Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #1 
First of all thanks for the increasing numbers of emails I receive in my personal mailbox.
The actual idea is not get a  great and open minded discussion going on here or on the FaCT Forum and not a one by one exchange of ideas.
 I will therefor use some of the mails I received as  questions on here without using the  name.
 But again , much of what we discuss here is  new  may change faster than we think it may and is open for any positive critic.
 Any thing is on the table as the  goal and idea is to find some addition to the existing assessment ideas  first and perhaps   may change the way we assess or enhance the way we assess or may simply start a discussion on what we actually do  and whether we can do better.
Here one of a great critical question :
The mail was a question with an answer or opinion included.
Using NIRS or MOXY , do we not just simply add another toy to an already overloaded market of "performance" testing. Would a simple good body feeling not  be good enough.??

I can't agree more with this question and answer.
 The key is to actually regain a body feeling, which most of us lost due to  the different toys we use.

That's we we look at the end of the day or better of an IPAHD  for simple bio markers.
 Bio markers are  for example respiratory frequency, HR, SmO2 values and  more.
The idea is to assess a client , finding the different areas , where we have homeostasis disruption and connect this with FEELING and bio markers.
Including a performance value as a none physiological info.
Example : When many many years back the first POLAR PE 250 was coming out ( yes now you know how old I am, we where running around like crazy , impressed with the fact, that using a HR monitor  showed much different values of HR , than when we counted for 15 seconds by hand.
We printed out hundreds of test with grate graphs.
 Problem : what was the " right" HR for what workout.
So we would run with feeling and than watched the HR and decided , that this is a "good" HR. Research showed up and formulas got and still are getting developed. Predictions where made and so on.
Result ??????
VO2 testing got more popular with the problem that nobody could use the  results fro anything others , than bragging rights.
The idea, that VO2 max tested on a bike could be used for  any sport was refuted already early on. in
( remember dal Monte in Teheran congress , Will dig it out. )
Lactate created incredible  curves and motivated to incredible mathematical artistry and  ideas
 What can we do with it ???
 Well the majority of successful athletes and trainer learned from experience and feeling , rather than theory and numbers.
So the key with MOXY is do not follow the same  path as we did with other tools.
MOXY is as mentioned before a direct info and combined with feeling , RF , HR and performance  a great tool to regain this feeling by understanding and listening to the body.
If we take wattage we may be fooled by the number but not by the feeling.
 Same with lactate same with VO2   and same with HR.
Having now  an affordable tool to see directly  what happens  to my immediate feeling and the follow up reactions will have a profound advantage for any workout.
 Instead of looking on a HR monitor you guess where you are before you look at the number. So you take HR as a biofeedback. Same with SmO2 , same if you still like to poke with lactate , same with RF.
 You have some feedback from each team member, connect this to performance and you have a baseline build on feeling and feedback.
 So the next day you may feel a much faster RF by the same wattage , and you can see, that SmO2 is higher.Now you can make a decision on how you like to react . Now you can draw some conclusion when moving all your info together.
 So for the moment many users of MOXY see a very fast and great reacting  tool with  some numbers, but what is the right number.
That's where the simple assessment UrpAHD comes in and you have a individual direction  where to go with having a "team " of bio markers working together for a baseline info.

The goal of the study is to see, whether we in fact can use on anybody an actual individual number SmO2 or whether we  only can use the actual trend of SmO2.
Here a small hint:
If you test your clients on a COMPU trainer:
 What do you do extremely carefully  and spent a lot of Time ????  why do you do this ????

YES that is the right answer .
 Now if you answered properly than give yourself this answer honestly:

Did you ever "calibrated your client as well ??? 
 Why not ?????
 Who warms up and calibrates the wattage trainer. ?
 Who calibrates the client ???









Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #2 
Here another common question.
 What is so different between using watt or maximal intensities and  formulas like VO2 % and your crazy ideas.
  Here a very short answer.
 There may be a difference between functional physiology and mathematical physiology.
  Here may take and please change it  if you   need.
 

FUNCTIONAL PHYSIOLOGY

 

Functional Physiology is the practical application of scientific physiological assessments and information.

It guides exercise physiologists, coaches and therapists towards the ability to let physiological reactions guide the training and recovery program rather than mathematical calculations, statistical formulas and organizational driven considerations.

Functional physiology will use the body’s own ability to react to stress  with physiological reactions based on “fight and flight.” As such, training ideas like duration, rest between intervals, intensity choices due to metabolic demands and finally compromises between limiter systems and compensatory system can be addressed on an individual base.

 Basically the opposite form a franchise restaurant. We develop a program prepared by a “chef de cuisine” using your physiological information to serve you your individual functional physiological workout.

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #3 
Another question I got after " pulling " apart  220 - age and VO2 max  prediction and so on.
 Here we go.
  The  writer expresses acceptance, that doing a VO2 max in any person may have some potential risks.
 That's' why we use   not  all out maximal tests but sub maximal test  and than predict based on formulas the VO2 max and the maximal HR.
 Than we take  this prediction and use statistical formulas to give  training zoning. "
  Absolutely true and nothing to  counter here. That's what many   centers and coaches will do.
 Question back : is it individual and what do you really have on physiological information when you stop somewhere at a  critical  formula. We than not even have one  physiological  information to understand. At least when you go  all out you have the physiological max values from that particular test on that particular day. The rest  is math again.
 But here a much better answer from accepted sources.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on this review of research and application of HRmax prediction, the following recommendations can be

made;

1. Currently, there is no acceptable method to estimate HRmax.

2. If HRmax needs to be estimated, then population specific formulae should be used. However, the most

accurate general equation is that of Inbar (17) (Table 3); HRmax=205.8-0.685(age). Nevertheless, the error

(Sxy=6.4 b/min) is still unacceptably large.

3. An acceptable prediction error for HRmax for application to estimation of VO2max is <±3 b/min. Thus, for

a person with a HRmax of 200 b/min, error equals ±1.5%. If this precision is not possible, then there is no

justification for using methods of VO2max estimation that rely on HRmax prediction formulae.

Prediction of Maximal Heart Rate

8

4. Additional research needs to be performed that develops multivariate regression equations that improve the

accuracy of HRmax prediction for specific populations, and modes of exercise.

5. The use of HRmax is most prevalent in the fitness industry, and the people who work in these facilities

mainly have a terminal undergraduate degree in exercise science or related fields. These students/graduates

need to be better educated in statistics to recognize and understand the concept of prediction error, and the

practical consequences of relying on an equation with a large standard error of estimate (Sxy).

6. Textbooks in exercise physiology and exercise prescription should contain content that is more critical of the

HRmax=220-age or similar formulae. Authors need to stress the mode-specificity of HRmax, provide alternate,

research substantiated formula, and express all content of items 1-5, above. Similarly, academic coverage of

HRmax needs to explain how this error detracts from using HRmax estimation in many field tests of physical

fitness and in exercise prescription.

Address for correspondence: Robert A. Robergs, Ph.D., FASEP, EPC, Director-Exercise Physiology

Laboratories, Exercise Science Program, Department of Physical Performance and Development, Johnson

Center, Room B143, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1258, Ph


And just for  fun this att.

Attached Images
Click image for larger version - Name: 220_-_age_Hasket_rule.jpg, Views: 26, Size: 39.14 KB 

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #4 
And here  one more but  not an answer ( YET ) but a question to all of us:
  " can we not just simply  expect, that when lactate  increases we  will see a drop in SmO2  and when lactate drops we will see an increase in SmO2.

  Will be fun to have different explanations on this  great question or  statement ?
Andri

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 65
 #5 

“it remains true that tissue hypoxia does indeed lead to increased [lactate] concentrations. However, the induction that elevated [lactate] production and accumulation necessarily indicates the presence of hypoxia is not correct” (Gladden, 2001, P. 397)

If we accept this notion then the relationship between SmO2 and blood lactate become a little more complicated. It is true that a drop in SmO2 could also show an increase in blood lactate accumulation, but this is not necessarily always the case. A second point is the following:  "We would postulate that it is systemic and not intracellular PO2 that increases catecholamine responses in hypoxia and, therefore, is responsible for the correspondingly higher net lactate efflux" (Richardson et al., 1998, P. 633). If blood lactate accumulation is a systemic measurement (it is definitely an indirect measurement as the active muscle sites are not measured directly) then blood lactate increases or decreases could be a result of something other than the SmO2 value being measured in a given muscle site. These are two very important points that question the effectiveness of blood lactate measurements in performance testing.
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #6 
hmmm I was hoping  that not Andri would give the explanation . But yes it is in the practical world exactly what the theory would predict it is possible but not  always has to be the case.
 I will show you some brilliant practical tests done inadvertently by Luke Way  as he used the old idea of LBP and combined it with MOXY . stay tuned to show how Andris explanation exactly shows the practical application and as such as well shows the  problem we have using indirect information like lactate versus direct information using MOXY Will come back to make this great  case   Andri puts down.
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #7 
Okay here the promised BPR team tests from a great training group  from British Columbia.

The  assessments you see is a LBP ( FaCT) test. in short for readers , who are not familiar with this test.
The test was developed over 20 years ago , in the midst of the lactate hype of 2 and 4 mmol or OBLA or "lactate threshold based on tangents to the " lactate curve" like Simons  or Keul or many more.
The idea  was to use  Brooks  gentle  approach at that time  ( we talk the late 1980 ) that lactate may not be ,what  we learned at school the bad and ugly reason for muscle pain and more.
So  we try to convince  people, that lactate as absolute numbers and an indirect information  is possibly not  a smart way to go. A perhaps better way could be to argue, that lactate trend rather than numbers may help us more to assess metabolic trends  during  exercises.
The notion was, that when lactate increases we have an increase in oxygen independent activity and when it drops we have a more likely  positive O2 situation, so lactate can be used again  as a fuel or  what ever.
 So  the idea was not to test lactate on the way up as we  knew , that it will go up  anyway, but rather at the end of the test and than reload again by dropping again performance and slowly increasing again.
 So the picture would give a  high lactate value first followed by drop of lactate and possibly again drop and somewhere later an increase.
 It was the best we knew and the most we  had the courage to lean out the window  against the stream of classical ideas of lactate curves.

As the  information's and research got  stronger and stronger, that lactate is NOT what still many people  think the question was, whether we made some  thinking mistakes with our LBP idea.
 So we had to redo  many of the original  ideas and  to make it short , The LBP did had some clear  problems and flaws but we learned a lot during all this years.
Aristoteles idea, that when facts disproof the theory, the theory has to be reviewed.
 By doing this  we had this time the advantage to have NIRS at hand  and could compare direct with indirect information's paired with Andris statements on lactate production .
 The result was a review and redesign of  a physiological assessment with the new toys and tools and  more direct information than we ever had.
Problem Like  we had at the start of LBP a huge contradiction with the  still accepted " classical " theories and testing ideas.

So what you see here is a step test no lactate and than where you see the black vertical line end of the  step test and start of the LBP portion. So you see lactate dropping form a higher level and than at the end increasing again.
 The other values now on here is SmO2 .
 The question we had is :
 Can we see lactate dropping  as well as SmO2 dropping
or
Lactate dropping and  SmO2 increasing
or Lactate increasing and SmO2 increasing
or
Lactate increasing and SmO2 increasing

We will show later, how we did similar theoretical  ideas on the reaction of tHb and SmO2.
 Example.
 Can we see tHb going up and SmO2 down or tHb down and SmO2 up  or tHb up and SmO2 up and so on. This  produced some very easy and simple assessment option , when working practically with MOXY during a strength workout , interval workout  or assessment

Here  a word document with the 5 LBP assessments and you look for the A practical review to proof  the  points Andri brought up ( Gladden  et all Richardsen)  different option  between SmO2 and lactate

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net