Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  

Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
Here is a   short follow up to the fundamental discussion.
I believe, that when we combine the classical or less classical lab  equipment we a have  fundamental difference between equipment's where we now  can see live what is actually going on  due to the new technology  and the  time lag  problem  and  situation we had  with the  classical equipment.
For   endurance assessments , if we  allow sufficient time  for the physiological systems the  time lag is less of a problem  as we have a  homeostasis  which by definition is the  situation, where the different system are relative stable.
 in high intensity loads or activities where  the  demand of  energy O2  , is in most access  higher then the ability  to deliver, the time lag is a  clear limitation of the  classical lab equipment's.

So here what we  would expect  form research  done to critically look at NIRS options advantages  and disadvantages.
  We have to integrate all the tools , when assessing  HIT  activities.
 So we need direct feedbacks  like we have  form NIRS  and  from cardiac hemodynamic  like Physio flow,  and we   combine this critically with the classical  lab equipment. knowing, that  lactate VO2  and  other markers  may have a  time delay or may  react not at all due to the nature of the HIT.

Here  an example  from the  " classical time"
Hollmannn Intervall ith different rests.jpg

Intervall versions.jpg 

Here 2 " classical"   great  works  from the 1960, where the  idea on what lactate may be or may  do  was very different, but  as well where we sued  classical lab  equipment  with a  clear limitation of the time  till we had a  trend in  results.

 If  you go back to the  " wingate" occlusion VO2 max  graph  I showed in the fundamental question. than you can see, that the short  load  short  rest period  is not  " anaerobic  but a lot  O2  ( aerobic  ) help to maintain ATP level is involved.
 We as well know , that  lactate is produced intracellular  in high levels  but  due to the short load  the H +    risk is  controlled  by different options  to buffer the  H + and protect the pH


The cause of metabolic acidosis is not merely proton release, but an imbalance between the rate of proton release and the rate of proton buffering and removal. As previously shown from fundamental biochemistry, proton release occurs from glycolysis and ATP hydrolysis. However, there is not an immediate decrease in cellular pH due to the capacity and multiple components of cell proton buffering and removal (Table 5). The intracellular buffering system, which includes amino acids, proteins, Pi, HCO3−, creatine phosphate (CrP) hydrolysis, and lactate production, binds or consumes H+ to protect the cell against intracellular proton accumulation. Protons are also removed from the cytosol via mitochondrial transport, sarcolemmal transport (lactate−/H+ symporters, Na+/H+ exchangers), and a bicarbonate-dependent exchanger (HCO3−/Cl−) (Fig. 13). Such membrane exchange systems are crucial for the influence of the strong ion difference approach at understanding acid-base regulation during metabolic acidosis (5, 26). However, when the rate of H+ production exceeds the rate or the capacity to buffer or remove protons from skeletal muscle, metabolic acidosis ensues. It is important to note that lactate production acts as both a buffering system, by consuming H+, and a proton remover, by transporting H+ across the sarcolemma, to protect the cell against metabolic acidosis.

Once it is in the blood we  have one  great ability  to  get rid  of H + .

So  the summary  may be.
 The limitation of the classical lab technique  did not allowed to show what really happens.
 The unseen real si what we  now see, versus the unreal seen  as  anaerobic a lactic.
  HIT  show a  "surprising"  improvement of  VO2  reactions.
 Because.  HIT   integrate and involved a lot of  O2  for energy  supply. So really  today we see, that an anaerobic a lactic  is  really a very high aerobic  lactic  workout.  This answers  some veyr traditional questions  why we see a very high involvement of  STF  fibers  in very high intensities.

Any feedback  would be very welcome, as this is  exactly where in the real coaching world  we use  NIRS.
 Now  next up is the discussion  how  do  we  categorise  or define  HIT.?


Development Team Member
Posts: 219
If we had a large number of NIRS/MOXY placed all around the body and by taking the "average" smO2 value (muscle mass will need to be taken into account in the calculation), could we see a better correlation to vo2peak or HR or lactate values?

The body has multiple layers of control systems, each system will have it's individual response time to external stimulation which could come from other control systems too. Having multiple test methods to measure various levels of body control systems input/output will give us a better picture of what is going on.

Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
Great thoughts and great points. 
Here some feed backs. If we do HIIT  than  in most cases  we  "plan " a delivery limitation,  so in most cases   we will have a problem  to allow  all the different systems, who like to try  or  could contribute  to  " survival" a  fair  chance to be a part of the team.
 So in all this  cases  with  every single system, who can not  fully contribute we loose the feedback on how much O2  itself  would be needed  for the full optimal  contribution.

The most  and easiest to assess  situations  is  respiration  and  cardiac out pout  by looking   live  with  Physio flow  and live  with VE  assessment tools.

This is a  reason, why when we use   direct live  minimal  lag time equipment we  can not compare  with classical great but  lag time dependent  assessment methods  like  lactate and like  VO2.  With some interesting occlusion methods   scientific   people  ( not   practical.  applicable in the field )  can calculate  O2  use  for m muscles  and  even  as Frank Bour is doing VO2   form the cardiac system.

The most I did  was  8 MOXY.s  at the same time   in  HIIT  and endurance loads  . In HIIT  you will have   8 different interesting feedback if you place the NIRS on 8  clearly different muscles ( So not left and right  but real  8  different muscle. If  we increase the  load as  good and as stable as possible  to a longer duration  and the   duration  which seems to be great to be relative  sure  we reach a homeostasis  is  8  +  min  than we have a better  feedback on a stable  lactate trend  and a more stable  trend in  CO  and VE  and therefore in  VO2.  Now  as usual there is a  interesting  section here.

 If we  load in different calculated  Zoning's  than we  do have a relative poor feedback  as  performance is not a good tool  for training zoning.
 If we use physiological zoning we have a interesting feedback.
 a)  If  we load in what we  call ARI  (  and I start to hate this  name )  so  If  we  load in a physiological intensity , where we  can show  that delivery is  higher than utilization and we have free  blood flow  so   tHb as the feedback, than  by  8 min and longer   loads we have a very stable feedback  with some interesting lactate trends .  Try it out  as we  do not cook book information here.
 b)  if we load  what we  call STEI  ( and  again I start ti hate this  term ) so when we load in a physiological zoning, where we  are  at the optimal load  for the limiter the trend  will look different.
 c)  if  we load  in the FEI (  no comment  anymore )  so  physiologically where we know the limiter is long pushed  to its  edge  and we start to  need  to integrate  compensator  again a different outcome.
 d)  If  we push in the  intensity , where  even compensator  are  pushed  to their limit again a different outcome.
 Last  HIIT  which in a 5/1/5  is rarely  reached as long you finish  the last  5 min load  is a  completely different  ball game.
 So   I would love to hear back  what is needed  as a information to know  that the load is  HIIT intensity.   How  do you decide  this is a HIIT.
 In our discussed  paper.  they loaded with  125 %  of VO22 max load .
So was that  HIIT  or   they reached *0 +- %  of the testes  VO2 max . Is that HIIT
load versus  physiology ?

Is the  load  what  triggers the physiological reaction or is it the physiological reaction  like in this  case only  80 +- % load  who triggers the physiological reaction ?

Is the  100 % VO2 load   reached  with  still an ability to deliver  and is the 125 %  load  attempt perhaps  a load  which creates a delivery  problem.
 If  I still deliver O2  and if  I can not delivery O2. Is this the same  stimulation for the  involved muscle.
 Again is a  physical calculated  load  really the same as a physiological observed  live  feedback on what  happens ?  Okay I hope you can see my open thoughts in the attempt  to  use physiological feedback to understand what I may try to stress, versus mathematical calculated performance loads and hope it may do  what I  calculated. ??

 I will show   after I finish my Sunday chores  as today  is goat hoof cutting time  a dilemma between  science  and real practical applications.
So stay  tuned and be ready  for more interesting  questions.

Development Team Member
Posts: 279
If we are still talking about training I believe we are making things too complicated. 8 Moxy's on an athlete to do a training is not a practical way for training. I like so see the discussions but I really ask where this discussion is heading to. It is not heading towards a more practical use of training tools. I think we should not forget that tools are intended to make training easier / to make better decisions with / for the athlete. I often see things so narrowed down to the granular detail that one has to ask: how narrow is this band? Does it make any sense in terms of training stimulation, today, tomorrow? Does it make any sense in the grand scheme of things (training). To be honest, but if you ride at an easy pace and you start to do sprinting 30 sec on, 30 sec off. Do that 12 times and you can be reasonably sure (mind the word reasonable) that somewhere along the line you created a delivery limitation. Do I know for sure with a Moxy on my RF? Yes, I can look at it. Do I know for sure with a Moxy on my VL? Yes I can look at it. But does it make any sense if I see it on my RF but not on my VL? And if I see it on my VL sooner than on my RF? Than what does it say? Am I not doing my training properly? Should I focus on the VL? Of should I focus on the RF? And the most important question is. Why should I do that? Why focus on muscle A and not muscle B while they both give different results. And guess what? An other day they do give the same pattern. That's strange. No. That's confusing and does not making training easier. It makes things more complicated. While as said training tools should give answers and guidance instead of giving fog. No critique, but just an outside view. Maybe we should focus more on applying instead of trying to discuss lactate or VO2max. We aleady know lactate, VO2max etc are different animals so we should focus on this animal instead of looking at the rest. I will go to the zoo to see all the animals of I want

Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
Ruud , I  could not have it written better   , in fact I would have written it  far to confusion.
 So I big big thanks for this great  super critical and veyr logical respond.

In my  words.
 The reason why I like one MOXY on one  specify  place in endurance is  exactly  for the purpose  Ruud  explains. Same is  true  for any High intensity of  strength workout.  There  is  or was a reason  why we invested  up to 100'000 $  in  these toys  like Physio flow , VO2  equipment SEMG  blood testing equipment's  and NIRS  to  find a way where we  can go back to the grass root  and use  the cheapest  ,easiest  to use and  live  directly feedback tool. We after  30 years now  are relative confident , that we  can use  NIRS  and, in specific  MOXY,  to   know  and read a majority of  limitations and   compensation reactions out of this  information. *  with always  some specific  cases, where we  have to go back  and use the other tools.
 For practical purposes  in my small office  I   use  MOXY  , people come in no matter on age  and ability , they hook  themselves  up , they  push the on button and they  do their  individual workout  and readjust  or ask short, can I do it or is my target system not yet recovered enough. If  it is recovered they go ahead   and have  a live feedback  on a screen form MOXY , if they  are not recovered  they have a replacement  workout ready to  do. It is  fun it is individual  it is one MOXY only  and for HIIT  that is all for endurance  they  combine to with HR  and   RF. That is it.
 I will try to give some more inside  view in  how we  define  HIIT in different levels.  BUT first I like to show on another thread  how  we  think we can close the gap  between science  and practical application.
 In the past science  looked  where ever  with no practical application or very limited ideas. In the practical  world  we  try out  base don  success and error  and  sometimes  are lucky  with the result sometimes  it hurts.
 How about using a  combination  .

closing the gap.jpg


Development Team Member
Posts: 219
I dont see how else you can do it, someone will eventually need to go down to the granular level, else you will be constantly wondering if you are waisting some of your training time.

Simplifying micro to macro systems is key.

Please share the trainable macro systems [smile]


Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
That is  what I hope  to   show  since we opened this forum.
The trainable macro systems.

limiter compensator  Day 1..jpg

What this means look  for the macro system  ( Cardiac , respiratory muscular  or  central nervous  system  and who is the current limiter  and therefore  if we do not improve this are we  have a hard time to make progress  and it has little effect in stressing the other s as  compensators  is a  time bomb  ion how long they  can optimally  work.

 How  you do  it . Stop performance testing  and start physiological assessments sport specific. like we showed in the climbing today  or many times  with ice  hockey on ice testing as  some of the examples.
Or in a many times used  picture.

rowing race.jpg

so try to find  out  why  you are  so good or why  you do not perform  as you are hoping for.

We   moved this interesting concept  form a  close  to 100'000 $  equipment lab  down  to a  optimal set of  3  MOXY's  and a HR belt.
Or  even  one moxy  and a  HR monitor  as we  showed  as well today in  climbing.

 So it is

Moxy versus  calculator.jpg

So this is your macro system approach. Find the limiter, design physiological zoning  so you know what you stimulate  and than  either combine the team as a  team workout  or  separate the  team members  and work individually  to try to move the level up to the needed team level.

Example 1. Limiter  respiration  as a total VE  9 l / Mi  limitation.
 So  work on improving the respiration so you can ventilate  170 l/ min instead of your current  120 l / min.
  Example 2.  You have a  CO  ( cardiac out put limitation  due to a  low  SV. So  train the left or right ventricle  depending in the sport  you do  so I  you increase  SV  and as  such the CO.
 example 3  you find the  limitation is your utilization ability. So  work  on capillarisation increase so you can increase the mitochondria density  as this would  improve utilization if you look long term  structural  change or  improve your  function utilization ability  in the short term  for an important  event  coming up by improving for example by  improving and increasing this  idea. True somewhat more micro  management.

2.3 BPG.jpg 

Hope this is  what you  referred too as macro management ?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter -