Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
xcskier

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 46
 #1 
This idea is mentioned by sebo in a different thread:

I think if used Moxy properly one could really define not only cardiac daily recovery, but what’s more exciting: long term cardiac strength together with muscular strength.

Naive questions:
1. Do we gain anything by doing some protocol and 
comparing results and looking at absolute numbers
over time?

Namely, if we place the sensor at exactly the same location
do absolute numbers tell us anything (ie, are we improving
certain system, etc.) or it's just trends that are relevant?

2. In some sports (like cycling / rowing / running) assessments
can be done very precisely since you can control power / incline /
pace, etc. precisely.

In other sports like cross-country skiing, trail running, mountain-biking,
you don't control protocol precisely, so it seems that any comparison
is not fair. It seems that even trend comparisons are suspect.

For example, the other day during skiing, the trails I was on had a very
very steep climb (for about 1 min) followed by another gradual climb (for
about 4-5 minutes) followed by a gradual downhill. If I did any kind of
assessment protocol on this trail, the result would be quite different if done
on a different trail. Now you throw in different weather conditions (slow vs 
fast snow) and a hill that you ski one day at HR=120 bpm becomes a hill 
that you have to do at HR=140. If I match the heart rate (or perceived effort)
the movement is not the same at all.

So, I am struggling with coming up with a consistent protocol (so that I can
compare results apples to apples) where test environment is different every time.
To me, even if I repeat some sort of protocol (based on HR, effort, etc.) I am
essentially doing a different protocol every time.

How would 5-1-5 protocol equivalent be done for such sports?

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. 

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #2 
Naive questions:  Not  at all  in fact I am really happy  you asked  this  points below

1. Do we gain anything by doing some protocol and 
comparing results and looking at absolute numbers
over time?
Yes  absolutely. The  assessments ( not tests) have the  goal  to    find your  curent limiter  and possibly compensator.  The goal  is  than  to try to   improve the LIMITER  so he is a  functional part of the full team on the one side,  but as well you like to avoid  that a  compensator  may get overloaded and suddently  is the  actual problem.  See in the  idea  with SEBO  VL is  working really hard  and was   a kind of a compensator  for  a relative  weak  intermuscular coordination. So  at the start that was great, but now  he is the limiter  as   he  reaches  the limitation  and  now the  goal is  to  find  other team members to help.
But
 Now  as he leans  to integrate more  muscle groups  he  will  as well need more O2  but as well will create more  CO2.  Now  his potential next limitation is  to get rid of  the CO2.
If  the respiration  is now  the limiter  than he  can compensate  for a  while  by simply   learn to  desaturate better, as he will  have  an increased   CO2  level so   right shift of  his  O2  disscurve.
 Now this is a functional  compensation. problem,  the  change in CO2  will as well create a vasulcar  reaction  and we  will have an overload  of the right ventricle. Now  over the short run that is okay, as it is a compensator,  over the long run  it  can create a problem  like we see in COPD  people. Now  the many great cooks on here  should  slowly  see how we  can use one   limiter to stress a compensator,  or how we  can use a compensator to  create another limitation. 
  This is  why we need  physiological training ideas   with a goal on what we like to   stimulate and change versus a blind   performance based  training zoning.

.

Namely, if we place the sensor at exactly the same location
do absolute numbers tell us anything (ie, are we improving
certain system, etc.) or it's just trends that are relevant?
We  can mount the  sensor  very accurately by taking  certain anatomical  markers. Now  similar  to other parameters like for example HRV  we have to collect  a  certain amount of datas  and we  in fact  can use  SmO2  as a  direct feedback on  changes  in the   bodies  recovery   situation. I  normally  need  100 plus  datas  from resting datas, which are  easy to take  in the  evening and morning and   after  certain workout  datas  and than I start to use SO2  directly as a  feedback on  what  can be done  from the resting values in combination with  otherr biomarkers. 

Example 
 I  would do a  respiratory overload  workout  with only stressing the respiration  all out  and a minimal  cardiac load .
 So   a long term " interval"  with  3 - 6 loads  depending on  the  reaction o the  respiratory system  like for any other muscle.   Or  a longer  " endurance" load   with  stable  tHb and stable  SmO2 in the respiratory muscles   so  30 - 5 min   where  they would breath a VE  of  200 l/ min or more  with a respiratory frequency of  40 +  and  a TV  of 4.5  - 5 L 
 So  much more  than in a  classic idea of a VO2  max load  so the  VE in the VO2  max  may be  178 l / min. Than we look  how   after and the ext  day/ days  the leg muscles for  example (   SmO2 /tHb) will react  at rest  and  in a minimal load of   walking  or squatting  or  biking or rowing or what ever. 
 Besides  the resting SmO2 / thB  we will  look at  RRA  so  TV , VE  and RF  at rest and if  you can  ad CO2 levels  with a capno meter  O2 levels   to it . Add HRV , as respiration directly will  influence  HRV  despite  the  fact  that in he  200 l/min  workout  the  HR  was perhaps  90 - 100 beats  so minimal cardiac load


2. In some sports (like cycling / rowing / running) assessments
can be done very precisely since you can control power / incline /
pace, etc. precisely.

Absolutely.  That means  if  you do another sport  like cross country outside you develop an inside  simple assessment idea  where  you see the   reactions as well   and that could be a  simple squatting ( just  be sue  even laod  right and left ) fixed  range  or a  simple  upper body  exercise. 

In other sports like cross-country skiing, trail running, mountain-biking,
you don't control protocol precisely, so it seems that any comparison
is not fair. It seems that even trend comparisons are suspect.

True  and that  brings  me to  the real use  of NIRS.  The real use is  NOT   assessing and than use the assessment to  use HR  or  RF or power or  speed   from the assessment and  than go out  and use this information. NIRS is here because it is a live feedback. So no  need  for an assessment in a workout, if  you know the limiter  from an assessment. The workout now   is  the   tool to  trigger  what you like to trigger  and you see live whether  what  you love to  do really reacts  accordingly to your  goal of today workout. Example  for  cross country skiing.
You like  to  desaturate  in he first  load  your legs  only, followed by a recovery , than you like to  desaturate your arms only in the next load   and recovery , than you like to  do a systemic  desaturation  with a low  HR  to  recover longer  your cardiac  system  and you  plan  to do a  few sets. Now  you can  do 5  sets  leg  3  sets  arms  and 2  sets  systematically, not because it was planned  but because the physiological feedback  told  you so . The sets  are given by our live respond as you can see after  2  systemic  loads  you can not desaturate anymore  without integrating the cardiac system.
 
For example, the other day during skiing, the trails I was on had a very 
very steep climb (for about 1 min) followed by another gradual climb (for 
about 4-5 minutes) followed by a gradual downhill. If I did any kind of
assessment protocol on this trail, the result would be quite different if done
on a different trail. Now you throw in different weather conditions (slow vs 
fast snow) and a hill that you ski one day at HR=120 bpm becomes a hill 
that you have to do at HR=140. If I match the heart rate (or perceived effort)
the movement is not the same at all.

True but again  why would you assess here   this is a training ground  not  an assessment ground . On snow we assess on a like . Sixths place is  perfect  for certain type of  goal setting  and specific  targets  you may have for that  day 

So, I am struggling with coming up with a consistent protocol (so that I can
compare results apples to apples) where test environment is different every time.
To me, even if I repeat some sort of protocol (based on HR, effort, etc.) I am 
essentially doing a different protocol every time.

See above  a  simple indoor assessment   woudl  do this


How would 5-1-5 protocol equivalent be done for such sports?
I  don't  think  he  5/1/5  is a  smart protocol  for  sport, it is a  starter protocol  for   fitness people  to find  limiter and compensator. In sports  we have  for  different sports  different assessment. So  for tennis it is different  than  for  ice hockey or  for soccer or  for running or for  MTB or  for  cross country  skiing    and so on. The indoor  5/1/5  is  for   searching  for  potential  limiter  as this is  a great way  to show improvement with clients  with a minimal  amount of hours  available  and a minimal amount of  super hard loads.


Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. 

Hope this  gives  some   food  or thoughts
sebo2000

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
 #3 
Hi Simon,

I responded to you in email, I just wan to add a bit more.

Beauty about Moxy is that you can do any calibration routine on any muscle, some other devices I will not mention the name, allow only on specific placement, with Moxy sky is the limit. if we would be limited to single muscle, the scale due to muscle compression would be much smaller, especially when muscle is not recovered.

For my "calibration/warmup"I do 5min@40% and 5min@56% of my 60min power then one min stop, always in the same position hands on the bars, right leg down during rest. Most importantly do not loose patience, keep doing it, and make notes, "last night hard workout etc, feel tired etc." 

My first 10 days was like: "this is crap, it does not tell me anything" it always looks the same.

then I have performed few hard workouts and I was like: "I think my moxy is broken, I see totally different reactions, I started to switch Moxy to different places only to see the same reactions with different amplitude.

Next I have "recovered" and it hit me: wow this really works my moxy is fine, my old recovered reactions are back.

When I find some time I will try to post few examples, again those will be just my personal examples, I'm sure they would be similar if we all do them, at list looking at our single leg workout experiment, it pretty much is exactly the same.

It's all about having a warmup and engaging all muscles in question, in your CX ski situation, (I'm totally not a ski expert) you could do 30 squats, 30 push ups and 10 burpees then stop.
(number of repeats is totally random, based on what I feel I would be able to do without killing myself, it's all about activation both upper and lower muscles and cardiac\respiratory system)

To make it "scientific looking" and adaptation proof routine, you could try:

perform max amount of squats, max push-ups and max burpiees, then cut by 40-50% . After a month when you feel it is getting much easier to perform that routine, you could reevaluate your max repeats and adjust accordingly.

That is why I use 40-56% of my 60min power, once I get stronger my warmup will stay "fairly" the same, it will never be really truly the same from physiological perspective and that is the difference we want to spot recover and analyze.

 



juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #4 
Sebo , 
great !!!!!!!
xcskier

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 46
 #5 
Thanks for your feedback and suggestions.

I have done assessment for my sport and I have out of curiosity also done
an assessment on a rowing erg machine using 5-1-5 protocol. I'll post the
data. I am curious to see if the conclusions are the same for both tests.
I would expect them to be fairly similar. This is obviously not the case when you
do lactate profile tests where your profile is sport specific and can be 
quite different. The same with HR. However, physiological limitations
should be the same regardless of activity.

Now  similar  to other parameters like for example HRV  we have to collect  a  certain amount of datas  and we  in fact  can use  SmO2  as a  direct feedback on  changes  in the   bodies  recovery   situation.

What kind of data (in addition of HRV) would you recommend collecting
on a daily basis? And then how do you use this data to monitor your
physiological state?


As per sebo's suggestion, the idea would be to perform a quick test as a part of
a warm up to determine which system is "tired" and then possibly adjust your
training accordingly. If, for example, you have intervals planned you may see 
at the warm up that you are fatigued. I have found this already when I noticed
that after the first interval, the SmO2 level didn't recover to the initial point and
at the end of the second interval my SmO2 level didn't go as low as in the first
interval. To me, that was an indication that something is not right. But, I could
only determine this after I have already done two intervals.

From this discussion I gather that a quick test should be done before every
practice to determine the state of your energy systems and then reassess 
the training plan if too tired.

Juerg's description hints that you can monitor this effectively by doing data collection
maybe in the morning / evening. It would be interesting to hear more about this
idea and how the determination (tired or not, which system seems to be strugglng),
perhaps on an idealized practical example.


juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #6 
Nice feedbacks
 I have done assessment for my sport and I have out of curiosity also done
an assessment on a rowing erg machine using 5-1-5 protocol. I'll post the
data. I am curious to see if the conclusions are the same for both tests.
I would expect them to be fairly similar. This is obviously not the case when you
do lactate profile tests where your profile is sport specific and can be 
quite different. The same with HR. However, physiological limitations
should be the same regardless of activity.


This is one of the limitations we all have, we expect something so better is we watch  for it. Here   it will be interesting to see.  Reason.  If you are a  rower you may have  very good  upper body  depending on technique  and  therefor  you  may see a different outcome on  skis  as  your    leg muscles may be  the limiter, versus a   diagonal  cross country skier  who   has a  leg preference.
We did   many many  comparison like  this   with same athletes   be tested on a  bike a  rower erg  and  on a  ski  erg  and  had some times  same limitation sometimes very different limiters.

What is interesting is, that in  many cases  as better the athletes were trained  as  an overall  athletes,  so  great upper and  lower body integration as more likely  we had a  systemic  limiter like  cardiac or respiration.  The years  of   LSD  workouts   created a huge  ability  to use O2  in a lot  of muscles  and as  such  the  cardiac  system    is  at risk  to not be able  to maintain BP  so   somebody  will have  to  stand back  with O2  use.
 Or    if  the CO  is able  to handle  the demand and can deliver  we than  run   sometimes into trouble  by not being able to release  the CO2  due  to VE limitation.

 This is one reason  why  very early on  we have to look  for  ab lanced  development of  CO  , VE  and muscular   utilization and delivery  ability.
 The current ideas  of  80 %  LSD   has the  risk  that we create  the sleeping giant  as so often discussed, as  in  very few training plans we have as well an integration of CO  and VE  development  as every body  looks  for performance improvement instead  of physiological balanced improvement.


Now  here a  question.
 We  know  as it is often shown, that  high performance athletes often  do not improve  their  VO2  "max "  anymore but still improve performance. In fact we  see in many cases an actual drop in VO2  "max ".
  What is the reasons  that they  still improve performance  and    what is the reason that  VO2  " max "  is not improving anymore.
. Think what limits  delivery and think what limits  utilization.

second  question.
 Why do we see in  better  upper and  lower balanced  athletes  a  much lower maximal  lactate level.
 (  despite  that they when tested intramuscular   produce  at least as  high  lactate values  as   other   athletes.

Run  out of  time here   but will come back
  here just short
 From this discussion I gather that a quick test should be done before every
practice to determine the state of your energy systems and then reassess 
the training plan if too tired.

No test  but an individual assessment.
 Get into a  routine  of the  pre  workout or pre race preparation.  Repeat  this all the time   perhaps  10 - 15 min  always   the same routine  no matter    whether you go for a  workout  or  race. Collect  easy  bio markers   ( will be back on that  and include   NIRS.)

If  you have  2  MOXY's great if  one great as well.

 
MOXY on a   nonpriority muscle  can give a better feedback on systemic  recovery of  fatigue. MOXY on a   priority muscle  can give a better feedback on the local  recovery stage.


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net