Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
sebo2000

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
 #16 
Hey Cskier,

Up to very recently I used power to monitor intensity, I learn to use NIRS to controls it now.
Here is example:
I have done some racing this Sat, I felt it.

Next day I had nice long ride planned in oxy zone at about 230W, normally I start at SmO2 40% and after 60min I would be in 55% solid O2 line.

I set my erg to 230W and kept pedaling,
I did my calibration and noticed my tHb not bouncing at the end of the calibration, I'm thinking... what the hell maybe bad sensor position, I'm going with my training.

I felt little different/harder than usual, but I thought it will go away. After 5 min I can see my SmO2 line jerky, upp and down up and down by about 2%, another 3 min and Smo2 was actually lower than I started, I lowered the power by just 15watts, and Smo2 line got nice and straight, after another 5 min become jerky again, by that time I realized I'm totally not recovered... I still didn't believe (I'm a beginner at Moxy) so I place Moxy on my RF and do one more interval, tHb is bouncing back... 

I'm thinking what the hell tHb is bouncing on RF maybe it was badly positioned on VL, then I checked how high is bouncing and in comparison to fresh day it was just half of the scale...
At that point I figured it is better to rest, but I didn't want to really waste the day, I have continue with single leg drills and some specific intervals to avoid HR and resp overload. I was dead tired at the end without overloading the delivery systems.

My biggest question always was and still is:

When are we getting biggest gains: When overloading tired system, or when overloading fresh system. From my experience when I overload already tired system I'm just digging bigger hole, it feels good to get "smashed on the bike" there is some sick addiction in this for sure, but when I look from gain perspective, I get better results when overloading fresh system. I'm getting stronger while overloading fresh system, but I think I get more "endurance resilience" when overloading tired system, but it has to be done at lower intensity.
During this summer I did over 1000km in 4 days, 2 days later I could easily go at 300W for an hour without much effort with very low HR etc. but if you ask me to sprint I was done at 450-500W, where normally it should be double that, I felt like diesel engine.


By far Moxy gives me the most control on how I'm overloading my physiological system on day to day basis, it gives really amazing precision, it makes me realize how unique we really are and how "the same" workout can have different effect on 2 different people.
That is the main reason I cancel my cycling classes[smile]

People look for cookboo ksoluton with moxy eg:

Go for 30min at SmO2 30% or deoxy zone and you will improve xyz. I guess it all depends on individual, at that level one might be improving his cardiac system and someone ales his respiratory system.

For cookbook we would have to all assume and define the average athlete, but I'm not sure if that is possible, even in the situation where we are dealing with 2 individuals that are "the same" their respiratory or cardiac potential might be different, and after first 3 weeks of training they will drift apart.















juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #17 
Can only agree
 For NIRS to be useful to a practitioner, there has to be good ideas
about how to change the training so that people (both athletes and
coaches) are willing to try it. It's all too vague at the moment to
dummies like me.
Nothing  to  due  with Dummies  just need  some time  to  work into the physiologcial  information. Nobody  will  be a  world  champion in an endurance sport in one  year  same  with NIRS

The reason why people still use HR is because it's easy to understand
and to follow. The same with lactate. There's a decades of distilled
knowledge, practical prescriptions and experiences. They may all be
wrong and based on wrong science, but they are there.

May  disagree , to understand HR it is very complicated as it is a small part of the cardiac system  and often  gives a very different feedback than  what we see. The industry   simply tells us it is easy.
 Same  with lactate. I hope the examples  show  how complex  lactate really is. The industry  and coaches  make  it simple  and thereof  usable but wrong.


And many athletes have successfully used lactate-based system to win countless medals.
Perhaps it's a total fluke and their success is attributed to a wrong reason and they would
be even more dominant if they used different monitoring / planning.  But, they are using 
some sort of system that is coherent (and could be completely wrong or inadequate at best).

Well there is  in every Olympics  more athlets  winning  medals   who never used lactate in their  workouts.
 I  my self  was involved  in  some medal winners in cross country skiing . Nordic  combine,   track and field  and   the athletes won the medals without using lactate.
 Again  pocking for blood  makes  you look great as a coach  or  scientist,  but there is s zero evidence  that this is the reason of the success. in most cases it is  the  athlete   his mind set   combined  with nature  and a very experienced  coach  who  make the  result.  In most  cases it is not  science  it is the  exerscience.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #18 
I have no problem  with the  below situation.
 I  possibly  sell the most lactate strips  world  wide   and  many  teams  order a lot. So  I  am pretty happy  that my  ideas  do not catch up. 
So  for me  the solution   is simple . If  coaches and athletes  can plan  and  control intervals by using  HR  and lactate  than  there is  really no need to  change./ Why would  you if it is successful  and  you are  able to  use  the lactate  number  you have  to control the intensity.
 I  did  this over   more  than 30 years  and   was hoping or believed  that the results where  due to the  lactate testing. 
Now  we suse  NIRS  ( which  can be  wrong ) and we showed  some  information  early on in the forum  from Norwegian  cross country skiers and other  countries. That  does not mean  they win because of  NIRS. The only  part we show on here is how  you could,  if people like, to make inter- pretations  when you use NIRS  for a feedback on  what  you believe happens  what may happen  in any kind of an activity. We  or I in no means  will tell   anybody how  to  train  and or how  to control  intervals.  What people can do,  like the  squatting  Mr. Schiltz  shows ,is  you can do your ideas, use NIRS  and see what it may tells  you.  
That is  the  goal of this  forum. Introduction in NIRS interpretation. To see the full picture, it is great  to   have some  review of what we  do  or did  to understand  some conflicts  we may see when  initially using NIRS.


2) Most people are still using HR/lactate as a measure of "intensity" whether 
it's correct or not. So, that answers the question of the post:
YES, lactate can be used for interval planning and control.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net