Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530
I like to use  a  great feedback  from a  workout   to show  the different options   people can use    data  and or MOXY   during a workout  or after a  workout  or  race.
 Please  come  and ask  when I get lost in my  own thoughts.
 This is  a  bike workout   (  at least i think as good as  I can remember ) but it really does not matter as it is a data collection of a long workout. Here  first  what you see   in SmO2  as an overall view.
A smo2  all.jpg

First look the overall view.
 We have  3  clear  drops in SmO2  indicating a   three section of  higher activity.
 Than we have between  2 nd  and third    SmO2  drop a  lower in between SmO2  section  compared  to the  start to first drop  and  first to second drop  section, indicating a  higher  activity level   there or a less  recovery ability  of SmO2.

 Now  as  so often mentioned  let's' look what delivery tells  us. Remember SmO2  is mainly  utilization feedback    and tHb is mainly delivery feedback.
 So  less deliver  more likely  the utilization may have to change.
 So lets' overlap utilization SmO2  green  and delivery tHb  brown  and see how the overall  information may look like.

A thb  smo2 all.jpg  Now we have already  some very fast initial hints. 1. IN the three   drops  of SmO2  we have  as well some   drop of tHb  but as well a  higher tHB  than in the other in between loads.
. The higher  tHB  can indicate  as usual 2 main  information's.
 1. A higher CO ( cardiac output   as SV x HR ) and therefor  an overrule of  muscle contraction ( compression )  and we have  an increase  of  tHb.
 2. An indication of a potential  overrule of muscle contraction ( compression)  and therefor  an initial drop till we reach a venous occlusion   tHb reaction.
 Depending  which of the 2  we may have  created     will   answer  that we have  tow very different challenges physiologically  and as  such two very different  training effects.
, If it is  1. we   may have here an example of a   SV  workout idea and depending how   they may have  used  respiration   we may even have a right or left ventricular stimulation.
 If  it is  2  we  have a different  stress , as we may have  always  blood inflow  but no  outflow  and  the challenge is  different due to metabolic  reactions  to  deal with an increase In H +  and CO2  with the problem shorty term of now  out flow.
 So next time we will look closer, whether we can answer    is it 1  or   2.

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530
So before we  go to the closer  assessment of this workout  we  have to  get some  common  ideas or language going.
I like to try to explain by using a  very  often use term.
 Cardiac drift.
We  can argue, that there is no such thing like a cardiac  drift as it depends  what you use  in your  workouts  to base the intensity on.
 This is where the interesting discussion start about zoning  and using  zoning by interchanging zoning from a specific  test  result  to  an in the field  use of this test result.
 So cardiac  drift.
 If  i  make a Conconi test  I may have a  HR  and a performance ( speed , wattage  or level  )  at the  cardiac deflection point.
 Now  if I am a bio marker believer  and  like to use HR than I  may train by 70 %  of  my deflection point   ( the Defl P  was  perhaps 180 )  so I  go  with with 136  ( if  I  believe  that 0 %  HR is  zero performance )  If  I do not like this zoning calculation I may take the Karvonen  rule  with it  which than changes the HR   number ) No matter what you calculate for your zoning  you will target   the   planned HR  of  +- 5 beats  so 136 +- 5. No  you will never see a heart rate drift as you will correct the intensity accordingly to the stable HR. So you will  have a performance drift instead.  Now if you use the wattage  or  speed  at the deflection point  and stay with this  you may see a HR drift as you may change the   need  for the cardiac output over time  and  your body temperature  may increase  so HR  may have to correct for this. As  you stick  with your calculated  %  of wattage  you will have a stable performance but  a  drift in HR.

 So   now  if you like to use   MOXY  you will have to understand  what happens , when you use a stable  wattage   or you use a  stable HR    or you sue a  stable RF.
 You can see, that  the  main problem we  face is the fact , that we often assess  or test   with a  great system , but the  equipment ,which gives the test results  can't be used in the  real practical workout situation. The only one in the past  was HR  now we have  some additional options  like RF  or  MOXY.
 This may change the way  you can control the  intensities  by  either planning to   keep a fixed wattage  and move   during my 3  hours  workout  though all different physiological reactions. or I plan to keep a  relative stable physiological intensity.
 Now  with NIRS  combined  with HR  and RF  and still looking at  performance we  can  start to understand , why  different people react very different with the same  workout plan. So try to keep this in mind  when you strap a MOXY on  and you do a  common workout in any activity.
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530
Now  let's go back to this data collection and what we  simply  can see.
A thb  smo2 all.jpg  Now there are   clear three ares  , where the  athlete did some harder  activities.
 So we look what  happened there and what may have limited the  load. What we do not know is, what the goal  of the workout  was  and what the target stimulation was. Example. Was the load  done  for  changes in strength or  vasuclarisation stimulation or  stroke volume  enhancement   and so on.
 With MOXY we now  can see, what   the workout created as a stimulation .
 If we just take HR  it will be simply high.
 If we take lactate we may have no lactate  level after the workout  but we may have a very high lactate level 4  - 6 min after the load( Lag Time.)
 In fact this type of  workouts  are great examples  , that we  may see a severe drop in SmO2  but not really  an increase  at that moment in lactate, but on the other hand we may see an increase in SmO2    because of recovery but as well an increase in  lactate  due to rest.

 The old question on the timing  , when we see what level of lactate  after a  load  or during a load.
lactate post.jpg 
So back to our  three clear drops in SmO2.  here  what happened  there.

close look  one load.jpg  Here a  close look at one load  and you can see what hap pend.
 Now the question  is. Where all three loads  similar in  quality.
 here the result in an overlap.
 First  utilization   
overlapp loads  smo2 3.jpg

Pretty great  loads  and  very close to the same  metabolic  utilization  trends.
 Fun would  be  now to see  HR    and RF  as additional bio markers  and   last but not least the power in wattage    created during this loads.
 If  we  have very different power  numbers  than the question is,  on how  did they changes    and that's where  for example you look  at    left right   as   balanced  situation or you look at  hamstrings  quadriceps as a muscular  balance or dysbalance   and or you may look at  a  muscular harmonies  or  disharmony.  The coach than  can go back and  see, what has to be changed to create the same  performance but more efficient , so less drop in SmO2  for example or less trend of occlusion  for example and so on. that's where we have the Chef  versus  the franchisee. Here the tree  load  looking at  O2Hb  ( red ) and HHb  ( blue ) biased  overlpa 3.jpg

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530
I ma behind here, well  also on other answers  so  try to   keep up with all the great mails and feed backs .
 Here the change in  thoughts.
 a) if we work out  we plan a  certain goal to be reached in that workout.
 With goal we mean physiological stimulation.
 The problem with this   was in the past, that I had no real feedback but lot's of hopes , that the %  in may program would really   stimulate  what it  promised me to do.
. Now if I work out with a fixed  performance zoning  like speed  in a pool  or  on a  treadmill or wattage  on a bike or  in a rowing boat. I  will be   always  sure, that I produce the same performance.
 What I  do not know  is, whether I always  stimulate the same physiological   systems.

 In fact I know that this is not the  case  when I use wattage  and HR  as  I will see the famous  heart rate drift.
. As well if I use  respiratory feed backs  like RF  or TV  or VE  or  EtCO2  . I will see, that I change this   information as well.

This leads  to the simple question:
 Do I plan  to shift my stimulation during a workout  from  one system to another system.
 If yes  than keep the wattage  fixed.
 If no   and you goal is to train a  specific  physiological system  you have to adjust  performance  so you stay in the physiological intensity.
  With MOXY  you can do that now as you can see  live all   the reactions.

That  means , that I can plan a  workout  like an interval based on  the old idea  of 5  sets  30 seconds  load  with 400 watts  and  1 min rest  and    assess, what is  changing.
 Or I can set a physiological goal
 Like  desaturate   to the lowest   point that day possible SmO2. rest till am re-saturate to   warm up baseline  and than  go again.. Load is all out  and  workout is  finished  either , when I can't desurate  down  anymore  ( which  most often shows as well a  lower performance )  and or  I  can't  recover  anymore. Or    I keep going till I see that I  not only   load  locally in my legs  for the moment  but I start  to compensate  with a systemic  reaction.
 . Or I plan  to do a stroke volume  workout  so I    wait  w till my  tHb reaches   the optimal  preload  situation again.  and so on.
 Below a   simple   picture  of 2  workouts.  fist one is a   old  fashion  times  and load  specific    interval.  the second on the right side is a  physiological guided  one  with a  fixed performance  but individual load  and recovery reactions.
intervall with different speeds.jpg


Development Team Member
Posts: 264
Juerg, I was thinking to raise a specific question but I can see it well matches with this thread.
Suppose I do a workout with a fixed wattage in the STEI zone and self selected cadence.
I will expect a steady SmO2 and tHB.

Now, if I perform the same workout but increase the cadence of +15rpm I can notice a certain cardiac drift, increase RF and PE.
In this case with a Moxy I will expect tHB to rise (more CO and less compression) and probably, but I am not so sure, an SmO2 keep dropping (more utilization due to fiber recruitment which could be compensated by more delivery, at the same time increase CO2 and right-shift on the Dissociation Curve).
In this case could be correct to set a goal to have a smaller drop in SmO2?
And could be correct to stop the workout if the SmO2 drop is faster than expected?

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530
Daniele  , sorry for the   late response  on a very great  feedback.
 It may as so often give a longer  answer here, as  the " cookbook" does not apply  here as  so often.
 The key goal of the answer is  to try to  enhance the discussion on the incredible amount of feedback NIRS really can give , when  looking further than just a  drop  increase  and or plateau.

I try to  split the  thoughts  up here.

1. Suppose I do a workout with a fixed wattage in the STEI zone and self selected cadence.
I will expect a steady SmO2 and tHB.

That is  true in theory  and keep the " Zoning "  believer happy.
Reality   may be different  and  depends on  many     reactions we  may  create  during the workout. If  we    go for a physiological  " stable " workout " we  would like to  have a  live feedback.
 In the past we would take a " zoning "  and  depending on the ideas  we  would keep HR  stable, so in your case w we would have NO HR  drift.
 Or we  as in the example keep wattage  stable  so we   have   most likely a  drift in HR.
 So  the drift  may show  a higher HR  by the same   wattage.
 This unfortunately does not  mean that we have a higher  CO . It means we have a higher HR  for sure.
 The rest    can have  different speculations   going on.
 HR  goes up due to increased  body temperature  so   surface  vascularisation may go up. ( Temp control )  so less  blood  flow in circulation to the muscles, may create a lower   return  to the  heart  which could mean  lower pre load and so to maintain CO  we increase HR  due to a drop in SV.

Now, if I perform the same workout but increase the cadence of +15rpm I can notice a certain cardiac drift, increase RF and PE.

Now  the above  idea  will be a  wonderful example, why we  can't use a cook book.
 but as well why we  can  so nicely improve  the quality if individual coaching abilities  if we like to go in that direction.
  RPM changes  can create  very individual responses  on  muscle contraction,   coordination, Respiratory frequency  and  many more  situations.
 This is exactly why you  can use a  fixed wattage  and than see, whether the   feedback  from MOXY  will show you,  whether the RPM  change  is a good choice  for efficiency or a  good choice  for stimulation of other targeted  parameters.
 BUT it  as well will show you , that wattage is NOT a good Zoning"  parameter  as it is only   the same  physical load  but often not  the same physiological stimulation.

 I  like to throw in here some very old case studies with RPM changes  from many years back in cycling  and we used the Portamon   for this.

HereRPM workout NIRS controlled.jpg 

Here  another one  from Clint from Florida
RPM trends.jpg 
Now  I am not sure, whether this  was a good answer to your question. Here a summary  from Andri to a similar  discussion. 
In Blue Andri's  thoughts. In Black   some  of my  thoughts  and in green a  summary of a  case study  on using surrogates  for   zoning.

I also want to mention that we feel the best way to train is not using these zoning (we offer them purely for practical reasons). The fact is that using Moxy directly in training it makes much more sense.

This is the basic example to clarify this point. When we do diagnostic for example a LBP test (or LT , or 4 mmol Lac  a.s.o))we identify blood lactate as the determining factor of physiological effort, in other words we use blood lactate to make our LBP zones. However, we then identify a given HR for these zones, even though lactate is the actually determining parameter. What this means is we use a surrogate like HR in a hope that these given HR zones will reflect the actual important parameter blood lactate. You see what I am getting at. If we are using LBP test and could have directly gotten information about change in lactate in real time live, without blood sampling, we would never have made HR zones. We would just have trained directly with blood lactate. Now blood lactate obviously has a lot of problems associated with it, apart from practicality. But Moxy does not, this means it is really silly to make HR zone using SMO2 as the determining apartments, when you could actually train using SmO2. The only barrier is potentially the price, and that is why we give HR and performance zones. But if you have an athlete, you may in a very logical approach identify this approach and as we have had, many athletes will then very willingly buy a Moxy from you.


This is to be open and clear about how we think, and to identify the limitations of the zoning we give in the reports.


 Now the same if we  take  speed or  wattage  from a LT test or  from a VO2 test.  Taking any surrogate is a  great practical idea  as we  can’t use  VO2  or lactate  during a workout. But now we  can look live what is going on.( MOXY)




This preliminary report suggests the reproducibility of running speed at lactate summary markers is influenced by stage duration for incremental treadmill running. Varied marker reproducibility between 4 and 8 min stages indicates different blood lactate response, and therefore workload calculation, according to stage length. Consideration of marker construct is recommended.



Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter -