Development Team Member
Registered: 1380484167 Posts: 1,501
I feel terrible, as this is a incredible data collection I forget to show and just fell today over due to a similar feedback I got from Europe. This study was done from the most advanced outside the BOX thinking triathlon group and coaches in North America. The more amazing part besides the physiological thinking and training concept they use is the fact, that they coach from top athletes to absolute beginners. It is not about winning there, but about opening each athletes personal ability based on the personal time availability and commitment. They develop personal bests with a perfect combination of having fun and using your brain. Seems to me a winning formula no matter what. The Vernon BC / Canada based Balance point racing. with Luke and Dr. A Sellars running these great group.They have great videos and very great feed backs on their website.
Here to not give too much away but show you some intriguing information on how they use combination of different physiological data collections to optimize their training stimulation ability. The Assessment was done with a goal to find some feedback on metabolic reactions due to some changes in the way they like to bike or not like to bike. So they did a TIP or 5/1/5. TIP stands for training intensity profile ) 5 1 5 stands for 5 min go 1 min rest and repeat the same 5 min load. Don't ask me why 5 min it has no real physiological reason besides giving somewhat more time than in classical 3 min test as we load 10 min same intensity. Why one min rest. well this is the topic all over the forum. So here a first overview. The big question is, whether the change in the idea for biking will : a) influence a local situation only and therefor creates a local limitation or whether may perhaps even shift the limitation to a systemic problem. in which case it would be not optimal for a iron man distance and there would have to be some changes made to compromise the physical advantage and the physiological disadvantage. Resp choosing when to adapt to what situation in a race. So here my think steps. check involved and non involved reactions. Below biased leg VL reaction of a TIP. So looked pretty " normal " for a TIP nicely seen the repeat of each step 2 x So the question here: Unseen real or unreal seen. Now as mentioned this group is full of thinking ideas. The added a second MOXY on a less or minimal involved muscle. Delta pars acormialis. So below the reaction there. Woww there was a very clear difference and at least clear pattern. The amazing section is, that in lower intensities the one position clearly created a higher desaturation at least at the start and than always a clear desaturation compared to tee second part. Each double step was one 5 min one idea followed by the second idea. Now fast shot from the hip would call for a systemic change when in one position versus a " recovery when in the second position. BUT the change could be exactly that a only local change due to the change in cycling ideas. If this would be the case , than systemic reactions like cardiac reaction as one option or respiratory reaction as the other systemic options should show a reaction or not. So let's look at cardiac feedback on HR. I made some circles where I did some closer investigations but really not too much over interpretation. This could be a very normal picture with some signs of some cardiac compensation over HR but really in an intensity , where we would expect to see some compensation to start anyway. In the lower loads no real difference. So possible hint perhaps that it is a local upper body trend we see and not a systemic interference. BUT as mentioned the covered up that section as well by looking at respiratory reactions. So they where looking at TV (Tidal volume) and RF ( respiratory frequency ) and therefor the possibility , that wee may have a change in the O2 disscurve. The same as CO = HR x SV in respiration we have VE = RF x TV. Can you see the similarity how this two organs work.? This creates the interesting side question, that we have coaches and exercise physiologists who all more or less agree, that there can be a limitation of CO = HR x SV and this will have a limitation on performance. So bigger CO more performance potential ? How come that VE has no limitation to performance ? So take a small time and look the above graph. Now changes in O2 disscurve can change tHb reactions. Change in tHb reaction can create a changing cardiac reaction and than cardiac reaction change respiratory reactions, which than again change SmO2 and tHb reactions and can end up as a systemic limitation so you have to move available blood and O2 form one body part to another as a last resource. If we see this happen in a 5 min time frame , than the question is what happens over a longer time period ? Here a closer look at the tHb reactions and possible SmO2 consequences. And do we see a reaction as well in the VL. Here a close look as usual at the recovery section, as this is where we get the actual feedback. we have to mention, that the 1 min rest was always done in the exact same position. Thanks again for this great data collection and an additional outside feedback on how NIRS can be smart integrated into many different ides.