Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530
I  promised  more " headache " to the discussion, that SmO2  is not  an optimal  marker to simply  be used as a  fitness  indicator.
 I  tried  to argue, that it is a   super great marker  to indicate  utilization  trends  and changes of  O2  in the working muscles.
 An improved  fitness may  be achieved  by  improving  utilization of O2  so  SmO2  would drop. but  on the other side  we may not like to see a    too extreme  drop in SmO2  when improving fitness, as we may rather like to see by the same  absolute  workload a   less  low SmO2    as we may have improved    delivery options like  respiration  ( less hypercapnic )  or   higher CO  (  better  return  of blood for preload , or  higher  capillarisation due to specific  workouts.
 Here once more the 2 5/1/5   data collections  I showed  you a few  days apart  and than an  open  discussion on where we may have some additional feedback on what caused the change  when looking at NIRS feed backs.
2 overlp smo2.jpg

Dark green a few days later.
 same start watt load  and same step increase.
 The last to  spikes  are 11/2  min  240 in light green  and 21/2 min 270  dark green.
 On the next pic  there is a mistake in the timing which you see here correct.
last  two hard once..jpg
last  two hard once.discussion 1.jpg
last  two hard once.discussion 2.jpg 

Have fun


Development Team Member
Posts: 264
regarding the SmO2 drop topic, some time ago I posted this research:

Effects of short-term endurance training on muscle deoxygenation trends using NIRS

with the case of an athlete who had better performance despite a slower drop in SmO2.
As you said previously, if we have more delivery we can expect a lesser drop.
I think tHB trend can confirm this adaptation, but I would like your opinion on this.

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530

 I am not  sure, whether we  can make this  kind of  conclusions.
We need  much more  data  as we see any possible combinations. There are some interesting trends  but  I have to  get many more picture  and data  to make a relative smart statement.
 I think you are  on the right track  as we  can not look  at SmO2    alone but have to  take the " delivery " trend"   we get from tHb in consideration as well.
Additionally we seem to see, people who  simply  stay  high  with SmO2 in endurance  type of loads.
 as the limitation is less the  use  of O2  but  based on other means.
Here a  surprising  5/1/5  from a  world class 100 mile runner.
smo2  5 1 5  all.jpg 

And below 2  workouts  the speed was done on the 5/1/5  third last double step intensity
 Idea was: SmO2  after initial drop still is increasing  and tHb  is  not dropping at the end of the load. see tHb SmO2  assessment below.  and than followed by the 2  test runs.
tHb  5 1 5  all.jpg  smo2 both runs.jpg 

So what I propose is:
 Trend in SmO2  as well as in tHb; are  sport ( activity  specific) and  individual.
. What you look is  at the  physiological demand  of the  activity.

In the case above  a  100 mile runner. the  key  for " survival'  is optimal delivery  and balanced utilization.
 So the key seems to be  to have tHb   optimal stable  and as  such a  secured delivery over  optimal blood flow.
 The  utilization  is  only  a interesting; as it has to be balanced.

This brings  us to the super interesting situation, that I can train oxygenation or  utilization of O2  in two very different approaches  and I will  show some very practical   live examples  we did  in cycling   many years back This info we use now  in game sports.

So first  a  thought on the case we discuss here.
once more the 2 5/1/5  assessments  and the   smo2  trends.
2 overlp smo2.jpg 

light green is first assessment. Again same start wattage  , same  step increase only difference the last 2  short loads   light green 240 watt  and 11/2 min   and in the dark green  21/2 min loads  and 270

 I have no  other back ground on this 2 assessments as that they are a few days apart. Andri is working on this case  and he  simply sent me the csv files  and asked  for my   thoughts.

So again , when we look just SmO2  ( not optimal ) we see a  much  lower O2  utilization in the first assessment  and  a  less  high performance at the end  and  at each same watt level a clear lower SmO2  level.

a)   if I have only 2   data like in here  than  I would  not  push the  ideas too far.
 If this are data  from an athlete we    work with since  many years  and have   a lot of SmO2 data  and  close to  the same  placement of MOXY  we   make  much  more  conclusions.
The first assessment ( light green) is done in a  " fatigued" body.  What ever was done  on the same day before the assessment or  the day before triggered the need  to  utilize  O2  to a very low level  as   the delivery systems  may  not be recovered  as  of the moment of the assessment.

 BUT. The  low  SmO2  shows, that this athlete  has a training    done in the past, where  he    created the ability to utilize  O2  optimal.
 So  most likely  lot's of  vasuclarisation, as well as   lot's of  mitochondria density .
 The  delivery systems  who may have been affected  are .:
 1. Cardiac system. I that is the case  we may have a lower than  usual  CO  and as  such we   may have a low  tHb  as the muscle contractions may overrule the weak  CO.  to see that we  would have to look SmO2  and tHb in combination.
 If this is the case  we should see in the rest 1 min a normal  SmO2  increase at least to baseline  but actually even higher. ( if  respiration as the delivery  would  be limiter the SmO2  would not  go up (  High CO2  so  good  utilization   not optimal  reloading ( O2  shift to the right )  as well as tHb  would  go high to very high ( CO2  as a vasodilatation  systemic  reason )

So  the  combination  would help us.
 Now  again if the  Cardiac system  would be fatigued  than we  would as well see in the last stages    (  very short  and high load )  that the  muscle contraction   will overrule the CO  pressure  and we  may see   in the first  light green test a   venous occlusion  trend  and   in the second test  this  would be  gone. You can see that in the graph I showed.

 So leaves us  with   one more question.
 Cardiac  fatigue  ( limitation )  but as well   muscular  fatigue.
 If we have  a muscular fatigue, than we may have a  higher resting SEMG  and as  such in the rest period  we  will have  higher activity  even without  actually doing anything.
 This would reduce the tHb  back flow  as we still have a little bit contraction  and it would as well reduce the SmO2   rebound as we  still have this little bit activity.
. This is  where I am not  sure.
 How  would we  solve this  question.
 That's' where we  have  in all our assessments a  MOXY on a minimal  or non involved  muscle.
. If it is a systemic  fatigue ( limitation )  than when pushing hard   the body will try to shift  Blood ( thb  drop )  as well as reduced  SmO2  from the non-involved muscles  to the  involved muscles.
 If it is a local fatigue  the non involved system  will react     not  or   absolutely minimal, depending on the technique of the client  and how  hard  he tries  the last step to  simply   push the  needed time and wattage.
 That's' where the fun word "  brainless " test  come in, as when we  give a load  and  not let the  brain decide , whether  it likes to push  than we  create this  pictures, where we loose optimal  feedback  created  by physiology. The absolute  drive  for an absolute power messes the feedback loop option  up. ( See Kenya runners. as one of the examples.)

So let's   end this  thoughts here and put  2 assessments  down  SmO2  and tHb below the  first assessment SmO2  and tHb

2 overlp thb smo2 frist.jpg 
You can see that the overall trend in tHb is   all the way the same  with some minimal increase  towards  the end   due to higher CO. lets  see the second  one. below
2 overlp thb smo2 2second.jpg  Now let's look closer the last two heavy loads.
las 2  short loads.jpg
   and here the second test last 2 hard loads 
las 2  short  better loads.jpg 

So the question is :
  Did the   workout before the first 5/1/5   created a  fatigue which forced the body  to use the utilization option in the first test.
 than  after  some recovery time the  delivery system  where able to contribute  to the  performance ( even higher performance )  and the there  was  no  need  for the low  utilization situation, in fact   the team  work  was  much more efficient.
 In the  first   5.1.5 the   limitation of delivery  (  which included   as well  the   outflow  as delivery   depends  on in and outflow ,) created  a situation, where it was only possible to create a certain performance over uitilization. In this athletes case, the system was able to do that but it  is not optimal.
 In many cases the clients can not do that as they simply do not have capilarisation and mitochondria density as well not the metabolic ability  to  use  O2  optimal.

 In the next  thread , to move it apart , I will come back to the idea of   O2 utilization improvemnt over    long slow   endurance loads  so   stable and secure  delivery  ( 100 mile runner )   or    over HIT    with the proper  duration ( as we create a planned delivery  limitation )so we  can use  O2  in short bursts and relaod  and can  go go for a very long time as well.
 So the aerobic  LSD  idea  with low  load  long duration or the  aerobic  lacticid  of going  super hard  but very short.
 Controlled by moxy.

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530
Here very short  for the careful regular reader.  In this  topic here we  had a short    thought on a  6.6 %  HR  change, where i argued, that this is  correct looking  form a mathematical point of  view. Same problem as when we use   performance like speed  and or wattage  to make zoning  based n math  instead  based on physiology. Same is true  for  MAX HR  and  or  220 - age,  VO2 max  and %  and even  using   lactate  threshold ideas  and than    a  % of this  values.
True we always can find a  calculation and a statistical value.
 Why would we still use that , when we can see it live. So here the answer  from  one of my  student  on the discussion on the 6.6 % HR  change. His answer is  a simple word. Karvonen

Martti Karvonen (1918 – 2008) might be most famous for his equation (Training heart rate=[maximal heart rate-resting heart rate] X desired exercise intensity) that he thought up in 1957, or as the surgeon general of the Finnish army. But subsequently he deployed himself as the “father” of exercise science and of the Seven Countries Study and of the North Karelia project in Finland.

In 1945, Karvonen graduated from Helsinki University as M.D. after which pursued a PhD in physiology at Cambridge University (received in 1950). After that he immediately showed interest in sports and exercise science, and became lecturer in Sports Medicine in Helsinki before getting involved with the Seven Countries Study.

Karvonen was a devoted collaborator as well as an independent investigator who organized Finnish population studies as early as 1956. He later recruited the Seven Countries Study cohorts in Eastern and Western Finland to compare those distinctive cultures within that country.

Karvonen was consultant to the World Health Organization from its outset and behind-the-scenes organizer of the North Karelia Project, the first major community project to try to reduce the risk of heart attack.

Over the course of a long and active career, he initiated innumerable physiological studies and well-crafted epidemiological studies, clinical trials, and community research projects. He has numerous awards, especially by sports medicine associations in Finland, Germany and the USA..

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter -