| Author | Message | ||
     Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 562 Registered: 04-2006 |
It has been 7 years...and I am really happy with my race results. I do notice when comparing my performance line with other athletes I have tested, that I still have work to do at my lower end. I raise this issue to question the next step in my own development. This year, I have incorporated some respiratory based intensity work. That is, instead of using LBP-20 to gauge my intensity, I have been using 18-20 resps/minute to guide my sessions. Sometimes these are easy, and sometimes hard, but always the same resp stimulus. It has not changed significantly my performance line, but has seemed to allow me to race above LBP more comfortably, and recover quicker from high intensity efforts during the race. So, my questions about cardiac output and VO2 are to see if there are specific ideas I can try to improve my lower end beyond the large changes I have seen over the past 7 years. The performance line seems to have stagnated, despite continuing consistent training. Hope you are well. It has been fun to read Ryder's insight into the Tour on his website, and please pass along my best wishes for him on his continued success in Europe with the team. Here the not easy answer. Actually no answer at all ,but some thoughts. Some regular readers on our Forum got the short Intro in a new Toy , a non invasive testing equipment for stroke volume (SV) and in combination with HR therefor the info on the cardiac output. Some readers may recall the info on right ventricular overload after marathon running as well as some research explaining left ventricular overload after Iron man performance. Now what has this all to do with the above question. Here my speculative thoughts on all of that in a short version. As we go along in the possible shift of the classical idea on aerobic/anaerobic to a different ( not proven) view of CGM ( Central governor model ) we start perhaps to get some more puzzles on the right place. 1. Depending on the individual situation of a person, some stressors may not be that anymore , stressors, but are now "normal" inputs into an adapted system. Explanation. - you have 2 miles to your work place and because of what ever reason you decide that from Monday on you will walk to work. So 2 miles walk is the stressor. In the beginning it may be hard to do it and you will have all kinds of signs of momentary "overload". Sore feet , increased sweating , tired leg muscles, more alert as soon you are in the office, to name some of the reactions produced by the stressor 2 mile walk. But as your body will respond to this initial "alarm phase" ( hans Selye) you will see some of the functional reaction ( sweating , sore feet) may disappear , as the body will improve the efficiency in all the stressed area. ( as long the recovery time was long enough to do that ) Now by adapting certain systems to the stressor 2 mile walk , they don't see that anymore as a stressor , but just daily normal usage. This has the "negative" consequencies, that you not will see further improvement in this area, as in fact you may start to loose certain ability due to the bodies ability to use the new performance more efficient. For coaches that situation would be , that by a given speed or wattage ( 15 km/h 200 wattage) the VO2 may suddently be lower as a sign of improved efficiency at the speed or wattage ( better balance so less dynamic muscle involvement to keep you upright and therefor less O2 needed to ski or skate ) and more reasons. Now you still like to keep the 2 mile as a stressor so you have to change certain ideas on how you walk to work. - walk faster - walk with different step length - walk backwards ( hmm perhaps not that attractive) walk by concentrating on the respiratory work and so on. Now the same as in the initial stage will happen. Adaptation and you are agin on a plateau. Now the key in performance training is, to try to find the moment , where you pleateau , because of structural adaptation. Now the next step is to try to find the system , which may be at that particular moment be the weakest link in the overall performance. Once we can find that , we have to try to find now a way of creating first an initial "alarm phase" and the proper recovery between each "alarm" so we can hope , that we can initiate another structural improvement. So more back to the above info: In this particular person , it seems , that respiratory work was done very regular and there may be a plateau reached there, so , that any further "extreme" work in that system , may not pay back the improvement , compared to the investment in time. So the "dream' key is now, to use existing or new test information , to see how the VO2 in a given intensity changed or may change due to different interventions on other important systems. As most of you may recall: VO2 max is the overall O2 usage at a maximal tested intensity. We are more interested in a VO2 at a given repeatable marker . like LBP or perhaps a fixed wattage or speed or level , depending what testing equipment you may use. Now here the speculation: Training may make your movements more efficient. Therefor you need less O2 and the now available O2 you not use will help you to go faster with the same VO2 or you will see by a given speed lower HR , lower breathing rate and so on. Meaning : you can take LBP physical performance ( watt/ speed ) or LBP physiological marker HR . Now . if you are as mentioned , not just interested in VO2 Max, but more leaning towards our ideas, you combine now the different tests together. (FaCT IRIS ). So you test the metabolic info (lactate , blood sugar ) and you test the respiratory info ( Respiratory rate / Tidal volume ) you test the gas exchange rate ( FeO2 and O2 sat ) and you test the cardiac out put ( Stroke volume ) at a physical fixed area or a physiological fixed area. Now here for all wattage believer. In this case the usage of a fixed performance may be better, as we have a very stable info in that way. What we now hope ( and working on ) is the ability , to see over time, which system actually adapted first and lost the ability to be "stressed" and in fact may have learned to get very efficient and "lazy" by the current or past workouts. Once we can identify this , we can change the stressors , so that the "lazy " guy in the team will be again be "overloaded" and than after a while we hope to see , the initial functional reaction changes into a structural adaptation. Simple example. CO ( cardiac output ( how much blood the heart pumps in 1 min as calculated on SV =stroke volume x heart frequency)so CO is 4 - 6 l in resting stage. it can go up to 40 l / min ( Hollmann /Hettinger ) Now , as in the respiratory challenge, the question is : What is better , slow rate and big volume , or fast rate and small volume or better, where is the best indiviudal compromise between rate and volume ( most efficient work for that organ , so it needs the smallest amount of O2 to produce this optimal performance. Now here an interesting twist. The "classical " believe" in the literature (Hollmann /Hettinger) is. The SV ( stroke volume will increase only up to a heart rate of 110- 120. From that point on we will only have the ability to improve CO by increasing the heart frequency. No here is the twist. We got "educated" that 2 and 4 mmol is the way to go. Well FaCT "believer" think different. Now our next step is to test in the field if possible, as many different people, as I strongly believe this 110 - 120 idea sounds great for a Ph.D work , but I think that we can see individually people beeing able to increase stroke volume much longer , but I may be proven wrong by myself) . We will soon see how this looks in practical application. ( I hope my former physiology Professor does not read this here, as I may loose my education paper/ my english teacher already took me of his list as his former student / smile ) Now the next interesting twist is to challenge the believes and research from: Wade and Bishop 1962 /Bevegard u. Shephard, Astrand and Rodahl ). Hmm True all big names in that field of performance. We learned , that once the Stroke volume reaches by 110 - 120 its maximal ability it will stay that way till to the bitter end of the all out stress test. Well , that was one of the "educated " part in the respiratory ideas as well and we have collected in the mean time with Fit Mate testing many cases, where we actually see a reduction in Tidal volume at the end stage of a step test. With the reduction in TV we see a reduction on True O2 intake as well. Speculation: Could it be , that in some cases we may actually see not a plateau in SV but a decline as higher the HR may go , and therefor a very inefficient pumping work from the heart. If this may be the case , we may be able to identify the optimal HR for the heart, as in contrast to an optimal heart rate for the respiratory system , and an optimal heart rate for the extremity muscles. So if the CGM works we in fact may be able to see, that it is controlled by a feed back from organ to brain and visa versa , as a way of keeping vital organs happy. Wowwww yes, big fun a head of us, and as a last speculation. Should it be the way we got educated, that by 110 - 120 the SV is stable and will not change, than we have another reason the ask ourself. Well if I like to train my heart only , I can stay by 110 - 120 as it will not be of any benefit to go higher, as there is no change in "strenght " but only in "coordination " for the heart. Well may be we can use the Polar RLX (HRV) as well to apply as a biomarker in combination with Stroke volume . Hmmm This is hard to believe , but before we not see some cases for ourself we have to "repeat " what the teacher told us to repeat , as other wise we fail the test. Smile Juerg P.S. Short story on the long one above. I wonder , whether there is an optimal heart rate , resp Stroke volume, so we can produce an intensity (Stressor) to improve CO and therefor again the efficiency at a given performance due to a better CO. CO, Respiratory ability as the 2 main factor perhaps to improve VO2 at a given performance. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 570 Registered: 04-2006 |
I had a nice respond on this above information. Summary : How can I proof , that there is structural changes in the cardio system. Well I can't yet , but there are many research work out there, who show changes very clear. We hope we soon can start some new ideas on cardiac training and than we can show you case studies, leading to the Adaptation you will see in this pic, which was published on our Forum in the section Functional and structural changes. If you calculate the change in CO ( cardiac output in 1 min and than you take that over a race of 1 hour and up to 6 hours you will be amazed , how much more O2 this changes will offer to an endurance athlete.  |