Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #1 
Under this and that  I hope  that readers  may  simply give some information  interesting in connection  with what we discuss on this forum on Limiter  and  compensator  or to  put it differently. Understanding  the limiter to avoid  damage  to the body on any level of  activity as good as possible.  

Here is  an example  which opens many of the questions we  discus on here :
Power guided   workouts  or  physiological guided   workouts. ?

 From  cyclingnews
Giannni Meersman will retire from professional cycling after routine tests discovered a cardiac arrhythmia and scar tissue on his heart, according to a statement released today by Fortuneo-Vital Concept, the French team the former Etixx-QuickStep rider had signed with for 2017.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #2 
From a great site  golden  cheetah  and a  very smart  contributor  there  a  great  start into 2017. I  show  the full  respond  but  I highlighted  the section which  for me has  the   value  and information.  and a short   question as usual.
 
On the topic of GC divorcing Training Peaks metrics
17 posts by 10 authors
 
 
[image]
Nathan Townsend 
[image]
04/12/2016
I'd like to provide some context regarding commonly used training metrics.  I'm not a trademark lawyer but if anyone has knowledge or experience in this area it would be worth contributing your expertise to the discussion. What I do know about is the history behind the development of training load monitoring.
 
The original concept behind "training load" was first introduced in the 1970s by Eric Bannister.  The basic premise is that we multiply volume by intensity and apply some weighting factor to the intensity component.
 
Secondly, whilst exericse scientists have used VO2max as the fixed anchor point that training zones are based on, also in the late 1970s/early 80s, the pioneering gas exchange phsiologists Brian Whipp and Karl Wasserman, published papers which improved the formal description of steady state versus non-steady state muscle metabolism.  The concept of "threshold" was already well known, however these guys suggested that threshold was the more appropriate metabolic fitness "anchor point" as compared to VO2max.  
 
Therefore the two essential elements which form the basis of virtually the entire Training Peaks power analysis philosophy, are not original ideas. They are modifications of existing knowledge and concepts already published in the scientific literature. So if they claim that GC "stole" their ideas then this is factually incorrect and hypocritical at the very least.  I do not believe that it is possible to patent a mathematical formula. It is possible to trademark a term or phase such as "FTP", but since GC is non-profit then I don't know how use of the term (or formula) applies in this case. 
 
GC is well within it's rights to continue using the concept of a global "training load" metric and it is also well within it's right to use an algorithm that places threshold power as the fixed anchor point.  
 
I stopped placing a high degree of emphasis on a single number for training load some 10 yrs ago when I was working with elite rowers.

 Both myself and the coaches recognised the limitation of such an approach which is that experssing training load as a single number results in a loss of information pertaining to the actual training stress on an individual.  The underlying assumption behind a single training load metric such as TSS, or xPower, or TRIMP or whatever, is that and equivalence occurs whenever the number is the same ie: a short very hard session is the same "load" (whatever the hell that means in practice?) as a longer much easier workout.  This very blunt assumption has never been validated scientifically.  We tended to treat high/low intensity load as separate entities.  It is the high intensity load in particular that causes the most problems in terms of injuries and illness, but also has the greatest short term effect on performance and fatigue. 

Short  comment or ebtter as usal a  question.
 Could it be that in high intensity we  do not  push the limiter alone to its stress  level but we push  the whole team  so a  compensator  as well  will be pushed   above and beyond  so the next  day  everybody really may need a break and we  are often not ready  to  recovery sufficient enough. 
 
So I would encourage people not to view removal of things such as TSS, NP and the PMC as negative or limiting to the way you analyse your training, but rather this hopefully will open up a new era of enlightenment where cycling power analytics is no longer dominated by a singular corporate interest.  No disrespect to anyone from USAC, but I've been told that USAC coaching conferences are generally dominated by Training Peaks presentations, eg: how to test FTP, how to use TP software etc. It sounds a lot like a corporate interest is trying to monopolize coach education in the USA at the behest of the latest scientific information.  Please try to recognise that in terms of future scientific progress in this field, it requires end users to break free from the pseudoscientifc commercial agenda that has trapped everyone within its clutches for about a decade now.  The imperial system is not the global standard for scientific units of measurement and likewise FTP/NP/TSS etc should not be viewed as a "standard" for training load monitoring and exercise prescription in cycling or any other sport.
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #3 
Here  an interesting topic , which  may explain why we look  for limiter and compensators  and why  we look daily in a  re-calibration ' warm up " to see,  what  limiter is  acute  today or whetted  certain systems  like the cardiac system recovered  from  the  training loads  or races the day before.
   
 
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #4 

I  love this  article 
 some keen folks are catching on and trying to spread the good word. In May of 2006,
 and their  article  is    form 2016 but never theless a  fun  section to read.


Lactate… The Math, The Myth, The Legend

 Jennifer Herbold June 22, 2016CyclingExercise and FitnessFacts vs. Misbeliefs


Chances are, you’ve been thinking about this all wrong.  You may have first heard about it from a trusty high school coach, explaining why your legs burned at the end of a really hard sprint. Or perhaps you read about it in a popular book or magazine. But no matter how it was added to your knowledge base, you now need to unlearn it… and re-learn the correct concept.

The concept of “lactic acid burn” during intense exercise has been debunked for nearly 40 years, however, the notion refuses to extinguish itself from common ideology. The belief still blazes hot, but thankfully, some keen folks are catching on and trying to spread the good word. In May of 2006, the New York Times published an article on the use of lactate as a fuel (even though they still mistakenly called it “lactic acid”… at least they were moving in the right direction).  Even VeloNews has caught up with the correct science, publishing an article in 2014 on the original nature of the bad idea, admitting to how we have been speaking about it in error for too long of a time.  With the proper scientific know-how bequeathed to me by an excellent graduate mentor (who wrote his doctoral dissertation on lactate metabolism), I got Gu Energy Labs to remove it from their product marketing after consulting their R&D department. Ironically, their researchers studied under the man himself who figured it all out in the 1980’s, Dr. George Brooks at the University of California, Berkeley (here is a link to his 1985 article on the topic).

The work ethic and self-realization required by all of us to unlearn and re-learn what we thought we knew is mentally tough, that is a fact. It’s human to accept and hold onto things that confirm our biases and identities. But why wouldn’t you want to be equipped with the truth, and why is that so difficult to accept?

Why the confusion in the first place?  Leave it to Louis Pasteur, the famed French microbiologist responsible for developing anthrax and rabies vaccines, as well as the bacteria-killing pasteurization process for boozie drinks and milk.  While conducting research involving yeast and alcohol production in 1857, he discovered that yeast converted sugar into lactic acid when oxygen was not present.  To piggyback on the idea that production of lactic acid resulted from non-aerobic sugar metabolism, German biochemist Otto Meyerhof and physiologist A.V. Hill, both Nobel Prize winners, produced theories relating blood oxygen status and oxygen debt to lactic acid production.  Their research concluded that as exercise intensity increased to a point where working muscle was becoming oxygen deprived (delivery could not meet demand), “lactic acid” accumulation in the blood would simultaneously increase.  And because of this, until the 1980’s, we believed this tiny little carbohydrate was a worthless byproduct… and an athlete’s worse nightmare.

BUT… basic chemistry proves them wrong (yes, it’s simple math).

Yeast and humans. You can’t feasibly put a square peg in a round hole without some legitimate manipulation. Both yeast and humans are living things, but not the same when it comes to sugar metabolism. They are not like Jenny and Forest – they are not like peas and carrots.

Now even more  fun is  that we  where able to develop  20 +   ideas  on how to find a  magical point  by using a  time lag sensitive  product to create  training ideas and zones.   and  even more fun that w e than  create d ideas that  this magical LT  is  the same as a  potential  VT.

 A  simple experiment  may help   to make the decision that VT  and LT   are not  the  same even if they are sometimes  close .
 Deload  the body   from glucose  and load it  and check the change in LT  curve  with the  change in VT  reaction. 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net