| Author | Message | ||
     Juerg New member Username: Juerg Post Number: 387 Registered: 04-2006 |
I like to keep the info going on this topic. Not to discourage people in using wattage or HR only , but rather show as objectively as possible benefits and disadvantage on both of them. Here a question I got least night. " There are days , where I try to maintain a wattage level close to my Lactate threshold , but still slightly below. Now some days, I can't hold the wattage very long and I also can't get my heart rate up as well so both of the ideas don't work at all ( wattage as well as heart rate ) why ? Hmm this is a situation I think any runner or cyclist has had in the years of training . Days where the body just flies and days where you just crawl along. Well the beauty of this experience teaches us one thing for sure. We are not a motor but a physiological system. There are some possibilities who can lead to the above situation and possibly some explanations we don't know yet. I will in the evening try to shed light on one very interesting situation , and we very often don't think at that direction. Here a hint. You had a few busy days at work , no time to workout, you whole "plan" went belly up and you are frustrated. So finally you have been able to squeeze a 2 hour time slot and you like to pick up all your missed units and you go out after work.As usual very little food and very keen to get going. You have one advantage : your mind is ready, your legs are recovered and fresh, your bike is keen and your wattage meter works well , as does the polar monitor. You even see a very high HRV at rest and you are sure it will go nicely . Your plan : 2 hour ride just below LBP if you take HR so 145. or you plan to go with wattage just below LBP or a zone for that length of a workout 260 wattage. I take again a real example tested and checked just lately. LBP by 145 / wattage at that HR 260. Here a hint. Your liver is half empty after a 12 hour work so app. 60 - 70 gr of glycogen left. Your leg muscles are at a same situation so let's say 140 gr of muscle glycogen left. So total glycogen at the start situation 200 - 210 gr. Now start working out. Here one more info to consider. The VO2 ( total O2 used in this intensity 145 /260 wattage is 38 ml/kg /min The kcal/h at that intensity is 845. Now train by 260 wattage or train by 145 HR . Play through your physiological system and see what or when do we may get some reactions in this 2 version of a training Stay tuned and as in a CSI movie, the advertising always comes in , when it is very exited. ( Smile . In my case the next patient just is coming in the door. Juerg | ||
| Juerg New member Username: Juerg Post Number: 389 Registered: 04-2006 |
Okay let's see. Training plan tells us: a) 260 wattage for 2 hours based on a "Wattage test like perhaps a 3 min step test to all out situation. Take 4 mmol as anaerobic threshold or any other idea . Main plan is , that 260 wattage is considered still a part of a endurance zone you should be able to maintain for 11/2 - 2 hours. You may take some nutrition in during the training No to make it first easy we just lok at the numbers a) 260 for 2 hours versus 145 for 2 hours. In both cases the idea is , that you like to train your body in a specific training zone. In the wattage idea , you will reach your goal by maintaining 260 wattage for 2 hours ( and not worrying where the HR goes, as it does not matter for your 260 Zone ) and you consider that workout as a workout , where your body was always in the same training zone. b) With the target of 145 you try to maintain 145 HR and don't worry about the changes in actuall wattage performance. Your training goal is achieved , if you can maintain 145 for the 2 hours and if you use this ideas you consider this workout as a workout, where you maintained physiologically ( cardio ) the same intensity over the full 2 hours. Okay : actual situation at the start: 200 - 210 gr of glycogen in the tank which gives you app. 800 - 850 kcal / h energy . Your intensity is in a zone , where the glucose part will be the main fuel to maintain the wattage 260 ) which was during the test ( 3 min steps ) by a heart rate of 145. You know based on the test results . that you will use 845 kcal /h. True , you not burn glucose only ( always some FFA and some oxygen independent action is going on. ) Well VO2 testing equipment with RQ may tell you on the printouts a different story but we can discuss this at another time ) So let's start the workout. Let's make it very simple: wattage plan : After app. 1 h you start or are running out of fuel, because the intensity , resp. the energy you need to maintain 260 has used up all your fuel sources. now what is going on now after 1 hour ? can you maintain the wattage. ? if you try what will happen , if you can't what is going on with the wattage and the heart rate. Now can you maintain 145 over the 2 hours ? If yes why and what happened. . Last question I would ask myself as an athlete : Was the 145 intensity always in teh same zone ( physiologically ) and I can count that workout as a 2 hour training in the 145 zone ? Was the 260 workout always in the same zone physiologically , even till the moment where I "bonked" and what happened after the "bonk" what intensity zone was that and how do i know what kind of a reaction I will get out of the 2 versions : 145 " zoneing " 260 1/2 workout. We did , and our athletes may remember this "camp" tested with Glycogen depleted situations and glycogen loaded situation, as a part of our basic "research' to see , whether the FaCT testing and LBP is influenced by pre test energy storage or not, as this is a possible major stumbling block in the "classical" lactate testing idea on absolute numbers as well as interpretations on the way the lactate curve will move. I actually think , Herb has a test printout somewhere on the Website which shows this info. We did as well ( 7 years ago ) some additional testing with ammonia trends , as we are together with the University of Calgary the only place where we can do point to point ammonia testing like we do with lactate. This info with our athletes gave us a very interesting inside view in individual behaviour in cases like the above one and recovery timing. I am still very thank full on Geoff / Ryder/ Martina on the countless poking and blood testing I was allowed to do. ( very often with no results but sometimes with interesting informations where we could learn and tried to understand , that there is only one way of coaching , that is one person at a time. I hope with this example to get some more open thinking going on in the discussion wattage versus heart rate. I like in the next thread to give you our own opinion on , when we try to use what "markers" to observe the training intensities.. Till then have a nice few days' , as I am gone for a few day's to Seattle , where I got an invitation to make a presentation on the above and other crazy ideas on FaCT and how we try to learn from each other. I will be back and keep you updated on your questions as well on the Seattle weekend. Juerg | ||
| Juerg New member Username: Juerg Post Number: 393 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here another interesting note I got from a reader from a bike camp in Spain ( Giverola ) Question was : why is my wattage on the indoor test by a certain HR higher , than on the real bike on the road by the same HR. Ex: LBP wattage indoor 220 / HR 152 out door LBP HR the same by 152- 155 but I only can push 190 - 200 wattage . So a 10 % wattage ( performance loss ) on teh road compared to teh indoor results. So If I take my indoor wattage as a program I often feel I have to work much harder , than my feeling tells me to do. What is the explanation ? Okay there is as often not a very easy explanation , but some possible reasons , which my interlock with each other . I like to start with a very easy possibility and in many sports this is one of the main reasons. You have basically 2 ideas in yoru body what muscles will do: 1. Stabilization function 2. Mobilization function There are muscles , who help to stabilize your body in an upright position ( anti gravity idea) and there are muscles , which will help you do run or move your bike ( mobility function. Now on an indoor trainer , there is not as much need for stabilization functions as on the road , where gravity will work more against you. So if you ride outside, you will need some muscles to stabilize you on the bike , where indoor this muscles may be able to contribute to power on the pedals and therefor allow you to push higher wattage. Example some upper body muscles , where indoor you may be able to pull and contribute to the power and out side you need this muscles to steer your bike to stay upright. The other big muscle group , who keeps you outdoor on the bike are the core muscles , where inside you don't need them as much for balance. This 2 reasons contribute outside to a loss of power due to ,loss of helpers b) loss of power due to needs of O2 to the core muscles and less available O2 for oxygen dependent energy supply. This is for us another nice example on , how the body if working close to some "zone changes " will show this in change of performance ( wattage). The increase in O2 demand due to the balance would increase your HR and therefor would move you from one zone into another zone. So if you maintain the indoor wattage you will see a higher HR and therefor a different stimulus in the zone compared to indoor. If you stay with the LBP HR you will see a drop in wattage but you will stay in the same physiological zone for the outdoor work out as you would be by this HR for the indoor workout.. In sports where balance is even more a problem you will see this in an even more extreme way. Indoor cross country simulation equipment or indoor kayak ergo meter. In both of this sport the uneveness of the out door place will add much more work to the stabilization muscles and many of the mobilization muscles have to do stabilization work and you will loose lots of efficiency therefor. This is why a good technique will improve your performance not because of better fitness but because of better efficiency. Cheers Juerg | ||
| Robh New member Username: Robh Post Number: 83 Registered: 12-2007 |
Juerg, On the trainer I know I can produce 200W for a HR of 130/132bpm @ a cadence of 85-90rpm. In the past I use to do this same wattage @ 140bpm but at a cadence of 100-105rpm. Now if I drop my power to keep the same HR of 130/132bpm so I can spin @ 100rpm/105rpm. Do you think with plenty of high cadence drills in the 120 rpm range I can train over time bring my wattage back up? I know at the momemnt my neurologic system doesn't like riding at 120rpm for long. Rob | ||
| Juerg New member Username: Juerg Post Number: 402 Registered: 04-2006 |
As you can see in the 2 Q/A infos I posted from an other Forum, the questions on physiological signs ( BIO markers ) are present all over and in both of the cases it may be not that smart to follow a "wattage" zone training program. This does not mean at all that you should not use wattage, as wattage is a very objective info on your overall performance. The contrary holds true. Use wattage to confirm the feeling of your bio markers , but try to be open to understand that certain bio markers realy tell you : it is time to slow down and rest and re-assess. Under "normal" balance situation your wattage at a certain level below till up to LBP is very stable to the heart rate at that level. So 220 wattage will be together with your 130 HR as an example. The HR will need about 3 - 10 min to reach that level in some people, so always use teh first 10 min to get the HR up and see where you are by 130 HR and in balance situation you will end up by 220 wattage and now your workout starts. I would do the same in a 3 x 25 min workout as we had the example from UK. There are some advantages to that . 1. You see in the first series where wattage and HR meet. 2. You see the "lag " of the HR after each set till you reach 220. 3. If you push the wattage in this sets close to LBP you can check after 5 - 8 min the lactate and see the changes metabolic wise over time. Example. 220 wattage 130 LBP Now if you go immediately to the LBP wattage (220) and you take after 5 - 8 min a lactate you may see a higher than 2 mmol lactate , which if you stay there will show a trend of dropping if you are just by or slightly below LBP. Now over time you will see , that this will change and you see what influence this type of a workout may have on your system. Last but not least : The lag of HR reaction is in basic endurance a disadvantage in hilly area and that's another place where wattage has a nice place. Wattage changes immediately versus HR which lags behind in hilly areas with short steep climbs. So wattage will help you to bike much more regular in this situations. Now that's where the "team" work on wattage and heart rate comes in. As long you see in certain trainings HR and wattage on the assessment results ( 220 - 130 ) you know you are still in balance. Now you can either work with stay on the same wattage or the same heart rate as soon you loose the "balance" . It really is a question , on what you like to achieve and that you are aware of what the stable wattage will stimulate by increasing trend of your heart rate , versus what your stimulus will be by keeping the heart rate stable,and dropping the wattage. Now once we are ready to see the different ideas using different outside as well as inside ( bio-markers ) we may be on a very nice track to move our training programs a step further than we did in the past. The problem as usual is the fear of changes and open assessment of our actual knowledge. Juerg | ||
| Juerg New member Username: Juerg Post Number: 405 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here an answer on wattage and temp from a big well known Forum. Air temperature and heart rate When riding in summer heat, I find my heart rate is noticeably higher than during the cool months when I'm putting the same power into the bike. Question: Have experiments been done to correlate changes in heart rate on the bike with changes in ambient air temperature? Is there at least a rule of thumb for factoring in the role of high heat during a race or training ride when keeping track of heart rate? Jim Hargett Scott Saifer replies: Yes, some research has been done, but no one can give you the answer you are looking for. The problem is that as you do or don't maintain hydration, and as the humidity rises and falls, the heart rate will change even at the same power output and temperature. Proponents of power measurement take this as a factor in favour of power measurement over heart rate measurement, and they are right to an extent. At least with power measurement you know how hard you are training on a hot day. On the other hand, most riders would do better to decrease intensity somewhat on very hot days, keeping some sort of "total stress" consistent, so simply training in one's power zones on hot days is probably no better than training in one's regular heart rate zone. | ||
| Juerg New member Username: Juerg Post Number: 409 Registered: 04-2006 |
Thanks Brian for your summary and it is nice to see , that my "swenglish" ideas are actually get thinking people understanding where i like to go . Brian is a NOC Center in California. Hi Juerg, I have been reading the posts on HR and wattage, with a great deal of interest, and have held my reply (in order to improve my SpO2 !). I believe this can be easily summed up by a comment you expressed earlier- there is a place in training for both. The key is to understand the purpose of the particular training set. If the purpose is to create a specific level of metabolic stress, to improve basic endurance, and release hormones and create adaptation to build a stronger cardiovascular system, then a priority to heart rate seems to be the most practical monitor. If the purpose is to build functional strength, and tolerance to specific loads by creating a specified stress on the muscular function, then either wattage or speed would seem to be the best monitor. One important issue to keep in mind in regard to wattage- it is NOT a direct measure of load on the rider. In the case of the SRM, it is a measure of stress within the crank arm. In the case of the power tap, it is a measure of torque on the rear wheel hub. For Polar, it is a measure of chain vibration and tension. In all cases, these measures are then correlated to presumed wattage required by the rider to create the measured stress. There are a number of assumptions and variables that create inaccuracies in each of these units. Technically speaking, the speed a rider attains on a given course under uniform conditions is just as accurate a gage of load, and much less expensive! Brian | ||
| Juerg New member Username: Juerg Post Number: 410 Registered: 04-2006 |
Brian's reply shows myself at least , that the idea on trying to produce some ideas behind a workout with more meaning than just pushing wattage , collecting km or overloading heart rates could make sense. I think this is the basic nature of "stressors" . As Hans Selye , the father of "stress' research put it out. There is no stress but there are stressors.. The key in "overloading " ( your system is to find the "weak " spot , meaning to understand what stressor is needed to challenge that weak spot to create an adaptation. Exactly this is why we work to improve FaCT IRIS. It is the attempt to find trends in one or the other system , where it changes the ability to react. Now the next step is to find a workout, where you specifically challenge this weak area. This may mean , that the workout may not feel push9ng the limit at all for another system. Example from Brian. You like to overload metabolic supply systems you may prefer to use the LBP wattage number and go with the fixed wattage and see at what time you see a drift in HR and other bio -markers , understanding now what may be of limitation but keep the wattage up , becasue that is your goal. On the other side you may like to stress the cardio system on a certain level so you keep the heart rate stable and you see a drift downwards of your wattage. Now the key is to quantify the "loss ' of performance by a short assessment after the workout and follow up with small assessment to find out , how long it took your body to reply on this loss and move into adaptation. Exactly this "loss" is what we call "hidden workout" . It is not the actual km or wattage but rather the loss of performance after the workout , which goes on. This is where I work with Mary Ann Kelly as well, where we believe, the R for REVERSE is an important part of nutrition. Meaning to find a way on how to reverse the bodies catabolic reaction caused by a workout , so we can stop this earlier and reverse it to anabolic reactions. Once we reverse it we can shorten recovery time and can go to the second R for rebuilding and finally to the third R for Refueling. So stay tuned for much more to come on this interesting concept of meaningful workouts. Juerg | ||
| Juerg New member Username: Juerg Post Number: 415 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here short something to read and think about in connection with our ongoing discussion on wattage and physiological responses . Check the preparation of the Slip stream team before the Giro D'Italia time trial . Check our Forum with heat and physical versus physiological performance and give it a short thought. I will try to dig out a presentation I made a few years back in that connection . Warm up and cool down in sport. Juerg | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 511 Registered: 04-2006 |
here is a nice respond from the cyclingnews forum and one very interesting part is the last explanation of power and loss of power. This as a nice discussion for all the "fixed" wattage users and teh ongoing discussion what may make more sense. Fixed wattage zones versus "floating" physiological zones. Racing in the heat I'm writing to ask about riding and racing in the heat. In particular on prepping for a scorching race day. I hydrate all week long with water and Gatorade. I put electrolyte tabs in my water bottles during training rides along with taking tablets with the water I drink throughout the day. I also work in doors in a/c through out the day. Is there anything that I can do to help improve my situation and keep from bonking in races from heat exhaustion? Matt Scott Saifer replies: It sounds like you've got the hydration and electrolytes dialled. I can think of four more things you can do right off to help with racing in the heat. They are all important. Each could be the difference between bonking and winning for someone who is otherwise strong enough to win. 1. Generous application of sunscreen. Sunburn is exhausting in itself. 2. Carry enough water to keep dousing yourself during the race. Water on you skin is much more effective than water in your belly at keeping you cool. Dribble some water through your helmet and also on your jersey and shorts. Be sure to remember which bottle is plain water and which is exercise drink of course. 3. Most importantly - Adopt a heat-acclimatization plan: People who are regularly exposed to heat end up with a higher plasma volume than the same people when they live in the cold. More plasma volume means more water that can be sweated out before you bonk from dehydration. It also means you can maintain blood pressure when sending blood to your skin for cooling of your core and also sending blood to the working muscles, so you can generate more power on hot days. In order to achieve that adjustment, you need to be warm pretty much all the time. You don't want to be baking and pouring sweat all the time, but turn that a/c warm enough that you are sweating just a little. If the a/c is set by the needs of other people, you'll need to bundle up. Wear a few more garments than whatever makes you really comfortable. Add a wool hat and long sleeves when you'd be comfortable in short sleeves. Add a sweater when you'd be comfortable in a long sleeve shirt. If you are sweating just a little pretty much all the time, your body will adjust to heat. The day before a race, go back to the a/c. You won't loose your heat adjustment that quickly, but you will be comfortable and recover better. 4. Adjust your power expectations. In a longer TT on a very hot day or in a MTB race you'll make about 5-10% less power on average than on a pleasant day. Going off in a TT or MTB race at your normal speed will make you blow up and lose time. Taking off a little slower will leave you strong for the whole race. In a road race or criterium, recognize that your sustainable power, and everyone else's will be down a bit and plan your strategy accordingly. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 727 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here 2 sections out of a work from Mr. C on power to just think about it and I did some very small changes , let's see whether you pick them up . "the relationship of power to HR can differ between individuals, even if normalized in some manner, e.g., to the power measured during a time trial (TT), or to maximal power measured at the end of an incremental exercise test. As a result of such factors, the actual demands imposed by training can differ considerably between workouts or between individuals even if power or relative power is kept the same. Moreover, since power responds relatively fast compared to HR (HR half-life = ~30) Next part : However, while theoretically sound the use of power to quantify training intensity does have certain practical limitations. One is that although power is closely correlated with exercise intensity in a laboratory-type setting, this relationship is not nearly as strong while cycling outdoors .This is due to the wide variety of factors that can influence power during exercise. For example,altitude heat,hypohydration/dehydration, recent illness or infection, lack of sleep, and large fluctuations in power output." We have to agree , do we? Power will be very strong reduced , due to illness, but not HR as the heart still will have the limitation given by itself ( CGM) and it will protect itself to avoid a disaster, by reducing motor recruitment and therefor a loss of actual wattage (power output) . So by training at a given heart rate zone we will avoid disaster compared to training by a a given wattage zone. Another example is altitude and difference in power output. ( running even difference from ) biking ? ) Now what about nutrition: ? carb loaded versus depleted. Here a short printout as a part of the posters for the upcoming exhibits.  Now take wattage as a zoning options and take the max tested wattage in the carb loaded day versus three days later the carb depleted day and use 85 % as a calculation. What do you think by using wattage in this case. Stay tuned , as all the wattage believer will ask : What about HR in this case | ||
| Robh Senior Member Username: Robh Post Number: 215 Registered: 12-2007 |
Fom the book... "By comparing your heart rate response to the power output, you may find there are days when your heart rate is telling you to slow down, but your power meter is telling you to speed up because you are not making those muscles work hard enough to really create a training stimulus. Your heart is a muscle, just like any other muscle in the body, and it gets tired too. This means that if, for example, you've been training hard for seven days, your heart rate may be lower than normal for a given wattage while you are riding. If your heart rate is normally 165bpm when you are riding @ 280W, then after 7 days of hard training it may only be 158bpm @280W. This does not necessarily mean that you should not train that day, however, because clearly you are still getting training benefits. It's highy probable that you would still be able to the same amount of watts, or nearly the same amount, as when you were fresh at the beginning of the block. Your wattage will be the key to knowing when you truly need a rest day" | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 728 Registered: 04-2006 |
hmmm I think your heart ( CGM ECGM ) may tell you when to stop rather than the wattage. But it may be one day you stop because the wattage output is zero and your heart rate is zero as well. Than we have a major problem to ask the client what was the power output just before the zero. Here a free advice: \ When ever you test wattage be sure the clients pay's his testing fee before the test. When ever you test HR you don't worry too much . Smile Read the above from the book carefully and ask yourself honest open questions about the content. ? Have a nice day. | ||
| Robh Senior Member Username: Robh Post Number: 216 Registered: 12-2007 |
I can see how easy it is to follow the book because very little brain work is required...Now speaking of the grey matter I have another level II test to do this evening in 5 mins actually. | ||
| Mikebikes Intermediate Member Username: Mikebikes Post Number: 16 Registered: 10-2007 |
I agree with Jurg, I think that there is the thought that if you are producing the same power at a lower HR that is a good thing. NO. Actually that is a sign of fatigue. You should, instead, be ultimatly be producing more power at the same HR. Not the same power at a lower HR. Follow your Heart. Listen to Jurg. Mike | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 110 Registered: 04-2006 |
It almost makes my brain hurt to figure out what the "book" is trying to say about the dropping wattage when compared to HR and "feeling". The idea that the heart rate may be lower after hard training, and that you can assume you are still getting training "benefits" from this is interesting. We have seen both increased HR response and decreased HR response to training in the past. That is, some days, our heart rate is low for the given wattage. This may indicate appropriate response to a well developed training program, or complete cardiovascular over-training, with an inability to mount an increase in HR. We have also seen elevated HR response at the same pre-test wattage. This is usually an indication of incomplete cardiovascular recovery, or in some cases deconditioning from lack of training. In either case, the wattage and HR alone do not give the full picture. Nor does lactate trends. But the more willing you are to examine where the weakness may be occurring, the more likely you are to finding the answer to the questions, "How do I get faster?" Juerg continues to post pieces from "books" that are trying to make something very complex into something they can sell as a "simple" tool to get faster. I think it is worth people doing their own thinking, and certainly to question anyone who says that training is "simple". Training should be fun, learning should be a lifelong passion, and combining the two will likely lead you to down a successful path. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2949 Registered: 04-2006 |
Revisit the interval ideas. Thoughts and review. We discussed over many times the idea on how to use and or plan interval workouts. 1. One idea is simple and straight forward : load a certain watt level and relax ( recover on another fixed watt level. Example 300 watt for 3 min and 150 watt recovery for 3 min .. Why ? we often do not know. We may take a watt level above LT and or FTP and than we simply assume that the same wattage is always the same load. Now we know , that this is only true for the bike and the power meter but unfortunately not for the physiological system , who pushes this wattage numbers. Nevertheless we enjoy that plan , as it is easy to make and easy to follow and easy to use. What is not easy is the fact , that we have no clue what and how we load the system. 2. We take fixed time 1 min on all out 3 min off ( relaxed jog ) Again easy to plan easy to do but even less info on what the physiological system was doing. 3. We push all out for 1 min and than let the HR drop down to 120 and than go again. Looks initially more individual but the info we have is very limited again. So we could combine all of the above but at the end we still use physical parameters to stress a physiological system and we never control, whether this parameters really stress always the same physiological systems. I like to give you a short inside view in our ideas and why we abandon the above ideas on Interval and replace it with some very different stimuli. Here the printouts of 2 interval days with exactly the same load and recovery ideas. Same wattage load , same duration. The only part we changed in the second interval day was the recovery plan in 2 of the interval rest periods. We took all possible information's we can do at this time including lactate. The results where surprising and it helped us to understand the weak link idea as well. here to give it some thoughts.   Blue is the HR trend in the two identical intervals ( exception two recovery changes we did. Yellow is the SV in the identical interval. | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 38 Registered: 08-2009 |
The darker data is the second interval day, correct? Generally speaking then, the second day for the same wattage required a lower CO even before the "load" phases began? However, the different recovery idea didn't seem to change much of the subsequent "load" phase in the HR or SV department, or am I not interpreting these two graphs correctly? Maybe the answer lies in the lactate graph? | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2950 Registered: 04-2006 |
Thanks for the discussion. For all readers: CO = HR x SV. So the question is, whether the darker trace will give you at the same wattage a higher or lower CO.( we may assume perhaps , that teh same wattge requires the same energy. The question than comes up how and from where the energy comes and how energy delivery may change in case of a drop of one or another "team member " The timing here is , that the darker traces are done before the lighter traces. They where one day apart. But the idea of the test was to see, whether the workouts and assessments we did the previous 7 days had some trend informations on the " fatigue" of one or the other system: ( team member) and how the drop in performance from one system may show up in wattage performance and other physiological reactions like here in the picture : Change in cardiac hemodynamic/ possible change or not in metabolic reactions Trends and possible reactions in the Compensator. The simple practical idea was to see, whether the idea of LIMITER and COMPENSATOR actually would work and whether we can document this for us. Hourerg's suggestion , whether the answer is in the lactate trends, was one of our questions as well. Neverthelesss you wonder, how a much lower CO on the second day, but pushing the same wattage, could be "compensated" with some other team members ? Reason of this question is to find an answer, why the intervall idea based only on wattage is not a very good way to have answers on the athletes reactions on this workouts. Again wattage is needed to see the objective load ( physically ) so we can understand the physiological reactions created by this fixed loads. The physiological reactions will give us a better idea on load and recovery planning. People and coaches using wattage blindly seem to have some major missing informations , when they plan the workouts, but have an incredible adantage of planning workouts for hundreds of athletes at the same time, as the individual athlete does not count for any consideration in their planning with exception for having his or her individual FTP and than the same math applies for all. | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 39 Registered: 08-2009 |
Juerg, thanks for the reply, I figured the graph that showed the 2 recovery periods with a considerable drop in CO was the second day. Thanks for the clarification. how a much lower CO on the second day, but pushing the same wattage, could be "compensated" with some other team members ? This question may display how little I understand: Is it obvious to you that one system is compensating for another fatigued system as opposed to one system has made a functional adaptation to the previous week's workload and therefore the system you think is fatigued just doesn't need to work so hard? In this example is it possible that instead of the cardiac system being fatigued, the respiratory system has made some quick functional adaptation that has allowed the CO to be less? How do we know which possible scenario (if they are both possible) is more likely? Merry X-Mas! | ||
| Karik Junior Member Username: Karik Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2009 |
It would be the muscular system that is fatiqued too and cardiac system compensate. CO maybe lower in first day because muscular system is strong and compensat. Second day muscular system is weak and cardiac system compensate. Also there could be respiratory system fatiqued on second day. I remember Juerg's message where he did workout in Switzerland and after hard mountain days he got better stimulus for SV when he did easy days. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2954 Registered: 04-2006 |
Hourerg, welcome in our "club" we had some major questions , similar as you had, when we gathered this info. Accounted ( Karl , smile ) One of the reasons was, that we had put up a hypothesis and it broke down in the same speed as the accounting took place. Here what we had gathered over a 9 day assessing period. We assessed, than had a hypothesis and went back to see, whether it would give us some back up with data collections. Unfortunately it did not happened till at the end of the 9 day assesment period. We assessed for respiratory trends and possible adjustments. We added at special occasion oxygen to the idea and watched the trend based on the Dempsey ( metaborelfex) Noakes (mechano reflex) and Rhomerts idea on mechanical pressure. The respiratory system had very little or no influence in this case. In Fact the respiratory sytstem was possibly a part of the Limitation. The increase in respiratory frequency in this case seems to have a direct infleunce on LVET and with this on the CCT. The load in this intervall was too short and too low, so we never had an actual change in the LVET in the loading nor recovery period. So the actual respiratory work was ruled out. We looked as well at SpO2 and no clear or any trend there. Now even more interesting was the matabolic behaviour and the results would move many "fans" and believer of 2 and 4 mmol back to the front page. Here the lactate values from the first day. Lac. after ther first load 4 mmol recovery lactate 3 min later 2.0 Lac after 2 nd load 4.1 and after load 1.9 3rd 3.9 afterload 1.4 and last 4.7 afterload 1.9 No, we did not loaded at LBP nor did we loaded at 2 and or 4 mmol based on a classical test. We loaded above LBP. This really was coincident and showed, that if we would have gone longer or shorter we had very different lac values. Now here the next interesting part . Lactate values after the first load the following day with a much lower SV ( CO ) and same HR. Lac after the exact same load 4.1 !!!!! woww big eyes for us. lac after 3 min unload with same wattage 1.9 wowwwwww . Now we did some changes here based on a very crazy hypotheis. So we loaded again same way . Lactate 4.1 and than we change the idea of deloading, as you can see on the SV and HR trend. The goal was to get rid of H + but see, what this technique would do on the lactate trend itself. The initial case study on this idea was done by Andri Feldmann 5 years ago with running and Spiro Tiger , as he worked in Switzerland for IDIAG and consulted some of the top swiss triathletes. Here first the raw datas. Load 4.1 after classical unloading lac. 1.9 Next load lactate 3.9 than Andri's unloading 2.9 . Loading again 3.4 unloading classic 1.8 Than load again 4.7 Andri's unloading 3.8 Lac. one more load and lactate 2.9. Now here the repeat but in running. Load lac 11.2 classical unload 5 min 6.5 Load again Lac 12.5 Andri's unload 11.4 Load again Lac 6.4 classical unload 3.4 Load again 9.8 Andri's unload 8.6 Load again lac 4.6 Summary. The compensation had to be somewhere else, so we looked at the same time the trend in tHb and TSI % . The hypothesis behind is the idea on tissue reaction caused by possible slightly hypoxic ( lower pO2 ) situations ) see Karls' information. And there we had some very nice feedback as we assessed the TSI % and compared them over the two days , as well as the trends in tHb. What we really where looking was the impact of overload on different systems and than the trend of compensation from other systems , if they would be some. At the current situation, we seem to have identified the LIMITER and the compensator. So the plan is now to load the LIMITERS and than give them a break but in the same time still load the compensator to maintain and or improve their part of the performance. This ended up with 4 very different "zoning " ideas. Zoning for the respiratory system Zoning for the cardiac system Zoning for the extremity system Zoning for the metabolic system. Now we had to combine them so we would load one system and unload another or work as whole team. So here we are and we will do a full re-assessment to watch , whether our hypothesis can be accounted for in another batteries of tests in February than in march and so on. Any ideas and critical comments are as usual very welcome and appreciated. E mail but better here on the Forum. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2955 Registered: 04-2006 |
Just for clarification again. The yellow is SV and the blue is HR. The darker trace colour are the results from the first day with a much higher SV and same HR which ends up as a higher CO. | ||
| Karik Junior Member Username: Karik Post Number: 9 Registered: 10-2009 |
Uh, ok. Then it might be just the opposit, muscular system (and maybe respiratory system, but you said that respiratory had no influence) compensate on second day when cardiac system is weak. Could there be this kind differences in SV if the there is good or weak carbohydrate load or different air temperature. If you did 9 days assesment, did you have same training method every day or different. How about if we do 9 training day with exat same training method, close or a little above LBP. Can we see what team member star to fail first an so on? And maybe we can reapeat this same 9 days again but different cadense (if cycling) and see what happend. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2957 Registered: 04-2006 |
No, no nutritional differences at all and we got that info from the metabolic assessment in the lactate trend which was basically identical in the same load with 4.0 and 3.9 mmol lactate after the heavy load. As well we kept temp and all other outside parameters ( which account anyway only for about 5 % of the overall performance )at the same situation.We did every day exactly the same steps on warm up and assessed every day the reaction on all the systems always exactly the same. The key question was to see, whether we can see the trend comming in the performance line and whether the performance line will help us in a simple way to see, the change in one or the other system. Unfortunately the answer was no. I had to throw one of our basic ideas for simple use over board, that we can seee the change in performance line and make conclusions on what system is overloaded. In fact in this case we would have drawn the complete wrong conclusion.Shift to the left with the performance line as a sign of "progress" and shift to the right as a sign of "fatigue " of one or the other systems. So our next step is to see, how the performance line changes , when for example the respiratory system is the Limiter and than compare , when the cardiac system is the Limiter and so on. We did all of your suggestions above. We kept the classical idea going and loaded always with the same objective wattage level. ( Far below LBP wattage ) and only at the last two days did we moved back up to the LBP and slightly above LBP wattage intensity. Reason. We did an initial assessment ( we showed here ) and where looking for " Limiter" and Compensator. Than we moved back to the wattage intensity , where we saw in the initial assessment the first trend in reactions.( change in homeostasis. Example : Respiration : first trend in increase in frequency or Tidal volume. Or first trend in change in FeO2 % ( or what ever would show up as a sign of change.) Some react with higher RF and same TV and increase in FeO2 % In our case it was different . Higher RF and higher TV but same FeO2 %. Than we checked at the first change in SV or HR. In our case we where looking for the "plateau" in the assessment on SV. Than we where looking at the first change in Tissue saturation and or in tHb ( blood volume ) In our case we worked at the area, where the tHb started to stop climbing and in fact started to drop. The very interesting part was, that all the systems more or less reacted at the same initial level of performance ( below LBP but still kept their performance linear or started to get linear.( See the different graphs we showeed with the NIRS as well.) Now once we established this intensity, we where working 2 x / day on that level. Our question was, whether this relative low load in wattage would show any change later in performance and or overload. Reason of this question. The majority of workouts on this high performance level is load load load ( overloading ) We folloow the idea of Hans Selye and his hormonal reactions and adapation. Selye is the world's most and best know Stress researcher. His simple statement is that of functional reaction and structural change. Stress is NOT oberload, but "DIFFERENT" load. The goal of stress ( stimmulation ) is to bring any system out of homeostasis , which triggers first a functional reaction and if applied over and over again and the level of distruction of the homeostasis is not too extreme , the body will adjust and change the structure accordingly. It is basically a fast plan of the idea of Darwins evolution which is a slow motion structrual change in creatures. Like in the Darwin's idea, if the changes are coming to fast evolution can't take place. So in Selye's idea: If the changes in homeostasis are too extreme the functional reaction will lead to an initial survival hype, but ends in structural dammage and disaster. ( Stress fractures, cortisol overload and so on). Summary: we did RPM changes , respiratory changes , muscle tension changes , position changes and so on. So we interrupted homeostatsis in the different systems steady but with a surprisingly low load. Result. The weakest Link after 9 days showed the most changes and the need for recovery. This followed by the next weak team member and the copmpensator showed an incredible ability to actual jump in and maintain a proper performance on a very high level. I will show today once in the office the surprising ability in this case on how to compensate for the loss of cardiac performance. Happy Holiday for you in Finland and thanks for the many great feedbacks you offer us here from your side of the big water. Juerg | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2958 Registered: 04-2006 |
No, no nutritional differences at all and we got that info from the metabolic assessment in the lactate trend which was basically identical in the same load with 4.0 and 3.9 mmol lactate after the heavy load. As well we kept temp and all other outside parameters ( which account anyway only for about 5 % of the overall performance )at the same situation.We did every day exactly the same steps on warm up and assessed every day the reaction on all the systems always exactly the same. The key question was to see, whether we can see the trend comming in the performance line and whether the performance line will help us in a simple way to see, the change in one or the other system. Unfortunately the answer was no. I had to throw one of our basic ideas for simple use over board, that we can seee the change in performance line and make conclusions on what system is overloaded. In fact in this case we would have drawn the complete wrong conclusion.Shift to the left with the performance line as a sign of "progress" and shift to the right as a sign of "fatigue " of one or the other systems. So our next step is to see, how the performance line changes , when for example the respiratory system is the Limiter and than compare , when the cardiac system is the Limiter and so on. We did all of your suggestions above. We kept the classical idea going and loaded always with the same objective wattage level. ( Far below LBP wattage ) and only at the last two days did we moved back up to the LBP and slightly above LBP wattage intensity. Reason. We did an initial assessment ( we showed here ) and where looking for " Limiter" and Compensator. Than we moved back to the wattage intensity , where we saw in the initial assessment the first trend in reactions.( change in homeostasis. Example : Respiration : first trend in increase in frequency or Tidal volume. Or first trend in change in FeO2 % ( or what ever would show up as a sign of change.) Some react with higher RF and same TV and increase in FeO2 % In our case it was different . Higher RF and higher TV but same FeO2 %. Than we checked at the first change in SV or HR. In our case we where looking for the "plateau" in the assessment on SV. Than we where looking at the first change in Tissue saturation and or in tHb ( blood volume ) In our case we worked at the area, where the tHb started to stop climbing and in fact started to drop. The very interesting part was, that all the systems more or less reacted at the same initial level of performance ( below LBP but still kept their performance linear or started to get linear.( See the different graphs we showeed with the NIRS as well.) Now once we established this intensity, we where working 2 x / day on that level. Our question was, whether this relative low load in wattage would show any change later in performance and or overload. Reason of this question. The majority of workouts on this high performance level is load load load ( overloading ) We folloow the idea of Hans Selye and his hormonal reactions and adapation. Selye is the world's most and best know Stress researcher. His simple statement is that of functional reaction and structural change. Stress is NOT oberload, but "DIFFERENT" load. The goal of stress ( stimmulation ) is to bring any system out of homeostasis , which triggers first a functional reaction and if applied over and over again and the level of distruction of the homeostasis is not too extreme , the body will adjust and change the structure accordingly. It is basically a fast plan of the idea of Darwins evolution which is a slow motion structrual change in creatures. Like in the Darwin's idea, if the changes are coming to fast evolution can't take place. So in Selye's idea: If the changes in homeostasis are too extreme the functional reaction will lead to an initial survival hype, but ends in structural dammage and disaster. ( Stress fractures, cortisol overload and so on). Summary: we did RPM changes , respiratory changes , muscle tension changes , position changes and so on. So we interrupted homeostatsis in the different systems steady but with a surprisingly low load. Result. The weakest Link after 9 days showed the most changes and the need for recovery. This followed by the next weak team member and the copmpensator showed an incredible ability to actual jump in and maintain a proper performance on a very high level. I will show today once in the office the surprising ability in this case on how to compensate for the loss of cardiac performance. Happy Holiday for you in Finland and thanks for the many great feedbacks you offer us here from your side of the big water. Juerg | ||
| Karl Senior Member Username: Karl Post Number: 27 Registered: 10-2010 |
Hourerg Don't be too hard on yourself. Without any thinking (possibly too much blood in my gastrointestinal tract with not enough left for my poor brain) I made the same wrong assumption that the lighter traces are from the first day and the darker ones are from the second day even if it does not make sense at all. Must be something in the way the human brain perceives bright as primary, "more important". Of course it does not make any sense to expect the system to be "trained" after a day of an interval workout to be better prepared for the same workload on the following day. On the other hand it makes perfect sense for the heart to work harder to maintain the same wattage if one of the components of the system (I would bet on the muscular) is overworked. Just another example of importance of thinking before jumping into any conclusions (wink). So what does everybody (who cares to answer) think? Does this case suggest that 2 consecutive days of interval training may represent a good SV training pattern? | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 443 Registered: 04-2006 |
I think the greatest value in Juerg's recent case study is helping to identify why so many of our athletes who have been following very good "feeling" and intuition, by training at lower intensities CAN actually see ongoing improvement. It started for us almost 10 years ago, initially using LBP-20 blindly, but has progressed to the point now, where we can begin to see the trends using Fitmate and Spiro-Tiger in addition to our "old" LBP testing. Juerg is just able to do it at a much higher level, with the use of NIRS and PF. To answer the most recent question form Karl...I am not sure that one can draw conclusions of the value of consecutive interval training days with the data provided above. There are definite changes in SV and HR noted on the recovery intervals with Andri's intervention, most notably in the "recovery" between the intervals, where the HR dropped, but SV was maintained. And yes, there was a general trend towards higher SV on Day #2. But one can not assume that the SV increase after interval workout will necessarily lead to performance improvements that are noticeable or lasting. However, the case study does indicate that Andri's intervention may have led to a functional change in SV, and an ability to sustain SV during recovery periods, allowing HR to drop dramatically. The implications are still up for discussion and more testing. I was there for the first round of testing with this athlete, and the potential for overcoming the limiter with the information Juerg is gathering is very exciting. We have been working one some rudimentary ideas, trying our best to use the simple tools at our disposal to look for limitations with a group of dedicated athletes in the Okanagan, and hoping to retest with full CLR testing and Juerg in early Spring. We will post the changes here when they are available. | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 40 Registered: 08-2009 |
Karl, Indeed the brighter (more visible) lines were the 1st day (or 8th day) and the darker (faint) lines were the 2nd day (or 9th day). So the second day is where we see a drop in CO. Do we have RPE values for both days because that might help answer our questions. Did the second day seem much easier or harder? If the answer is easier, then I would suspect some adaptation was occurring, maybe even just in coordination. (Lets say I get on the treadmill today and run 3 miles at a fixed pace and record my HR. I am a rower and have not run or been on a treadmill in years. Then tomorrow I do the same 3 miles at the same pace. I'm willing to bet my HR will be lower on the 2nd day and it will feel easier because some small adaptations have occurred.) If the second day seemed harder then I would go with the idea that something finally fatigued. When someone uses the work "interval" we might automatically assume its 100% effort on the load phase but maybe it was 60%. In that case, it might be possible to make some small adaptation on the second day that allows us to perform the same "intervals" with less effort. Those are my thoughts, for now. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2959 Registered: 04-2006 |
Great info and great ideas. Here some answers. RPE was more or less identical. Interval was close to 100 % ( what ever 100 % ) demand n this intensity and was over a 3 min period. I am not sure in Andrew's suggestion, but the second day actually had much lower SV and the intervention with Andri's idea showed not a maintenance of SV but a drop in SV and HR. Hourerg's suggestion of coordination is a good information , but in this case teh athlete is biking every day and this since over 20 years , so unliley a change in coordination. Here some additional info's we work through today as we are in the midst of creating 4 -5 topics for some Master and some Ph.D research and than we have perhaps in a few years more ideas on this one. Here first the info on SV and HR again and as an add on the reaction in the Ejection fraction in this two interval workouts.  | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2960 Registered: 04-2006 |
And here a closer look at the NIRS info's  | ||
| Karl Senior Member Username: Karl Post Number: 29 Registered: 10-2010 |
Hourerg, I'm getting lost (yet again). Juerg wrote: "The timing here is , that the darker traces are done before the lighter traces." (Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 09:03 am) and then again "The darker trace colour are the results from the first day with a much higher SV and same HR which ends up as a higher CO." (Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 12:54 pm). This is getting rather hilarious that we can't agree on which line is brighter. Maybe we should be talking about color saturation to achieve even more confusion (just kidding). But back to serious tone, that is in my opinion a weakness of many of the very interesting graphs presented on this forum. Good legend is a vital part of a good graph. To your example: I would actually bet on the second day being harder for you if your legs are unused to run (really? you don't do any running as a part of your rowing training?). You may though have a problem to increase your HR to the target level because you won't be able to make your fatigued/untrained leg muscles work on such a high metabolic level as the previous day. That is if we talk about running at a rather high intensity (not necessarily running intervals). If we talking very light jogging then you possibly would perceive/record no difference. I realize this to some extent contradicts my previous thoughts but you came with an example of untrained leg muscles (not really, but unused to run). Empiric experience. I run mostly only in the shoulder season. When my paddling/cycling season is over and there is no snow to ski, I hit the road and man I can run, I feel strong, almost like I could fly. If I don't hold myself back I would not be able to walk up the stairs the next day. Sorry about my lighter tone. Again, I found it rather amusing that we can't find an agreement on which of the lines is lighter and which one is darker (smile). | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2963 Registered: 04-2006 |
Hope the graphs make it better there now . True it is " hard" to discuss, when we not know from what colour or explanation we can go from. So I hope this time the info is very clear but please come back. | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 444 Registered: 04-2006 |
Thanks for pointing out my mistake Juerg. I think I was on the same page as Karl, but there are many ways to get confused here... In trying to make sense of the new NIRS data presented...do the intervals show a DROP in total HB in the muscles during the interval, with a relative rise in DeoxyHb, and massice drop in OxyHb? And are we suspecting this is due to occlusion secondary to muscles tension, or as a result of some other process or intervention? Then during the recovery periods, we have a set pattern of return to baseline of all parameters, then Andri's intervention (during recovery period after interval 2 & 4), which appears to cause a massive rise in OxyHb, and variable to decreasing deoxyHb, as one might see with a BP cuff inflated to just above diastolic BP, which would allow blood flow into the muscle, but not out. We are working in the Okanagan with a very bright young computer programmer who is helping us with the ability to download and print all of the information form these great pieces of equipment automatically, and allow the tester to graph any and all of the data in a single program. We hope this will help allow for much easier demonstration and overlap of the data, and make discussions like these easier in the future. We look forward to sharing it with you all early in 2011. | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 445 Registered: 04-2006 |
Two hours of easy walking to enjoy some family time helps clear the head a little, but puts me in a position where I am once again having to rethink my original comments...would the changes in blood flow noted in the NIRS data support the idea of a blood pressure cuff above DBP? This SHOULD increase both Oxy and Deoxy HB content. However, I don't have enough experience with the device to know whether at complete rest the deoxy would increase or not. Obviously there has been an intervention that has caused a dramatic increase in OxyHb and correspondingly the Total Hb as well. Midway through the recovery period, there is a significant change in the deoxyHb and a continued trend in OxyHb upwards. The data shows also a rise in TSI, which is equally dramatic, implying an intervention that would eliminate the continued muscle draw of O2 from the Hb available...is this the addition of supplemental O2, or was the above observation of a possible BP cuff being applied during the interval more likely? | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2967 Registered: 04-2006 |
Thanks for all readers for the great feedback. Here just in short to get rid of some speculations. Andri's intervention are designed , so they can be done without any equipment and or outside help , but just simply by the client on its own and as well during a workout and for sure during a race. The whole idea is really what you can see, Loading and overloading in certain situations in a workout or race the TSI and increase the tHb with reactions on SV ( preload ) and LVET drop. We need many many more tests to have this ready for publications in the range of the next 2 -3 years. ( we are aiming if possible for a collection of 200 - 300 tests so we have a decent amount for statistical relevant information. This specific idea is one part of a training method we will be using with one client over the next 2 years and than see, the results and possibly can use it for some very needed ideas in cardiac rehab and COPD rehab. Great info Andrew and great ideas and thoughts. The latest NIRS software keys are allowing now for instant fast averaging from marker to marker in any of the info needed and the different universities in europe start to use soon a standardized info uidea on how to present the data collection and how to teach it for the students. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2968 Registered: 04-2006 |
Vielen Dank Stephan. Wir werden all daten mitgeben und hier kurz die Antwort zu Deiner Frage. Hb diff und gruen ist die information on tHb in der Interval session. 3 min Belastung und 5 min erholung mit Laktat werten am Ende der 3 min Belastung und nach 3 min Erholung  Die Daten sind mit einem Filter 15 sec Durchschnitt aber Du kannst auch einen Gaus durchschnitt nehmen. Noch schone Festtage. PS Wir koennen schauen ob wir eine Deutsch sprachige Forum idea Einrichten moechten. Here just short to save time. Question was for a print with Hb Diff from Switzerland. and this is the print from the above intervall sessions. We may start a German Forum on here, but possibly in another Website, as we have more and more euopean readers and emails coming in. \ Happy New year to everybody |