Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #1 
The goal of this case study was to see the reactions in 3 different muscles: VL, RF and Delta Pars (less involved).
I've performed the test in 3 different days, but very similar conditions (all test have been preceeded by one day of full rest).
I will call them Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3.
Test procedure exactly the same: 4 minutes starting at 120W, 1 minute very easy pedalling then increment of 30W.
Day 1: Moxy on VL
Day 2: Moxy on RF
Day 3: Moxy on Delta Pars 

Day1: VL
steptest4_1_VL.png  Last step lasted approximately 57s

Day2 RF:
step_test_4_1_rf.png 
Day 3: Delta Pars
step_test_4_1_delta.png 
Last step 1 minute.

Day 2 was the one with the best performance (perhaps a bit more of motivation...but I can also see a lower starting HR), otherwise I would say that also from the perception of effort, respiratory frequency, the test were very similar.

Some observations.
VL, tHB upwards trend during the last steps, SmO2 almost flat and levelling off in the last full interval. It seems like the vasodilatation allows SmO2 to remain balanced.
RF: it looks like is not much involved during the first steps but it gets more and more when intensity increases. In the last step SmO2 is not in balance despite a tHB increase.
Delta Pars: Stable SmO2 and tHB in the first 6 steps. At step 7 there is large decrease in tHB as a sign of vasocostriction to allow more blood to the involved muscles.

If I had a VO2 instrument I may expect that VO2 is increasing through the steps with a contribution from VL which may level off at high intensities while the contribution from RF increases. 
This confirm latest research on heteronegenity of muscle contribution by Koga et al.


Limiter/Compensator?
My feeling is that central delivery could be the compensator.
RF could be less trained than VL (downward trend in SmO2)

csv files attached for all the three cases.

Your feedbacks are highly appreciated


 
Attached Files
csv steptest4_1_vl.csv (406.53 KB, 20 views)
csv steptest4_1_rf.csv (448.18 KB, 20 views)
csv steptest4_1_delta.csv (409.16 KB, 21 views)

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #2 
Daniele    great  work  and you just   filled  up  my  afternoon. But first  some  snow removal on the roof  and than   a jump into your interesting case as we have many of them  with   2 3  and 4 MOXYs  running. Check the   three muscle case  from Ruud. And if  time  the  super interesting cross country  case, despite lot's  of  confusion. Still some intriguing  feedback from there  to share  with all on here.
Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #3 
Daniele nice graphs!!! Here some of my general thoughts first (not specifically related to your workouts but more on my own experiences from different workouts with these muscles) and then some remarks on your data. I don't go in into specific limiter or compensator since I would like to see some more general findings from which we can learn from each other which enable to generalise more on specific muscle properties. Excuse me if this is not what you like.

General
* In general I see that rectus femoris and VL SmO2 levels trend very much alike. I see correlations of >0.90 in workouts which also have (I know you hate the word Juerg) FTP or VO2 max kind of intensities in them. Not only in my own, but also on an other rider which I tested this week
* In general (especially) at lower intensities (and in general higher cadences) the SmO2 level of the rectus femoris lies above that of VL
* Overall variability (standard deviation) wrt SmO2 in different loads is just slightly higher in vastus lateralis than in rectus femoris
* Mean SmO2 / standard deviation wrt SmO2 in different loads is slightly higher in rectus femoris
* ThB trends on higher loads (FTP +) are more steep than VL
* These observations stem from a position with hands on the hoods

Your workouts
* I see very similar kind of SmO2 level of rectus femoris; above that of the VL
* I also see these variability equivalences in your data (however not as closely correlated as I often see)
* ThB amplitudes of rectus femoris are much higher than those of VL. I suspect this has really much to do with leg positioning. If leg down rectus femoris is really relaxed and bloodflow can really increase much during rest periods
* Rectus femoris thB trend is loads is interesting and also same as I often see

What you see is that if applying zoning to these results you will get different results (I assume for now same physiological state since you did not measure everyhing on same moment!). Also in this respect your muscle recruitment pattern seems to differ some more between LVL and rectus femoris.

Hope this can add to the discussion. Just for your information find just an example workout on Left Vastus Lateralis, Left Rectus Femoris and Left Calf (BSX) which I did this evening. Unfortunately didn't have time to do 2 more FTP related 5 mins in the end.


 
Attached Files
xls LVL_RectusFemoris_Calf_Blender.xls (750.50 KB, 22 views)

juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #4 
Both  Ruud  and Daniele .
 Fascinating stuff  and you push  far  ahead of  what the intention  of this  forum is.
 I  like her  just to show  how   we can use NIRS feedback  for practical interpretation     when looking  at tests. or   we look  at physiological assessments  and than   you can use the interpretation  to design your physiological guided  workouts , where you can    use NIRS live  as you do it  or you can sue  some combinations of biomarkers  like HR  RF  SpO2   SEMG  and  NIRS    to actually  correct intensity   at the moment  you  change the stimulation  of the  target  system like    respiration, cardiac  or  muscular    system.   Now  I like  first to take  Daniele's  great data  collection.

Short    jump.
In the  cross-country  ski  section I showed  a  second  case idea  with a  " recommendation" based on the  data's, that we have a very  string left and  right side    ability in performance.

 Now  systemic  data collections like in the case of the skier    with VO22  do not pick up this situations. They pick  up  for  what they are designed  to do   systemic   end results  at the end of a test ( Peak VO2 )  or  systemic   feed backs   in different    %  of VO2, which in many cases  is linear  when we look at VO22  HR  and performance.
 Even    lactate  has that problem as it is a systemic  feedback  where  at the end of a  blood sampling we have the feedback  , that somewhere  in the body  some muscles  may have needed lactate  to   help buffer  H +  as well some may have taken lactate  as  an energy source  and what ever  shows  up on the finger is  just that . Left overs   from a   performance  task  somewhere  before  the blood sampling .
 Nevertheless  we  take  LT  as  gospel  and if   people are happy  with that that is  great and nice.  Is  that not the idea off  a  gospel or  religion  to find your happiness ? .


 So  with adding  SEMG or NIRS  we suddenly see, that the end result  VO2  max  or wattage  or  time  is influenced  by different team members  as we always  talked  about  and in a left right leg difference   one of the team member will for sure  reduce the overall performance.

 So  take a %  of  VO2  max  or  LT  or FTP  or  time. Than train  with this. so  80 %  of VO2  max   for the left and  right leg ?????

Other example. 4 men rowing boat . The weakest  guy  can  row  38  stroke / min.  The coach knows , that they need a  43   stroke  rate  to get the  time they hope to reach.
 No  problem  you  go out  and  push  with all 4  43 ????


Why  this story  for Daniele.
 It is not just  left and right  where  we  can a have a  big performance difference. it is  as well on the same  side    when we look the team   leg muscles.
 The majority  of    cyclists including Pro cyclists  do not  know , that this is a very important  factor.
 David Richter   mentioned it  as  he points  out  some intriguing direction  we  talked  about    at a  seminar  we did in  Todds  and Davids  old  place in Seattle. ( Coordination )
 The  collection off  thousands  of  kilometers  on  a bike often  create somewhat a better  coordination  due to " fatigue  "  and survival mode  and  try to find an efficient  way to make it home.
 We  did  some SEMG  studies  many years  back in Spain ( Girona) where  we  looked at  intramuscular  and intra muscular  coordination  at the start of a  200 + km ride  and than  at the end over a  20 km  stretch.
Top  cyclist   where using a very different   intermuscular coordination pattern    at the  end than  at the start , where  beginners  barely survived  it as the  kept   using the same  few  muscles  all the time. When we  asked  the  cyclist  what was  different. Every  body agreed  , that the Pros   are  just in much better " shape" What is the definition of " shape "
 I  would argue, the Pros  had  10  team members  who  where helping each other  for the 200 km  plus , where the beginner  had  3  who had  to do  all thee work. !!!!


 Okay  Daniele's  three  overlapped  SmO2  reactions  first

smo2 all three.jpg

Remember he  did them  one  after the other but he did  an incredible job    and  gives us this great feedback here.

When he pushes  that hard  he has a   systemic  limitation :  delivery    so cardiac  or  respiratory limitation. See the  non-involved muscle reaction.

Now  lets  see, who  was  immediately  heavy involved    to push the load.  Bets  way  in a fast overall view is a biased  view  . As we can see  delivery problem or  not.

 Biased VL

bias  VL.jpg 

You can nicely  see, that during loads he has  always an initial delivery limitation and  than  tries  to see, whether he may be able  to  load  more O2  than really needed  . See first 2 loads  for sure  but than  some  " tries"  3  - 6.
 Now   he may have been  able to  actually  show a sufficient  delivery  if the    time would have allowed it. 4 min is  simply  to short  for a  cardiac  and or respiratory system  to react  fully  . So  4/1/4  or  5/1/5    would be needed.
 Now  Daniele is    more happy  using  smaller steps   but looses  some physiological feed backs  which  does not matter   in many cases.

 Now  any   activity will increase CO  and  create a  vasodilatation.
 Remember the  battle between vasodilatation and vasoconstriction.  systemically  and   locally.

Now  tHb  is  closely  linked  to SEMG  when we look  from a  contraction point of view.

So  when keep all this in mind  a  drop in tHb  can  ( not has  to )  indicate a  higher  motor  unit recruitment  and therefore  a  bigger muscular compression  force   at a  low intensity level   so  CO is not fully  working  ye  and we have a drop in tHb.
 Now  if the integration off  another leg  muscle  for cycling is not that intense  but there, we  than  would see by the same COO  but a  smaller  recruitment pattern, that CO  will win  so SmO2  can go  up so  does tHB.  No  in SmO2  we can see , that  both  VL  and RF  goes up as  we deliver  more O2  than needed. VL  increases  somewhat less in trend  as  more O2  is used   ( still more delivered ) than in  RF.

Biased  RF

bias RF.jpg 

You can see tHb  drops  as well so  at the start  at least  more  muscle contraction  than CO  can overrule. followed by a  relative balanced  situation, where we see  at the start  of each step  a  first  compression overrule  and than a  CO  adjustment  plus  other vasodilatation adjustments.

Exception  last  step !!!!! Now lets look a non-involved  muscle  or minimal involved  muscle  
Bias  D

bias D.jpg 


You  can see    start and end of the assessment he   has  some problems.
 Start  as it needs time  to  have enough CO  and other help  to  keep it back  to  neutral     HHb  and O2 Hb. So  at the start  cold  turkey  wee  need the  O2  where  the demand is  big  so legs  and CO  VE  too low  to keep all happy  so shift  of  O2  and blood to  legs. Than we have a  balanced  situation or at least  situation, where we not need the help  from  upper body  for the lower body, till we get again to a  delivery limitation and we  shift again.

Daniele's  delivery  limitation is a  cardiac out put  limitation

Remember  limitation is  NOT a problem  so no  Cardiac problem  just currently the CO  will limit  further   overall improvement  to a certain extend.
  BUT.
 There is a systemic  limitation  we have now ,  and there is a  potential local limitation.

tHb  all three

thb all three.jpg 

You  can see  " blood " shift    from D by 4200, indication a  limitation  of further  delivery.
A  respiratory  metaboreflex would  create the same  tHb  drop, but it  would be  in all muscles.

A  respiratory  limitation  due  to  actual  respiratory  muscle  weakness  would  not create this   drop as the accumulated  CO2  would  create a vasodilatation in the systemic    area.
 If  the  cardiac  out put  can handle this vasodilatation and still maintain BP.
 In case CO  can not handle it  we gain  would see a  drop in tHb on all  levels.

 So  the   steep increase in tHb  at the  rectus  Femoris  is a   venous occlusion trend.

 Local limitation  strength of  rectus  femoris .

 Suggestions:

1.  Increase CO  so   the pressure of   higher SC  and CO  can overrule  the  muscle compression. So training the systemic  limitation will  help to overcome the locale limitation.
  or  :  working on local limiter  by   increase  max9mal strength bike specific  than we have a lower %   of  maximal contraction  and we have less  compression  by a lower %  ( Rhomert et all )  and we m have a  free flow  in rectus  as well for a higher performance.

 When  doing a  bike specific  strength workout    do not forget.
 VL is a  mono articular   knee extension  only . RF  is a  bi articular  muscle  so keep this in mind  when doing  bike or  any sporty specific  workouts.  Have  fun   great  data's  hope it helped.



juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #5 
Now  to Ruud's  feedback,  Juts  to keep  The "power"   people  happy. Here first  Ruud's   data's  from a power point of  a  view.  I  as usual  look at it very different . I look  from a  Physiological  reaction point of  view.  Three green  circles.
1. Look at HR  an watt lust below  400   HR  just above  160
3. look at last  circle Watt clear  above  500 / HR  ????  e meaning ?
2.  middle  circle  watt   with exception  of start peaks  just  below  400. HR ???

power watt  loadds  for closer look.jpg  Now  circle  1  and  2  similar    wattage  similar  HR but different time   ( duration ) meaning that  some system  may be  able  or not able to contribute the the performance. As well the   inter  and intramuscular  coordination may be different  stimulated  by the Central governor, as the  short load in the  second  circle  has a very different mind set than the  first longer  400  watt load.
Now  even more different will be the  400 watt long  set  and the very short but hard  500 +  watt .
 This will show  up in intramuscular  coordination  so   in other words in  the way  he may   activate    motor units ??? Now this is highly individual  and let's  see what Ruud  is doing.

Here  first a  very close look at the  first  circle 400  below  watt  longer  duration.

 VL  smO2  and tHb trend

VL  thb  smo2  2 min  400.jpg 
Load  starts  by  1800

 Now  same place  RF
RF  400  smo2  thb.jpg 

Now  even if new  readers  have no clue  what we  talk about  watch now the difference when we look at the same ideas  at the 500 watt load.

VL  500 plus load  short  duration

VL  smo2  thb  end  interval.jpg


Now  look  at  RF  same  section  500  plus  watt
RF  end intervall  thb  smo2  occl.jpg 
Now  its  up  to your coach  to work  with this.  you can see the difference in  the  pattern.  This will stimulate  different  adaptations.

 So Ruud has a  very similar   local limitation.
  1. Ruuds  limitation systemically  is respiration  .
  locally is  strength.

 His  VL  is a great  guy  but    will have  after a  while   some problems   that  other teams member  do not contribute.
 So  he  has to integrate  intermuscular   coordination  into his  workout  paired with   respiratory  challenges.
 Now  this  can be  done relatively  easy  so   if he  achieves  that goal he  has a  risk that  his  cardiac  system  may be  the  new limiter  so   a great idea  is  to combine intermuscular coordination  with  a  cardiac    training  SV    challenge.

ryinc

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 368
 #6 

First thanks to Daniele for sharing this information.

Jeurg thank you for the detailed comments.

I have a few questions. First Daniele’s case:

The workouts were done on different days.  The differences in HR are quite substantial. In general HR on the RF workout is 10 to 15 bpm lower than the VL workout and the DA workout is something between those.  So one thing we know for sure is that the delivery system is far from identical across the three workouts.

Question 1: Given the above, can you confirm that we can reasonably confident make deductions such as this:

A  respiratory  metaboreflex would  create the same  tHb  drop, but it  would be  in all muscles. 

Could it be that there was a metaboreflex on this particular day because of low cardiac output  due to low HR and we just have not observed it on the other muscles as those were different workouts with higher CO?

Question 2: I think I understand how you identified the local limitation – basically observing the increasing thB and reducing Sm02 trend and ruling out the other possibilities. What I am not sure that I understand is how you identified the cardiac output system limitation – could you explain this in a short point summary?

Now onto Ruud’s case:

So Ruud has a  very similar   local limitation.

Ruuds  limitation systemically  is respiration. Locally is  strength.

 His  VL  is a great  guy  but    will have  after a  while   some problems   that  other teams member  do not contribute. So  he  has to integrate  intermuscular   coordination  into his  workout  paired with   respiratory  challenges.

 Now  this  can be  done relatively  easy  so   if he  achieves  that goal he  has a  risk that  his  cardiac  system  may be  the  new limiter  so   a great idea  is  to combine intermuscular coordination  with  a  cardiac    training  SV    challenge.

Question 1: Why are you not recommending a similar training idea for Ruud in terms of local strength as for Daniele? (or is it simply that you did not mention it).

Question 2: What would be an example of a workout that pairs intermuscular co-ordination paired with respiratory challenges? Do you mean something like focussing on a pedal stroke (or cadence) that involves RF muscle at the same time as focus on particular breathing style (all at low intensity?)

Question 3 : What would be an example of an intermuscular co-ordination with a cardiac training SV challenge?

I am not looking for a cook-book, but am trying to learn how to think about this. 

DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #7 
Ruud/Juerg, thanks a lot for the feedbacks. Very appreciated.
Please let me add some more comments.
@Ruud
Quote:
In general I see that rectus femoris and VL SmO2 levels trend very much alike

At least in my case, the trend of VL and RF are quite different 
Interesting paper about that:
Muscle deoxygenation in the quadriceps during ramp incremental cycling: Deep vs. superficial heterogeneity by Koga et al (2015)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26404619

Quote:
In general (especially) at lower intensities (and in general higher cadences) the SmO2 level of the rectus femoris lies above that of VL

Not sure if we can get information from the absolute values (consider that fat layer is probably different) but, from the trend, I think I can assume that in my case RF is slightly involved at lower intensities and it very much involved at very high intensity loads.
And this is very well related to your points:
Quote:
ThB trends on higher loads (FTP +) are more steep than VL


This, from my point of view, has a large significance when designing a training program.
Just to make it very simple...if I do a 3 hours ride at 200W, I will not train the RF at all or very little. 
I will probably need something specific as pointed out by Juerg.

@Juerg
I agree that there is a CO limitation during the last very high intensity load but if I am still not 100% sure if CO is used as compensator during the previous steps.
The not-involved muscle do not show particular vasocostrictions until the very high intensity load.
The overshooting pattern (HHB) during the first loads clearly indicates a delivery limitations at the beginning but it then recovers.
If you see the HR trend it shows the same pattern. Probably it takes time ("too much"') until SV is fully "up and running" but it looks like is the CO that keeps SmO2 at balance (vasodilatation) during the last part.

On the other side, the big guy (VL) is not desaturating much more in the last steps.
It requires help from other muscles like RF which, I perfectly agree with you, is showing a limitation.






Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #8 
Great observations all!

Hi Daniele. Yes. Agree very much. At lower intensities RF is relatively less involved and you will need the higher intensities to train it

Tnx ryinc for the questions. Since they are directed to Juerg I ll leave it to him haha
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #9 
Woww
 First of  all ,  what a great  in depth  discussion. Tell me or find me  any  forum  with this in  depth  physiological  discussion ??? 

a)  feedback  to the great thought s  from South  Africa

Remember he  did them  one  after the other but he did  an incredible job    and  gives us this great feedback here.

This was the intro into the discussion, so all the points  we  have  from South  Africa  are great  and  absolutely  valid.

a) The differences in HR are quite substantial. In general HR on the RF workout is 10 to 15 bpm lower than the VL workout and the DA workout is something between those.  So one thing we know for sure is that the delivery system is far from identical across the three workouts.


Absolutely. This is a reason  why, when we  do  an assessment we  prefer  to have  all   observed  at the same  time. So  from that point    all the conclusion    and observation , when w e take them  as  same time  information's  are  obsolete.
 I should have   got that message much better over. I  only  wrote  as you can see above  .
 I than looked  as if they  would be done  all together.
 Bad  idea, bad teaching , bad   and unreal seen   conclusions.
 So really  I should scrap the   thread as it was used  to  show   reactions but    really it  is too much assumptions.

Question 1: Given the above, can you confirm that we can reasonably confident make deductions such as this:

A  respiratory  metaboreflex would  create the same  tHb  drop, but it  would be  in all muscles.

You are  right  no  not at all,  if we use   different days  to  do  an assessments  like this  case  we  can  NOT  make this conclusion.
. Remember that the  Metaboreflex  ( Dempsey  et all )  would kick in, in case  the  loco motor  muscle " steel "  blood  and as  such O2   from the vital systems.
. In any case, where we  have a higher CO  due  to  different reasons  we have a   better chance, that if we have the risk of a a metaboreflex  kicking  in is delayed  so  better performance.

 That is a  the  simplest  reason  why in endurance sport  any  option to increase delivery over  O 2 transport or over increase in CO is so  successful.
 Plasma  expansion  and EPO  are     nice  proof  and the idea  to work over less or not yet banned ideas like   NO enhancer  can work  in certain situations. ( Sildenafil, Nitro glycerin  , beet juice   or  Vit  D  plus  sunlight,which comes up  about very  15 - 20 years  as a    "performance enhancing"  option.
 My  mentors  at the some  40 years back  Prof . Schoenholzer  and Dr. Alder who where the fathers  of high altitude  training in St. Moritz  with the 1928  and 1948  winter Olympics in St. Moritz  already  showed us the  benefit  and disadvantage of this ideas.

History  repeat  itself  and this  was  far before the first ACSM  meeting. So   what we often have to  accept is , that when we  not   care   about history  we repeat our self  by  either making the same mistakes  again or confirming a lot  of ideas  already  existing.


Question 1: Why are you not recommending a similar training idea for Ruud in terms of local strength as for Daniele? (or is it simply that you did not mention it).
Again my mistake  and yes  fro sure  Ruud   can  either improve  CO  or  improve   maximal  RF strength and inter muscular bike  specific  coordination.

Question 2: What would be an example of a workout that pairs intermuscular co-ordination paired with respiratory challenges? Do you mean something like focussing on a pedal stroke (or cadence) that involves RF muscle at the same time as focus on particular breathing style (all at low intensity?)

Many different options  and that is the  art of  coaching versus  the science of  assessments.
 We  here just like to show  how  NIRS  alone or better paired  with other bio markers  can tell the coaches   where the  possible  weakest link  ( limiter ) is  so they ca than design a  individual  workout  for  their  client  instead of  cooking  at  Mc  Donalds  with  %   of  what ever.
 Additionally  NIRS can now  help  to be used  live  as we  go  so we  can correct   workouts  as we go if we see they  physiological reaction is different.
  Daniele's  examples  are  proof  of that as we can see that  in the RF  day  CO  was different  and performance  was  slightly different  and if he  would have made a  5/1/5  it would be much different  as 4 min can be  tried  to push  through as he mentioned,  but   10 min not.

Question 3 : What would be an example of an intermuscular co-ordination with a cardiac training SV challenge?

Same here  as you mentioned  not cook book   offer. Small example.  the  athlete  with the ACL  PCL  problem.

 Key here is  to  work on medialis as  it is doing the last extension  than  his VL is  working well  like we see in  Ruuds  example.
 Rectus  working     okay but has a problem  to desatruate  similar  to VL  so  most likely  different muscle fiber  situation.
 So  we load  positions , where we have  high RF  SEMG  activity , than we  add a  hypercapnic  respiratory  workout  to it  so we   get hypoxic  hyper capnic,  meaning we reduce  delivery  to the RF  as  he works  the  most  and  as  such  than  force  him  to look  for options   other than  delivery  of O2  so  O2  has  to be taken  from with in the   muscle.
 MOXY  supports  this.
1. We look  for a venous occlusion  intensity  followed by a  drop in SpO2  to  90 %    and than  hope to see the   reaction on the NIRS  screen as  SmO2  will drop accordingly if not we  have to change  duration load  and   hypoxic  level.

DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #10 
I think I clearly mentioned that the limitation of this case study is the fact that it has been performed in 3 different days, but in overall similar conditions.
As rync (and myself) noticed the RF day, HR was lower, SV was likely higher (RF-day was done 2 days after VL-day...a lot of sweating and probably very good rehydratation after).
A slightly better CO may have contributed to a slightly better performance. This does not mean that the case should be scrapped!

Actually, I think this case includes a lot of interesting points and I would appreciate a comment on this:

@Juerg
I agree that there is a CO limitation during the last very high intensity load but if I am still not 100% sure if CO is used as compensator during the previous steps.
The not-involved muscle do not show particular vasocostrictions until the very high intensity load.
The overshooting pattern (HHB) during the first loads clearly indicates a delivery limitations at the beginning but it then recovers.
If you see the HR trend it shows the same pattern. Probably it takes time ("too much"') until SV is fully "up and running" but it looks like is the CO that keeps SmO2 at balance (vasodilatation) during the last part.

On the other side, the big guy (VL) is not desaturating much more in the last steps.
It requires help from other muscles like RF which, I perfectly agree with you, is showing a limitation.
ryinc

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 368
 #11 
Daniele, you did make it clear that the test was on different days and i agree the case should not be scrapped-lots of interesting points made already. Even if it is only used as a hypothetical example, it is really helpful and thanks again for sharing..

However given this limitation, i think the conclusions reached just need to be treated with appropriate caution (does not mean they are wrong but the possibility of other explanations if any increases).
DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #12 
Quote:
However given this limitation, i think the conclusions reached just need to be treated with appropriate caution (does not mean they are wrong but the possibility of other explanations if any increases).

Btw...what are the conclusions that need appropriate caution???
ryinc

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 368
 #13 
Daniele, i gave a example in my original post but effectively any conclusion that is integrating information across the different workouts which effectively makes an assumption that what we see in three different muscles in three different workouts would be the same as what we would see in one workout with three moxy devices (one on each muscle) could be open to more risk of being wrong. That is the underlying assumption which is being made in many of the ideas in this thread. It could be correct, but it could also be incorrect. If the assumption is only slightly incorrect then it may not influence conclusions. The point though is that we will simply never be able to put the same confidence in deductions based on an assumption than one based on facts.

For example if we made the assumption that HR would be the same in each of the workouts because the assessment protocol was the same we actually have the data to see that such an assumption would have been incorrect. Whether the differences in HR and therefore error in the assumption is significant is a different question. Personally i think differences in HR of about 10bpm are quite significant in terms of the delivery system but fully appreciate that each person may have a different view on this.

I fully understand that there are practicalities to consider here for data collection. Most people collecting data only have one Moxy so its impossible to do it any other way (i dont have a moxy at all). However the price for this impracticality is that we have imperfect data which increases risk of imperfect conclusions.

As already stated the information in this thread is extremely useful and i am very grateful to be able to learn from you, Jeurg, and Ruud, Fred and others that regularly contribute ideas so none ofy posts are intended as a personal criticism.


juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #14 
New start .
 Looking  at the  super interesting discussion on Daniele's  great data's  and my terrible  respond  when I started  out  to answer  questions,  motivates  me  to give it a new   start or  try at least.

Here my point  and please take it  brutally  apart  when you do not agree  with it. That is  the reason  why I sometimes  may  go above  and beyond  certain  ideas. triggering responses  and  questions  and corrections  on what we do here. This is a  live  (ly )  Forum in the way, that we  do / ,not  shake each other hands  and say  how   good  we are,  but  rather   shake  each others hand   (  and hope fully brain ) to  motivate  us  to   get better.

1. My mistake.
Point one.
 Daniele's  data's  are incredible valuable  and I will, if  possible  , allow  myself  to show,  that this is what we  did  really in the past , when we  had  one NIRS  to start out   ( Portamon  from Artinis ) .

Very simple  reason. My minster of internal affairs and minister  for  finances.( my  wife )  , was  hard  or impossible at that  time  to  convince, that after I  just bought a  physio flow , than  more expensive  VO2  equipment some additional  lab equipment and a SEMG  and finally a portamon,  , that I needed  another 15'000 $  to get a  second one  to  show   what is going on. The main problem . I just got  three more goats , which needed another  3 acres of fencing,  so  I finally had  to make  some  priorities  which ended  up  with some more goats.  ( Sorry ).  By  the  way   one of them  had a  scure a bad dehorning job, which creates a problem, that  the horn  grows   back but   with very  poor  material  so soft  and  has the  risk of  breaking of  as well as   turns, in my case, towards the scull and   endangers   that it grows  towards the head.
Now the horns in  a goat  are  apart off the scull and therefore  have a lot  of    blood vessels in them. So if they break it of they  can bleed  very fast to death, so  cutting them nobody  likes to  do it  even under anaesthesia. Reason  we do  to  know  where the blood vessels  end  , we just know  that a   part at the end has no blood vessels . So if  you can cut regular that section  you can avoid  trouble,

Short  story  end.
 I used   NIRS  to find  the different  levels of  where the end  really was. than marked  it  and than used a  wire  to  create frictional heat  to melt  threw the horn ( sticks  terribly )  but creates so much heat , that in case NIRS  was failing  I had  some  chance to   stop bleeding  with the heat.

 And  result : it worked  and  still works . The Vet  was so impressed  and so impressed that we use NIRS on her  horses  during long distance  races   to  review  loads and overloads.

 Why this story.
 It is  all about practical applications with what we  have  with the goal  to make  it accessible to as many people as possible  and the academic  correctness on  what we   can find  out.

Now  Daniele's  data  collection will help  me to make this point.  I  will  come back  with the  option I  love to look at this data's.

  1. I look  at them  theoretically under the assumption, that we made all  three muscles  data collection in one  single 4/1 test.
 No matter  whether this is the case  or not  and than show  what we  would come up  with conclusions.


2. Than I like to look  each single 4/1  as it is done  and look  what  conclusion we  could  get out  of a 4/1   when we just look at one single muscle. Where the   conclusion of  all three in one  may disagree with   single assessments  and  hope for feed backs  with ideas  why this may have happened.
 

 Here one reason, why  we may have some great  ideas  with disagreements  or agreements.

HR  all three.jpg 

Than we  can go back  and see, what the  possible weakness and strength is , when we  choose just one muscle.  Including the  question which one is better  using an involved muscles versus a  less involved muscle  . Than asking the  question of what I like to achieve  with an assessment and the protocol  I  choose.


 I like to add this part to the interesting  rowing comment   to show  what we  do or did  in rowing  with NIRS.  so   we get more and more overlap  as well I own  Jiri a  feedback on the great swimming info.



juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #15 
Sorry  I ma behind  with all cases. new year  so flooded  in the clinic  but will try to pick  up some great started  discussions. Cheers  and happy new year  to all new readers.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net