Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #1 
In classical zoning's  we look  for a  magical point  like  we often referred  to   so VO2  max  and than the performance  at this point, or  LT  and  the performance at this point  or  an actual performance value like FTP. Now  in many sports  this is  not  possible or is not   smart to do  so this sports  loose the ability  to  use a calculator . Perhaps  that is why MOXY is  very welcome in certain activities.

 Now  no matter, whether we believe  this  ideas  work the fact is, that the zoning is based on performance.
 So if  I like to  really push utilization I have no  other  choice but   have to push  very hard  or high intensity.  That is always the case  so    as higher I like to push  stimuli's  as harder I have to work.
 Nothing  wrong  with this,  as it  is  true, but I  do not only  stimulate one  system, but  I overload a lot. So  for sure limiter  and  in many cases as well compensator.
 Nobody really cares  as nobody  actually  is aware of this.
  When we  in the future  use  bio  feedback  information  we   fundamentally  change this as we see what happens  and we  can stimulate  for example deoxygenation  in a very low  performance intensity.
 This way  I  can  use ideas in for example injured   athletes  and still load  extreme   certain  ideas.

 So I  can overload one day  my  muscular system    and  the cardiac system  but minimal the respiratory  system. So the next  day I like to recover  muscular  system like  legs  and cardiac system  but I may  extremely overload  the respiration , without stressing the other  two.

 I hope you  can see what I mean.
 When   we use in the future  live feed backs  we have an individual  approach  and  we have the opportunity  to load  and overload  without  always  going all out.
  Here a  fascinating short summary  on where  we lie to go in the future  and MOXY  is the leading    equipment in these   fascinating  journey for the grass root  coaches  and   training centers  outside the scientific  community  and labs. Closing the gap  is  what we  try,

Is it time to re-evaluate the training study?

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). 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. 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. The relationship between submaximal and maximal laboratory measures (such as lactate threshold, or VO2max) and endurance performance are well recognised (Joyner and Coyle, 2008). But a correlation with performance does not make these

1 Endurance Research Group, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Kent, United Kingdom

* Contact email: j.g.hopker@kent.ac.uk (JG Hopker )

Received: 20 December 2014. Accepted: 28 December 2014.

 



Ruud_G

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
 #2 
I can't find the "like" button
AndrewH

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 12
 #3 
Hahah. Yes. I 2nd that. LIKE
Etiennebest

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 34
 #4 
So a question...and this ties in with this thread somewhere else on the forum too:

http://forum.moxymonitor.com/post/moxy-data-fatigue-7798810?pid=1289912510

How do we advocate the use of Moxy without threatening the existing status quo.

Example - I have a coach, clasically trained. She consults with a "master coach", also clasically trained. They want to do LT tests for the bike, time trials for running and Critical Speed for swimming...

How do I gently show them the benefits of NIRS without offending them (too much).

My approach will be a simple one:

For the bike:
Wear the Moxy to the LT test, don't say a word about it...if they ask about the bumps under my clothing I'll point them to the SmO2 and THb lines on the screen (we test on my bike, on my trainer, using my software to set the ramp values).
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #5 
Etienne  , you should be in the diplomatic    team of  any country.
 Your point is absolutely well taken.
 Anything new  is  scary  for all of us. It is  even    very scary, when we  have to review  what we did  and have   earlier or later  to admit  that we need changes.
 The  real point is  we all  need changes as we hope fully get  more information in. That means  what  we did in the past was no wrong per see but  could be improved  now  with some additional ideas and  information's.
 It took me  over 5 years  to throw my own  lactate balance point idea  over board  and to create LBP  I had  to  move through years of classical ideas   as  grew up  of the 4mmol  G. Mader generation  and VO2  max  generation.  I love that I had this  education and  it helps  to all what we do. So yes  do NOT throw  out  what you do   but add what we  can add  and than   be open  to where we have conflicts  form the new  information and the    classical one. One  big  question is the difference   of  sudden  drop n SmO2   versus  slow increase in SVO2. The other  question as we discuss here is  the  lag time of blood values . We use lactate  but you can use  glucose or you can sue  any  other stress  hormone tey all react similar  with some exception. So yes  do  classic testing ad  MOXY info  and than  e open to see, what we  can use  where both interact as they  do  and where one is  offering more info than the other. VO2 classical testing is great  for respiratory feedback. Lactate is great  for some  nutritional  energy source feedback  and it is  eve better  to use  for MCT 1   and CT 4  training ideas.
 NIRS is great as  direct feedback  and if you combine it  with wattage  and HR  and RF  you are even  better on  with what you can red  out.
 Never throw out the baby with the water as they say.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net