Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #1 
This is a feedback   to a great  cross-country  coach  on a question   after looking  at  an interval workout  of three cross-country skiers.


1/ I  did not  asked  nor  due  I like to know    what the goal of the workout  was  .
2. I  do not know  , whether  all three skied  together or  they simply had the same  workout  plan  so  same  load time  same recovery time.

So  I look just the  MOXY info  and will give some comments  and  some speculation based on the   data's.



smo2  overlapp.jpg

Above  you  can see the  overlap of the three intervals  of the three  skiers Load  and rest duration  seem to be  equal  so  the  2 option.
 They had the same problem  but  did it alone  or they all three   skated  together.

lets see tHb  reaction a it show  more the  "intensity " in muscle   contraction  work.

tHb overlapp.jpg 
Now  I  did  some lines  on the  top.  You can see  No  1   tHB  drops  during the  recovery  and increases  actually during the load ?  Now  I  as well do not know  what they did  in the recovery  time  standing or   slow  skiing.

 Now  id   No  1 did  the   interval on her own  she  was skiing  to hard  in between or  was not able to relax  well  which than showed up as a  less  good  quality  muscle contraction in the load.  What  does that mean  for  No2  and No 3  ?.
 Or  it could mean that  all thee skied  together   but not  a good idea. as  No1  one   can not ski  that fats in the recovery   than 2 or  3  so  the interval had  a very different   training effect or stimulation. Now  it may be this was planned   or may be not ?  So    on the  training book the plan  was the same  based on  time load  or   stretch  they used  as well  time  of  recovery was fixed  for all three.
 So  unreal seen  We  think we know what they  do. We may have HR  as a back up.
 Now let's see the unseen  real  what really happened.

Skier  1
bias  I.jpg 


Skier  2
bias  K.jpg

Skier  3

bias  C.jpg

3 very different stimuli  caused  by different limiters  and compensators. in this particular  interval session.
 Now depending on the workout they may had the day before  the limiter could be different today  than it was  yesterday. 

 Here  for the rest   look at SmO2  reactions and I made a some  lines  as well so combine the  tHb  reaction  with the SmO2  reaction.
 You can see  e  what I mean  and  so  each of the  skier  had a very specific  stimulation done   all different  and if that was  planned great  if not   well ???  more luck  than planning on possible  results.

 Skier one  has  a very  different limitation than  2 and  3 , but  3  has as well a very clear limitation.  Skier 2  is  hard  to see a limitation in this workout  so  it  just may be  he or she  was the strongest  and if they all skied  together  1  and 2  hit   and overload  their limiter  where  as  2  had a workout  with little overload of a limiter  and   no  overload of a compensator.
 Now   in many cases  this  skier  despite the  " easiest "  workout in this interval may be the best in the  weekend  race ?  Why ?

smo2  overalpp.jpg 


nlsp

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 13
 #2 
Very interesting to see the differences and similarities and how you lead us through the assessment.
Skier 1 Muscular limitation (coordination...skill) based on observatons of SmO2 then tHb and then both together:
pic 1 SmO2 does not recover to Base Recovery; desaturates deeper each set, is this due to higher CO2 and/or increased intensity and/or more difficult course; Compared to SmO2 of skier 2 & 3, does not create same pattern during load, so maybe different muscular ability

pic 2 tHb - overall decrease during load and recovery, possible inabilty to relax during recovery (or the movement was to intense during recovery) less tHb each succesive set during load, so what is limiting more during load? Require csv file to see if compression vs occlusion(s), possible cardiac not supplying enough blood and if so why (require hrt, but again it does not show SV, so...is muscular coordination, skill and too high of an intensity level the limitation and cardiac can not compensate enough and is compensating but will run into a problem?

pic 3 is biased so have to keep in mind that SmO2 does not recover to Base Recovery (pic 1)each successive set...so does this pic reveal any info...not for me, but Juerg, please do tell [smile]

Skier 2 agree with Juerg as no real deviation in trends...possible most skilled and coordinated skier and courese does not require the inensity for limiter to show.

Skier 3 Respiratory limitation as SmO2 does not recover to Base Recovery and desaturates more each successive set, while tHb increases during load and recovery; CO2 increase to disrupt balance can shift ph balance thus causing an increase in unloading of O2 and unfortunately for sports limiting loading of O2, even though increasing tHb at rest (partialy due to a higher CO2 and vasodialation).

pic 1 SmO2 trend does not recover to base Recovery and desaturates more each successive set

pic 2 tHb increases duriing load and rest; would be interesting to see csv file to determine and compare with other skiers the muscular compression and occlussions and when they are different; it does look like there is a difference at the end of each load for first 3 sets and less in set 4 and then similare in set 5 (skier 2 & 3 vs skier 1). Could be that skier 1 is unable to create an occlussion near the end of the load vs Skier 2 & 3 who do create an occlusion. This would add to the muscullar limitation idea.

pic 3 again, because of the biase, and the SmO2 does not recover to Base Recovery, it can skew interpretation...but hopefully, Juerg has a gem to share [smile]

Skier 2 might do better in the weekend race due to the fact she is recovered vs the other 2 skiers pushed their limiter and possibily compensatory and may not be fully recovered. If we had a better look at the end of the load and the first 10-20 sec of recovery to see if each skier was able to continue to use O2 through the whole load and able to recover O2 almost immediatley could possibly add to whose recovery will be affected more or less. Thinking is, O2 is an incredible available enegy source (plus it is free [smile] and depending on your respiratory ability to assist kidneys in recovery of ph balance, then the athlete who used O2 the whole load and immediatley recovered should be recovered more (as they possibly used less of other stored energy sources); For Skier 2 the course, time, intensity did not invoke the limiter and compensator and if they used O2 for the whole load and no delay in recovery of O2 then should have more success in the weekend; where skier 1 had a muscular limitation on the same course so already not as efficeint as skier 2 (plus need to check cardiac); skier 3 has respiratory limitation so...see above thinking.

whew, time to go ice-fishing...looking forward to critic [smile]
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #3 
B  you should be nice  and  quite  as you are too good in this  section   but you still may be a bad ice fisher..
Great comment as usual  and I like to add some additional points of thoughts  to it  for   more  discussions.

pic 1 SmO2 does not recover to Base Recovery; desaturates deeper each set, is this due to higher CO2 and/or increased intensity and/or more difficult course; Compared to SmO2 of skier 2 & 3, does not create same pattern during load, so maybe different muscular ability    Below  the pic  we are  talking about

smo2  overalpp.jpg 
1. Athl. I  and C  do not  recover  SmO2  back to base line.
Athl.  I  as  Brian points out  has a steady  decline  in SmO2  as  an indication of a  steady   higher utilization than  delivery, where  as the other tow   have some section in the   load, where  they  can " recover" a little bit.  Now   I  do not know  whether they skied  all together  so one  workout   for  all three   or they had  an individual  workout  with the same  time recovery plan .

 If  a)  all together  than  I   had  at least on this  day the  biggest problem  and  worked  out  far  harder  and stimulated a very different  idea. (  if  it was planned great if  not  well ?  same  does not fit  for all or  at least,  if  we now know  we understand  the difference in training  responds  after the fact.
if  b)  than I  has the most motivation ( depending on the  plan the coach gave )  and pushed  honestly really hard, where as the other 2  kind of  paced  them self  for  sure K. I  than had a   plan set up , where the coach had the intension  to avoid  recovery in between sets,   if that was the case  great. If the plan  was to  wait  for  full recovery than  K  did a great job.  For me  the  way it looks   it is a  group  workout  I see  form track and filed , where the top athlete   actually holds  somewhat back or  can follow the plan of the coach  if the  plan was  full recovery  and equal  technical  and  physiological loads.   The other 2  where hanging on  bare live    and I  had a  far too short recovery or a d far too hard   load in the recovery section as  he or she   stuck to the group.


Summary  trend on the SmO2
 I  looks like a  delivery limitation so  she  triggers   a hard utilization. Now  delivery limitation  can be   solved  either   increase CO  or  increase  muscular strength    so   higher  lower  %   of  muscle activity by the same  pace.( remember Rhomert ) As brain mentioned we  can see  by  the bias  and tHB  if  she  had a compression  problem  or a   even occlusion trend.
now  C  as well can not recovery fully  despite   some  stretches in the load , where  there  was some options  for  SmO2  to  be balanced. So less effort   so  too short  recovery time  or   as well too high  ski in between  and what ever  is the limiter  on delivery  was not able to recover.

So  let's  go  to  tHb  reactions

tHb overlapp.jpg

You can see  I is the only one who  during the load   increases  tHb minimally  so  CO  has  a problem  to overrule  muscular compression
The other   2 show  the initial  drop in tHb  as  CO  recovered  and is lower  and than as  CO increases again both  show  a   overrule of   compression  with a  stronger  CO. HR  could be a  simple  tool here  to see how   it dropped   at the recovery stage.
 Now  daring the recovery K  is going back  to base line  .
C  is  actually overshooting ?
I  as mentioned  can not   increase tHB  too good  so  possibly still  muscular overload d as too fast  ski  at rest or  not  recovery of muscular tension. Now  this idea  can be  confirmed  or  thrown out  when we look biased recovery sections later.

Now  C is interesting. SmO2  show  not  recovery  at  rest  but thB  shows  overshoot  at rest.

 What  stops the O2  from moving back  to re load  ?
  If this is the  case   what  causes   a vasodilatation help  besides  a reduction in compression  so CO  overrule  but now  we add some more vasodilatation. The  possible answer  shows you the limitation in athlete C.

 Now  lets see in the biased   what we  have to  rethink  and where we may get some  confirmation of the ideas.


1 Athlete  K. See why I start here   seems to be  the   easiest one  to  guess.
 
 SmO2  show  full recovery  at  rest  and thB  the same  so  biased will show  easier that  O2Hb  and Hebnbsp; will go back to base line from the start.

bias  K.jpg 


What  was the plan  for this  workout    and   did wee achieved the goal  . Or  the other way around , what  was the stimulation  in this workout  or the value  of this  workout? You can see a veryjective feedback  for  us  as  a coach  to see,whetehr the  great plan on paper  really  achievded  the goal or not.
'Very different  as  we look  form a physiological point of training , versus  let's assume this was a  bike workout  and we  had  wattage  and  all three  pictures  could be the same  athlete  by the same   wattage on three different days. So  form the  unreal seen  240 wattage would have been reached  every time but three different stimuli, versus  physiological feedback  where the same  240 wattage  would show the  unseen real in MOXY.

Wattage users  please step in  and defend .  And than we go back  and make some  workouts   same wattage  different physiological limiter on different days. stimuli. One  dya  we can take  normal  what ever normal is  one  day  we create  respiratory limitation by  the same wattage  and one  day wev create a muscular  limitation same wattage. We  can take  FTP  60 power  and load  only  5 min sections  so easy to  do . We need  NIRS  print  out RPM  HR  and respiratory pattern  per  RPM.

B/ Let's  look at  C athlete

bias  C.jpg 


You can on biased easier see  that  tHb  recovers  above baseline rapid,  so  CO  great  and  possibly  some help  from CO2  vasodilatation.  C  seems to have a respiratory limitation in these  workout  at least and you can see   the " hesitation" of  O2Hb  after load. (  compare  to K )  to  re- fuel O2  due to the higher  than normocapnic  CO2 level,  so it takes  some time  to balance  H +  and CO2 over a weaker  or fatigued  respiratory  and therefore  O2  disscurve  stays somewhat longer on the right in the hyper capnic  stage. If this athlete  ahs  a  respiratory limitation  than  he or she  will do less optimal  compared  to the other in  altitude or  courses  with a lot  of   change in up  an down.
 If the plan of the  Interval was to overload respiration goal achieved.
 If the plan was different than the respiration   destroyed the other  goal settings  in these day  at least.

c)  athlete  I

bias  I.jpg


As  seen in tHb  and  SmO2   insufficient recovery  in  O2  reload  but as well as in blood  flow.
 The muscular load  overruled  the  CO  compensatory ability.
 So   muscular  weakness so the speed  created a  too high %  of  muscular  contraction which  created  a  vasocompression  and CO  could not overrule it. If  it would be  a very weak muscle  we would expect  at least a minimal  outflow restriction.  Do we see this  and how  would the  ratio HHb  and O22 Hb  react ? So in this  case   I think   the main limiter  is the weak cardiac  system to work on to overrule  the  muscular compression.
 Now   how  do I  find out   whether  cardiac is really the weaker or  perhaps  muscular weakness.
 Well add a MOXY on the upper body  and see, whether she or he shifts  blood   from top  to bottom  due to  sleeping giant  reaction. BP  control  tHb  drop in upper body  vasoconstriction.
 From the feeling use only . If  weakness in legs   in uphills  very fatigued  legs  but great upper body . If  cardiac limitation in up hills  goo legs  or  okay legs  but  very weak  arms.

Here a  cross-country   graph  I showed  along time ago  and never  got  feedbacks  ( Smile ) now  it may make  more sense  what you see. three muscles  and very different reactions  what  can you see. ?

triceps   ham  quad  thb.jpg

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #4 
Here  a  short inside  view  in the  " university "  Brian  and I go , when we  do crazy thinking.
 Below   Ice fishing  so If  I just now look out  my window  I may see Brian  as his  brain  may melt  the  ice  from thinking  and be   relaxed. Nothing better  to relax  as ice fishing .

ice-fishing-4a.jpg 

  No  not realy  see  how I do it.
  No  stress no tension just be .
milking.jpg

Dog  ,cats   turkeys , chickens,  sheep's and goats  and a relaxed  human  and  the  team  can function  perfect. No EGO no greed  just  be.
sommer.jpg 



juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #5 
Thanks  to the  cross country  ski coach here now how the interval took place.
  just got a mail in.
 
Hi Juerg, 
Thank you for posting the data on the forum.
 As you mentioned few times that you missing this information, just to clarify;
All three  did same workout, 5 intervals, same loop, started each interval together, finished 10/12sec  of each other. every time in same order, easy ski/ walk between. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net