Super excited with this new insight. Hopefully I am understanding it all right.
I am a reasonable club runner of many years (19min 5k, 45 y/o male) and 2016â€™s move into triathlon has seen me taking up cycling with my FTP increasing rapidly this year from below 200w to 240w on my turbo.
515 tests were with positioning on VASTUS LATERALIS and GASTROCEMIUS
Iâ€™ve attached the moxy source data as ZIP files if anyone wants to look at them
And here is the original image and then my annotations for each test
Have I got those annotations right?
Cycle: no annotation
Running No annotation
The cycle zones/trends seem fairly obvious although not what I expected based on friendsâ€™ general training advice given some months ago when I started out(!).
My interpretation is that: the SMO2 stays fairly high even at failure; thb falls fairly rapidly. Therefore my oxygen supply is good and I need to build strength in my cycling muscles to use the oxygen.
â€˜Common senseâ€™/â€™conventional wisdomâ€™ would say that as a new cyclist I should be doing lots of bike miles?????? Not intervals
Iâ€™m less clear about the running and it is not what I expected to see either. SMO2 is much lower than for cycling around 5/10%. I presume I have probably not chosen the optimal muscle location but I would imagine the location is a good enough proxy.
Throughout the run test the SM02 stays at similar levels, rising a little towards the end. Thb shows a continuous gentle decline as the efforts increase and a quick plateau before falling off a cliff near the failure point. I was going about 3:30/km here just moving up from 3:50/kmâ€¦so probably too big a jump in speed but even 3:40 would probably have resulted in failure as well.
But the issue here seems to be oxygen supply. So work more on my endurance?
Summary: Bias training more towards Bike Intervals & bias Running towards Endurance
Is that fair? Or am I reading too much into the data? Or not enough?