Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #1 
I am always looking for  people writing in proper  English a perfect answer  for one of the problems  I see but have    a  limitation to phrase it properly. I  found this perfect answer on DC Rainmaker blog on BSX  discussion.
 Steve replied

At this point, I would have to say the information is interesting, but also a bit overkill.

Based on current research, no one has conclusively shown that training at an exact wattage level or even an exact % of FTP or LT achieves a specific result in all athletes or is guaranteed to train x systems at the maximal possible rate.

With that being said, as long as you can get a close approximation of your LT, that is good enough to base your different zones.

So at the end of the day, all LT is showing is a point where you are above a sustainable effort. Does it matter that Lactate is a lagging indicator produced as the result of hypoxia or elves? No, all that matters is that you will not be able to hold that effort much longer than 1 hour.

Unless you can conclusively show that training at a specific power that achieves say a 57% blood oxygenation level will achieve result x better than training at 55% or 61% then I think you are barking up the tree of over complexity.


Steve makes  an absolute perfect  point
So here his great  point  I only  can agree

Based on current research, no one has conclusively shown that training at an exact wattage level or even an exact % of FTP or LT achieves a specific result in all athletes or is guaranteed to train x systems at the maximal possible rate.

 
and

Unless you can conclusively show that training at a specific power that achieves say a 57% blood oxygenation level will achieve result x better than training at 55% or 61% then I think you are barking up the tree of over complexity. 


This is  exactly  why  we  do NOT use  points  and numbers  but actual physiological reactions  like. Increase in oxygenation, stable oxygenation, dropping oxygenation. Dropping oxygenation with a  free blood flow,  or  dropping  oxygenation under  occlusion trend  and so on.
 Exactly   this is the reason  why points  and number  do NOT reflect  physiological reactions.
 We need the feedback  that for example  the load I  just do  at this  moment  has  an intensity , where I  create an arterial occlusion  so  delivery   has not  function  and it is  all about local  utilization abilit7y.
 This  can happen one day  by a  biceps curl of 25 kg  and the next  day by a biceps  curl  of  19  Kg. Very different weights but  same  physiological stimulus.
  I  answered  with some very practical example  and I like to show you   the example I used     and how  we  achieve  live the  physiological load  we aim for  and  when the body  tells  us  to  stop the  intensity increase o r the workout.

  The  client  has a  screen in front with the following picture live
1 MOXY in this case on  vastus  lateralis picture below  and the   picture  below this one is  Delta muscle as a non involved muscle.
 Goal   Find  intensity for the day so  we  achieve  the highest blood volume  during load  to achieve a  big preload  for the heart, the highest  accepted  HR  in this combination so we  achieve  a  HR  and SV  high so  highest CO  as well avoid a  de-saturation in the involved leg but push  so we have a  feedback, that the delivery system just  are  about  to  give up  as  they start to  reduce  blood flow to non involved muscles  to keep the involved one going.

    barb leg.jpg 

  
Now below  the non involved muscle reaction  and you can assess, why this client stopped the endurance part  and than had a guide  to  achieve  with some specific   load  relaxation  workouts an even better    preload  reaction with a much lower  HR but most effective  tHb  and SmO2  reaction. This load  was  done  at 50 watt load.
 The next day   the load to achieve the same  result physiologically  was 75  watt. 2  days after  60 watt, today  90 watt.

   barb  arm.jpg 

The end result  will be a picture like this  below.

GK SV HR EF comp 2 intervall.jpg 
Which brings us to
the first  statement  form Steve:
 
Based on current research, no one has conclusively shown that training at an exact wattage level or even an exact % of FTP or LT achieves a specific result in all athletes or is guaranteed to train x systems at the maximal possible rate.

Training at  an exact same wattage  or LT point  or  %    is not  a repeatable physiological load  as it is often a very different physiological load  so there is no result to be expected  which can be predicted.
 We have  to know how to load  physiologically the same systems  to know why we see what we see and therefor know  what the end result  suppose  to be  and  the goal  is reached  as  planned.
 Using formulas  and  great  easy to use  training  zones  is  a great business but a bad coaching ideas.

Using a great technology  like NIRS  and demounting it back to a  point idea  like lactate threshold is  for me a terrible step back wards caused and driven by  a  business idea rather than  an  opening  for  some new exiting   directions.

If  we believe NIRS  information can show  a kind of a  deflection point  or how  ever we like to name it , why not  just name it as  it is a  deflection point  or break point  seen in O2H  or HHb  or SmO2  or tHb or what veer  we look for. That is all what it is  a  information of  oxygenation changes in the   body ( muscle ). Why would I name it lactate threshold  or functional power  idea, when it is simply a  oxygenation trend information. Is it  because people  have a problem  to let go the lactate  myth  or the VO2  % or  the 220 - age  idea. ???

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net