Now in the above data collection you have three circles.
If you take the time and look at closer you may find some directions.
It appears that in all three areas he was running into a delivery limitation.. The first circle is of no surprise as usual the next 2 circles show the same reason fro delivery limitation.
a) he lost his performance due to a delivery limitation which " killed " his overall performance by about 20 +- min and he had no chance to recover from it.
Question. What can cause a delivery limitation.? Now as we now know it is a delivery limitation the coach can work specifically with it.
There are often three clear options and than some additional version to work on.
1. Short term option.
If it is in the midst of a racing season in sport we may like to look at a short term functional option to see,whether we can change the delivery limitation to create a better performance for an upcoming important race or event.
How : ? you simply create the delivery limitation and than look live on the screen with NIRS whether you can solve the problem with some cycling specific options.
The result may be that it actually works and you ahve a short term solution for this problem or limitation.
or It may show up , that you can not functionally overcome the delivery limitation as it is a structural limitation and you have to improve the structure of this athlete.
Now there are different options of a structural limitation for delivery.
3 most common once is :
A ) too low cardiac out put ( better a to small SV ) Important here is to avoid an improvement of HR at the cost of SV. Keep that in mind.
b) capillarisation limitation in the locomotor group or strengths limitation
c) respiratory limitation eitehr as actual metaboreflex or as a actual VE limitation so CO2 accumulation C is in this case of lower priority to assess based on what we see in the last circle at the end of the effort. Why ?how would a VE limitation look like?
Metaborelfex? . well possible as a combination of the muscular limitation, but the SmO2/tHb trend indicates more likely not.
So closer look for the coach on A and B.
Now decision time for middle term or long term gala setting in structural changes.
Meaning: we have a next season goal setting we have to reach .
We have a 4 year olympic cycle or what ever to reach
or much more important is a health reason of a patient . So functional ideas are worth less and only middle or a long term structural changes are a goal
Example : post ACL repair of a downhill skier. ( middle term for next winter not this one)
COPD client who like to try to get of oxygen for walks.
Perosn with Lymes disease who tries top go back to performance sport instead of actually getting healthy if possible.
So the key in all cases is to look at the structural needs before we look at actual performance improvement.
In our above case or in any case, where we have a delivery limitation. The question than is how I may tackle this challenge.
Do I work on intermuscular coordination ( Seboo ) or on intramuscular coordination when I try to solve the delivery over the locomotion systems.
How do I do that.
- Look first whether the cardiac system actually is able to allow a higher intermuscular coordination or whether the CO is really the main structural problem.
Why is this important.
If your CO is the actual limitation and you add a great intermuscular training to develop more demand for O2 but you simply can not deliver, you create " sleeping giant even more " and your will have no benefit in the long term. You may in a short effort , where CO is not a main problem, create a progress so in sports where this is the key it may be a good idea
In a sport with loads longer than 30 - 60 seconds you may loose.
This is what very often happen, as we may simply add more km and hours to a training plan and higher intensity.
So we may nicely improve utilization with some HIIT ( but we may MISS) the limiter after a while, as better utilization may create a higher demand of CO2 release , but the VE was never improved with the workout you did based ion performance alone.
Or you may in fact improve your coordination and your mitochondria density nicely, but you never improved the CO so you create a sleeping giant.
Than the question fo relative strength. Do you can afford to gain muscular weight or do you better improve CO .
Important for sports like rock climbing , or light weight rowers or boxing or any sports where we have weight classes.
So you again first may have to rule out, that the CO is not close to its limitation before you add mitochondrial improvement and inter muscular coordination.
This you do with some simple cardiac overload exercises or data collections. Or you can go back and check your old VO2 test with your coach as often we can see some trends there.
Many VO2 users in this forum so they may be ready to kick in their knowledge on how they use the VO2 test for this information.SEBOO
That moves us over to seboo's great data sharing.
We do NOT have enough to be sure but we have a trend.
See the first 2 datas where we had some difference in tHb reactions and than look at his last FTP feedback.
In the first glimpse he shows a intermuscular weakness with a total overload and overuse in his sport with the VL at least. He can push great but the delivery limitation shown in his VL will never allow him to do some sudden sprints or attacks as the " gas tank" is close to empty ( SmO2 levels.)
Now you look at FTP end and the " fatigues " assessment and you see a trend that his cardiac system may be close to a limitation and or may be used often as a compensator.
If it is a limiter than intermuscular coordination improvement will back fire over longer time loads.
If it is a early compensator than it is important to train the intermuscular coordination without always asking for help from CO so we do not overload the commentator and make a limiter out of him.
Below a live example from a top athlete, ( Interval sport )who exactly works on that task. He has to learn to deoxygenate for example with or without CO involvement.
Above you see after calibration of today's physiological reaction ( first 20 min ) 11 deoxygenation loads. He could have actually stopped after 6 .
What you see if you look at tHb and HR that he had to try to create a deoxygenetion load a deoxygenation with minimal CO involvement every second time ( See HR ) and minimal loss of blood flow.
Now below another example great numbers from an athlete who has a great control over this options already . As well 20 min calibration and the same task.
As a summary and a discussion point to Seboo's information in what NIRS/ MOXY can do.
I strongly believe it is a live feedback tools ( not a test tool ) to achieve the specific individual goals you set for a patient or client.
Do you like to deliver blood form the actual main delivery systems or do you like to shift blood form one are to another , do you like to stimulate a local area or doe you like to stimulate the whole team team ( systemic.).
Below a repeat graph set we had already on the forum a few times as a review.
This basic research was done in California in the five star training center in Yucca Valley under the help of Mary Ann Kelly.
Above an exampel of a live training , where the goal was to only locally overload. workout on a bike. Below a workout whit the goal to shift blood from upper body to lower body . You can see that as son leg workout stops and no load on arms at all we see the SmO2 change in legs up in arms down.
No no integration of arms and we are sure as no SEMG activity and actually no activity at all as soon the SmO2 of legs reaches the critical level. so arms not even doing anything on handle bars
No third graph below .
A systemic deoxygenation with one muscle in the activity involved and the upper body muscle no activity at all as the idea was to create a systemic deoxygenation.
Last for the moment.
the running example. The VO2 feedback we got combined with the NIRS we have may suggest a different limitation than what seems to be first the case. The answer hopefully comes form VO2 users and readers on this forum .
Nirs the way we use it is a live feedback for individual planned and targeted goals and not a test equipment.
We really should not make an assessment and than use the results for a few weeks. We really use NIRS a live feedback to make the assessment now today
and with the individual goal in mind.
Is that crazy ?
Perhaps not, as this is a serious discussion behind the scene , as ideas like LT and VO2 start to slightly loos attraction and may fall apart as we progress in physiological live feedback equipment.
James G Hopker 1*and Louis Passfield 1
Prescribing training involves the manipulation of intensity, duration and frequency of the sessions to improve cycling performance. As sports scientists our ideal is to help provide an objective scientific basis for this training prescription. But whilst we have developed an intimate knowledge of training adaptations and their regulating molecular signals (Stepto et al., 2009), we do not appear to be moving closer to providing a scientific basis from which to design effective training programmes (Borreson and Lambert, 2009).
Below we post 3 questions for future training related research studies to consider.
1) Are training studies using appropriate indices for specifying training intensity?
2) Should training studies take more account of individual variation?
3) Are training studies examining the right question?
There appears to be increasing agreement that the response to a standardised training programme can be remarkably diverse (Mann et al., 2014).
This has lead some to examine these training “responders” and “non-responders” and its genetic basis (Ehlert et al. 2013).
Surprisingly, the alternative hypothesis that training has not been standardised appropriately appears to have been little considered (Mann et al. 2014).
From this perspective the issue becomes not whether a cyclist is a responder or a non-responder, but rather what is his or her optimal training intensity.
For example, it has long been established that cyclists’ time to exhaustion at the same relative intensity can vary hugely. Coyle et al. (1988) found that at 88% VO2max cyclists’ time to exhaustion varied from 12 min to 75 min.
However, the method for prescribing training in most studies remains standardised as a percentage of maximum.
Consequently, it seems unsurprising that the training response differs between two cyclists training at a standardised intensity that yields such a diverse response to even a single bout of exercise.
Even where the ability to sustain a standardised training intensity is more carefully controlled, the underlying assumption that this is linked to a training response remains unproven.