Fortiori Design LLC
Registered: 1355349061 Posts: 1,530
This is an amazing site and worth while to spent some time on it. They are pushing the limit in an incredible way on adding metrics into the training.
It is as well a great site to see how fundamentally different ideas can be , when looking at ideas of changing performance, but how most likely , when both ideas are opening up towards each other , the combination could be an extreme game changer. Using physiological clean ideas and wattage ideas in Pro cycling could change a lot of ideas we have about cycling. Instead of using plasma expanders artificially, we could use natural options. Problem ,the wattage at the stage of stimulation would be very different than when I inject them or use gases for inhalation, to change delivery options and so on. One of the interesting parts is, that when I talk with top cycling coaches and tell them , that the athlete has a SV limitation?. They have limited, if any idea, what that means in combination with using % of FTP power Training. There are some cook book guidelines for SV workouts , but any critical coaches who looked at this loads in combination with for example Physio flow and NIRS could find very easy, that it can work but not has to work and it can be far of SV stimulation in some cases due to different limitations at different days or in general. We showed different examples on this forum with SV drop from the university of Trois Riviere live case testing. In fact many coaches now accept that we can find limitations but than have for the moment some problems on how to apply the current % FTP system into the findings. Now here an incredible summary to enjoy. When you read this though you can see how the different ideas may have developed. I am coming from a physiological back ground working with people in rehab and world class athletes with one single idea in mind : Health. So the first and single biggest concern is to find out , what is limiting further performance and improvements and who, because of this limitation, may have to compensate if I simply push hard and therefor always overload the limiter and always need the help from a compensator I use an example from a rehab client. Limitation : Respiration due to the fact that he worked in a mine. So COPD developed due to smoke and dust. This creates a specific overload of his respiration with asking 2 system to try to help in cases of harder performance demand to compensate. In short he will ask the cardiac systems and a part of the buffer system ( Kidney's to step in ). Long story short summary. He can end up with cardiac and kidney function problems due to a chronic overload d of his respiratory system.. Classically we will treat now his cardiac and kidney systems and forget to try to work on improvement ,if possible of his COPD. In sport we may have a capillarisation limitation in combination with a mitochondrial density limitation. So pushing hard , as we have a utilization limit , will create a high demand on CO2 release and we always will overload respiration as a compensator and the limiter will be barely challenged. The SV will be reduced due to preload limitation and a such we always challenge CO over HR ( frequency ) and less likely over muscular development Our idea is to find limiters and than develop intensities , where we could use wattage in certain sports, or speed, is the idea. So we think, that it is the physiological ability of an athlete who will show up in a certain ability to push wattage or performance. This is not new and pushed the use of lactate as a bio marker into question, when lactate is combined with a performance number. Example below 2 athletes same " aerobic " capacity , but different storage ability of glycogen. So three step tests in a row with in between loads at LT 2. You can see how the energy storage as well influenced a part at least of the CO, the HR level , and a such end time and as well maximal performance result. Using MOXY in this test idea will show you nicely how energy storage will change the reactions and trends between lactate and oxygenation information. We did some similar studies with this idea as LBP was used , to show how trend information's are better to use to avoid interference with nutritional changes. Now with NIRS we have even better feed backs. and live Simple reason. : we look directly at O2 ( oxygenation trends and not over indirect reactions) A strange part for us is to understand , as we can do that now, looking directly at O2 reactions, why we would use lactate to find out , whether you are Aerobic or " anaerobic' . A lactate number does not tell you this at all. You can have a reading of 4 mmol in your finger, but go perfectly aerob at that moment. You can have a 1.6 in your finger and really sit deep in an oxygen independent load. You can have a Max lass at a 3.6 +- blood lactate concentration and next time by 2 .9 or 4.2 but in all three cases you are perfect in balance. With MOXY you have : 1. increase in SmO2 , which means you have a great aerobic support and a low , but existing O2 independent activity as well. so aerob. 2. You can have a flat SmO2 , so you are a kind of in a Max Lass, but you do not have a number just a flat SmO2 and a flat tHb and you know you are supporting the energy demand over O2 just okay but have a higher O2 independent help as well ,so border line but stable aerobic. 3. Than you have a dropping SmO2 , so you know , too low delivery of O2 than would be needed , so " anaerobic " big help from O2 independent and still but reduced O2 dependent help. The word itself , aerob and anaerobe, actually tell us exactly what we see now in real live feed backs with MOXY. So why to go back and use a great idea but it is not a feedback on O2 but an indirect speculation of what O2 may do or whether we are aerob or " anaerobe" Single lactate numbers tell nothing other, than what we find for the moment in lactate concentration in the blood. They do NOT tell in what energy production stage we are at the moment of sampling. . I think it is not the performance who can make that decisions ,how physiological systems have to work. It is the ability of a physiological system , who will create the performance we see. Than we have the other world you can read below, where we see actual daily changes in performance, but we may only have limited if any feedback , why this happens. We do not know, whether today the muscle strength, due to the load from yesterday may create an occlusion reaction and therefor the duration to push CP is very different as I reduce outflow and therefor have an other limitation for the duration , than when in 2 days my respiration may be the limitation as I have a fatigued respiratory muscle from the training I did yesterday, so I have a problem to get rid of CO2 now but because I have a high CO2 I have a higher tHb and a better SV and I can have a lower HR and again a different duration I can sustain on CP. So using time and estimation is a fascinating model but as you can see, and I am very biased, I am not that concerned on time or power , but much more on what I stimulate and stress and the time and power will be depending on the physiological limitation and not the other way. Power and time are not deciding what your physiological systems have to do. Your physiological system will determine the power and time you can push . So over time when we open both directions and combine this, we are the real winner in a huge step forward in rehabilitation and sport , as power is the best way to see objective changes . Now if you know how you achieved this power improvement you are the real winner as you direct and control the progress over information and physiological feed backs rather than over calculations and speculations. Enjoy the read and think through what I tried to explain when looking at the info " Determining CP + W' correctly for use in the W'bal model This topic is a duplicate of another discussion.
You were redirected here from a duplicate topic.
Recently I've made several posts outlining why W'bal goes negative if you use FTP instead of CP in the model. This occurs mainly because FTP underestimates CP. In most cyclists (excluding elite and pros), CP lies in the range 20-30MMP. So you s
Recently I've made several posts outlining why W'bal goes negative if you use FTP instead of CP in the model. This occurs mainly because FTP underestimates CP.
In most cyclists (excluding elite and pros), CP lies in the range 20-30MMP. So you simply do a TT in this duration range, and I recommend this as a doublecheck of your CP, but it does not give you the value of W'. For that you need to conduct short TTs also.
I do not recommend the 3min AOT test because during the last 30sec of this test you are still recruiting type IIx fibres. These fibres are fatigued but they
still produce some force. Therefore, the potential to overestimate CP exists (especially for well trained cyclists) because this essentially violates the concept of CP, which is that type IIx fibres are not being recruited. Secondly, getting access to the lab equipment is difficult to perform this test.
The recommended "gold standard" to estimate CP is to conduct 3-5 time to exhaustion tests as constant power in the range 2-15min. Again, the problem with this is that not everyone has access to a cycle ergometer that has a constant power mode. Secondly, TTe tests are notoriously variable due to psychological factors. At the point of exhaustion, if I were to offer you $10,000 to continue for another 30 s. I reckon you'd give it a red hot go.
A practical field method has been validated in a couple of studies (see links below). These use standard self-paced TTs instead of TTe tests over the same duration. There are some important points to consider though when conducting self-paced TTs.
1. Most important is that the TT is done as evenly paced as possible. Going out too hard could cause premature fatigue, whereas going out too easily might lead to some W' being left in the tank at the end (ie: you do not attain VO2max)
2. The key to estimating CP properly is that we want the shortest and longest duration which elicits VO2max. 2min might just not be long enough in all cases, so I would recommend 2.5 or 3min to be sure. Anything over 15min (if evenly paced) begins to approach the maximum duration that humans can sustain which elicits VO2max ie: a TTe test lasting >20-25min will not induce VO2max. Task failure occurs in combination with other reasons such as increased central fatigue, that are less present at shorter durations. So to be safe, I believe it is wise to cap the long end at around 15min. For this reason also it should be obvious that the 3/20min test has the potential to underestimate CP.
3. The durations should be evenly spaced. Thus duration of 3,8,14min would be preferable to 2,5,15min for example.
Lastly, a small modification that I believe could be used to prevent an underestimation of W' by a conservative pacing error, is simply to commence your "end spurt" about 30sec earlier than you otherwise normally would. If at the end of the TT, the power is still rising and especically if it is above the average power, this would indicate that you have W' left in the tank (thus inducing a small underestimation). However if the power is decreasing at the end, and it is below average power, then it implies you've expended virtually all that you can. If the pacing is done very evenly though, we do not expect a large end spurt to occur anyway.
If you have 3-5 tests in the range 3-15min you can then model CP + W' using several methods including the nonlinear 2p model which does a hyperbolic curve fit, or the 2p linear models with fit a linear regression to either power vs 1/time (s), or work vs time (s). You could do all three models and take the average.
Another reason why the 3/20min test is potentially problematic is because you are restricted to the linear models only. In this case the 3min test has a large effect on the value of CP. This makes a little sense physiologically, but can be a misinterpretation of the data. For example, lets say we have two cyclists: A: 3MMP = 450; 20MMP = 300, and B: 3MMP = 400; 20MMP = 300. In this case, cyclist A will have a
lower CP by about 10W despite the fact the highly aerobic 20MMP test result is the same in both. Cyclist A will also have a much larger W' in order to compensate. This is a valid explanation, however the exact same results could occur if cyclist A had a higher CP, and only a marginally higher W'. This problem starts to get ironed out if you use the nonlinear hyperbolic model and especially if you use 4 or 5 evenly spaced TTs to fit the data.
So there you go. In a single training session you could go find a decent bit of road where you can hammer out a 14-15min TT, then do all three tests with an approx 30min recovery gap in between. You could then go an do a 25MMP to doublecheck the CP value or even include in the average of the other CP model estimates. For standard interval sessions conducted under similar environmental conditions as the test method of CP+W', you should find that exhaustion will occur when W'bal = 0 +/- 1.5 kJ. It's not perfect though and Phil's paper using short intervals and recoveries (20s on / 10sec off) revealed a larger error in W'bal at fatigue.
Validity and reliability of critical power fieldtesting.
High agreement between laboratory and field estimates of critical power in cycling.
Show trimmed content