Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2

Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
Here  an additional  critical thought.
 Daniele   brings  some great points  and  ends :

 If the above assumptions are correct, the impact of the race was more on the Cardiac System which did not fully recover.


In his  two  assessments  the HR  was basically identical in the first 5  sets. ( Will  show the picture  later.  Actually incredible identical.
 So   if  the  cardiac system is  not recovered, and if the  VO2   would-be the same  and  in VO2,  CO  would be the same    and we have the same  HR , than SV   is most likely   the  same. If it would be lower CO than VO2  wouldn't be the same ?

 Now    Daniele   gives  an additional great feedback. Respiration felt  very similar.
 So  we  have HR  very similar  as a frequency of  the  heart  and we have RF  similar as a  frequency  of the respiration. Than  we could have a similar  theoretical reaction  same RF  but lower TV  because of fatigue  of the respiratory system. ?
Will search  for a graph I did many years  back in  the  different  combination of  the VO2  = CO x  a- v  O2 diff.

 Ruud .
 You are too busy Juerg [wink]
True  , but   only two  more late   evening shifts  and my  firewood  for the full winter is in  and much earlier than usual.  so lot's of time   during the long winter  nights  as we have short  days  here.

Development Team Member
Posts: 264
I would like to dig a bit more about the assumptions that VO2 was approximately the same at the different steps during the two TIPs.
Let's take the second step: 180W=180J/s pushed on the pedals.
To get that power the body consumes a lot more: supposing an efficiency factor of 0,22 it means the power produced is 180/0,22=818 J/s which is 195 kcal/s.
At this intensity (approx 55% of VO2max) RER should be in the range of 0,85 which means 4,86 kcal per liter of O2 consumed.
Put them together: VO2 (l/min)=195 (kcal/s)/4,86(kcal/L O2)*60(s/min)=2,4 L O2/min.

I will not bother with the other steps but this explains an almost linear increase of VO2 with power at submaximal intesities.

Let's see what are the factors that may affect and make the two values different:
1. Different efficiency factor. It may change structurally (months or years) or different pedalling tecnique. Since the cadence was the same it is very unlikely.
2. Different RER. Could be, but judging from a stable and similar RF in the two occasions, the difference would be neglible.

All this to say that yes I can assume VO2 was the same.
Sorry to bother with some maths...but I am an engineer [smile] 


Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
This is  fascinating  stuff  and super great  to compare   mathematical models  and  physiological reactions.  Here a  shorty overview  of  physiological   reactions  and  factors  , which  can influence  VO2.

vo2  over all.jpg

So many  many  options  to have a different VO2  or  even the same VO2  but different reasons  why we  see te result.
  Here one section
 2. Different RER. Could be, but judging from a stable and similar RF in the two occasions, the difference would be neglible.

RER  which in  cases  like this is  not RQ,  can  not be used  to see a  factors of 0.85. True it is used  as it sounds  great  but RER is dramatically dependent on  the  test ideas  and mask. If you have a Mask  so you breath nose  and mouth  and you have a   mouth piece  you have a very different VO2  as well  as RER  by the same  load.  Here  just one  example  of three different results   with same performance. due to different  "ways " the air  had to move.

Fm  MP VO2  differecne.jpg 
Now  next  interesting  part I s.
 Similar  or  same RF  or similar  and same HR
 Her Danieles  HR  in the two  same   loads.

hr  both  all.jpg 

As  Daniele  points  out the first 5  steps  where equal load.As  most will agree it is  absolutely incredible how  identical  or  very close to identical the
physiological system  Cardiac  and the HR of that systems   worked.  Now  that does not mean the cardiac output  was the same  but at least the frequency  was the same.  So  stoke volume  could  be very different. Now  the same  could  happen in respiration. We  can have the same  RF    so  same frequency in both situation  and the incredible   equal HR  would as well suggest a  very equal  RF in both  situation  as  HR  and RF  go  very  often  close together.

  So  lets   assume  SV  and  TV  where as well the same, than the CO  would have created a very  similar  pressure  to work against  muscular pressure  and we would expect  at the  1 min rest , where we  get rid of the same  muscular pressure  by the same load  and we  have the same   CO  a  very similar  reaction of tHb.

 Now here the view  of the  tHb in both   situations.

thb both  5  sets.jpg 

we clearly see, that when we  stop  by the 4.30  time  and 30 seconds  rest  we have a very different  local reaction.   in the recovered  situation we have,  what we  always hope to see,  a  reduction in compression force  due to  no muscular contraction   but still a high CO  so increase in tHb on the other side  for sure in the last three  rest  section  we have nearly  the opposite  reaction  despite  and assumption  of same HR  and same RF  so  same  TV  and same  SV  and same performance.
 Now  not  only  do we have a very different  thB  or  blood flow  or volume  reaction but as well a very different  SmO2  reaction.
smo2  all 5  seets  both.jpg 

Now  compare  carefully the first  two  rest periods  and you see  still an expected  reaction of tHb  and  close to similar  SmO2.
 Than  by a higher load   the difference starts to  appear.

 So one  question is "  Do  we have really the  same motor   running here or  do  we have a less efficient  motor  after the load  so  delivery    is perhaps okay,  but  what about the actual muscle situation?

.When we go back to the  VO2  overview. 
 Question, Can we really  calculate  so easy  joules  and  performance.? or  is there  some  areas, where  calculations  may have to  be  really  more speculative  than reality close ?  I am not  sure but    Roger  and    other are much better in this section.

 If  we  know  that  if  we do  tow  equal performance sprint   we  have a very different metabolic    use  in the   second  sprint  compared  to the first , than we see  why RERF  may  be  a great  seller  but  possible  many open questions  remain on the   actual  ability  to  believe  what we calculate.  So  super interesting  discussion here .I have no answer  and I have  more  examples  where  we  can show the difference in examples , where we  planned  to overload a  systems  specifically  so we had no question,  who would be not  recovered  and therefore we  had a decent answer, why the  reaction  was   looking  as it did.  So   great  feedbacks  here  and Daniele  as usual  thanks  for the great info    to  all of us.  Now  to close this  for today  I like to show you a  "MOXY"  view  of the VO2  reactions I showed  before.
moxy vo2 2.jpg 


Development Team Member
Posts: 264
The discussion on VO2 calculation is very interesting (at least for me) but would probably deserve a different topic.
I could have done some small errors (efficiency factor 0,23 or 0,24 instead of 0,22 or slightly different RER values)  but since all conditions were very similar (power, cadence, RF) I think that assuming similar VO2 values could lead to very low error.

If we accept that, as I wrote in my previous post, then I would go for SV difference in the two cases.
Being the first two factors the same, the difference in (A-v)O2 would mean to a greater SV in the second test.


Development Team Member
Posts: 279
Just to add something similar as Daniele observed in his 2 workouts in non-rested vs rested state as an example. I have done it the other way around. 1 5 min incremental test in a rested state and THE DAY AFTER the same test again. Just to see what I would observe. FTP around 320.

Test protocol:
* start with 3 min calibration (on bike no pedalling)
* step 1 5 min 150 watt
* step 2 5 min 180 watt, etc.

So, a 5 min incremental step test of 5 min steps.

Some background feelings on test 1: After about 1 min in 360w step heavy breathing started. To finish this step the feeling was "women and children first''
Some background feeling on test 2: From halfway 330w step very heavy breathing started. Gave up 2 minutes in the 360w step (just for you guys [wink]

Below you can see the pictures. I also attached the HR difference between the HR of DA (day after) and Rested. You see by that line that HR is structurally a bit higher than in the rested state. A lot of variation as well, but this seems to level more towards the end.

In general you see that the DA after SmO2 drops off a bit quicker in the beginning. After that almost similar trend occurs as in rested. ThB also rather same kind of pattern occurs. Amplitude of overshoot of SmO2 in the end seems actually a bit higher in the DA than the rested state.

For fun I also included the picture of the end state of both tests. (HR is flat for a bit because I inserted HR values because of non-measurement).

I would also argue from this: Better delivery pattern in general in rested (esp. in beginning) and probably higher stroke volume in day one. Respiratory (from feeling) started to compensate much earlier in DA than in rested state.




Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501
Nice   work. Look  two areas  for  some more  information.
 1.  HR  and tHb  at the same  wattage  ???
  and  than the thb reactions  Da  and recovered.

2.  If you fix a  MOXY on a non involved muscle we  often get some ideas, whether it would be a systemic reaction. or more local.

3. Do you ave a biased  picture  of  HHb  and O2 Hb  if not  sent me the csv  file if you like .

4. If you look again the trend  you can see  lower SmO2  reaction but really actually better  recovery in DA  so n indication of  a  higher stimulation of  Utilization  .
 The    bad cook book  would suggest.
 If you  get into trouble  with  delivery  your  body will try to compensate  better.  or  if you like to stimulation  utilization than  cut of  delivery.
 In this case  delivery  was  reduced  due to the workout  before    so forced  delivery    reduction  but a   nice    but insufficient    compensation from  utilization.. So  the utilization systems  seem  to be okay   for  compensation  but delivery   was  lagging behind.
 The  deeper  utilization  can  as well be  created by  a   incomplete  recovery  from respiration  fatigue  so   smaller  TV  and higher RF  so    CO2  intracellular  up  O2  disscurve  to the right, SmO2  better  drop,  but  if you would have done a  VO2   than FeO2  %  up  and EtcO2  down  due to the higher RF  and  lower TV  so  higher %  of  dead space  and  the fun part here  would be that RER  would actually  drop  down  from above  1.0  (  which is theoretically not possible  )below  1.0  which would indicate in this ideas that you  would integrate  more fat, when in fact is   t is  all due to the change in respiration. ( This is  where RQ  goes up  and RER  down but   the unseen real  RQ  is    abuse by the  unreal seen  RER  and sold  as  such.)

 Hope it makes  sense.  Now  here a  small insight  view  on  what  we may see  if  the cardiac system  would be not recovered  whine adding  a  less involved  or even a  involved muscle to it.
 . If in your case the  respiratory system  was   still not  recovered a  day after, than    we  can see this  outcome.
 If it would be the cardiac system   to   make a decision  the  Non-involved  muscle  ca help  as a tried or weak  cardiac system has a problem to maintain BP  and in the  non-involved muscle you will have the feedback.  Now  lats but not least  what helps.
 If you know your  limiter   and you  know  when you   overload just limiter  or  you know you  not only overload limiter but as well compensatory , than the  outcome is  easier to understand.

tri  and  quad info.jpg


Development Team Member
Posts: 264
Nice job Ruud.
Now we have N=2, same steps, same HR and different muscle oxygenation (lower when not recovered).
This should be caused by lower delivery and likely lower SV with higher utlization in the not recovered state.

There are different factors that contributes to SV: as in the picture shown by Juerg, EDV (plasma volume, muscle pump, respiratory pump), SVR (vascular resistance) and EF%.
For plasma volume, could be a valid method to check the HR at rest?
For instance this morning I noticed an HR value around 46 compared to usual 42/44. This was after an intense workout yesterday afternoon.


Development Team Member
Posts: 279
Good question Daniele. I am not aware of any non-invasive indicators for plasma volume. Or metrics that can be used to estimate this. Maybe Juerg or anyone else has an idea. HR in itself is a difficult measure. Higher HR or lower HR can have similar or different reasons as you know. Also HRV in this is not the answer I think.

Development Team Member
Posts: 279
And hydration also plays an important role in this.

Development Team Member
Posts: 168
POLAR Orthostatic Test ?

Shows cardiac and vascular compliance.

Day to day measures are a good indicator of SV functional changes ? 

Longterm use show SV structural improvements ? 

Orthostatic Test.png 

SUUNTO has an orthostatic measure too



Development Team Member
Posts: 279
TNX Fred. Seems a bit like "re-branded" HRV. that unfortunately will not indicate stroke volume info. Even then it is not during exercise we're looking at.

Development Team Member
Posts: 168
It's totally HRV. Sorry guys, I mistook the question and gave ideas for pre-workout readiness. 

Pulse pressure method ? (Systole - Diastole) X 1.75 - 2 (ml/bt) = SV estimate.

Cool idea for indoor/gym workouts. Requires 1 min. stop.   


Development Team Member
Posts: 1,501

  welcome in the  club.
 I start to feel  great  as I  seem to  be surrounded  with  same  brain  frequencies.
  1.  Daniele.
 I will be back  but my discussion  doe s not mean, that I think your    point  in your  example of  a cardiac  lack of  recovery  is  worn . In fact and I will  show  the pints  I think  you  are  absolutely   in the  right   directions  as your    assessment  shows a lot of  points  in the direction of  cardiac   

2.  Fred and Ruud.
  Indirect feedback on Stroke  volume.
 There are  some  super   basic  options  with all the  risk  to be  wrong.
 But.  CO = HR  x  SV.
 So  a  dramatically over night change in  HR  can indicate  a  change in SV  overload.

Now  HRV.
  This is a  fascinating  tool  and   regained  now again  a  lot of  attention as it disappeared  about  20 years ago  for a  while. Now  technology  and more  feedback produced most likely the rebirth  as well as  for sure business considerations  .  So here  what we did  when we  where searching like you guys  now  for  certain graphs  and pictures  with  MOXY  to  understand  what  caused this  situation.
  We  developed a  simple  resting assessment too  by combining current ideas.

 We named it internally resting assessment
 Here in short.
  1. HRV  but HRV is influenced  by cardiac  disturbance  as well as by  respiratory   fatigue or disturbance  so  it  can  not tell which system  is  recovered and  what  systems  create  the HRV  disturbance  form resting  levels.

 Therefor  we   use  resting HR  and RRA  ( resting respiratory  assessment .
 If  RH  is  base line  resting values but  RRA  not  so  respiration is not  recovered.
  or vica  verca  or both  are not recovered.

 Here  a  small internal  look in  how we do this    for  training camps  for example  or  for  athletes  and  patients.

Phase angel is considered  an interesting  information on the 

 health " or status  of  body cells. A  healthy or  recovered cell structure  has a  healthy membrane  and as such  when we  shoot   electric  waves on it  the  current will bounce  of   if the  membrane  is in a  healthy  stage. If  it is in an unhealthy stage  the   bouncing off is less  clear  and in a very  bad  health  situation the  membrane starts even to  leak.  Phase  angle  below  5  and lower.  Below  and empty   sheet  first  followed by a  1 week  resting assessment  form an athlete  prior  to a  6  day stage race  with  filled in  information  and graph.

pic   template.jpg 
Above  empty  sheet  below a  filled in sheet. Orange is  baseline data's  from 1  week  resting.  Pink field is  daily  data's in  AM  before the race day

filled in  data.jpg 
now below is the graph  of this athletes  baseline  recovery feedback

base libne data.jpg 
and below  the  trend during the  1 week  race
1 week   datas  from camp.jpg

  Now  we used the same idea  of bio impedance  to see  hydration reactions  and than  used Physio  flow  to  look how this would show  up in SV  reactions  and than moved over to NIRS/MOXY  to see , how this  would show  up in tHb  reactions.
 So  next step is  to  use  MOXY trend information  of  SmO2  and tHb  and  compared  with this  data's  to see,   whether  and how good we  can use just  NIRS feedback  to    get around  of all of the above  or  at least minimize  it to  a  few  fast and simple and easy to  do feedback  information's.  Here  a pic  from a  dehydration/ hydration feedback

'diagnose 1.jpg 

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter -