Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #1 
A  fundamental difference   on what we  try to  achieve  and what we  did in the past is the "cook book " approach.

 Despite "success"  with the cook book approach , the question remains, whether this is the bets  we have to offer  or  whether there is room  for improvement.

 Example:
 Track and field  team.
 Evening workout:
 middle distance runners.
  workout  10 x 400 m   with 2 3 min rest in between.
What is they  physiological reasoning  behind this workout  and why this distance.
 What is the outcome ?
 Different  approach based on physiological feedback.
  Unknown  numbers  of all out  runs. Unknown  distance  and unknown rest in between.
Controlled by NIRS / MOXY.
 You run all out  for example till we see a  minimal   level of SmO2 . You start with a  start  SmO2  of  67 +-  you run  first load  and  you reach 17 SmO2   before it goes up again  despite your still running.
 Now  you rest  till you over shoot  and reach a new top SmO2 level.
 Now you run again  till you hit 17 +-. you rest to the next bigger overshoot  and so on.
 Workout is over,when you can not  desaturate  anymore  to 17


Below  one  workout lookiong  like that.
10 july thb smo2  all.jpg 
 Now  are we alone ?.
 I had this week  some different  phone calls  with some very great people  and the feedback   was , woww yes that  is an interesting idea  and could be done.
 Now there are as well big names out there   thinking  along that line  and having no problem  to open the  discussion.
 Here  one  nice  reading. Blue is my loud thinking.

James G Hopker 1*and Louis Passfield 1

 

Prescribing training involves the manipulation of intensity, duration and frequency of the sessions to improve cycling performance. As sports scientists our ideal is to help provide an objective scientific basis for this training prescription. But whilst we have developed an intimate knowledge of training adaptations and their regulating molecular signals (Stepto et al., 2009), we do not appear to be moving closer to providing a scientific basis from which to design effective training programmes (Borreson and Lambert, 2009).

 

Below we post 3 questions for future training related research studies to consider.

 1) Are training studies using appropriate indices for specifying training intensity?

 

 2) Should training studies take more account of individual variation?

 

 3) Are training studies examining the right question?

 

There appears to be increasing agreement that the response to a standardised training programme can be remarkably diverse (Mann et al., 2014).

 

This has lead some to examine these training “responders” and “non-responders” and its genetic basis (Ehlert et al. 2013).

 How about responder and non responder because we miss LIMITER and COMPENSTOR

 

Surprisingly, the alternative hypothesis that training has not been standardised appropriately appears to have been little considered (Mann et al. 2014).

From this perspective the issue becomes not whether a cyclist is a responder or a non-responder, but rather what is his or her optimal training intensity.

For example, it has long been established that cyclists’ time to exhaustion at the same relative intensity can vary hugely. Coyle et al. (1988) found that at 88% VO2max cyclists’ time to exhaustion varied from 12 min to 75 min. However, the method for prescribing training in most studies remains standardised as a percentage of maximum.  

 Same holds true for wattage   training plans where we use % as well. Whole training  software’s  are based on this ideas !!!

 

 How about intensity feedback over physiological intensity information?

 

Consequently, it seems unsurprising that the training response differs between two cyclists training at a standardised intensity that yields such a diverse response to even a single bout of exercise. Even where the ability to sustain a standardised training intensity is more carefully controlled, the underlying assumption that this is linked to a training response remains unproven.

 

 Below 5 equal loads  5 different physiological reactions.

 Alternative,   Load 5 times but keep same physiological reaction if possible.

  all 5 loadfs.jpg 

                       





Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net