Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
bcoddens

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
 #1 
Hi all,

You can see the picture here:

Heartrate starts at around 71 BPM and during warmup at around 2:30 my heartrate starts to rise to 121 bpm at 3:30, load and cadence stays the same until 06:00 minutes, an example (not ridden by me) :

https://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/3770493-slide-mountain

 
[image]
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #2 
Nice  example of a  cardiac reaction with  possible different  explanations.
 The interesting is the timing  section.
 Now  do you have  as well SmO2  and tHb reactions as this  would be  a nice  example to show  how we can sue NIRS  for possible  explanations  of this type of reactions as this a very common picture.
 . Lets' see. whether we have this data  or in case not  repeat  the  idea again, see whether it happens again and   add MOXY  to it.
 Lats  question before we add a  lot of  ideas to this.
 Do you have the respiratory frequency as well  in this case.
. You can see lots  of  physical  info like speed  cadence  and  time  but minimal physiological feedback.
 The  fun part is  same physical performance but different  psychological  out come after a certain lag time ?
bcoddens

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
 #3 
Hi Juerg,

I asked the same question in a physiology forum.  They answered with a link to this research:

Effects of Priming and Pacing Strategy on Oxygen-Uptake Kinetics and Cycling Performance
 
[image]
[image]
2016, 11, 440 - 447

Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #4 
After 2.5 min with a constant load (and only a few min in the workout) then suddenly a jump in HR with 50 beats in about 60 seconds is highly unusual. I could even suspect somekind of thing wrong with the heart rate measurement. The load seems same from beginning but I have never seen a heart rate incline only after 2.30 min and with 50 beats in 60 sec or so in a same load. That's almost a doubling of HR. I would say. Replicate this one whether it wasn't just an error / one shot. If this is structural you will easily replicate it.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #5 
This   may be a nice   topic  and will be back  and  may be we can compare the answer  i  GIVE ON HERE  OR  BETTER SUGGESTIONS  i   MAY GIVE  WITH THE RESPOND  mR. cODDENS  GOT  ON  ANOTHER  FORUM  AND WE MAY  EVEN BE ABEL TO INTERLINK  AND HAVE  SOME GREAT  AND DEEPER IDEAS  AS  i  WILL SHOW A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE  ON HOW WE  Approach THIS TOPIC  COMPARED  TO THE LINK AND vo2  FEEDBACK  WE SEE ON ONE OF THE ANSWERS.
bobbyjobling

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 219
 #6 
I think Ruud is correct, looks like HR data error also the power reading at the beginning is erratic some data looks corrupted.

My HR respond as soon as I move from 0 rpm, also at very low loads(130W) it tends to "overshoot" and then readjust(smO2 could drop to 29% from 50% and then settle to 60%), however I think it is partially to do with the way the power in my turbo trainer is electronically controlled.
If I set my Wahoo Kickr to %slope the HR "overshoot" is reduce but not eliminated. In %slope the Kickr resistance is constant so low rpm = low power, the power will increase linearly until you reach your target rpm, maintaining a constant cadance will maintain a constant power.
I have done several 5-1-5 using %slope my muscles recruitment ( by looking at Thb and sm02 trends) at the start of each load was more "stable/progressive".
Note: on %slope I would reach my target rpm in around 5 seconds.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #7 
Check in my first respond

Lets' see. whether we have this data  or in case not  repeat  the  idea again, see whether it happens again and   add MOXY  to it.

So you can see a nice agreement  with the initial respond.
 Now  fun would be  IF the same graph  can be repeated.
 Than we have some  nice discussion coming up.

Now  I like to  go to a link we have in this tread  and show  you  the fundamental  again different thinking we  try to  use  than the classic la  studies.
 This studies   shows  so nice, why  I have daily  emails   form great coaches  whop  accept the fact  that NIRS  ca  be  used  for assessments but than struggle in the daily application of using NIRS in combination   with some hooter feedback's  to actually create physiological stimulus versus  simple pushing  an artificial load  calculated  from  some specific test
 Okay here the abstract  of the  link.

Effects of Priming and Pacing Strategy on Oxygen-Uptake Kinetics and Cycling Performance
 
[Blank]
[Blank]
2016, 11, 440 – 447

http://dx.doi.org.sci-hub.cc/10.1123/ijspp.2015-0292

Purpose: To assess whether combining prior “priming” exercise with an all-out pacing strategy is more effective at improving oxygen-uptake (VO2) kinetics and cycling performance than either intervention administered independently. Methods: Nine men completed target-work cycling performance trials using a self-paced or all-out pacing strategy with or without prior severe-intensity (70%Δ) priming exercise. Breath-by-breath pulmonary VO2 and cycling power output were measured during all trials. Results: Compared with the self-paced unprimed control trial (22 ± 5 s), the VO2 mean response time (MRT) was shorter (VO2 kinetics were faster) with all-out pacing (17 ± 4 s) and priming (17 ± 3 s), with the lowest VO2 MRT observed when all-out pacing and priming were combined (15 ± 4 s) (P < .05). However, total O2 consumed and end-exercise VO2 were only higher than the control condition in the primed trials (P < .05). Similarly, cycling performance was improved compared with control (98 ± 11 s) in the self-paced primed (93 ± 8 s) and all-out primed (92 ± 8 s) trials (P < .05) but not the all-out unprimed trial (97 ± 5 s; P > .05). Conclusions: These findings suggest that combining an all-out start with severe-intensity priming exercise additively improves VO2 MRT but not total O2 consumption and cycling performance since these were improved by a similar magnitude in both primed trials relative to the self-paced unprimed control condition. Therefore, these results support the use of priming exercise as a precompetition intervention to improve oxidative metabolism and performance during short-duration high-intensity cycling exercise, independent of the pacing strategy adopted.



 Great  study.
Question: does the  conclusion surprise  you  as a coach ?

 The use  of MRT VO2  and VO2  peak  is a summary of a   great team work  and we  have no clue  who actually contributed  to the MRT improvement  and whether  all 9  had a  same reaction  due to the priming.

 Again as so  often shown  before. VO2  is  the team result  and  we have no clue  why the team won or lost.
 In fact we may miss a  super  great  player  form the team  who did  really great but the  team still lost.  Look last nights game   Tarasenko  and the blues  2 goals   as a player but you loose ?

 Here again.

VO2 graphic and adaptation with traning.jpg

Now look  all the team embers  who contribute  positive  or  if not in shape negative  to the  MRT  or  peak VO2  result.


Now look  some of the team embers  like  vasoconstriction  effects  or vasodilatation effects  or SV or  capillarisation and many more  and see, why we   use  physiological stimuli;y  to target  specific team members instead of making one load  for all the  players in the same team.

 Now  IN CASE

 the  HR picture  and reaction can be repeated  the VO2  would be not  out choice  but the VO2  equipment  and if  combined  with NIRS  even better  and if combined  with Physio flow  great.

And if  you  have just  one or  2 MOXY's  that is still great if you add HR  and  if possible count RF  so that  at the  time set where HR  may  show the same reaction we have a feedback of  SmO2   tHb  HR  and RF.


bcoddens

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
 #8 
Hi All,

I did some more research:

Devices used:

HRM sensor: Sampling rate: 1 beat / sec HR: toestel: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/shop-by-accessories/fitness-sensors/soft-strap-premium-heart-rate-monitor/prod15490_010-10997-07.html#

Garmin Vector power pedals V1 : sampling rate: 1 / sec: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/cycling/vector-2/prod510941.html

Trainerroad: https://www.trainerroad.com/download/beta

Wahoo kickr: http://eu.wahoofitness.com/devices/kickr.html

What do I see ?

Screenshot was taken from golden cheetah. 

[2&filename=joebmafoggpoiglj]

 

You can see in the third column horizontal that the heartrate stays stable 
and then rises continuous between minute 2 and 38 second starting at 71 bpm
and stabelizes again at 116 bpm on minute 3 and 38 seconds.  The question is now, is the software / device wrong or does my body react odd [smile]  I will try to do this again.




Attached Images
Click image for larger version - Name: Screen_Shot_2016-05-28_at_22.19.28.png, Views: 14, Size: 40.79 KB 

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #9 

he question is now, is the software / device wrong or does my body react odd [smile]  I will try to do this again.

Step 1 
 I will try to do this again.
Step  2
Try  to avoid thinking  that soemthing is odd but rather in case we see a repetition of this  HR reaction on what causes it.
 Step 3.  If you repeat it  take more acre on physiological feedback  so  add  to the HR  RF  and MOXY  feedback  and store it so we have a csv  file and we can  than have in case of the same picture a  fun   and interesting discussion.

 The result is NOT odd and   we  see this   reactions  quite often.
. We as well can to a certain extend  create this reactions and that is always the way we look for explanations.  Can we create a certain picture  and what has to be done   to  get the result. Than we are  some  ways  closer to a possible answer or  at least a possible trend.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net