Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #31 
What I also find worthy to add is that your tHb continues to decrease after and initial increase. So. We don't observe the U shape this time. Although CO2 is probably higher as you state which I would say would actually show up as a increase in tHb. Decreasing stroke volume since HR is going up (so CO balanced or actually lower showing up in decreasing trend in tHb)??
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #32 
Nicve  work  and nice  confirmation  when you go back on  our old  NIRS  lactate   case study  where we  loaded  glycogen  and  than  low  glycogen. Remember Lactate will  move the trend  curve to the right indicating a  false   performance improvement, NIRS will move  to the left and indicating an eraly   stronger  need  for  O2.
 Fat  mobilization needs more O2  than   carb.
 Higher O2  utilization  as well will crate  more CO2   creating a higher  RF  and in case the repsiratroy   system was overloaded  as well the higher RF  may often go  together with a lower TV  so more  dead space  b per  breathe  and less CO2  releases  so easier  O2  taken of   Hb  and Mb but as well earlier  alarm  for a possible  limitation of  o2  supply  to the vital systems.

 2 points  I like to add .
 1. What  would happen if you  simply follow FTP  %  ideas  rather than perhaps  looking at  physiological reaction. Is  the loaded and unloaded  Wattage the same  physiological stress latest say  240 watts ?
Now   go  and feed the workouts  into   golden cheetah  and look  at W  bal.  ???

2. Next  step  for you. Physiological feedback  whether a planned  workout  can be done.
 Compare  your  loaded and unloaded  first 2  steps , than look  what you see as a feedback in HER   feeling 9n RF  and SmO2 tHb . repeat this 2  - 3  times  and you have already a feedback on loaded and unloaded  and therefor  can make a decision  as you warmed  up, whether it makes sense  to do  what is on the plan or whether you change it  as the  bio feedback  form yoru body suggest.
 Same than  can be done  by creating an overload in respiration  so  one 4/1/4  2 steps  whit a recovered  respiration none  with a completely overloaded  respiration and you have the  feedback. Last same  with cardiac feedback  create a completely  SV overload  and one recovered  and again  only 4/1/4  ne4ded  for you and you have this  feedback. Now  you do the last  eccentric  muscle overloaded  super simple  to  do . than a 4/1/4   recovered and one  overloaded  and you have the  feedback  for  muscular overload or   not recovered.
 So  all  4  ideas simple  fast  and  easy  to do and you run on  that. This as well is an answer  to our  south African  friends  I ow  since a long time.
DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #33 
Good point Ruud.
Quote:
What I also find worthy to add is that your tHb continues to decrease after and initial increase. So. We don't observe the U shape this time. Although CO2 is probably higher as you state which I would say would actually show up as a increase in tHb. Decreasing stroke volume since HR is going up (so CO balanced or actually lower showing up in decreasing trend in tHb)??

The reason why I am not thinking is an SV problem.
If you look at non involved you see a very different pictures.
The test was not very challenging from the Cardiac system (think that I've finished at 140 bpm!)
HR was actually a bit lower and it is not compensating. If SV would have dropped I would have a CO drop and very low SmO2 level which was not the case.

To come back to your point...I would say that both the SmO2 and tHB profiles are very different and tHB is not showing the second part of the U shape.
From a logical point of view: no much need for Delivery (central+local) if I cannot use it.
Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #34 
"To come back to your point...I would say that both the SmO2 and tHB profiles are very different and tHB is not showing the second part of the U shape.
From a logical point of view: no much need for Delivery (central+local) if I cannot use it."

Still intrigued by the tHb though. What could be an explanation for this trend. If CO remains equal to last time, RF actually goes up, but bloodflow (as we use tHb) trends downward. Why would tHb drop in exercise and would it be distributed to somewhere else or ..... And why. To respiratory system or ....A metaboreflex is more instant right and not apparant over a longer trend downward... Just thinking out loud for an answer for this tHb trend if it cannot be explained by CO.
Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #35 
I mean the comments in line with a different physiological state. That is. Now you had to give up but the trend of tHb going downward might be of a very dfferent explanation than that of being in a rested state. The main question for me is: what is the differentiator or differentiators in a rested state and fatigued state and can (and how) would we be able to trace this easily. We have seen a post of this somewhere else regarding HRV but HRV swings can have multiple ways to interpret as well. We should look for hard fact-based decions (or at least rule out most of speculations).
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #36 
hint. RF  goes  up ??? look the  information  of  respiration on HRV  is showed  on the forum . Look the influence  of diaphragm  motion  of blood return  to the  heart  as a  pump effect  and look at TV  as  a  reaction  when looking at  dead  space  %. Now  a  key  to physiological  workouts is, that during  this type of assessments , where you see e it is very different than  you often expect,  now you have to start  using  your   team  members  so  keep the load in the  what we call STEI intensity  so  only  the limiter  would be challenged  but the compensator  not  and  now  t  you  can play. If you play  with the limiter  you  reach a limitation fats  and you have to reduce  performance  to ARI. If you play  with  compensators  you can keep playing in the  STEI intensity.
  Important You have to accept  that this is NOT a test it is a guide  for physiological feed backs. The   initial  or  2  - 3 initial 5/1/5  or what ever assessments  give you  a physiological baseline of your bodies  reactions. You can do one   very recovered and one very     overloaded  and you have the  2  extreme  pictures.  Now  the rest is playing  with  what you  have  using the  different options  we    can use  to influence the different reactions  and see, whether you can predict the outcome  than you have control over the physiology or  whether you are getting surprised  but than you learn  physiology  .
DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #37 
One more step test 4/1 after 2 months.
First moxy on VL, second on arm biceps.
Same procedure as in the first post: start 120W+30W steps
VL
steptest_4_1_20160226_VL.png Arm Biceps
steptest_4_1_20160226_biceps.png 

 
Attached Files
csv step4_1_VL_20160226.csv (438.52 KB, 20 views)
csv step4_1_Biceps_20160226.csv (438.52 KB, 17 views)

Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #38 
Biceps pattern is one I very much recognise. Amplitude of tHb getting bigger and very much lagged effects
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #39 
Here  two   thoughts  to  the 4/1   and  4/1/4  or  5/1/5  as a base discussion. Ina  5/1/5  we  argue  that it is NOT a test so we  do not  need   power or performance really but it is  an assessment to see in what  physiological  range  we  have  what kind  of reactions. so  bigger steps  are  easier to see  than smaller steps.
  so  you  make  as  Daniele  show  9  steps  of  4/1  = 45 min +-
we like to start   in cycling  by  FTP/2  as a start load than  take  FTP - the start load  /3
 Example  300  W  FTP  / 2 - 150 start load .
 Now  (300 - 150) /3 = Step increase  so  50 in this  case.
  TIP  4/1/4  or 5/1/5 
 150/ 200/ 250 / 300  and than  350  perhaps 1 step  if possible or  in extreme  both . so maximal 50 min  .

Example  FTP 200
 200 / 2 = 100 / (200 - 100 )/3  = 33.3  .  so 30 watt steps.
TIP 100/130/160/190/220  Now   reason  for repeat.  in  the exercise  science  it is now pretty much accepted  that we need   8 +-  min steps  to be sure we  can have a decent idea of a possible homeostasis in this step.

Oxygen uptake during the first minutes of heavy muscular exercise

  1. 1.   Per-Olof Åstrand1 and
  2. 2.   Bengt Saltin1

+ Author Affiliations

  1. 1.    1Department of Physiology, Kungliga Gymnastiska Centralinstitutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

Oxygen uptake, heart rate, pulmonary ventilation, and blood lactic acid were studied in five subjects performing maximal work on a bicycle ergometer. After a 10-min warming up period work loads were varied so that exhaustion terminated exercise after about 2—8 min. Peak oxygen uptake and heart rate were practically identical (sd 3.1% and 3 beats/minute, respectively) in the experiments. The heavier the work was and the shorter the work time the higher became the pulmonary ventilation. There was a more rapid increase in the functions studied when the heaviest work loads were performed. It is concluded that aerobic capacity can be measured in a work test of from a few up to about 8 min duration, severity of work determining the actual work time necessary. Duration of work in studies of circulation and respiration during submaximal work should exceed 5 min.

Now there is a long  try out    and history  behind the  5/1/5.
  In short originally we  where keen to show  that we  can use  NIRS to replace  LT  or better max lass or  LBP Now  in lactate testing a  single  value  ahs limited   information   as we have a point in a trend reaction. So  2.4  after a 3 min step  of  after  an  8 min step  mins  not  a lot.   but 2 lactate values in a  3 min step   hard  but possible but in an 8 min step  will give a much deeper insight in the metabolic trend.

Here an example EH_VENT.png 

or below  same athlete  three different protocols.

lactatedynmic.jpg 

so the idea  was, that when we make  longer steps  and have to readings  we see the time lag  reaction  of lactate  when taken 2  x  blood . So  an initial increase may  be if given  enough time  for all the system  to try to participate a  chance  to get metabolically   the  trend   increase back under control.
So once we  would hit Max lass  we would have a minimal to no  change  after 4  and  8 min. See  first example 3.1 mmol   2  times.
 That would be than the  Max  lass and much easier to  do than an actual Max lass original  idea.  The  theory  would argue  that after LT  or max lass  so  a little bit faster the  lactate production is higher than the lactate  utilization  and we  will have a  increase of lactate.
 Now   that shows  that a lactate test  with  steps  to exhaustion really  is not needed  as  after LT, lactate  will go up and create a curve  with out  any additional   more steps  just one   small step higher than LT  and lactate will keep increasing.  Now  once we added   Physio flow  for cardiac info  and  VO2  for respiratory info  as well as SEMG  the   picture  was not that clear  anymore. We  had suddenly that changes in respiratory reaction shifting the  trend in lactate or  sudden  increase in SV in the  second  half  of the test as well.
 So  the idea  to search  for limiter and  compensator  was born.
 So  when we than  started  to get rid of the main O2  consumer in a   assessment the working muscles but due to lag time  kept  Delivery  and exhaust  going at least  for  30 +  seconds  we had  much nicer feedbacks.
 So  we  still had  8 +-  minute step test  but we interrupted  the homeostasis a little bit but mainly O2  consumption  and little  the delivery .

So  a step test  with  short steps   or longer step  but  one single point  of data's  misses  a lot  of feedbacks.


 Here  2  examples . First  a 4/1
hr  smo2  vl all.jpg 
Due  to the change of  load  every step on the way  up  it is  difficult  to speculate  where we  may start  to integrate some compensator as we may have   be close to a limitation of one or the other system.  we could argue  by 1500 - 1800  ( 270 watt ) we may have some signs  of CO  compensation perhaps  as HR is  not really  flat anymore.
 Below a  5/1/5  from a  reader we discuss.

hr  smo2 compensation  area.jpg 
Now look as we repeat  each load  2  x.
 Look SmO2 trend . where is  it repeated. than look  HR trend in load  but  as well look HR  recovery trend in between loads You tell your self  what you see.

here just  short  respiration  info. check  where we  see clear repeats  and where we see adjustments despite the  same load ?
So  when we  than  combined  all of this we   had the interesting  finding  that in most cases  not all as usual  NIRS info  alone  with  proper combinations of  HR  and  RF  would  allow us  to find the critical   intensity , where we  started  to  push a limiter  and needed a compensator.
That's  it we moved a  over 100'000 lab equipment tools    down  to  2 MOXY's  and are able to  do it in the field  and than use the  assessment tools  for  live feedback workouts  as well. Yes  problem  from a data collection lab  to a  brain  integration  lab.

So  if people like  due  to time restriction  and   interest in  performance  do a 4/1  or  5 min step test without   break   nothing wrong  with this,  we just  may have  more problems  and more speculations to see what is limiter  and what may be compensator.
 The step test has the advantage  that you get a maximal wattage  , than you can get a  cheap  calculator  as %  calculation is on most of them  and you have your  zoning no questions and therefor no discussions.
 Kind of boring but  better  for  business purposes.

NH_VENT.png  




DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #40 
Fun part: comparison between the two assessments (two months difference), same protocol and same muscle (VL) with incredible similarities.

First HR and SmO2
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb.png SmO2 and tHB
tip_thb_smo2_dec_vs_feb.png 
And the details of each step.
Step 1
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb_step1.png  Step 2
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb_step2.png  Step 3
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb_step3.png  Step 4
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb_step4.png  Step 5
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb_step5.png 
Step 6
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb_step6.png  Step 7
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb_step7.png  Step 8
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb_step8.png  Step 9
tip_hr_smo2_dec_vs_feb_step9.png 


sandor

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 61
 #41 
Daniele, 

was this the same watts as well?

in my little rowing thread, i have been trying to determine the changes in SmO2 and tHb related to fitness gains. but in my case, i compared month-over-month 6 km time trials.

if you were doing the 5-1-5 at the same "settings" and, provided that there was 2 months of training involved as well, it seems odd that all readings are so similar for the same amount of work.

i would have expected a much larger drop in heart rate for the same work, i usually see 5-7 bpm drop @ the same wattage every 10 days or so of training. 

SmO2 & tHb - they are what i am trying to figure out *how* they change with increased fitness.
Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #42 
Yes Daniele very similar. Wrt the remark of Sandor. Mind that there are a lot of variables which explain differences in HR even with same wattage. A lower HR for same watts does not always mean better trained. Instead you might be overreaching (of which I hope is funtionally[wink]. I think that even functional changes are quite hard to determine (even causally) given same performance. Maybe over long term structurally. But maybe Juerg can chime in
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #43 
First  Daniele    you are  too fats ( no  farm chores I see. I have similar  graphs ready or  ahd ready to show  same  for Sandor  but than got   moved away  with the respiration ideas. Great  job you guys  what  can I  say . it is a  dream  come true  having people   starting or  already  thinking eh same way.
 Ruud  made a good comment.  Here  not a  critic but an interesting   phase in our   physiological training ideas. You can see really no change in  datas  so  either too short   of the loads  or   not optimal target  loads  so different way   Daniele  has to stimulate. That's where the ideas  come in. So  he question is > Did  Daniel  used   loads ( wattage  as intensity  or  did  he played  with physiological  challenge.. I hoe to set up  some physiological  challenges  for Ruud this week  for   next step in respiration.  One of the key is  to see " micro " stress reactions so   during or after the load  and the next  day  to see,w whether we may  create a adaptation reaction.  That is  the next  big step   once we  can establish  physiological assessment next big  step is  physiological guided  training   and that  where we   may see  in  he next  few years. The assessment is the baseline to understand  the ideas and reactions  of  the different way to  stimulate  changes  not based n performance but on actual  physiological  natural manipulations.  I  have now a few groups in different sports   having the  courage to  get this a go  and in 2  -  years  we will be back  and show  failure  or success   with this independent  from me groups.  Thanks  to the coaches  and  yes  we have some  great  or  had some great success in international  arenas  with this one by one ideas since the   1976  Montreal  Olympics  whit always one athlete at  a time   since than. Some  of this athletes  are still active  and will show up in the top   this  year in Rio or   on other big events. Small group  quite  but  fun.  You guys  are a part of the ongoing ideas.
DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #44 
Hi Sandor,

yes same wattage as previous time.
5/7 beats less in two months for the same wattage?? ...I would also wish to increase 20/30 Watts...but unfortunately is not like that.
It depends on the initial training status and training intervention.
I am quite happy with the small improvements made actually.

Anyway, what is interesting is to understand what may have "slightly" improved.

HR and SmO2 are showing in some steps almost identical values. I can speculate that SV did not change.
One possible explanation is the recovery at step8.
In previous assessment recovery  was kind of "sluggish" and the feeling when started last step was definetely to not being able to finish it while in the last assessment the feeling was that i was going to suffer but i would have managed to finish it.

My feeling is a slightly better delivery&utilization at muscular level.




Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #45 
Agree Daniele. If the orchestra still plays as loud as last time it might well be that the flutes started playing louder and the violin just a bit softer which is hardly to hear. But end of the day they all seemed a bit better coordinated so melody became a bit better we all notice.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net