Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
markyg

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 4
 #1 

Wow.

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 2016’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

I’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
Cycling 31-05-2016,sm02-thb.png 
Cycling Annotation
Cycling 31-05-2016,sm02-thb-annotated.png 
Running No annotation
Run Race - Test - PB 01-06-2016.png 

Running Annotation

Run Race - Test - PB 01-06-2016 annotated.png 

The cycle zones/trends seem fairly obvious although not what I expected based on friends’ 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.

‘Common sense’/’conventional wisdom’ would say that as a new cyclist I should be doing lots of bike miles?????? Not intervals

I’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/km…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?

 
Attached Files
zip moxy_fit_files.zip (17.91 KB, 13 views)

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #2 
looks like great work. I  can not use the fit  files  so needs Rogers help to convert it to csv  if possible.
markyg

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 4
 #3 
csv attached, I think it's the first two that start with run/biketestmoxy.csv . Something strange with the dates.

 
Attached Files
csv RunTestMoxy.csv (73.20 KB, 13 views)
csv BikeTestMoxy.csv (113.84 KB, 17 views)
csv run40minmoxy.csv (45.78 KB, 12 views)

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #4 
I have  just 2  csv  so I assume  there are  form VL  in running and biking
 So lets go different than  usual  and start with  biased bike and run
first run biased
red is O2Hb meaning loaded  O Hb and Mb  with O2  info
 Blue is HHb  or  unloaded  Hb and Mb

RUN BIASED.jpg
 you see n interestingly  form the beginning a very   clear  utilization ability  and you really  cant see  in this graph  that you actually increased load  every second step. So already in
a  very low intensity. if we  combine the feedback  with tHb  it may show up as SmO2 is a  %  of tHb  that you in fact  used somewhat less O2    at the start than  at the end. In any case  this indicates a very   strong utilization ability but on the other hand a  limitation of  delivery.

Now lets look bike  biased

BIKE BIAS.jpg 

very different picture . Great delivery  but  not  really great utilization ability in biking action.
Remember  the   New York marathon and the ongoing discussion n VO2 max  between Paul Tergat  the winner  and Lance Armstrongs  first official   new York marathon , Both same  VO2 max  of  85 
 Performance difference close to 1 hour. how  come
 what  do we see for the moment with your  body

Now nice would be if we  have your  HR  together with  NIRS as it helps  for some further ideas
small initial summary  based on bias.
 Running limitation is  delivery so cardiac or respiratory systems  or both if  we look systemic.
 Biking  you have a  utilization limitation  so more bike specific  local muscle limitation  form coordination  for many more options. So running needs  for sure  some structural stimulation and changes .
 Biking perhaps   to start out  more functional ideas as  it is  easy to see  whether you improve very fast in the ability  to use O2 .
 so thanks  for  this  and this may be  just an initial  start.


markyg

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 4
 #5 
brilliant. So I was guessing along the right lines !! I have some faith in my brain.


I have the TCX files. These are XML. I used excel to open them and save as CSV.
not sure if this is the format you can use. all are included

 
Attached Files
zip bike-run-tcx-csv-moxy.zip (216.42 KB, 9 views)

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #6 
I love this  section

 I have some faith in my brain.

Faith 
is it not more an option to  hope believe  and not have to proof  idea including fixing  not optimal
results so we do not have to change  our  faith?

Versus  Brian  which  may allow us  to be critical to what we do  steady  be ready to adjust if the facts   overturn  the  theories ?

 I love to show  one of this believes , where the facts  over turn the  theories  or  faith but we simply ignore it because we like to stay  faithful.
 The Brains will very easy detect  where the  faith  should be abolished  as the brain  will take over but  it  does not happen  at all.

See below  your  evening treat Brain versus faith

It is one of the interesting  faith. 1 mmol L increase in 2 follow up steps  and the  middle value is  your LT 2.
lactate curve bsx.jpg  Faith full people  have to close their eyes  by now.
Brain people may smile
 and brain people  with a critical look at accuracy of  test equipment of   plus minus  0.1 even may  have some giggles

Now lets move more towards the brain

bike closerlook  smo2  last  steps in overall wiht circle.jpg    Above is your running 5 1 5  in SmO2  and tHb trends. I circled one interesting section towards the end  so in relative high intensity.
I do NOT know what you did  so you will have to help. I  try to explain what I  may see.
SmO2
Increase in SmO2 despite a higher new load.
 This indicates a  lower need of  O2  if we look from  a utilization point of view and there are different reason  why he VL may  have a lower need or demand????
or
 A higher delivery  when we look  from a delivery point of  view May need to look at  HR as one options but as well RF  and TV  on the other side  where RF  can be counted  and TV  possibly  with some respiratory training can be felt
or
but very  rare  but can be done
 A  shift of the O2 disscurve to the left so less bioavailability  of O2.
 Now  to try to rule out   one or the other of this three most common options you hope that tHb  will reveal more

tHb  dropped as expected  with new load  so initial compression  rules as  Cardiac  help CO has a lag time. Now till to this point  you where able  and in this stage  the thB increases , before at least you stopped the  drop  due to balance of   pressure and compression. After the circle  compression overrules  pressure ( mechanical  reason )or CO  can not  maintain central blood pressure  so systemic vasoconstriction(( a less involved or  non priority  muscle  MOXY feedback)
now got lost
 thb drops  initially than it actually recovers a little bit in that one load  indicating either  mechanical release of muscle compression. Different options here to   options but more.
 a) change in RPM
b) standing out of the seat  so you use  bodyweight  and need less muscle contraction
c)  increase in CO2  due to  hypoventilation of  hypercapnia
 No this one can easy be ruled  out   why ?
d)  gear shift
 this to keep it simple
 Now  after this  stage  the tHb keeps  dropping indicating an overrule  of   mechanical  muscle pressure versus   cardiac output or a protection of BP so vasoconstriction.
 Now  the last can be ruled out easy  how and why??

 Here  to end a very close look at that step we  discuss

super close look   hard steps  thb smo2.jpg 

Question
Do you remember what you did there ?





juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #7 
Now just to have some more fun and this great  open feedback  and use of  this great datas.

Look carefully the  intriguing O2Hb  and HHb in a biased  view of the bike assessment

BIKE BIAS.jpg

  Above the overall view of the  bike assessment. Critics   often refer  in the biased as a nice   symmetrical picture  when  O2Hb red goes up  you will have the same   drop in HHb. Do we see this here ?  and if  not  why not  and where  do we may have a non symmetrical  trend in O2Hb  and HHb?
 Now lets look closer
super close  biased closer looks.jpg 
 Can you see what I mean ? what happens here ?

A few more  looks now
super close look at thb  hhb and SmO2  comparsion.jpg 


Now a  small inside view in some studies  we did many years back  with Portamon  .

This is a  view on actual pedal stroke  reactions on tHb of 2  world class athletes before the 2012 olympics






yama gk rpm tHb.JPG


Below  a somewhat closer look at the reactions on different  depth.
super close look geoff at start after 1 min break.JPG


you can see the  shift of tHb after a  hard  compression and than a settle in.
  The 2 athlete  had a very different limitation  and one  difference was in the way they  used the pedal stroke.
 Question we had.
 Is the increase in tHb  in a  pedal stroke  due to  compression   and decompression back flow  so compression out flow tHb  drops   relax   back flow tHb goes up ?

OR
Is it a  outflow restriction  so tHb up  as we pool  and down as we  have a  restriction outflow ?

 Now  you can imagine depending on a  or b  the RPM  has a direct influence  on delivery or  forced utilization.
 Now you can see Portamon  at least for me  has a very intriguing ability based on their software  to actually do some great physiological internal looks and when combined with MOXY  even more  as we may perhaps  show later as they look for slightly different information and if  combined give some intriguing inside view in   physiological reactions.
 Now  the  incredible group in golden cheetah actually  create a much better  software as they are not happy  with the portamon one  so we will soon  have more feedback  from the cycling community on this  so we  can  concentrate more on sports less   popular  for some  and more popular  for others.
  Now here some   additional   thoughts and graphs  for the advanced adventurer

What do you see here  compared  with our  bike assessment  with MOXY?
tsi tHb geoff example of dilution  due to pressure.JPG 

Have a great night

markyg

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 4
 #8 
Brian is a good friend of mine too :-)

There was a problem with the TURBO at that level. I had to move around quite a bit to try to sort it out in order to finish the test.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #9 
Ha ha  yes  Brian  you have a Brain[wave]
 Thanks  and great feedback  and  great to see that NIRS  shows  some problems  and how important  it really is  to  use it live and you have the immediate answer. Wattage  and performance  do not tell us  what we see  or  had on feedback  from physiological feedback.

 I hope  we may get some feedback  form all the NIRS users  out there on what we see in your Biased reactions.

 I hope as well we have some lactate   users  with a feedback on the classical idea  on 1 mmol per step  and we  can move ahead there to show the progress we made  and why it I time to move on  from a  great idea of  LT  to a real  feedback on   metabolic  reactions in the  body.
ryinc

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 369
 #10 

Jeurg I have a question. The cycling 5-1-5 result is very much what I would have expected here. What surprised me is the running 5-1-5 result. In many of the other profiles of well-trained runners on this forum, the 5-1-5 profiles tend to have high and stable Sm02 traces that don’t saturate well (as opposed to well- trained cyclists which tend to demonstrate strong utilisation ability). These “typical” profiles make sense given the specificity of the sport (cycling requiring high utilisation efforts to “hang on” to the bunch at crucial points in the race, whereas running is more about stable output). Can you offer some insight on this running profile, relative to others that you typically see.

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #11 
Some very nice points  you  bring up  and I like to  give it some more thought  before just rushing on here  and give some feedback.
 There is one very interesting big difference in he muscle activity between running and cycling, which seem to influence  the  NIRS  reactions  and we often  do no take this in account. I will dig in some studies  we did  and try to show them here to see whether it makes sense. The  big difference is the muscle contraction  type  to give it a name.
 In  cycling we have   basically just  concentric  work  where as in running  we have mainly  at the  biggest load  eccentric work.
 The bets place to see it is when you jump of the treadmill  with a sever  spike  down warts  of tHb as a indication of a  hard  enrich  load  after a  take of. Than  the  resting on the side of the treadmill is not greta  at all  so often standing creates some kind  of  SEMG  activity above resting and really screws  up he   feedback of recovery.
 I really do not like the  treadmill testing  and the  5/1/5  on a treadmill. What i do  with  any of my  clients is a  in the field  NIrS assessment on a  flat road  or on a 4 m track. Performance   control. 
 NONE
 Performance is based on HR feedback  and inidivudla feeling and you can see  that this  idea never would fly  in a research a paper  but it works  best for  individual coaching.
  I use  2 options   both as wlel guided  by feeling.
 Option one based on   help  of HR. a)  I ask  for  the race pace  HR if they know it and use HR over  5 or  10 km  or  if no race pace. Than  what  top HR  they see if they feel they push hard. Assumption. Lets  say  they see 17. The  stand  resting HR is  78. No physiologic thoughts  just easy to calculate in my head.


 I  take  40 % of the  active HR  zone  so  100 in this  case  40 HR  above  active resting HR
So 110 / 130/150 / 170 and than see  so  run  and bring over  5 min   HR  +- 110 1 min  easy  walk  and go again and so on. Yo do not care  on curacy  of HR  but only that we are  sure  you go faster. 'That's it  and we  than  look at the info.

2. Second option I use  sometimes  is  Respiratory frequency guided. You run a pace  which  allows you to breath 5 / 5 .  Meaning you run and breath 5 steps in  and 5 steps out  counting each step. for 5 min than 1 min  easy walk  and repeat. Than  1 min walk now  you run 4/ 4   and   than 3/3/  and so on.
 There is a stupid  fun  big  study  done  on this  idea  we can discuss later. Again  performance in speed or   distance is no issue  here as we need to establish  limiter  or   compensator.
Sure I use performance as it counts  but than I do a  performance real test. Meaning if you are a  5 km run  rn a  5 km race  or  test stretch  and we look at the end  how the  NIRS looks and what  stopped  you today in this race test. Why woudl I  do a lactate test or VO2  test and predict theoretically your  5 km  time . This is NOT a performance test   I simply let the client do his  sport in a race  yep  or real  race   situation   to see  whether he  can perform.
 I will be back  with more thoughts  and hopefully some good examples on running versus  biking.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net