Development Team Member
Registered: 1440858706 Posts: 369
Attached are two running 5-1-5 assessments.
Athlete 1 notes: The csv file is attached, and various graphs below (note Sm02 is dark green, speed is light green). Filename "JS 5-1-5 complete data" Female mid 30's Muscle was right VL muscle 3 min calibration at the start, athlete stood upright and still at rest. We aimed for A and B loads of 6min/km, 5:30min/km, 5:00min/km, 4:30min/km, 4min/km.Even with a GPS device athlete struggled to get consistent pacing and resorted to "self-pacing" early on in the assessment. The athlete did not get pacing right though - both within loads (first half of load quicker than second) and across loads (pace too similar across loads). Terrain was reasonably flat but not perfectly flat as can be seen from the elevation profile (total lap elevation was 5m â€“ so approx 1% incline out and -1% decline back) Athlete did not complete the first 4min/km load. Rested for one minute then gently jogged back and tried another 4min/km load which also did not complete. There then 3 x 30 sec sprints â€“ data shown separately. Lap markings in images added post assessment and are approximate. Would probably need to redo assessment due to pacing and terrain, but athlete is from out of town so thought i might as well post the data here for interest anyway. First HR vs Speed to show the pacing problems.
Note the change in slope of thb and Sm02 in the middle of loads seems to be driven by the change in gradient of the road (slight uphill to downhill). Here they are zoomed in for a few intervals and overlapped to show this (presumably muscle compression increases on the downhill?)
Athlete 2 note Filename "RS 5-1-5 Running Full Data" Male mid 30s Muscle was on right VL muscle 3 min calibration at the start and then 3 x full double loads, first of 4th load A complete and then failed on load B of the 4th load. Athlete then rested for 4 minutes and did 2 x 30 sprints with 1 min recovery between (stood upright and still at rest) Given the pacing and terrain problems from athlete 1 assessment, for this one i did two things differently for the assessment: Went to a field to do the assessment. Downloaded a (free) metronome app on the mobile phone and used that to guide the athlete's pacing. It actually worked really well (other than for the very first interval where the athlete was still getting the hang of it) and would recommend it for other sports where a measurement like power is not available. Step B of the first load intensity pacing was a little out, but other than that the loads were reasonably well-paced. (We started the metronome at 120 beats per minute and then increased by 15 beats per minute for each load increase).
The csv file is attached,and various graphs below (note Sm02 is dark green, speed is light green).
Sm02 & tHb
The data looks really noisy to me for athlete 2 - is it likely something went wrong with Moxy attachment? Is the data still usable/credible or would i need to discard.
I have some thoughts on interpretations but will keep these to myself for now, to keep possible ideas and interpretations wide open.
One of the athlete's is an experienced long distance runner, the other is well-trained in another sporting discipline. I will leave it as part of the challenge of the case study to figure out which is which
(210.43 KB, 6 views)
(248.28 KB, 7 views)