Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #1 
Sorry  for this  quite  time but I had  to clean up my  now over 200 email requests  for individual  answering  great questions and still  be 15 behind.
 I will as well make some summaries of the most common  great  questions and feedback.  I  simply   fats like to make a critical comment  from a mail I got.
  Here a part of the mail..

 The full info is on DC rainmaker bsx discussion.
 "

Bingo! You perfectly defined one of the two main reasons why we moved to the calculation vs. our readings!

Yes, some lt1/aet/aerobic thresholds read much differently than the % calculation off LT2 that people are so used to. When it was different than expected, we would be questioned, and it was 1 of 2 reasons:
1) They didn’t take the early stages as serious, because they’re easy, and may have been distracted, texting, drinking, ect
2) They train differently, or are an outlier from the norm, like an ultra runner

Either way, we can’t always tell for sure if they took the early stages serious, since we didn’t witness their test. So, to give people what the majority were more happy with, as they were used to it, we changed it to the % most are used to seeing, based off the lactate threshold (LT2) we measured. And immediately, the support tickets stopped with things like “my lt1 was XX% of my lt2, that’s too {high/low}, I thought this thing was supposed to be accurate?!”. Exactly as you picked up on and said. You heard some LT1s were “extremely high” and are questioning it.

This is  exactly  where  I strongly feel and believe    we make a  fundamental  difference between  BSX  and any NIRS  equipment out there.
 The  question simply is.
 When the facts  do not fit the  demand or the theory of the consumer of an equipment  you simply  fix the facts  to the theory.
 That  is exactly what destroys interesting new ideas  and steps  forward.
 The  common  drive  for  business and money .
 . So  people are not happy  with the  result  let's  fix it  and calculate.
 The   real problem is, that there is no such thing like a LT 1  or and LT2   to be found  with a  3 min lactate step test combined  with NIRS.
 I will , even if  I am  sick  and tiered  of it  come back on show  you the   incredible dilemma  and  question why  we  would  force a  fact into an ill defined  theory.
 Here  to start out.
 Please  mail  what   MAXlass or  what is the definition of LT2.  and  what  do we expect  , if we  are  theoretical  exactly  at LT 2  with the lactate trend . ? I  love to discuss this into details ,but only  if we  can engage   readers  so we  have a fair  and open  discussion  in this burning  question.
. Look forward   to some feedback.


juergfeldmann

Development Team Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,501
 #2 
I finally picked up  over  200 emails  I promised to respond  one by one  and some where  super interesting to really  answer. They where  all in one or the other way connected  to the limitations  but as well as  advantages  NIRS could offer us , when we use it carefully  and  with respect in  what we know  and what we  do not know yet.

I like  privacy  so I added to each of the emails the  questions, whether I  am allowed to use  them if the case would come up  on the forum here without using any names.
 So  I may be able to share one or the other cases  with the regular readers here  for  in depth discussion  and information's.

What I as well did  was a  review on where we stand  or better where I am standing on trying to get the message or information over. I will start a new  critical section  where I like to  show  you some ideas  out there in the public domain, where I  at least would  strongly  like to challenge the  interpretations and conclusion  people start to do using MOXY  or  NIRS in general.

Why
 NIRS is  an incredible  tool  and idea to  add  or complement current  ideas  coaches or people have. So  we do NOT replace the current ideas  but we add NIRS  to it  and than  everybody can start to ask  the questions, whether the added information  can be used better or  additional to what we  do or  did  and  finally, whether we really have to use all of the tools  or whether we can go back to  base line ideas  and use it sport specific  so the grassroots groups really  advance  in physiological  ideas and training's.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net