Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530
Here an interesting discussion I have first  have to get  the ideas  behind.!topic/golden-cheetah-users/-2FEtzub-VU

 Now  at the end is an example like we show  examples  from physiological reactions. Here  the  picture :
intervalls numbers.jpg 
  Can somebody help me  to understand  what we  can read   out of this data  from a physiological feedback point of  view  and how  do I know , what stimuli  for example the  Lap  6  lap  8  and lap 12  created. Here an example  from a app 5 min load  with a target  Wattage  so  similar like we  have in Lap 11. What does  the average  power  and the  max power in wattage really help us ?

 watt flcutuation in  8  th step.jpg

 It is the old  circle  when we started to use  the Polar 250  ( old   people may remember )  we  where running all and had  average HR. Example    in the field. Running uphill and HR  was  175  +-  for 2 min than  run downhill and it drop rapidly  to 125 +-  and  as it was a  circle  we did this 5  - 10 times  because  we  had  5  fingers on each hand ?? ( smile ) great physiological logic  was it ?
now   at the end we where proud  that we had  an average HR  of 150 HR  for 20 or  40 min .

Reality was, we never  ever  stimulated  anything in the 150 HR as we  never where In this intensity we just  crossed it either in our  way up or  down  but never  had  a performance  which would be  created when running 150  average.
 Is this an accepted  question not just for HR but for many other average feed backs or max and minimal feedback . Do they reflect really the physiological stimulus?


Development Team Member
Posts: 279
From the table it seems going up and down, up and down a hill. From a physiological perspective you wont get much out of this. I do however understand why people train like this. Because they know what you will need in terms of performance (output = watt perspective) so that is taken as the guideline: it is very easy that way. And tomorrow that wattage will be generated with a HR of 120, today with 140, etc. Same holds for stroke volume, and all other physiological values which are different everyday, except for the wattage so that's the "stable" factor in this orchestra.

Are you targetting different systems , every day? Sure. Does it matter? It depends. When you get results and you feel good, who cares. When you don't it's time to do a root cause analysis. And the more data you collect, the more likely you will find an answer.
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Posts: 1,530

Ruud, Thanks so much for your great and nice respond and explanation.
I like to add some ideas to the discussion from my side as it is a discussion we have since I can remember. It started out in the late 1970 when we had the first very unpractical wattage units , but it really got into high gear after the cable feedback heart rate monitor from Casio got replaced with the PE 250 from polar. The world got turned upside down on what is as you pointed out very nicely

the "stable" factor in this orchestra.

Than when lactate point of care units got developed ( Boehringer Mannheim's ) accusport as the leader followed by many other great small tools and now with wattage units from many great companies, we add a new kid on the Block , the NIRS portable simple small units.
So as we can see so often nothing new just have to dig back into history.

Now some add ons for some thoughts.
I like to use Ruud's great summary as a guide.
-a) From a physiological perspective you wont get much out of this ( wattage or simple performance feed backs in general.)
Absolutely agree and nothing to add on .Performance feedback have no values as such when looking for physiological information besides somebody moved.
b) I do however understand why people train like this
Same here , Ruud is bang on as it is a perfect guide to motivate yourself to create a certain effort over a certain time. Any feedback whether it is an equipment or a partner or a distance or a river or a hill side , anything which helps us to overcome the inner fight of well let's quit, is a great way to keep pushing not just to where we can go , but to where we would like to go.. It is the old Lamarck idea.



The basic idea from as you can see far back helps all of us to understand that when ever we start a relative regulated proper loading an unloading training plan we will make progress.

Than we add the dialectic contradiction of adaptation to it and we keep progressing for a long time.
Than we may reach a certain level and we start to have more problems to improve further. It all depends how early or how late we may create a LIMITER.
From this point it does not matter, whether you use lactate threshold as the Gospel for intensity , or you use FTP % and take it from a 60 Min FTP assessment or a 20 min FTP assessment.
You can take 220 - age or you can take a NIRS idea.
Any idea you use, who creates a decent controlled loading ( catabolic ) and unloading ( anabolic ) pattern will lead ultimately to some progress in performance or ability.
So to make it clear. The EMPIRIC information and experience we have, using lactate threshold , and the progress when using this Gospel we see in many people ,does not mean that the progress is because we use LT but rather the progress we see is based on the idea of Lamarck and adaptation and a more or less controlled loading and unloading pattern.
There is not one , so called test system out there ,with a test result ,who can claim that because we use this markers the person makes progress , including NIRS.
I will further down come back on this critical thought ,but the key is to have a marker, who tells you where the current limiter is so you can foccus on the weak link and once adapted to the next level , we may have a new limiter and so on.

c) Because they know what you will need in terms of performance (output = watt perspective) so that is taken as the guideline it is very easy that way

Completely  agree  and that is  way in cycling the  concept  of using wattage is  so successful   in  terms of  performance improvement  as it is highly motivating and in terms  of  money business  as  everybody  believes  in it and   believes  they understand it.

e) except for the wattage so that's the "stable" factor in this orchestra.

Allow me to slightly disagree in this point.

 Wattage is   only the stable factor, if we accept it as the conductor of the orchestra. It is completely on each coach or patient or athlete to decide, what he like s to have the stable factor.

 As mentioned before, when the PE250 was introduced we change in many places the “conductor” and we argued that HR is the stable factor.

 So in simple terms.

 If  wattage is the stable factor in a workout  we may see the so often discussed  Heart rate drift  and  at a critical  and sometimes  even  lower wattage we see over time HR increasing  due to different physiological reactions. (Heat is one of them) so stable wattage drift in HR

 If we  make  HR the stable factor  than we have a stable HR  and a  drift  of  wattage often downwards ???

 Now we can have a stable VO2   and have a drift in wattage downwards.

 We can have a stable SmO2   and change in tHb and drift of wattage downrds or upwards.

  So   I have to gently disagree, that wattage is the stable factor in the orchestra. It is was we make out of it and therefore when we believe wattage is  always the same physiological load  it would  make sense to be  the stable  guide.

 If we agree that wattage  is not   always the same physiological  laod  we  could  argue, that it  can make sense  to  control  reactions  by making a physiological marker the stable  factor  and as  such   can use  wattage to see, whether performance will drop is stable or even increase  ?

 Hope  this makes  some sense  but pelase come back.

f) Are you targeting different systems , every day?

Yes and no.

Yes if you either plan it

 And yes if you not plan it as you keep wattage as the stable factor of the orchestra. If that is planned it is great

If it is randomly unknown than it is fun    and luck of the draw or   nature.


No if I plan to work for a while on the LIMITER and only maintain the compensator.

No if you have no control over it for example if  HR is the stable factor  and you do not know how  it interacts  or  wattage is the stable factor  where we  as it seems  agreed  that we than have randomly different stimuli  on different systems.

g) Does it matter? It depends
Yes  and NO

 No as the key element of activity is going out and move. If the activity is somewhat planned the majority will make progress no matter what they us.. It does not matter as Fun and    doing it is the key goal.

 Yes it matters, when there is a risk of randomly organised  activity like in cardiac  patients, people in rehab  and people  with limited time options but still goals to reach their personal best  and  with people who    like to make progress but  seem to have reached a plateau.

h) When you get results and you feel good, who cares
Absolutely true positive reactions are great  and nobody will ask  any  questions.

 That’s why “loosing “ a  race   is much more positive  when looking at  progress than when we  win.
i) When you don't it's time to do a root cause analysis

Again  true  but not agree, why to waste time , when we cna do the same immediately and have  fun  as it is not changing anything  other than  thinking outside the classical BOX Just my biased opinion. Why  to look on a wattage  meter, when I l can look on the same meter on wattage  and live bio feedback  whether I like  to drift  physiologically of  and maintain wattage or whether today I like to  drift  wattage of  as I plan  to maintain physiological  stability >?

k) And the more data you collect, the more likely you will find an answer.

Yes and no. No as   sometimes more data’s    seem to confuse more than help   At least that is what I often  see in my  messy brain.

brain mess office.jpg 


Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter -