Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
Kotinos

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
 #16 

1. There’s a metabolic comparison done in post #12. How is that calculated? Can someone post the function? Any references? I’m interested to know more here.

2. In post #9 there’s a comparison of the 3 runners in the pre-load efforts (short bounds of 30m). Is it runner 1? How do I know that there are issues with runner 1 and not with both 2 and 3? What is in the plot that allows us to conclude one of the following:

Quote:
He shows a tHb with the two common to discuss options.
a) mechanical reaction due to muscular strength limitation in that speed,
b) cardiac limitation and need of BP control. ( delivery limitation.)


3. In post #4 runner 3 looks to be having different reactions to the 20-10 loads than runners 1 and 2. Below is a plot of the two series. (Note. I think runner 3 did 9x(20-10) not 8x(20-10)). Here are some things I see:

a. the SmO2 drop-off at the beginning of the loads is more dramatic for Jon,
b. tHb rises for Jon during the course of the two load periods, for Ben, not so in during the first load, perhaps slightly during the second,
c. SmO2 recovers nicely for Jon after the load periods, for Ben things are weird,
d. Ben has a large drop in tHb after the loading periods along with a drop in Sm02, while Jon’s tHb decreases only when his SmO2 has recovered,
e. Ben’s SmO2 levels vary more during the 20 on 10 off switching.

runner-2-Jon.jpg  runner-3-Ben.jpg    

Now three questions. Do I see things correctly? What else should I notice? Where does this lead me (conclusions, things to check, try, etc)?



__________________
Be Water, My Friend.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #17 
Lets'  start  easy  here.
 Question 1.   There’s a metabolic comparison done in post #12. How is that calculated? Can someone post the function? Any references? I’m interested to know more here.

 It is a  simple  overlap  of  both loads  from Jon  and than  compared as a polynomial 6 But  we  could  as well have  left it  as  the way it is    and it would look   the same  .This way it is  fascinating to see how equal  he  did both workouts.

Question 2.  In post #9 there’s a comparison of the 3 runners in the pre-load efforts (short bounds of 30m). Is it runner 1? How do I know that there are issues with runner 1 and not with both 2 and 3? What is in the plot that allows us to conclude one of the following:

There is  no issue  with any runner  at all. What you simply see is that  2 runners react  very similar, where  a third  runners reacts different.
 That  does not mean there is  an issue . It just shows, that the same   exercise   will have a different respond in different people  and the respond  will give us  some feedback on how he reacts. This way  we than  can decide, whether  we like the respond, because it may enhance a follow up race     workout idea or  it may hinder  the goal I set  for the following workout. More later
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #18 
Follow  up .
 
He shows a tHb with the two common to discuss options.
a) mechanical reaction due to muscular strength limitation in that speed,
b) cardiac limitation and need of BP control. ( delivery limitation.)

to a ) when an athlete  has a  mechanical  tHB  reaction  for example  due  to  strength limitation  than he  can create as we  showed in many   forum  areas a  outflow restriction. An outflow restriction will create  "pooling " of  blood in the test areas  as well as in other areas.
So tHb  will go up  and  in case  the   muscle contraction is going even higher we  will  create  an arterial occlusion.
The  difference to an increase in tHb  due to increase in systemic vasodilatation is , that  when we stop  we  have a different outcome.
 An occlusion reaction will create a drop on tHb  due to outflow and will show up immediately. A  systemic   or  often even local  BP  reaction  can show up immediately but  often in a  short situation like this  will show up  with a small delay as we showed    with the Tour  de France cyclist in the forum.
. A mechanical  reaction is  clear cut  and ill show a  drop  back to  base line. A  cardiac  BP  reaction will " hesitate  and you will see an up and  down  of tHb as  there s  an ongoing " fight" between  vasodilatation and vasoconstriction. Will   look for  some    graphs  to   show this .

 . In post #4 runner 3 looks to be having different reactions to the 20-10 loads than runners 1 and 2. Below is a plot of the two series. (Note. I think runner 3 did 9x(20-10) not 8x(20-10)). Here are some things I see:

a. the SmO2 drop-off at the beginning of the loads is more dramatic for Jon,

Absolutely  right

b. tHb rises for Jon during the course of the two load periods, for Ben, not so in during the first load, perhaps slightly during the second,

Yes

c. SmO2 recovers nicely for Jon after the load periods, for Ben things are weird,

 
Yes  and   we can look just  at NIRS  but often  helpful to understand the reaction is to see  how the   moved in between the sets  So  we  can make  some  speculations theoretically here  and than see , whether it confirms  what he did  or not.
I am not sure , whether is  weird  but  just not the same  butt  tells  something  what he  did or not  due
d. Ben has a large drop in tHb after the loading periods along with a drop in Sm02, while Jon’s tHb decreases only when his SmO2 has recovered,
Yes
Nice observation. Now it is a real workout  so  many  different variables   so  to se ho the reactions is  we would do some more specific loads   with  clear load  and rest   situation like   standing or sitting  after  a load.
e. Ben’s SmO2 levels vary more during the 20 on 10 off switching.
 
Yes as long we are  sure  proper fixation of  MOXY

  Summary.
Great observation and that is  exactly  what is needed  congratulation.
 What it shows  is , that  despite a similar  ( I am no sure, whether they actually  where running one by one  or  all three together ) No matter  the same   physical   training idea  0/ 10  8  x  and  400 m  walk and repeat  creates  three or her 2 very different physiological reactions. So  was it the same  workout  or   did  we created  with the same physical  workout  two different  physiological stimuli. Did  the same physical workout ,  we have here, perhaps  create a very different reaction    and we  do not know  this  when we  not have  bio feedback. May that create sometimes a situation  that 1  athlete   makes progress  because  coincidently the workout  helps his  limitation where as the other athlete  with the same workout  is getting worse, because it does not trigger a change in his limitation but may  make   the unknown Limiter  worse. ? Interesting  questions   based on the great   observation.
What is the limitation currently  in Ben  or Jon  and is  the same workout really  helping both ?


Kotinos

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
 #19 

1. From Jon, does the dramatic drop-off indicate an efficient use of oxygen?

2. Does the large drop for Ben after the first load indicate a delivery issue? That is, after the running has ended, two large mechanical pumps are mostly shut down. Is tHb dropping because the heart cannot cover the sudden pumping deficit?


__________________
Be Water, My Friend.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #20 
Good questions  .
I  would be  after  one single data collection  with potentially  some fixation issues in a workout  with no specific  goals  set , somewhat careful to make  conclusions  but the way  you look  for information's is the goal setting when using  NIRS  To give you some thoughts back  to :
  From Jon, does the dramatic drop-off indicate an efficient use of oxygen?

 
Here  the three  runners  first  20/10 load  and SmO2  reaction as they start out

3  smo2   firts laod  closer look.jpg 

Dark  green is  Jon.
 Now we have to be very careful to make  just based on this a  comparison between the athletes . You can look on  at a time like in our case jon's SmO2. Yes  SmO2  trend in Jon's  graph  shows a very  rapid  drop in SmO2 indicating , that he   used a  high amount of  O2   in that  section of his load.
1.First  and foremost it means, that he needed  energy  and  in contrary  to classical believes  it is not  ATP  Cr.P glucose  as  anaerobe/  alacticid  as we showed  with some great new   research  and ideas. Key word  Conett  /Richardson  / Suhlman./ Gladden /Brooks  he immediately  integrated  O2  in the energy  supply  and  maintain  of ATP  base levels.
2. He  had   at the start of this load a  clear  delivery limitation  and had  to  take  More O2    form wherever he got it  to  keep ATP levels  stable  and the utilization was higher than the delivery.  What is  super interesting is that this type of  20/10    and 8  x  is not easy to spot  when we look at  SmO2  reaction.
  What I  do not know is  what happened  after the 20  run section and the  10 sec  kind of   no run  section . They for sure did  not stopped  dead  end  but  had  to somehow  slowed  down    and than  basically  cruised or  walked    and than increased  load again. A kind of a  time organized   idea of  Lydiard's    fart legs.
So metabolically  the 10 sec  rest  could have all kind of reactions  based on how  they  slowed  down  to how they where breathing and so on.
 This   is  where   we use   NIRS  to give it a kind of a   target. For example  desaturation  further in the   10 sec  relaxation  or  try to  go  hypoxic    so destroy  bio availability or what ever the idea of this    workout  was. For me it looks that the goal was based on  load or time  or speed. Which is  what we all do . Now  with bio feedback s we can  add a  physiological  goal to it   and see,whether the time goal we set actually targets the physiological stimulus's  I  try to achieve.  Now  here an additional interesting section in Jon's   picture. Remember the short sprints  prior to the  actual loads.

WARM UP CLOSE  ALL THREE.jpg 

Jon Is the top  graph
You can see his tHB increase as he starts  loading, where as the  two other runners tHb  drops.

Now  watch  when we look Jon's  first load  tHb  reactions

a)  we actually can follow the  8 loads  he did in contrary to the SmO2  reaction , where it is not possible  to see or guess  how many loads they  did. ( 8 x )
b)  Same  tHb  reaction   as soon he loads  tHb is increasing  and when he  takes  load of  or is  cruising  he  drops tHb.

Jon  thb   firts load.jpg
This  picture  repeats  itself  over the full  data collection in more or less  clear   view

Jon  all thb  smo2 for comparsions.jpg


so the question
 From Jon, does the dramatic drop-off indicate an efficient use of oxygen?

 
Is it  an efficient use  or a  forced use  of O2 . He seem  to have a  great utilization ability . Is this because  delivery is a limitation and when ever  what ever he is doing he has a reduced  delivery  and therefore  developed a very  efficient  utilization. So  is  his  utilization a compensator  or a limiter ?
 If it is a compensator than the  question comes  up , whether  the  delivery is the limiter and therefor for  further progress  the limiter would have to be addresses  rather than overloading  and pushing the  already great  compensator  or vica  versa. So  as I have no  clue on this runners  the   feedback  can be in how they race  and  what kind of racing they win.
 I  middle distance runner with a great delivery   and a limiter in utilization rather works  at a higher speed  from the start  and hopes  to loose  early enough the great utilizer.
 A greater utilizer  hopes  the  pace is decently  good  but  he can engage n an  end sprint  as he c an maintain the O2  utilization versus the great delivery  guy but  not optimal utilization.
 In the  end sprint  we will have  two  great utilization  runners. Now the guy with the bigger   O2  tank . ( mitochondria  density, the better DPG levels   and the better  H +  buffer as well as better MCT  4 levels (  respiratory ability ) will win the  last  50 m  load. So  when  they hire a  Rabbit  than it is great  to  instruct that Rabbit on how  to approach the  first 400m  for example in a 800m run depending on the  runner , who likes to reach a  limit or a record. In the past it was all based on time  and very little ideas on  physiological reactions. Today the coach  can sit in the stand  and see all developing on his  laptop and can see, when the system  got into the   wrong  situation  how   much too late or  how much too early  the  delivery got cut  short  or the utilization could not be   offering anymore optimal  help  for an optimal running  technique  or  time.

Same idea in ice hockey  where we can see, whether the player should come of the ice  or  whether he  is ready to go back on the ice  based on upper and lower body tHb and SmO2  reactions.

We have great tools  out there like catapult  but the fundamental difference between a physical tracking of an athletes  direction, speed      and so on  to what we do is, that  we  like not only  to know how fast he moves  and how often he  breaks  but what all of that  creates in the direction of energy delivery and utilization. Just   because  one slows  down  does not give  us as a coach a feedback  what  may have caused  the slow  down  and we have zero  feedback  on how to solve the problem. Where as in bio- feedback paired  with  all the physical feedback we  can understand  what causes  the  change in performance.



Kotinos

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
 #21 
The above post is excellence.
__________________
Be Water, My Friend.
Kotinos

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
 #22 
Here's another workout. 3 different collegiate runners. Moxy affixed to right VM.

In the plot below we have:

1. 4 bounds
2. 4x (5 jumps followed by 200m)
3. 800m at 1600m pace
4. Continue at 5K pace

Lots to see. I'll post what I see soon. First to look at. One athlete didn't do step 4.

compare-JR-JH-MD.jpg 

Here's just the last 800m effort and what follows.

compare-20151124-JR-JH-MD-800m.jpg


__________________
Be Water, My Friend.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #23 
Nice  info  can you as usual  sent csv  files  and if you have HR included.  so we can look at it closer again. Thanks  for the great  data collection.
Kotinos

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
 #24 

Here are some general things I observe.

1. The first athlete Juliana does not saturate below 40%, under the longer and high load (800m at 1600m pace) there is even less desaturation.

2. However, It looks as though Jennifer and Juliana have about the same range for SmO2 values. Maria seem has have a smaller range.

3. I also see little compensation in terms of blood delivery during any of the high efforts, the other two athletes will bring more blood to help compensate for the lower absolute saturation values. Perhaps this is because Juliana does not get below 40% saturation. I suspect that something the other way around is going on, but I don’t yet have an idea.

4. All 3 recover nicely between the jump+200m repeats.

5. Next I will look more closely at the data.

What do you guys see? CSV files attached.

Happy Thanksgiving

 
Attached Files
csv 20151124-jennifer-RVM-4x150-800.csv (203.78 KB, 11 views)
csv 20151124-maria-RVM-4x150-800.csv (134.97 KB, 11 views)
csv 20151124-juliana-RVM-4x150-800.csv (191.22 KB, 12 views)


__________________
Be Water, My Friend.

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #25 
First a general feedback  for track  coaches. MOXY  or   SEMG  placement.
 There is as usual a cookbook  but  you still need to look individual.
The key is  to make a mapping off each of your athletes  for  each muscle you like to  assess once in a while or you use  for workouts. The mapping is a guideline but the  cm  you may  use  from "landmarks " or  clear skeletal   points is  individual depending on leg length  and   muscle mass and so on. The main  point is , once you have a individual mapping than  use always the same   placement. In athletes  it is often very easy to place the  SEMG  or MOXY.
 You  make a  clear  isometric  muscle contraction and you will see the niches section of your target  muscle belly  . Here a  simple map  for  track athletes. The model   on the picture is Andre  Bucher  from Switzerland.
moxy placements.jpg
The  red lines  are imaginary lines  from different skeletal prominent  points and easy to find .  and than you use the visual muscle belly under the line  and than you measure  in cm  from one of the two points to  make a clear fixation point.
Example
 Vastus lateralis. Line between  fibula head and SIAS./  make an isometric  contraction. /look belly.  measure  from fibula head up  or  form SIAS  down.to the  best muscle belly projection. than note this so you can easy  repeat the  same placing. Have to  check  whether I  can find it . I  wrote a  handbook  for  the university hospital  of Bern Switzerland  for  education on placements   of SEMG . Same  works  for  MOXY  NIRS.
Hope this  helps



juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #26 
I hope  for many  the  results  may be fascinating. For me they are  a great feed backs  and confirmations on what we believe  really happens. in ( not a  critic )  cook book introductions.

 My  question  I  asked my self   was over time.
a )What  do I like to stimulate  with the workout I have planned  for my group ?
b)  how  can I get a  feedback,  as soon a possible , whether the  target stimuli  I  like to apply really was set or whether the workout was  a great  entertainment  in activity.

Don't' get me  wrong . I love  to  introduce  FUN into  workouts. It is   one major  pillar  to success  and to  accept    sometimes  discomfort. 

c). Can a "program "really  work  for individual stimulation ?

 d)  what is the main limiter in each  athlete

So when we  did  running  camps  far back in the 1980 in Italy Sardinia  ( Gala Liberotto) we  had  over 150 runners  from  absolute world class runners 2. 10 +  marathon time  to  absolute  top class  800 m runner  1.45  and faster.  to  beginners   real beginners  who  started to run there  and had  fun to be a part of a high performance camp  and performance as  individual for  everybody. So  we had  10 - 12  different groups  for different training ideas  with 10 -  12  different coach.

The  participants  had  tow  choices.
 Decide free  what you like to  do today  and what group you like to  join. But the group  goal  will not be adjusted  for you in case you choose the wrong idea or group.

Example.
1.Group  4  would  do a  coordination  workout on the beach in a  small  area so location was limited.
So a beginner  could join  and at least  watch the incredible  coordination ability of a  world class runners, He can participate in the group  but may have been complete  out  for lunch ( or  not )

2 Group  seven  did a  respiratory  workout   build into the runs on a  hill side so limited  range just up and down the hill.
Again a beginner  could easy be apart of this workout if  he liked  to  be there.

3. Group 2 had a  loop  off 28  km  as  a target  with the goal to have  an optimal delivery speed  with  section where we  stimulated   SV ( preload )
So  big distance  and a beginner   got  immediately throw n out   semi voluntarily  after 500 m    run started  out. If  later    it was his  choice  to  keep going alone  or  return  to the hotel.


 The recommendation was to get assessed the first 1  or  2 days , get your limiter  and than  the information on what group  to what  day  would make  most sense  to be a part of.

So below a part of  an assessment of the three young  runners  we got this great data collection.

You  choose, whether they can do the same workout  together as  they seem to have done  and whether  they stimulated the same physiological  systems ?

bias all three 4200.jpg


Above  all three biased  to  point 4200. Based on the info  we have they  did  approximately the same  activities.
 (  looking into the physiological reaction in biased  feedback  you can see a very different reaction of  each single girl. Bias again  means  we  assume  all start  with  equal  HHb  and O2Hb , which is not true in most cases. What biased  helps to see fast and easy is the relative change  from resting  to the intensities, so whether we  add somewhere more O2 than we  had  or less.
 Below a  " muscle  contraction  reaction feedback  by looking  at tHb  trends.

thb all three 4200.jpg 

Last  question I would ask  myself . What  is the  main limiter in each of this runner  physiologically  and  coordination  wise.

Main question.
 Same workout. What is the  stimuli, was this the goal of the workout. Did  each  runner  achieved  the stimulation we   had as a  goal ?

Kotinos

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
 #27 

An N=1 approach is what is required to reach genetic potential, probably this type of approach can be put off and is best put off until (late) teenage years. See Chambliss.



Consider these statements:

1. Average genetic potential for 800m is probably 105 seconds. The genome is not changing all that fast and we see where the 800m WR is headed. 105 seconds is 95% that mark.

2. At some point an N=1 approach is necessary for improvement.

3. Given knowledge of an athlete’s limiter for a particular event it is probably enough to have something like a “cookbook” approach to get close to an optimal training stimulus if the athlete is some distance from their genetic potential. That is use a pre-determined recipe based on the limiter. 

Thoughts?

I’m in agreement with the philosophy in the above post and with most all of what I’ve read from Juerg. Things get tricky when resource constraints enter the picture. Balancing coaching with other endeavors, athletes balancing athletics with other endeavors, limited time resources, limited equipment resources, etc.

I’m just getting familiar with understanding how to interpret the data collected by the moxy. The goal for the track athletes will be to grade them on three or four criteria, then divide them into groups to either focus on their main limiter or a secondary issue.

I think in the situation of collegiate runners who are not knocking at the door of their genetic potential dealing with other life constraints that something close to a cookbook could be used to get a good to very good training stimulus. Also, something close to this serves as a stepping stone for: a trainer to become more proficient at developing “recipes” and to become more adept at identifying which recipe is best when an N=1 approach becomes necessary.

Before the new year I will have all my track kids do a race of their event. I’ll try to post most of their data. I will try to identify their limiters, with some help. I’ll figure out how to divide them into groups, with some help. I’ll then "cook up a recipe" for each group, with some help. I’ll post their progress and reach out to you guys for ideas.

In the meanwhile before race distance data has been collected I’m simply posting some workouts to develop the skill of understanding the data and to see and share the range of physiological responses that a single workout can generate.


__________________
Be Water, My Friend.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #28 
A part ot the data  collection is :
 Include   the " warm up"  and before warm up  calibrate the  athlete  over 3 - 5 min. After the race.  stop  as they all do  immediately  and let them do what they do after the race but   be in that  " rest " position  for 1- 2 min.  at the end of the cool down recalibrate.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net