one in  ice hockey.
 So many  workouts  we do will follow this  DNA  pattern

ten 1.jpg


hock 6.jpg


sp 1.png

Takura

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 36
 #9 
A few thoughts about the data format for a database etc:

- Need ability to store and access data from multiple sensors of the same kind, obviously for Moxy but would be useful for power etc. Unluckily this is not common for bicycle computers, but hopefully GC will support this in the future.

- Moxy sensor data should be stored together with information about which muscle it was measuring. (Obviously.)

- Bicycle power data could be more useful in relation to FTP or LT, which could be stored somewhere together with the ride data, or the power data could be "normalized" to %FTP.

- Ability to analyze SmO2 in relation to advanced metrics from power meters like Pioneer and the coming Infocrank update and maybe Powertap P1 as well could be interesting. Pioneer data format is unluckily not open and only available under NDA, but I have heard it is hackable. Don't know how Infocrank will handle this. Ability to just store data files for future analysis could be good enough for now.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #10 
Takura , that sounds great.
 I have   hundreds if not thousends of data s in that  way  but not just  from MOXY  but  combined  with other NIRS  sensors  and now as well compared  with BSX information.  So  I look forward  to have the cycling community  do  a similar  task and than come up and publish the ideas and information  and than we  can start a  discussion in what they  found  and  what  we  collected  the last  15 years. We  than  can go back  and combine   NIRS   and Physio flow  and VO2  and  SEMG  and blood values  as we started  out  and see  where we have some disagreement what teh values really mean.
So will be a great  help  for us to see,where  we went  different    and where we  have some agreement.
 The fun part starts  now  and  in a few  years  for any new NIRS  company. It is not anymore about interpretation as this is done  to a big extend , it is now  about  how  to us it    during workouts, So  how  to  combine in cycling  wattage  feedback  with   Bio feedback  information's.
 Over  short or  long  the next  biofeedback   with NIRS  will be  simple SEMG  feedback. The original Portamon  I have had this feature  already build in but there are  SEMG  companies out there like BSX  which  are so far ahead of  what  the competition  has to offer, that it  si most likely not  worth while to reinvent this wheel  again  .  One  short  question in your suggestion to use FTP  or LT.
 There are commonly   I think now  25 different ideas  on how we may  or may not  find LT  which one of this  theories   would you suggest  to use  for LT findings ?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net