Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
tniccum

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
 #16 
What do we expect in a Tabata  to see on SmO2  reactions and HR  reactions ?

Tabata = 8x 20s full effort, 10s recovery

Simplistically, I'd expect HR to climb over the section as 10s recovery isn't enough to recover, but you'd see some waves, rather than an even increase...

Sm02 would drop very low, given the all-out nature of the intervals and also wouldn't recover much, so it would stay low for the intervals.

P.S. Here is the abstract of the original Tabata paper so you can see the experimenter's goals for the workout:

Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max.

 

Abstract

This study consists of two training experiments using a mechanically braked cycle ergometer. First, the effect of 6 wk of moderate-intensity endurance training (intensity: 70% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), 60 min.d-1, 5 d.wk-1) on the anaerobic capacity (the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit) and VO2max was evaluated. After the training, the anaerobic capacity did not increase significantly (P > 0.10), while VO2max increased from 53 +/- 5 ml.kg-1 min-1 to 58 +/- 3 ml.kg-1.min-1 (P < 0.01) (mean +/- SD). Second, to quantify the effect of high-intensity intermittent training on energy release, seven subjects performed an intermittent training exercise 5 d.wk-1 for 6 wk. The exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, VO2max increased by 7 ml.kg-1.min-1, while the anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate-intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems.

----
the Tabata protocol would not include the extensive warmup I did.  A shorter warmup and cooldown was used and the exercise was focused on the 8 20s intervals. 


juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #17 
this study showed that moderate-intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems.


Question>
Remember when this  and with what equipment it was done. Where was VO2  measured  and how .

We know that there is no such thing like a aerobe  and anaerobic separate  energy  supply  all runs simultaneously.

Now  fundamental  question. IF  IF  we  believe  that  NIRS is doing what it suppose to  do   than how  would we explain the drop in SmO2  meaning we use a lot  of  O2  , when the load suppose to be anaerobe.

As we by now  know in a high intensity we  actually activate  O2  utilization much more powerful than in a   medium endurance load . We know  from

some  big studies  in the late 1980  that in high intensity we see  an inclusion  again of STF  where in  relative high intensity like  80 plus   minus  5. We  had no  clue  why so open question. MRI  and  NIRS  gives us finally the answer.

Again the famous  discussion that an anaerobic  test like Wingate is  in fact a highly aerobic assessment
deoxy N.jpg 

When we do a  Tabata  or something similar it is important to look a blood flow   so tHb  as an indirect  feedback. Depending on this reaction the  same protocol  can have on 2 athletes a very different physiological reaction. Why ?  If  interest  we can go  closer to this idea  od f  what creates a  situation of  O2 utilization  and how  does tHb influences  the out come.
Thanks again for the   free feedback  and openness


tniccum

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
 #18 
Depending on this reaction the  same protocol  can have on 2 athletes a very different physiological reaction.


Yes.

Also, it seems to me that the cookbook approach is full of "hope."  I think most cycling fitness improvement plans just hit  many different things from  many different angles - one is sure to improve if you do "everything."  The question is how to pick one plan from another in that case!

I feel that at my age (older), experience level (lower), and desired event type (long, endurance) I would probably need a different approach to optimize my fitness for my targeted events.  I've asked a few coaches and the answers have been all over... And none seem to have much science behind them, that is specific to MY situation...

My hope is that with new tools that can monitor my workouts either real-time or after, I can learn enough to craft a better plan.

But first we need more data!

I will start recording all workouts with Moxy and providing them, even though we may know that the "plan" isn't optimal... 

I'll try a 5-1-5 to see how that goes and we can go from there.  Hopefully this evening.

Thanks again!

Tom




juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #19 

Thanks for the nice  feedback
 I like to add some thoughts  to the  topic  we  had on here Tabata. This is NOT in disrespect  for the interesting work but a interesting fact. About very 25  years  so a length of a generation exercise physiologist we  see the discussion  coming up LSD  slow long endurance versus  interval of high intensity.
 Go back  to   great  researchers  like Dudley  or Hollowzy et all as well as Gerschler  and  Hollmann /Hettinger.
 The history  tells a lot.
 The History was>
atp strupler.jpg 

Generation over generation when we  work on a Masters  or even Ph.D  we  show a  set  of  common literature  we  simply  use , take over  and never ever  would go and challenge  the information.
 At least most of  us  and very often me included.

Thanks to some very smart people like  Richardson, Connet, Shulman  and more and some great new technology like MRI   NIrs  and so on , we  have to  information and  option now  to challenge  some fixed and classical ideas and information's.
The above is the classical idea established  and moved  from one work to the other . It is accepted  and therefore   perhaps true . Perhaps  it has to be reviewed    and  suddenly the  information and results  that so called
 Anaerobe loads like a Tabata  or Gerschler  or more   show a better or  the same  O2  VO2  result as the classical aerobic  work make  sense  and does not leave us with disbelieve.
 If we look at physiological responses  instead of  performance results it as well makes sense  why we  see people reacting and progressing better  with HIIT   than  with LSD  and  vice verca.
 It is all about understating  whether the  current stimulation  can create a positive respond  or whether  the limiter changed  and I need to shift the stimulation to the new  challenge.

It is  all about adaptation.
 This is this great  physiological dialectic contradiction

 You make progress  after a stimulation because  your  systems adapt.
 You stop making progress because  your system adapted. 

 Performance testing  only tells you that you made progress or  not  or even got  worse.
 That's  IT.

Physiological assessment  who adapted and who not  so you know when  and how  to change the next stimulus.
 Okay got lost as usual
 Tabata  HIIT and aerobic  anaerobic  progress.
 There is no separation between   this too . All runs   at the same time and we use  O2  in msec time frames as we start.
 So  a HIIT  demands a very high  help  to maintain as long as possible ATP be  levels before  we have to reduce performance as the goal  or better  survival needs  to maintain ATP  is challenged  so we have to avoid using more than we can  maintain.
 Different options  are available  to survive, but there are as well t  different options  to try  to  perform  just somewhat longer  to survive.
 All depends  on limiter and compensator as we mentions often.
 So how  come we are  so surprised  that  HIIT  improves  O2  utilization and increases VO2 ?

 Because the theory  above on energy  stags  does not explain or support the  outcomes  of the research by Tabata  or  others.
 So we have this dilemma where the facts  do not match the theory  but we  defend the  theory out  of what ever reason.
 Now  t  with new technology  and NIRS/ MOXY is one of them we  suddenly not just have the end result  of a HIIT   but we  actually see that O2  is immediately used  and SmO2  drop  shows n  this nicely.
So second dilemma. What we  learned suppose to be anaerobic  is high  aerobic.
 Now  in any HITT  we  know we  will fail to  go long.
 We  agued  and learned it is because lactic acid, than because  of anaerobic limitation  and now we  see  most liley  due to the high demand of  energy  and the limited storage of O2  and the  too slow  delivery of  O2  the   reason may simply be   that we have t protect a minimal  needed ATP level and we protect a  minimal needed  pO2 . This  all to  survive , so we have no choice  but the central governor  will limit  the supply  to  less essential   areas to secure pO2 in  vital areas like brain cardiac  and respiratory areas.
 The  fact that delivery of O2 is limited  will stimulate  the  use of  local available  O2  from Hb and Mb. and   will create for a while a stimulation to increase as good as possible  current limited  storage capacity. Besides this we  will stimulate  functional  reactions  by improving the utilization of available O2  by shifting the O2  disscurve  to the  right.
 We adapt. because we adapt   over time this stimulation doe snot work anymore. We reached a limit in this are  and we  now have to look how we can improve  further  by improving delivery  as this is now the only way  to make further progress.
 So  find limiter find compensator  check when we reach a adaptation which  now stops progress.
 NIRS  can help a lot in this direction.
In fact NIRS used as a daily feedback tells  you s you go. See many examples we show in this forum.

Summary
 New technology like NIRS  finally  allow us to understand  why HIIT  can improve  if  the right limiter is target the  aerobe  ability  as there is no such thing like anaerobic  load  there is a energy demanding load  where all options to maintain ATP  are challenged  more or less at the same time.

NIRS  is the live feedback tool   to see as we go.

Below 2  examples or HIIT.
 Workout  done  on 2 athletes  same time 
Load all out




flurin HIT VL  thb smo2.jpg

Very easy to see that they  have different limiters  in all out  and therefore the same  physical load all out will crate a very different stimulation and out come therefor.

smo2 thb vl  super  hard.jpg


Now  the above result  where produced  by the bodies reaction  so very different.
 Now  if  we like that athlete 2  so the  one just above  should actually  create the picture  from athlete  ne  we  can change the way we load  and not they  way the body reacts  coincidentally. The same  can be done  for athletes  1   when we  not like the  demonstrated  stimulus  as it  not  gets us to our  target stimulation.
 The above result is a performance based forced reaction. What we  suggest is  coaches    planned physiological  controlled reaction.

Now  both could use SmO2  as a guide , but   we do not now  based on SmO2 , whether we  actually achieved the idea   we have in mind as you can see . Both will have a  more or less drop in SmO2  till they  have to stop and than can recover  but in both the reason why they  quit is very different and as  such  the stimulation is different and as such the endsreuslt is different.
 Hope  it  will make  some sense. I will open another thread on NIRS  and physiological feedback  in this direction with examples  we just presented in California this weekend.



tniccum

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
 #20 
OK, to continue the discussion, here is data from tonight... I tried my first 5-1-5.  

Hopefully I created something useful to look at.

I did 20 watt steps from 80w to 300w.  I failed on the first 300w interval.  Just fatigued... 

Leading up to test:
Sunday: 12 hour TT
Monday: Travel
Tuesday: Resistance training, Active Recovery ride (1 hour)

Let me know what you think.  

Tom Untitled.png 

 
Attached Files
csv TN_-_Moxy_5-1-5_-_2016-06-08.csv (624.36 KB, 10 views)

tniccum

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
 #21 
Thanks for taking so much time writing these explanations and thoughts.  It's helping me understand a lot.




juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #22 
wowww great  work will have a close look  hopefully today night.

First I like to keep it all in one add some additional critical points and thoughts to the Tabata paper. Again not  to diminish  what they did  but to  show  how we look  very different at physiology  than  what often happened.

70% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), 60 min.d-1, 5 d.wk-1) on the anaerobic capacity (the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit) and VO2max was evaluated. After the training, the anaerobic capacity did not increase significantly (P > 0.10), while VO2max increased from 53 +/- 5 ml.kg-1 min-1 to 58 +/- 3 ml.kg-1.min-1 (P < 0.01) (mean +/- SD

1.
70 % of  what ever may be VO2  max  in different  athletes is NOT  the same physiological load. It can be but there are many papers out there showing that same %  of VO2  peak is not the same load  physiological looked  at. Some may sustain 70%  for a few minutes  others  over a much longer  time  to hours, Thus clearly indicates that the stimulation  will be very different and therefor the outcome.

2. There is a growing acceptance  and evidence, that  VO2  max  may have to replaced wihtVO2  peak tested  as the criteria  for a VO2 max  are very relay achieved  meaning a plateau . I showed many times the review  of the top studies  where close to 50 % never found a VO2  max  and the rest only  if certain  points  where  achieved  like certain lactate levels and  many more.
 So training  at 70 %is not  comparable  on what we may have stimulated.

the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit

We just discussed this    and the O2 deficit is in many places now abolished and replaced  with EPOC. New technology as we often showed  does not  support a deficit idea  anymore and the  higher O2  situation after a load  is not a deficit  but a  extend  use  of O2  for re-establishing a  physiological homeostasis.
Depending on limiter and compensator as well as  effort  done  the time will be different for a homeostasis  return.
Overall you take the statistic out
53 +/- 5 ml.kg-1 min-1 to 58 +/- 3 ml.kg-1.min- or  you take  2 individual extremes  like 
53  plus 5   and than 58 minus  3  and ?????.

Summary
 There is no discussion left   but the fact that HIIT  depending how  we load  is a big O2  stimulation for sure  for functional reactions  and when properly balanced  with LSD  as well for structural  changes.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #23 
wowww great  work will have a close look  hopefully today night.

First I like to keep it all in one add some additional critical points and thoughts to the Tabata paper. Again not  to diminish  what they did  but to  show  how we look  very different at physiology  than  what often happened.

70% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), 60 min.d-1, 5 d.wk-1) on the anaerobic capacity (the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit) and VO2max was evaluated. After the training, the anaerobic capacity did not increase significantly (P > 0.10), while VO2max increased from 53 +/- 5 ml.kg-1 min-1 to 58 +/- 3 ml.kg-1.min-1 (P < 0.01) (mean +/- SD

1.
70 % of  what ever may be VO2  max  in different  athletes is NOT  the same physiological load. It can be but there are many papers out there showing that same %  of VO2  peak is not the same load  physiological looked  at. Some may sustain 70%  for a few minutes  others  over a much longer  time  to hours, Thus clearly indicates that the stimulation  will be very different and therefor the outcome.

2. There is a growing acceptance  and evidence, that  VO2  max  may have to replaced wihtVO2  peak tested  as the criteria  for a VO2 max  are very relay achieved  meaning a plateau . I showed many times the review  of the top studies  where close to 50 % never found a VO2  max  and the rest only  if certain  points  where  achieved  like certain lactate levels and  many more.
 So training  at 70 %is not  comparable  on what we may have stimulated.

the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit

We just discussed this    and the O2 deficit is in many places now abolished and replaced  with EPOC. New technology as we often showed  does not  support a deficit idea  anymore and the  higher O2  situation after a load  is not a deficit  but a  extend  use  of O2  for re-establishing a  physiological homeostasis.
Depending on limiter and compensator as well as  effort  done  the time will be different for a homeostasis  return.
Overall you take the statistic out
53 +/- 5 ml.kg-1 min-1 to 58 +/- 3 ml.kg-1.min- or  you take  2 individual extremes  like 
53  plus 5   and than 58 minus  3  and ?????.

Summary
 There is no discussion left   but the fact that HIIT  depending how  we load  is a big O2  stimulation for sure  for functional reactions  and when properly balanced  with LSD  as well for structural  changes.
tniccum

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
 #24 
HIIT  depending how  we load  is a big O2  stimulation for sure  for functional reactions  and when properly balanced  with LSD  as well for structural  changes.


Very interesting comment!  LSD for "structural" changes.... meaning something like STEI improvement?

I think a lot of current thought has gone too far toward the HIIT side - saying (almost) you ONLY need to do HIIT and LSD is a waste of time.




juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #25 
LSD  as  for  long slow endurance.
 HIIT  yes  I absolutely agree and it is more   sign  of our  time than a physiological reality.
All has to be fast  done  now  no  time to wait. Structural changes  take time , whether it is bone density  ligament or tendon density  cardiac  size, lungs  volume  and sopine mobility  metabolic  reactions. All starts  out  with  functional  reactions  which show  fats results  but  not often  we see the results  lasting as you  use  what you have on a higher %   where  structural changes actually chnage  the abiltiy over time to perform  on a higher  or harder level.

 HIIT  needs to be done, when LSD  reactions adapted  so no progress because of adaptation. HIIT  are   most often functional; great stimulation   but with a lot of uncontrolled overloads.
 LSD  has to be done, when HIT  is adapted  and we  make no progress because of adaptation.
 There is more  to LSD  than just    moving hours on a bike, there  is   a lot  of   simulations going on , which can not  be created  with HIIT.
 I  often compare the discussion wiht repsiratroy training  where we  a have  the   common respiratory resistance equipment  like power lungs  breath  easy  masks   and so on  and than we have a  normocapnic  hyperpnoe equipment  with the Spiro Tiger.
 HIIT  = Resistance  breathing = leg press  equipment  for a runner
 LSD = Spior tiger = treadmill for a runner.
 All has its  place  at the rigth time  when the  moment is right for  the  equipment to stimulate the current limiter to  move  ahead in the overall team approach.
 With NIRS  we try to  establish  this individual time line  as we look for limitations and compensations  sign   instead of just performance improvement.

Summary
 Functional  is  faster as it  asks  for a  fast reaction but in many cases we simply learn to use  more  form what we already have. Example :
 You have a 4.5l Vital capacity  and you use in a classical VO2 test 2.2  liter TV  at the   most efficient  and optimal intensity. Now  with  short  term specific  training  you can move up to 2.5  or  2.7  L in no time but VC is still  the same 4.5  L  so you  adjust functionally  to a higher  level.
 Now  you  can or could go higher in TV  but you see another option would be a structural change  to  increase VC  to 4.9  or  5.4  or more.
 On the other hand  if  he has a 6.9 L VC  and only a  TV  of  2.3  liter a  functional  workout  would be a better option to move forward. Now move this thoughts in a endurance direction like mitochondria density. You see a  limiter in  utilization  versus a limiter in delivery  and you have a  relative individual direction on where  you best invest time at the moment  to make  progress. Hope this makes sense.
tniccum

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
 #26 
Yes, it makes a lot of sense.  Using actual responses to determine training.. rather than a fixed "10 week miracle plan" is very exciting.

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #27 
Just moved  your  long 5 1 5  on my  computer  so   hope this evening to give it a longer  look. Juts  to  have some more thoughts.
 I   as well plan  with my athletes  but it is a guidance rather than a  must  and  daily  reactions  can eb  adjusted depending on  family  live  health  feeling  work stress  reactions fo a workout  from yesterday  and so  on.
tniccum

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
 #28 
Also feel free to ask me for any data or to do any test you would find interesting.   I don't have big events coming for 3 months, so I can do pretty much anything. 

I'm interested in figuring out my limiter(s) so I can work on that, but outside of that I can try anything helpful (to you or to me).

Some other background, in case it's helpful:

I do resistance training 2x/week (for 10 months now). Mainly for general health - I have some bone mass loss (osteopenia) and doctor suggested lifting as a way to combat that, plus working on balance, stability, etc. for old age. 

4 years ago I weighed 136kg.  I had bariatric surgery June 2012 (Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy) and reduced to a fairly steady 84kg, although it's gone up to 89kg over the months since beginning resistance training.


tniccum

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
 #29 
More data from Today's workout.  LSD type workout.  

I took a guess at my "zones" from the 5-1-5
AR < 120w
STEI 120w - 200w
FEI 200w - 280w
HI >280w

I did about 2h30m at high STEI (180-195w) to see the SMO2 reaction.  Very stable.

PUt in a few higher intensity intervals at the beginning to check data.

Tom Untitled.png 

 
Attached Files
csv Tom_-_R01_-_A1_-_Build_-_Week_5_-_Saturday_-_2016-06-11-01-51-15.3dp.csv (760.80 KB, 10 views)

tniccum

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
 #30 
Today's data... W/U followed by 16x 1minute HI intervals with 1m recovery.

20160612.png 

 
Attached Files
csv Tom_-_Intervals_-_2016-06-12-05-58-14.3dp_(version_1).csv (606.97 KB, 10 views)

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net