Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
bjrmd

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 44
 #1 
I just put up a post about a recently published study comparing the Moxy with blood lactate testing.
http://www.muscleoxygentraining.com/2018/04/accuracy-of-muscle-o2-for-lactate.html

Some issues to be aware of are discussed.
Stuart percival

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 78
 #2 
I’d prefer to consider new ways of using NIRs to gain insights into an athletes exercise physiology, rather than try to make it fit into other theories- albeit any study is if interest and has value.
A different viewpoint is that perhaps the NIRs information is more useful and the possible reason the lactate/VT data doesn’t occur at the same test point ?
I’d go as far as to say physiology textbooks need a review based on the latest data/thinking
sebo2000

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 226
 #3 
I highly recommend reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Winning-Planning-Periodizing-Optimizing-ebook/dp/B009JTJ676

Once you do, you will see how great Moxy is (especially from two sources involved and non involved muscles) and how much more superior real time actionable data it provides in comparison to lactate, which also gives good data, but not as precise as daily second by second Moxy. Back in the days lactate was awesome and the only way to guide physiological training loads, now we have more better options.

I think fitness is developed by carefully balancing anaerobic and aerobic load based on types of skeletal muscle fibers (technique/metabolism/nutrition/psychology and few more items are as as impotent if not more) and Moxy is great for that guidance.

I don't believe Moxy was design to test lactate, same as power meter is not showing speed.















MetaTrainingSST

Avatar / Picture

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 31
 #4 
There is a big mistake in this study, they have compared the ventilatory threshold 2 (VT2) (VO2/CO2) with the lactate threshold 2 (LT2). They had not account that VT2 occurs at a slightly higher intensity due to the effect of bicarbonate and its buffering effect. Between the LT2 and the VT2 there is a small space that many times people forget. In untrained people it is insignificant but at a higher level, greater difference.
I think the same as Stuart, science needs a big revision about it.

Martí

 

Here is an example
bmp Nueva imagen de mapa de bits.bmp    

bjrmd

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 44
 #5 
A couple of thoughts.
The authors do discuss the issue of VT 1,2 in the discussion.
Second, it may serve better to not shoot the messenger when studies come out that disagree with our opinions.
Until more studies are done (by non industry supported groups) muscle O2 tracking for athletes will never reach it's full potential usefulness.
Stuart percival

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 78
 #6 
I dont see anybody shooting by the messenger
In fact I made the point that any study is interesting and useful ? I wouldn’t read the forum if I didn’t value the views of all the enthusiastic intelligent moxy users / scientists on here - I’ve learnt a lot and become a better exercise physiologists, I’ve changed the way I approach athletes assessment and Coaching based on papers I’ve read, 5 years degree study, this forum AND many many hours assessing athletes in the lab and field and using my own ideas.
All theories and science should be challenged and discussed- the Problem are the people who get precious about their methodology even in light of new evidence / technology

Ross Tucker makes a great point when ridiculed early in his career

. I always viewed “newness” as a distinct advantage, because it brings with it some aspect of novelty, a new way of approaching an old problem. That’s often lacking in science and in many areas of life (coaches, managers, I’m looking at you!), and as I’ve evolved from newly minted to (recently?) minted, I’ve come to recognize that progress usually comes from forcing a novel view.

He goes on to say;

progress is the result of so-called deviant thinking. By “deviant”, I mean that person who pushes back against convention, who asks the apparently ridiculous questions and forces others to rethink their positions of comfort. Deviants make us anxious, but they also drive innovation.

If we are allowed to drift along with the current, we never challenge paradigms!

I say ....Let’s embrace the fact we have access to this technology now and pioneer new ways
Sure use the older studies to help guide you but be confident if you think something works !
We should put more time into group studies / data collection on here and speak up about our findings

By the way I read your blog BRMJ- keep up the good work









bjrmd

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 44
 #7 
Quote:
All theories and science should be challenged and discussed- the Problem are the people who get precious about their methodology even in light of new evidence / technology


Exactly.
I started my blog primarily to help people set themselves up to do low load strength training after injury, or age related limitations.  I use the sensors in the gym on a regular basis and have successfully come back from a nagging rotator cuff injury.
The aerobic/endurance subject caught my interest but the practical use has really not been explored in the literature.  As a physician treating patients for close to 40 yrs, I have seen so many false claims, misleading promises by both well meaning research groups and industry trying to make a buck on the next best thing.
So, I have injected a dose of skepticism into the mix, and as consumers we should be entitled to some good data backing up a companies claims (not a study done by their board members).

Your idea of group studies has crossed my mind.  In fact, I am working on a new post that combines several of my prior works including cardiac output redistribution, athlete genetics, Type 1 vs 2 muscle in conjunction with muscle O2 monitoring that would be a great project for everyone to contribute to (ideas as well as data).
MetaTrainingSST

Avatar / Picture

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 31
 #8 
Excuse me Bbjrmd, my intention was not to shoot the "messenger", it was only to provide my point of view and my criticism.
I am not a member of the board, nor are any of the directors of Moxy. We started on our own to work with the device a few months ago andalso at his time we were very critical of the device and we have even done our own validation of the Moxy on our own with a VO2 analyzer. (If you want I can send you the data).
I would also be interested in conducting these studies, there would be more variety of data and information.



Martí
MetaTrainingSST@hotmail.com


bjrmd

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 44
 #9 
Quote:
I would also be interested in conducting these studies, there would be more variety of data and information.



Martí
MetaTrainingSST@hotmail.com



I have been working on something interesting involving genetic SNP markers, cardiac output redistribution and how this can potentially help in training choices, race strategy and nutrition/hydration.
This is an area that has been overlooked in regards to NIRS/muscle O2 and if anyone else wants to jump in with some data, I would be happy to coordinate the collection, help interpret the data.

http://www.muscleoxygentraining.com/2018/04/genetics-cardiac-output-redistribution.html
bobbyjobling

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 211
 #10 
@bjrmd Just wondering why they have chosen running to show desaturation ver muscle fibre type!? It’s misleading due to different running efficiency that can be gained with training . Why not choose a cycling test which is much less influenced by this even with years of training.

bjrmd

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 44
 #11 
Quote:
@bjrmd Just wondering why they have chosen running to show desaturation ver muscle fibre type!? It’s misleading due to different running efficiency that can be gained with training . Why not choose a cycling test which is much less influenced by this even with years of training.


Good question, I don't know. 

But your point about technique/efficiency makes one doubt the validity of singling out one muscle group to do your lactate testing/"zone" training.

As this study shows even in powercrank trained individuals, the muscle usage strategy varies greatly among the tested subjects.  So which muscle is going to represent the "best" choice for race pace/lactate testing? 

That is why I am focusing on looking at either less involved areas or respiratory associated muscles to gauge overall homeostasis.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net