Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #1 
Earlier or later we will  have to  look at this topic. So after we  had some great feed backs and ideas of testing ( VO2 max test with 1 min steps) or using 125 %  of VO2 max , we may have to take some critical approaches towards this ideas.
 We are not alone, but  in the future  equipment like MOXY will actually help us nicely to know, whether we reached a VO2 plateau for the  moment and how we may be able to  change that situation, depending what the  reason of the plateau is.
.
 Here a great summary from a Ph.D work I got sent to me  from  a friend  from the Netherlands and I will use  one or the other section out of it. It was done in Maastrich  and is a great summary  and overview on many cycling related ideas, but can be sued as a guide for any sport in the endurance filed.
 Here  let's start :
 "

Summary

Several parameters are used in professional and amateur road cycling to assess and predict

cycling endurance performance, and to detect differences between professionals and

amateurs. Maximal oxygen consumption (VO

2max) is such a parameter and has been

considered the most important physiological parameter for many years. Individuals differ in

VO

2max, and initiation of a training program might increase this parameter. However, once a

certain (maximal) training state is reached, no additional improvement of VO

2max occurs. A

combination of factors limit VO

2max; these restrictions include cardiopulmonary limitations,

oxygen carrying capacity limitations and limitations in the oxygen consumption capacity by

the muscle cell mitochondria. Despite its general use, VO

2max has not been shown to be

reliable in predicting endurance performance, as witnessed by the lack of difference between

professional and amateur cyclists. Rather, other parameters seem to be highly beneficial in

assessing and predicting cycling endurance performance. The most important parameters are

power output (W), breathing pattern (minute ventilation, V

E; breathing frequency; tidal

volume, Vt), ventilatory equivalent (eqVO

2),

"


 So when we look this summary in one of already shown  picture ( see  att.  than you can see, that many of the factors related to a change in VO2 max  are possible to improve, if and only if we know  who and where the limitation is and who and how we compensate for the  " weak link"
 If you go carefully through the VO2 factors and you are ready to ask some open questions on how good  each of the factors can react in  a 1 minute step, than you can see, how subjective it may be to argue that a 1 min step test is great to find VO2 max. Why not a 2 min step test or a 5 min step test.
 Is the VO2 max the same for any athlete or can one reach a higher VO2 max in  a 1 min step and  another athlete can reach a higher VO2 max in a 5 min step test.
 If your answer is, well yes that could be possible, than we have to ask the question:  Are we sure 125 % or 110 % of VO2 max is really  125 %  ????

Or in other words,:
 What does a % calculation has to  do with Physiological testing or any testing in the first place. Does that mean  any person out there increases the availability of any physiological system by 25 %. How about the possibility , that in a VO2 max  one system was only pushed to the max. The other system not really. So now 125 %  from  who will be loaded and what if in different athletes % load was on a different system,
 One may have pushed his a-v O2 difference ability to the  max, the other one is cardiac output ???

This is NOT a critic on people who do that but rather a question to all of us who do that and  it would be nice to have some interesting answers back or comments.

Here from the same study paper from the Netherlands
 :

A study protocol with 3-minute stages was used in this study, starting with 2 W/kg and

increasing every workload step with 0.5 W/kg. Other research investigating differences

between professionals and amateurs, mainly Lucia and Chicharro, used different study

protocols with stages of 25 W/min (17, 18, 37, 39-44). Sallet et al. used a ramp protocol of 30

Watts every 1 minute and 30 seconds (55). These differences in ramp protocols may hamper

comparisons between the several studies. For example, the ramp protocol of 25 W/min

generally requires less total time than the protocol used in this study"

  So again the question : if there is such a thing like VO2 max  or a  lactate threshold as a physiological information, how come , that different  subjectively design protocols will give different VO2 max and lactate threshold information.
 Would we not expect, that if something is physiologically limited, that no matter what we  chose may be the limit , if there is enough time to try to  get going to the   optimal performance for that limiter.
\ Example:
 If the cardiac out put may be a limiter and CO = HR x SV.

 and the test protocol  is a Wingate test protocol. The  functional reaction of the athlete is going over HR rather than SV and the  rapid increase of the load will not allow for an optimal venous return of blood to the heart, than we  may never reach an optimal SV due to the never optimal preload of the  heart itself. ?

 Preload as well is directly linked to plasma volume and if we test people in heat and than  in another situation we have to keep that in mind as VO2 can vary a lot.
 Than the old idea as in PP ( Dal Monte) which ever 15 years triggers a new study . Here another one as the current generation forgets some great studies from the past.

Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1980;45(2-3):117-24.

 

A comparison of various methods for the determination of VO2max.

 

Keren G, Magazanik A, Epstein Y.

 

Abstract

 

Previous studies have shown that true maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) obtained by means of cycle ergometer and step test are lower than the VO2max measured during uphill treadmill running. The predicted VO2max measured by ergometer was even lower. Four different methods for the determination of VO2max within the same group of examinees were compared: True VO2max by treadmill, ergometer, step test, and predicted VO2max (Astrand-Rhyming). This study was performed on 15 healthy non-professional sportsmen. They underwent progressive test protocols on alternating days and the results were as follows -- VO2max expressed in ml O2 kg BW/min (mean +/- SD): treadmill running 63.8 +/- 4.7; ergometer cycling 60.2 +/- 5.6; step test 59.6 +/-5.2 and predicted VO2max 59.9 +/- 6.9. The VO2max as determined by uphill treadmill running was significantly higher than with the other methods. No significant difference was found between true VO2max determined by the ergometer and step test. However, step test and properly executed Astrand-Rhyming test again proved to be reliable and deviate from the treadmill test by only 6%. Maximal heart rate was significantly higher in the treadmill and step tests than in the direct ergometer test.

Remember VO2 is an indirect information on the TOTAL bodies use of O2.
So :
- The VO2max as determined by uphill treadmill running was significantly higher than with the other methods

 and
Maximal heart rate was significantly higher in the treadmill and step tests

 Now the question " Who used the  more O2 ? Jean Bour the great Brsain behind the physioflow and his son Frank Bour showed me, how we can measure the MVO2 ( O2 used from your  cardiac muscle and this would  be possibly the case here can  enhance O2 use.
 So  critically looked:
 If the respiration or the cardiac system do not work effcient , than we  may see a higher VO2 but a lower performance compared to a person with a very effcient respiratory system and a very effcient cardiac system.
 So we can have a lower CO but aa better performance overall.
Why the long stroy ?
 When we start to use NIRS and  MOXY in specific we suddently can see  why  and where VO2 max starts to limits itself.

 I will show to close here in the next reply a test and will ask some questions .

 


Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #2 
Okay here the questions  and  I am looking forward for constructive answers.

Attached Images
Click image for larger version - Name: 2_test_differetn_MOXY_information.jpg, Views: 20, Size: 80.47 KB 

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #3 
The above picture will show you 2  nice features you will add to your classical testing , when using MOXY in your assessment. 1. It is simple to use , 30 sec to get ready and you have the only real live information  from the working or not working muscles.
 Over time you can  see, when observing SmO2  and VO2 trends ( RF and VE and therefor TV, as well as CO2, when and who  starts to create some limitation and who and when if possible  another system will try to compensate for a short moment..
 Now here your task.
 When you look above the 2 circles you can see, that one protocol allowed the full test length to keep an optimal blood delivery( tHb) going and as such we know in this case, that there was never a delivery problem but as well you can see, that there is a drop in SmO2 ( Hb Diff ) and this indicates, that he uses all the time till to the end O2. As such it would be fun to have the respiratory info as well as  some  metabolic info , as this helps to start the shift from invasive lactate testing to using just NIRS.
The second circle shows two drops . a) tHb and as well Hb Diff. Now if you use Portamon and MOXY , in the first case  TSI % and SmO2 will be  the same trend. In the second it will be not. TSI % is considered a good  value , if tHb ) Blood volume ) does not change.( see Artinis handbook )
Once like in the second circle we see a change in tHb than we can use HbDiff better and it will be a very similar trend to SmO2.

Summary: Once you are getting familiar with MOXY you will be able  with some very simple steps to  produce a much better idea on what  is limiting performance and what will try to compensate to  go somewhat longer.
 A drop in tHb very often indicates a delivery problem  ( different option what may cause that ? ) a stable tHb   will indicate a good delivery but some different muscular reaction. One will indicate a good aerobic ability and the other a good anaerobic ability . This all in one simple test IPAHD and no need fro massive  push of wattage, as this as you can see in  circle 2 will always create a drop in tHb due to the short steps and will  be of very little value  for information on aerobic or anaerobic power, with exception you add to your Wingate a MOXY and than you can see, that 2 athletes with the same wattage may have a very different way , how the crate this performance. Without MOXY  they look the same with MOXT they may be very different and need very different training interventions.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net