Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 61
 #46 
Quote:
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.


progress definitely depends on training status & training load.
for me, if i achieve 20 sessions in a 4 week period, i typically see a 2-4% avg watts increase in my time trial results, so in rowing, about 10-15 watts @ my current fitness level. which i would probably classify as just-faster-than-a-slow-old-man.

good to confirm the watts were the same as well.

Ruud, definitely understand the heart rate - incredible heart rate differences when i am rowing one morning @ 2 C, the next day on the erg @ 14 C, and then another day on the erg @ 19 C.
The changes i have seen in heart rate are from much more macro data - month over month & season over season, and represent a generalization about my long endurance training specifically.


i love seeing what you guys post, and the information you provide, as it helps me learn - i still feel lost when i look at the data and try to interpret it too deeply.




juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #47 
Great points like the  music  example. Will try to get sandors  overlap 2 km  ideas in with  some  thoughts  where we  can discuss  further.
DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #48 
And one more test after approximately 40 days.
Same procedure as previous times. The feeling was that I could have completed the last step but did not want to have an all out so I stopped after the first minute.
VL
test41_vl_20160408.png 
Delta Pars:
test41_delta_20160408.png 

Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #49 
Nice Daniele. Can you put your workouts in 3 graphs for a better overview. So 1 for SmO2 with the workouts and 1 for tHb for the workouts. And HR. Interesting to see whether there is a trend.
DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #50 
Good point Ruud [wink]

Here they are:
tip_hr_dec_feb_apr.png 
tip_hr_dec_feb_apr.png 
tip_thb_dec_feb_apr.png 

Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #51 
Sign of better delivery Daniele [wink]
DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #52 
Ruud, yes the SmO2 behaviour seems to point on that direction and also the less-involved muscle is not showing any drop of tHB.
tHB on VL has also a different trend (higher values than at rest) and may mean a better capillarization.
On the other hand the end-performance was more or less on pair with the test performed on February (likely same VO2peak).

So it seems like the "small" adaptation may have produced some results below the peak.

To be confirmed. 
 
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #53 
I  do not like to interfere  with this interesting discussion but I like to  throw  something in as it is a classical misconception   on the  ideas of VO2  max or better  VO2  peak.


 On the other hand the end-performance was more or less on pair with the test performed on February (likely same VO2peak). 

I can not proof it in this case  as I  have no data's on VO2 peak but  I at least would   add, that the VO2  could be higher  same or lower in   any case  even if we push the same wattage.  In this  case above  I  even would be nor  surprised  if the VO2  peak  at the end of his  third assessment  or  better test  will be lower.  It is very important t to  understand that an increase in VO2  peak  doe snot   mean  that you as well will push a higher  wattage.  The Vo2  max  idea  is long  overruled  and we Know , that yes a high VO2 max  means a lot of O2 is  consumed but it has a very limited feedback on the  actual performance. There are many  world  class cyclists  with relative low  VO2  max  but better  results in tours than some with very high VO2  max.
 It is more a  question of efficiency  rather  than maximal O2  consumption.
 Again it is because VO2  max  or peak is a summary of the team. If you look at COPD  people  they have a  realtive  high  VO2 max  due to  an incredible use of  O2  by their  respiratory  work  compared with non  same age  COPD   people.
 In  sports it is the same a very inefficient cardiac and respiratory system can create a great looking  VO2  max  but a very poor result in performance compared with much lower VO2 peak athletes.
 In the above case we see a higher SmO2 indicating less utilization by the same performance or  better   delivery  due to a higher  capillarisation. So  if we assume it is a sign of a higher capillarsiation, than we have less  work needed  for cardiac system but as well  less  work    from the respiratory system  so  more efficincy  from the delivery or less O2  utilisation  so    lower VO2 peak  at the end   load compared  to before.  There  was  once some nice studies  done in spain  with some  top  tour  cyclist  in this  direction.



DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #54 
I agree Juerg.

Unfortunately I did not take notes of the Respiratory Frequency in all the steps but I am quite positive that during last hard intervals RF was less than before with the same power output.
As you said, probably slightly improved efficiency despite approximately same peak power.


juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #55 
Daniele  thanks  for the great feedback.
 I will  try to find the  Spanish  study   with top tour  cyclists on VO2  max  and the relative limited  help we  really get from VO2  peak or max in performance estimation.  Now  Daniele  knows  exactly what he did  in between the different assessments  and  what kind of goal he  had set.
 So the  last assessment  is a feedback  whether he achieved  the goal he  has  set  or whether the   training stimulus  he   created    ended up with a very different outcome than expected. In any case it is a positive  outcome as he now has a feedback  on what has changed    and what has not changed.
 So  as a coach  you set a goal  based on an assessment  and you may target a functional  improvement  due to a race coming up or a structural  adaptation  due to a longer term goal.
. So  again as usual  what is limiter  , how  do I improve it , reassess,  did I reached the  goal ?
 Now  for Daniele it will be fun to see,whether he used  wattage as the intensity control or whether he used  bio  feedback  of physiological information to reach his goal.. Based on what he used  he now knows that the %  of FTP if he used that , created this change,  if he used  bio feedback he knows as well he reached this goal.
 If  he  did not reach the goal  he   has no clue what the wattage  actually will do , if he used bio feedback info  he actually knows  exactly what he  tried to stress and what the  out come is.
 That is the difference  between  physiological  workouts  versus mathematical calculated  workouts.

It is  highly individual  and I will show  over the weekend  a fun situation  form Rock climbing,  from two highly accepted groups  with a very different statistical outcome  and I like to show  this as  NIRS  fits  perfectly in this  the way we like to promote  future  coaching. One  athlete at a time .

It is too bad  that  more and more NIRS user  start to go back to the old cookbook idea and design  weeks ahead workouts based on a single  test result.
 The idea of  bio markers feedback  and  even more  feedback we see now live is  exactly the opposite. You have a  plan which  will be adjusted  as you dialy go depending on the stimulation  you have planned.
 Nobody  has a clue  how  you and I will react in 4 weeks   and whether the planned intensity is  still the  proper one to stimulate the target I have set. This is the nature  of nature. This is the advantage of understanding physiological reactions and now the  luxury  of live feedback.
  Daniele   thanks so much  for so openly sharing your  datas. It is  very much appreciated.
Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #56 
"Based on what he used he now knows that the % of FTP if he used that , created this change, if he used bio feedback he knows as well he reached this goal.
If he did not reach the goal he has no clue what the wattage actually will do , if he used bio feedback info he actually knows exactly what he tried to stress and what the out come is"

The thing with the above is that most of the time coaches and athletes nowadays already have a good idea what the outcome is based on previous experiences. In those "knowns" they try to introduce new things to add on the things they know. I think Moxy can be one bit into that whole spectrum.

There is no biofeedback equipment today which an athlete can properly use day to day which will immediately tell him given all the constraints : "hey, I see your cardiac system seems a bit fatigued, your respiratory system is OK, because this and that and that. Go and do this and that workout with this and that load".

Also I do not see a day to day equipment which shows: "hey: I am actually training my stroke volume with this workout". Its in a lab situation yes, but not in a normal athlete's environment.

Actually measuring fatigue given the individual variability in the whole system and the "external influences (e.g nutrition, sleep, life stress etc etc) and acting in a day to day way comes down to (as research showed) a feeling on which you can act. Yes there are systems which try to measure fatigue and based on a trend OK, but on day to day the feeling is superior.

Also. Stressing multiple times the same (fatigued) system does not have to be detrimental for performance. As long as you can pinpoint the systems fatigue properly and act upon it is OK (but as said properly measurement of fatigue is difficult because it is multifactoral, both during workout and out of workout). Isn't this what the base principle is of training? First the system gets "beaten". It get's tired. You rest and you get better (very much simplified I know).

I am personally still looking for Moxy to actually be such a tool: to aid in making day to day decisions towards a goal . But also with Moxy there are so many day to day variabilities (let alone placement differences) which gives :1) a different trend, 2) a different absolute level of measurement, 3) if you do not have the complete set of biomarkers very hard to instantly pinpoint what is happening and what you should or shouldn't do. 4) its local. Its local, it local we have to keep that in mind with all the interpretations (which we see are often discussed afterwards. As a coach or athlete you have to instantly when doing the workout understand what it happening and act on it right away). Getting to graps / control that variability to get the stable view or direction would be really nice. It is a bit like heart rate: when is it off "normal"

Because it remains relative and individual (as is fatigue) it also comes down to the same relative directions when using wattages. It is a direction and sometimes a wattage direction can be wrong. But a biofeedback direction can be wrong as well. If they both point to the right direction you have a winner.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #57 
Ruud great  summary  and great feedback

There is no biofeedback equipment today which an athlete can properly use day to day which will immediately tell him given all the constraints : "hey, I see your cardiac system seems a bit fatigued, your respiratory system is OK, because this and that and that. Go and do this and that workout with this and that load".

Also I do not see a day to day equipment which shows: "hey: I am actually training my stroke volume with this workout". Its in a lab situation yes, but not in a normal athlete's environment.

The  above  statements  are   well received but  not agreed  upon. I use  exactly this  facts  daily  so people come in , they have their individual assessment as a part of a warm up  and than make a decision based on  the feedback of  bio markers like  respiration ( RF , cardiac HR  and the trend in NIRS  whether they today  can not  do their  Spiro workout  as this  system  did not recovered but they may now do  an alternative   workout like a inter muscular  coordination  set.
 They see, whether their  cardiac system  may need a longer break  and therefor  may actually do a  respiratory  workout.
. We have  elderly   people  who have that nice  in control. come in set the  NIRS up  and what they need ,assess and  adjust.
 It is  used  day to  day  or  if needed   2 x  per  day.
 It is based on an initial assessment  and yes  true  ,we may use  there  all the toys  but than show  how NIRS  actually is  in most cases good enough to   make a  conclusion based on what we  currently know is the limiter. So if we do Monday a  right ventricular overload,  we than know we stress this  part so specific cardiac fatigue  so in the assessment we look  whether that is the  case  and now may  Tuesday   do a  right ventricular  relax  workout  by doing a  specific respiratory  workout    with enhancement of release of  work of the right ventricle. For that we we use NIRS  and some  simple feedback's  depending where we  expect to  see the  changes or the results.  This  patients  come in when ever  they like set  themselves  up  and if they have a  short question we  go out in the workout area look at the  live scree  and  either  short explain  what we see or   agree with what their  conclusion was.  I  will show in Jiri's  puzzle  short  how that  would look like in the case of  his  left VL when  looked  at this  just   away  from the full discussion we have there.

But  I agree completely  with your  statements,  as it will take  some additional few years  till the  coaching community is there to actually see , that it can be done. We have fortunately now an ever increase on institutions  who buy MOXY's  and start digging into the topic.
 What is missing in many papers  I see is the complexity of combining the physiological systems , which than if not  done  end  up  with some more theoretical conclusions  which than often get overruled  from other groups  who added  besides NIRS  some more  data collections.
 I hope I can show that with our  interesting climbing studies  and how opposing their findings  are  due to the not   couplet  use  of  all the   physiological testing equipment we really have  available now.
 Remember the study you  sent me  where they  used Spiro Tiger but  forgot  to actually check  the EtCO2   level  on each athlete  and what was coming out  of the Spiro tiger  valve.
. So general  conclusion based on missing data .
 But still great information when looked  and used it properly.
Summary.
 We  use NIRS as a daily feedback to see, whether we can repeat  or like to repeat a  certain load or whether we alter  today's workout or  do no workout  based ion what we see. 

Sets  reps  and recovery  as well as load  duration are  given as we workout  live and  will decide the  duration of the  workout  depending on the goal  we have set.

Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #58 
Hi Juerg. Yes. I can understand that in your office you can do that with the equipment you have. I was merely referring to the "average" athlete (non-pro, someone who likes to be competitive at their level) who does not have the equipment at home. If you want to tell something about stroke volume for example you need special equipment and even then you do need individual baselines for all kinds of bio feedback to assess whether there is an abnormal (read limiter today or compensator for x and y) patten for that day. Otherwise you can't determine which is actually the "problem" for that day. It than still remains unsure. In that manner One step further down the road mathematics and predictions based on previous biofeedback and performance will eventually come in.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #59 
Ruud
absolutely agree. In fact  I  think we  see much   earlier in   centers  and  locations the integration of physiological  workouts. Fit  by Fred is a  great example  who is running this  already very successful. Next up  will be advanced   personal trainers,   as I have a set of them now   with daily   online discussions  on how  they can make a step forward in actual personal  training quality  to move  from a  good looking  expensive   push up counter  and motivator  to an advanced  physiological  integration workout  with  all individual set ups.

The other big step  and already working system is  teams sports  and here in Canada we talk about  ice hockey  with Brian Kozak  successfully  integrating this as well so  16 athletes 16  workouts  all in the same  room.

Rehab centers  and  physio therapies  will be next  as well.
 Any sport, where we  care  about individual   ideas  and where we  are not" hindered " by looking at performance , so performance is  one part of the  full feedback but not  THE  part  of  zoning , the  bio marker ideas   will be implemented  very successful and is  already   nice under way in doing this.

It all starts  at the grass root like our  fitness  and physiological courses  at the high school level  to  d get rid  off  classical  fixed   options  and open up minds  that nothing is static  and we learn  every  day. The technology  opens a  very new  world  for  future  coaches  but this  takes a generation before we are there.
 I hope Andri  can get this integration up in the next level  with his job  at the university level.
 For the moment it is a lo of  fun looking how we can challenge our self on what we  do.
  I may open a  forum section  where I like to show  the regular readers  how  we challenge ideas  like the Fick   VO2 ideas or  why  a  lactate curve  as it is  still used  can be  interesting  discuss down  to   only  questions but no  answers.
 Here a hint. 
Question. If  LT  as it is often referred is compared  to Max  Lass as it is often  done and confused.
 than that means  at LT  we are in a  homeostasis  so   lactate production and    lactate  utilization is more or less in a balance.
 Question to my student s/ That would mean  if  I load  below LT  what  happens  with the lactate numbers . If  I  load  above   LT  what happens  with the lactate numbers.
 Than we do a practical answer  by testing blood. 
So  who ever has a lactate analyzer try this out. Who  ever likes to  do some theoretical   thinking  tell us  what g happened.

 Than  If  SmO2  drops  what is going on  with the lactate reading. If  SmO2  goes up  what happens with the lactate reading  and so on.

 I may  try to  talk Ruud into a fun  experiment I use  with my students  to show  that respiration  can be a limiter despite the fact  that big names argue   that this is never the case.
 What I will try  is  to   show that if we have a VE limitation  due to TV  and RF limitation  that we  simply  can not push above a certain level.  So  we will artificially limit  Ruuds VE  somewhat  far below  what he has  and than show    what happens.
 So  what I would need is  the VE  from Ruud  from a classical VO2 max tests  at his  LT intensity.  including RF  and TV.
 Or we need his VE  at  FTP 60 including  RF  and TV.
 Or if nothing like this is available  the RF  during a  FTP intensity workout. combined with the feedback  what RF  and bag size  can he breath   with little  problem  for  30 - 45 min  on his Spiro Tiger. 

As usual  fun times  ahead for us  when we   do not take our self  to serious  and  look at  all in a  healthy perspective  when dealing  with  healthy sport. Any  fun  and positive critic  will move us  forward  , any religious   believe  and defending  blindly  what we  do  is a  nice step  to  disastrous  results.

That's    my  2 cents  after  just successfully milking a  stubborn goat  this morning.
DanieleM

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 264
 #60 
My short opinion on this.

I pretty much agree with Ruud: I sometimes struggle to understand the day to day variabilty. Perhaps placement/hydratation could well influence the results.

At the same time, I feel like NIRS may be one useful instrument to monitor the athlete status (from my point of view much much more than HRV which seems to be very "stylish" but is just based on previous statistics)

The point here is to understand how we can use NIRS and I would appreciate if Juerg can share some further lights on this (perhaps some examples or ideas to try).

For instance absolute values of Smo2/tHB...are they reliable or we can just look at the trends?
What specific trend of Smo2/tHB may expect following a specific workout or after recovery?




Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net