| Author | Message | ||
     Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1560 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here some interesting data's from a FaCT CLR test . It shows nicely , how the human body is reacting depending on the different way a certain performance ( Physical performance in wattage ) can be achieved by using different physiological systems . Her the numbers. How to read. We picked a HR ( 160) which was in all three phase available of the FaCT CLR. 3 steps. 1. Incremental test with 3 min steps up , as any step test. Subject decided to stop the test voluntarily so we took at that stage the first lactate . ( in this case we took some more lactate prior, as soon we hit 30 + CCT ( cardiac contraction time which is a multiplication of HR x LVET = left ventricular ejection time. The LVET is measured in ms. So in a case of 100 HR x LVET of 200 ms you would have a CCT of 20 sec per minute. Or in a case of 150 HR and LVET of 200 ms you have a CCT of 30 sec. / min. So as soon we hit 30 + sec we started to take lactate as well to see potential trends. 2. After we hit the " subjective maximal performance we start immediately with the recovery part assessment. We drop to 50 % of the performance in the first step and test lactate after 3 min and depending on the lactate trend ( see later protocol for FaCT ) we than increase from now on by 5 - 10 HR steps and watch what the trend of the performance is. During the full FaCT CLR we always test VO2 as well as cardiac hemodynamic and the full lactate recovery trend. Here the situation on all the three systems by a HR of 160. First line is on the way up. middle line is immediately in the recovery stage and last line is on the second time up to find the LBP. HR Watt VE RF FEo2 SV EDV LVET CCT Lac 160 200 84 33 16.6 80 112 199 32 6.8 160 120 78 37 16.9 90 121 191 31 6.4 160 160 69 34 16.5 88 121 225 36 3.8 Yours to enjoy. Check how the different individual data's , whether it is HR or watt or lactate really don't make a lot of sense, but as soon you move it into an overall picture you can see what happens. The LBP was around 150 - 155 . Cheers Juerg The most interesting part is the lactate trend. This as well shows the clear trend in how we should use lactate this days. The Seattle conference showed this year clear the trend in understanding , that absolute lactate numbers are of not a lot of value, but it also shows the problem, that many institutions seem to be lost for now on how to apply lactate as a perfect marker for many interesting information's. There are still some new studies out using lactate the "classical" way but show, that absolute lactate values can't be used for any zoning purposes. It seems the time is ready for FaCT - L and how we use lactate since many years as bio- marker. The New FaCT CLR software and program will address this next step nicely and we will soon be able to apply lactate in combination with the Physio Flow as well. So enjoy the numbers and compare to your test ideassee, how the different pulmonary as well as cardiac info's vary by certain wattage , just depending how you move up or down from load or deload activities. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1586 Registered: 04-2006 |
here an ongoing discussion from the Forum of www.cyclingnews.com It is a very nice example, how watt is not equal watt , as well a very nice example, why people like to use watt as an intensity zoning, as you have to think nothing than in wattage but you have no clear info at all. I will give this discussion some thoughts so you can see, that many of the answers are at least interesting , but are completely based on assumption and on believes. Just look at the first answer, where they seem a bit confused on aerobic and anaerobic , but at least it sounds pretty good. 06-17-09, 05:19 Recovery between 1min intervals Doing 6x1min intervals using a power meter I noticed that with a 1min recovery my average power per interval was reducing say by 30w. i.e starting at say 550w it was reducing to say 520, 490.. etc. The question is, should the recovery be long enough so that the power is maintained throughout the set (i.e say a 4min recovery), or is the 1min recovery critical and the reducing power acceptable? Or, as I suspect, are both scenarios relevant, with each offering a different training effect. If so, what is the difference. Well by not allowing sufficient recovery, you are effectively turning an anaerobic session into an aerobic one. So what exactly are you intending to achieve with the intervals? I agree with Alex – what are the intervals for? IMO, if your goal is to increase your max power output, then you should be attaining the same power output per interval – or higher – and you could achieve the same effect with shorter intervals (i.e <30s) and greater recover time (e.g. 10mins). If your goal is to increase your lactate threshold (i.e. your ability to maintain a high power output over a certain period of time), then you’d aim to increase the continuous time you spend in an interval (eg. 1min working up to 5m+). 1m intervals with 1m recovery (x6) would be training your ability to maintain a certain power output for 1m, ‘recover’ for 1m and then reach the intial power output again (for 1m). Race application for that would be training the ability to respond to quick and constant attacks in a criterium. If that’s all you’re aiming at, keep it up – your power output over the 1m interval should eventually become consistent, once your lactate threshold increases. hope that helps Thanks for the replies. I'm trying to increase my average power over 1min, hence the uncertainty as to which approach will give the most effective results. Quote: Thanks for the replies. I'm trying to increase my average power over 1min, hence the uncertainty as to which approach will give the most effective results. Ok but for what purpose? 1-min power is a unique beast and improving it requires attention to neuromuscular power, anaerobic work capacity and maximal aerobic power. These are best worked on separately but tied together with 1-min efforts at some stage as well. I suspect I don't really know what I'm doing it for, scientifically that is, I'm hoping it will improve my power when crossing to a break (for instance) - I road race in the vets league. 1min intervals are a well documented training session, but I've seen different accounts of recovery lenghts, and reading through the Training with Power book, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on maintaining power throughout an interval, hence a longer recovery. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1587 Registered: 04-2006 |
First question: If wattage is always the same intensity, why does he losses so much wattage ? | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1588 Registered: 04-2006 |
Second question: If he looses so much wattage, are we sure it is in each and every person the same reason , why we may loose performance. Remember: We believe that wattage , as VO2 is an overall information on the ability to produce power or use O2 as a summary of all involved systems. So by pushing 500 wattage the person will use a lot of different "system " to achieve this intensity . Now by loosing 30 or 40 wattage 1 min later he seem to have lost in one or more of the involved system some performance, so that the new summary from all now involved system van only produce 470 wattage. Remember in the general discussion on wattage forums, they argue, that you don't care about HR at all you just push the target wattage and it will be the same intensity . we argue that it is the same wattage but a different intensity on the different system, involved in this particular wattage performance. It may be that for one system it is still the same intensity by 470 watt as it was by 500 watt , but in another system it may be now a different intensity as it was perhaps 80 % by 500 watt and now 100 % by 470 watt as this system may compensate for another system , who can't contribute anymore after 1 min rest as it did in the first repetition. Just think about one system like the heart or the respiratory system or the co-ordination involved and so on and you will find many answers very fast. Cheers and I will be back Juerg | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1589 Registered: 04-2006 |
Interval training ideas and programs are a very well liked topic for any coach and training advisor, as it is nice to develop any kind of games with number combinations: Here some of the common examples . Track and field : 5 x 1000 m with 1 lab easy jog to recover. 10 x 400 m with pyramid breaks in between starting by 1 min. 200 m 30 sec break 400 m 60 sec break 600 m 90 sec break 800 m 2 min break and back. And so on. Bike or indoor trainer: 6 x 1 min all out with 1 min breaks. 5 x 120 % of FTP with 1 min breaks and so on. Swimming is mostly divided in pool length of 3 x 50 m with break till to the full minute , or 3 x 50 m with 21 min breaks followed by 3 x 100 m with 1 min break and so on. The beauty of this programs is, that there is very little thoughts needed but some fantasy m, what may feel hard and brutal and how easy it is to control , if we run a full group or an individual person. The goal is to see, whether after a certain amount of time there is an improvement in this specific time in this specific interval training. The other big advantage is, it looks "professional " and sometimes unique , if I "develop some out of the ordinary schedule by mix and matching distance and time and repetitions The big question here still will be: What does the number 5 or 10 , or the time 60 sec or 90 seconds , of the distance 100 m and 400 meter really have to do with physiological reactions ? May be 5 is because we have 5 fingers. 60 sec because this is once around the clock and 100 m because the pool is 25 m long and it is easier to stop the time for the coach on the same side , as the athletes started. Same is on the track as it is easier for the coach top just walk across the field to the 200 m finish or wait till the athlete has finished a full loop. I am looking forward to any responder , who can justify on a physiological base, way 5 or 10 and way 1 min and so on. I would strongly argue, that this is based on convenience and on traditional base lines, from a time , where we simply had no tools to test different , than on absolute performance like speed / time / watt. I would like to start a discussion, that we may have reached a time, where we can or could now base "interval " or any training mainly on physiological information , rather on physical numbers. I will print tomorrow and example of a running workout 20 heart beats below LBP or better on a fixed speed and than the same length of a workout somewhat faster ( on LBP ) or a fixed speed at the level. It was or it is very interesting to see, that faster running or biking not really follows the theoretical believe , tat all system work harder. In fact in many cases we can see, that some system actually work less hard and less efficient and the future work is , to find out , how hard or how far above the optimal intensity do I try to workout to create a stressor in the target area . In the example of the 6 x 1 min with 500 watts we have very different experience with the same client or with different clients. Using 500 watt or very high watt intervals on one day may trigger a very different stressor , compared with the same watt interval workout on an other day. This not just in between different people but even intra individual. Here a very nice case study from the same person repeating the same "interval" under different circumstances. First interval 5 x 400 watt with 1 min rest as the target workout. The interval was done after 3 days long slow endurance workouts with an intensity on the maximal EDV or just above the SV highest value where the EF % started to increase. Subjectively a very low intensity workout with no problem and a duration of 2 hours, resp till there was a drop in EDV ( potentially due to either heat or dehydration . Heat meaning more blood on the surface and less in the circulatory system which leads to a drop in EDV. Dehydration means drop in plasma volume which leads to a drop in EDV as well.) a) He never finished the 5 x 400 watt, as after the third 400 watt interval he could not maintain the wattage anymore. But even the first three where yes 400 watt fro 1 min , but the "delivery system may have been very different. First 400 watt HR relative well below the HR in a test ( normally 178 by 400 watt and in the first interval after 1 min 145. . LVET 234 which is already a CCT above 30 sec. second interval HR 167 . but LVET still 233 so major increase in CCT. third interval HR 169 but LVET only slightly dropping to 222. 4 th interval stopped by 23 seconds and end of the workout. What did we stimulated ? Now second time the same target interval but after 2 days rest. Finishing 5 x 400 m with 1 min rest. First interval HR 151 LVET 233 Second interval HR 167 LVET 198 3rd interval 175 LVET 166 . 4th HR 178 LVET 167 Last one very hard but finished 177 LVET 163 What did we target this time. ? Have fun and watch tomorrow for a longer printout on the above mentioned running case study . Juerg | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1590 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here something to think about. The question would be: Which of the 2 intensities would be considered a stressor for what physiological system , or simply but : Which of the two intensity would you choose for what kind of a goal. And why ? Here short the info on the two trainings: Running on a treadmill with 6 % incline. First section was with a speed of 5 mph. , second section was 6 mph and the last short part was a "cool" down of 5 mph again. Here short the metabolic info on lactate. First 15 min run , lactate taken every 5 min. 5 min by 5 mph Lac 1.7 10 min by 5 mph Lac 1.4 15 min by 5 mph Lac 0.9 Second 15 min as well lactate taken every 5 min. 5 min by 6 mph Lac 3.1 10 min by 6 mph Lac 2.2 15 min by 6 mph Lac 2.1 End lac after "cool down " 5 mph Lac 1.3 Now the following prints show the cardiac hemodynamic during this short case study. I will start with the basic info of HR over the full period. You see in hand writing always the average over the full 15 min period. Okay here first the overall picture of all tested and assessed hemodynamic parameters followed by each individual printout. 1. Overall pic.  | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1591 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here now 3 pics. First is HR only. followed by Stroke volume and than the result of HR x SV = CO ( cardiac output. For new readers. HR = heart rate in beats per min SV = Stroke volume in ml per beat. It is the amount of blood your heart is throwing out per beat. SV is dependent on different factors. Here some easy to explain once. a) Depending on the so called pre-load or EDV ( End diastolic volume or the amount of blood which is in the heart after the full filling time. As higher the EDFV as easier it is normally to have a higher SV. SV can as well increase by the same EDV as the heart may contract " stronger " The heart never throws out all the blood which is in there after full filling . It throws a certain % of this EDV out and this has the name EF % ( or ejection fraction % ) So some blood stays in the heart as the residual volume. ( similar as in the lungs with air ) So the EF % can go up , and again similar as in the lungs , where you can try to breath out harder and therefor have a bigger TV and a smaller Residual volume left. As SV depends strongly on EDV it may be interesting to mention , that EDV depends strongly on the amount of blood ( or plasma volume ) under dehydration the EDV will drop and therefor as well the SV ( in some cases SV will stay first the same as EF % can increase, but once it hits that limitation SV will drop together with EDV as more the body may dehydrate. Now under heat we see a similar situation despite good hydration. Under heat the EDV drops due to opening of blood vessels on the skin to control body temperature and now there is less blood circulating through the heart at the same intensity. This two in formations now are very nice to assess with the physio flow, and it is very interesting to see, how some hydration claims from certain products may just not really be completely true in reality but may sound great in theory. Again each athlete seems to react individual and in some cases water was simply the best compared with many so called " wonder" hydration ideas. It depends strongly on the individual situation at a given test moment. So here the three prints of HR/SV and the end result of CO Look at the interesting situation as CO yes will increase but check at SV.    | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1592 Registered: 04-2006 |
Now next is the info together we just talked above EF % so here to compare the EDV = End diastolic volume of the 2 different speeds compared with the SV and you can see the change in EF% as well.   | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1593 Registered: 04-2006 |
Now here avery interesting situation. We as well look at the so called LVET or left ventricular ejection time. It is the time or duration the heart is throwing out the blood and therefor the cardiac muscle is during that time contracted. We develop some ideas in FaCT , that the Heart rate x LVET would give arguingly the contracted time over 1 min of the heart in a workout. Now as the blood supply to the heart is mainly during the diastolic situation ( not during the contraction ) we could carefully argue, that as longer the HR x LVET which we term CCT or cardiac contraction time is increasing as less often the heart itself has a chance to get blood and therefor O2. So the CCTBP or cardiac contraction time balance point would as it seems logic appear by 30 sec. Now here the hypothetical thoughts. If the CCT is above 30 Sec, than the O2 supply is "out of balance" and if T. Noakes CGM idea may apply we would see potentially some reaction from the CGM. The reaction , based on his ideas, would be a regulation of the motor units to a level to secure the O2 supply to the more important organs like the heart to protect the heart. If we maintain the same physical intensity like same speed in running or power in wattage , and we would loose some motor unit to help to supply the speed or wattage than the remaining units would have to work harder. Harder work means more ATP supply form less motor units and more ATP supply would as well mean faster ATP needs, as the demand has to be updated with a proper delivery. Now when the delivery is in problem the body will look for a more and faster and efficient delivery of ATP. Once the O2 dependent glycolysis is getting close to the limitation to be able to upkeep the delivery for the ATP supply the body will shift to the next source , which is ( if available ) lactate and O2 ) and if lactate is not available the shift will move into the O2 independent delivery where ever it is needed, which than supplies lactate again to areas, where O2 and glucose can't deliver good enough but now the O2 and lactate can do this still okay . One of this areas will be the heart muscles itself. Now here we have some interesting cases. Mary Ann and myself did in Joshua tree some ideas on the fact, that in a "after load " situation , where there is a lot of lactate in the system the lactate will drop , but as the body still looks for potential use of glucose, but for the moment this is not efficient enough we see despite the fact of a drop in lactate a still increase in blood sugar. This may hint towards the priority and the ability of lactate versus glucose. \This would throw in questions all the nutritional supplement , who claim , that they will reduce lactate production or will buffer lactic acid. ???? Now here the print of HR and LVET and the CCT together on the HR sheet .   | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1594 Registered: 04-2006 |
Now last but not least one of the future perhaps most important directions in health and sport. The LCW index or left cardiac work index. In simple term it may give us ( we still have to work on that () potentially the idea, on how efficient the heart works in different intensities. We may be able to actually get the so called MVO2 or the myocardial O2 usage out of some combinations with the LCWindex. If we can do that , than we have to very important informations for the cardiac training , but as well for avoiding cardiac overload. This will be our focus over the next few month. This in combination with some ideas on compression cloth and some research not done before on the efficiency of this new and upcoming "trend" or reality . So stay tuned and please, when you have some question don't sent it to our email but use the Forum so everybody can benefit . ( Exceptions if the question may be in German , french or Italian ) I will try than to make a decent translation so everybody can enjoy it . Cheers Juerg . Here the print from the LCW index.  | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1595 Registered: 04-2006 |
Summary . This now is only the reaction based on the hearts ability . When we would add the pulmonary /respiratory info to it as well the lactate we have at the beginning the most people will see, why we at least like to discuss the fact , that using a single unit like HR or Wattage alone is a nice and easy way to do , but has to be reassessed during a workout with some thoughts. The wattage as you can see, is unlikely a good idea to relay only on, as the intensity of each involved system will change during any workout duration. So to use wattage alone as a training intensity guidance again is a very convenient idea, but unlikely a very good version of assessing training intensity . It can be used to be aware of overall performance loos , gain and or maintenance, but that's pretty much. Using wattage as a training unit and stay fixed on this wattage level can sometimes work but if you push intensities close to FTP or duration wise close to the glucose storage capacity you will ultimately shift physiological intensities and now hanging on on the same wattage will change the "intensity zone" despite the fact that you or the coach believe you stayed on the same wattage so it is the same intensity . I still wait for a fair discussion and open discussion , where wattage zone users show me the same open cardiac data's during their workout , as I would love to see , how the values of the above hemodynamics suppose to stay stable and the same if the workout is based on wattage. Any critical fair constructive comment for wattage users is welcome and I love to exchange data's as we have them always available here open and clear. No cooking in a secret shelter we just simply cook with water and have many many more open questions. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1597 Registered: 04-2006 |
I was asked to give a very practical example I did where I can show , how watt is not the same intensity . Sure I can do that . Here the practical example. 1. Most people using any test system often will get instructions , how the prepare for the test itself. Resting 1 or 2 day and son on. This leads to a very good test result. where we take just as example three theoretical values. a) Max tested wattage 380 b ) FTP wattage 320 c) basic endurance wattage 240. Okay here the first example. A client had a long workday with bad nutrition in between and decides in the evening to do a FTP workout over one hour. Question : Is his max. Wattage still the same, as on the test day. If yes good for him but unlikely if no where is his FTP today , can he take 320. Now the only wattage which is good to take is the all out value, as at that test day all the system worked as hard as possible with the weakest system potentially limiting the overall performance the most. 380 wattage does not tell us , what was the weakest system , but only that the total system all included had to stop by 380 . Now at the same test day there was an optimal team work from the systems to have the FTP by 320. What we don't know either is what limited the FTP to be even higher , Which system may have produced an all out at the FTP for one hour. Now on the day he likes to do a FTP workout he has unfortunately a slightly cold ( respiratory restriction. Now by pushing FTP on that day and staying there the respiratory system will not contribute the same performance to the 320. In fact due to the cold the FeO2 may be likely higher and therefore the O2 transport is slightly reduced. Luckily for this client the Respiratory system was already the limiting factor in the test. So the heart itself is not pushed to the limit at the FTP and so he can still go FTP 320. The difference now is, that the heart has to work more due to the lesser contribution of O2 from the respiratory system . As there was some "space " left for a higher performance the heart can do that. But now, there is the problem , that besides overloading the respiration even more we may as well start to push the heart to a limitation , which than produces some reactions . As the respiration is harder on that day there is more need for O2 delivery to the perspiration system. This will add to a higher heart rate and work for the cardiac system , which as well will increase the O2 need and usage of the cardiac system. Which may lead if on the FTP intensity to a problem with the loco motor system ,as we may have a smaller recruitment of motor units due to the CGM and the limitation of O2 to the heart itself. The smaller amount of motor units will lead to a higher ATP demand of the working units and the demand has a problem as the delivery over O2 dependent sources may come to a limitation as well, so that the body has to reach partially in the O2 independent energy production . This therefor will show up in a increasing lactate trend compared to the lactate trend in the test. This means the body is stressed in all the 3 systems very different despite the fact that there is still 320 wattage in the power meter. If any body believes that this FTP workout is still the same intensity physiologically than the FTP 320 wattage on the test day , than they are welcome to show me the data as they tested it in the test and the FTP workout later. I have many many test results in this direction to show , that the same wattage can have profound different stimulation on any given day on one or the other physiological system. As long we don't have a control over the team work of the different system and use blind just one parameter with wattage potentially the worst for a training zoning on its own we not will make very much progress in the future in any direction is it sport , high performance and rehabilitation. Please come back and challenge this points I made. Juerg | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1616 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here another case study to show some ideas on the FaCT thinking. I like to start first with the FaCT Model of training, as there is a fundamental difference in our view and graphic to the once you see in any other training books and eduction.  As in any of the current model, we have as well a training load. The difference is, that we make a difference between the actual "planned' training. And the so called 'hidden workout " or training. This difference may be the key of understanding our believes , that wattage or any physical planned workout intensity is not always the same even if the actual "values" is the same. 240 wattage is always 240 wattage but not always the same physiological intensity. This means 240 a 240 wattage workout can have 2 different physiological reaction in the same person, due to the fact, that the body may be in a different "state" at different times. As this is the case, but from many wattage users not recognised or accepted we have the situation, that certain results can't be explained. Now again , as long the overall performance ( wattage ) is improving most people don't care and have as well no reason what really contributes to the overall higher wattage level. Once there is no improvement , than they care , but have no way of assessing and find the reasons of the lack of the planned improvement. That's where fact comes in. A test version , where we can find potential changes in one or more of teh contributing systems and why it works or not. So what is the open and what is the hidden workout. This graphic is one of the PP in our online education for the school district. Open workout : This is the "planned" workout on the paper or the one you are doing . An open workout is for example: 1 hour bike ride with 200 wattage intensity . Or a 10 x 400 m interval run with 2 min rest in between. Or a 5 x 200 m swim with 1 min rest in between. Now there is nothing wrong with this planned workout, as long I know ,what they produce on reactions in the body. The problem is, as in all of this above workouts , non of them really have a physiological intensity . There are all based on physical in formations. This means, that I really don;t know , what the body did or has to do. Depending on many factors the intensity ( physiological intensity may be very different , when I repeat the same workout the next day. Let's take 10 x 400 m with 2 min rest. Depending how you "pace" the 400 m repetition you may be more or less "fatigued". Now if you do this workout after a 3 day rest period you may have different physiological start situations, than when you repeat it the next day again. This despite the fact , that it is the same workout . Same when we go to wattage. 10 x 300 watts with 2 min rest is a very similar situation with the small difference, that there is a fixed intensity involved. So what does this has to do with open and hidden workout. Well the hidden workout follows , as you can see the open workout , and is exactly that , the workout in your body which follows the open workout. In contrast to your bike , who's "workout" is over after 10 x 300 wattage , your physiological system is still "working " out after the bike is in your carport . The workout has produce some physiological reaction and depending how intense the 300 wattage was you may have triggered some catabolic reactions, meaning , that you actually "destroy " certain systems. ( in contrast to a anabolic stage or workout. So your body may stay in that triggered catabolic stage for a few hours or up to day's or even weeks ( UPS ). So they key is to be able to assess, when the body may switch to the anabolic ( recovery stage ) and even nicer is , when we can assess, when the body reached the pre workout stage and even perfect is , whether the body reacted with a functional adaptation and over the longer period of a training plan even with a structural adaptation. Example for a functional adaptation could be a short term higher storage capacity of glycogen due to a interval workout schedule with special nutritional interventions. A structural change in that direction would be a structurally bigger liver due to month and years of specific endurance training. Now there are different ways we can assess teh changes. I like to show in teh next thread an example of a change due to a workout and why wattage or physical intensity zones may not be the optimal way of training planning as it is used often this days. So stay tuned. Juerg | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1617 Registered: 04-2006 |
Now here a very small case study. The motivation to do this small study for myself was some open ( of many ) open questions I had from trainings we did many years back, as we tried to lay a foundation for a as long as possible sport career of some athletes we work with. We at that time did not had all the nice toys we have by now so much of the ideas we had where either based on theory or some crazy thoughts. . Here the training far back. We did some long slow endurance rides, in an intensity , where we where hoping it is a STF intensity ( main fuel source FFA. ) as well as relative long rides on intensities , where we thought they are aerobic ( or in today's words O2 dependent ) So the LSD workouts where done with just liquid ( water and Schuessler salt for electrolyte and cramp control ) The FTF rides ( just below LBP where done with water and time limited by pure change in HR versus performance. So as long they could hold the same performance we would keep going ( wattage or speed on a flat stretch if there was no wind ) Example one. LSD which where rides of 4 hours and longer ) we would do at the end of the ride a short 3 - 5 min all out burst and checked lactate after that and ammonia . The next morning we would test again lactate pre and post breakfast. Now here the interesting part. After the first day of LSD the lactate levels at the end of the 3 - 5 min bust where always high, meaning equal as we would see in a LBP test.Like 10 - 15 mmol/L Ammonia was low or in the same range as pre LSD training. Urea 2 - 3 days post was low or normal. ( equipment used at that time was a YSI and a Reflotron ) Now some of the athletes where able to do this LSD 3 / 4 days in a row with always the same results. Some had already after 1 or 2 a very different outcome. The lactate was suddenly much lower and the ammonia high as well as 2 - 3 days later the Urea was high. Now here was the discussion. On the one side the low lactate ( with the idea at that time , that lactate is a sign of fatigue ) would actually indicate that the athletes is in better shape, producing less "lactic acid " but than on the other side the high Urea level 2 - 3 days later was considered a marker for over training. The ammonia was in a test stage with very little ideas on what it meant. but was used as a potential "early " warning sign" of an over training situation underway. So there was different explanations , why this happened, from empty liver to mitochondria overload and so on. All sounded good at that time, but non really made great sense. So what we did a few weeks back is the repetition of LSD workouts with the same idea on testing lactate at the end , but this time testing cardiac and VO2 trends. In case of the "theory , that people would start to use glucose than we would see a drop in VO2 at the same wattage level , as glucose and )2 needs less O2 than glucose and FFA to create sufficient ATP for the given workload. Now what was our findings. So what we did was the reverse. We would already test at the beginning of the training cardiac reactions after 10 - 15 min in the workout and as well VO2 trends ( RF / TV / FeO2 and VO2 ) Based on the changes compared with the previous day or days we would start to "speculate" how the lactate trend would be. Here some possible answers. The lactate trend was lower after the LSD and the all out 5 min , because the glucose level was low to very low. As lower the glucose level as higher the ammonia. That would lead to the idea to feed glucose during the LSD the next time. This results in a higher lactate again and a lower ammonia. This would clearly indicate, that the initial workout at the STF level switched somehow to a FTF a intensity and as we use now by the same wattage glucose we need to feed if we go 4 hours on glucose due to the storage tank limitation. But it also means , that the same wattage ( intensity ) is not anymore the same physiological intensity. The question is, Why does it works so different , that some athletes can go 3 - 4 days in a row , before they move by the same wattage up intensity ? Some would argue it is a better use of FFA so they can spare glucose. On the other side you would think , if they are in the real FFA zone they should all use FFA and not glucose ? There are for sure different answers and explanations. Here a suggestion from our side. 1. The VO2 was always up in the case, where they switched to glucose, which is hard to explain , as glucose by the same intensity would use less o2 than FFA. So there had to be another reason for teh higher VO2.. Now the VO2 was higher as well despite the higher FeO2. The higher FeO2 was due to a lower TV. The lower TV was due to a higher RF. The higher RF was due to a higher glucose metabolic situation , which increased the CO2 and this may have triggered the higher RF. You see teh circle here. Now the higher RF used more O2 for the respiration as well, which would give by the same O2 delivery less O2 for the legs. . But as there was no limitation of respiration and no limitation of cardiac intensity this was hard to believe, So when we looked at the cardiac situation we had in the people with dropping lactate trend at the end already before the workout a higher LVET and a lower SV than in the training where the lactate was high . The lower SV asked for a higher HR to maintain the CO. The higher HR asked for a higher O2 demand for teh heart itself. The higher HR with the higher LVET produced a earlier 30 sec CCT. This earlier or closer CCT 30 was triggering the demand for a more efficient ATP delivery over glucose instead of FFA , which caused the RF up and the FeO2 down. Now the working muscles used glucose and O2 so the VO2 should have dropped, but the higher workload on respiration and cardiac system used more O2 , than the spare effect of O2 from the switch from FFA to glucose. This was leading to a higher VO2 at the same given intensity, but under glucose metabolic stage instead of FFA. As the storage of glucose is not big enough for a 4 hours + ride the storage went very low and there was no glucose left for lactate production at the 5 min all out at the end. The change in LVET and SV are signs for drop of cardiac ability due to cardiac fatigue , which is reflected in a lower LCW index ( left cardiac work index. Now the summary is very simple. Same wattage intensity is not the same physiological workout intensity and depending of "fatigue " of certain systems we may actually switch physiological intensities , despite the fact that we stay in the same physical intensity zone ( same wattage level. If we not recognize this situation we have never any answer on changes in clients performance, as wattage zones never reflect physiological changes. What has that all to do with hidden workout. Well some clients may have a duration of a hidden workout which reaches into the next training session , and now this next training session starts on a different performance level ( lower ) and the same wattage therefor is really a higher physiological intensity , than under full recovered situations. So with an easy assessment pre LSD workout, we could already see, that the cardiac system may need a longer recovery period and therefor instead feeding glucose to push the cardiac system even more ' change the workout to a coordination workout, or a respiratory workout or a cardiac workout by trying to challenge instead of SV perhaps EF % depending on the situation of the EDV. Hmmm let's see how many mails I get after this thoughts. Juerg | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1618 Registered: 04-2006 |
woww thanks, The Europeans seem to be faster in respond , or is it that you are just simply sleep at the computer there ( smile ) Here my simple answer in a picture. Max . test versions are the summary for a team approach , where all the team members contribute to the end result. The problem with this is that the weakest team member may avoid a better result, as he has to be tragged along as well. Here a PP I use in presentations. :  | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 235 Registered: 04-2006 |
Facinating...and possibly a great explanation of what a 40 year-old body does differently after Ironman, when compared to a 28 year-old body. I wish we had the Physioflow data to show what has happened to my cardiac dynamics since racing in New Zealand in March. Since my return, there have been two "training camps" where I was a host, rather than an athlete. Both camps allowed me to ride with the slower athletes, which was a really good thing, as there was no way I could ride with the top group. Following the camps, there has been some light training, interrupted by work and occasional illness, with no return to pre-Ironman testing results. Have I truly recovered my cardiac situation? Probably not. My respiratory system can be tested with the Fitmate, and shows no discernible difference, but my overall performance and ability to maintain steady state wattage even below LBP has been affected. Have I hurt myself in the long-term? Probably not, but I will be watching very carefully in my preparations for Kona. Here is where the true value of Juerg's ideas and the use of Physioflow would have been beneficial for me. I could have viewed directly the affects of Ironman in March, and the "training camps", and the lack of sleep, and the viral illness, to see my cardiac dynamics shoft. I could have responded by taking more rest, or easier training, or shorter sessions, and I could see the effect on my cardiac dynamics. Very interesting...I believe the hidden workout after Ironman for me lasted nearly 3 weeks, as a result of the cardiac and respiratory situation that I pushed on race day. No firm data was collected to support this theory. Perhaps the new NOC Centres will take this on next year. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1622 Registered: 04-2006 |
Andrew makes a great point, and shows the potential "truth " on the small ideas we had on "hidden " workout and recoveries. . Mary Ann used the FaCT Model to integrate it in her work as a nutritional specialist, and you can see on the following pic a few very interesting points. So Based on this connection Mary Ann Kelly ( NOC Joshua Tree /California ) created the term . CNS Chrono nutritional system. What is means in simple terms is: The timing of nutritional intervention is as well crucial , not just only the content of the nutrients. The best point for me is the "tipping " of the scale towards metabolic stage. ( There are many studies out there, who search for THE optimal "over training( UPS ) markers. Some use ratio of Cortisol and testosterone as one of teh markers. Cortisol as diabolic Hormone and testosterone as "THE " most or best known anabolic hormone. Now here is an interesting thought. If we would ask a coach as he sees his top athlete struggling with performance. For example in a Tour the France. : If you would be allowed to give anything legal or illegal to your athlete to survive the next day and potentially the Tour. ? I am pretty sure the answer would be: Give him an anabolic hormone. Which really means give him something so he can recover. We very unlikely will have an answer: Give him Cortisol , so that he breaks more apart ? Now in the real world of "clean "coaching , if an athlete had a bad race many coaches and athletes will go back the next day and workout harder. That's pretty much the same as giving your athlete some cortisol. As cortisol is a catabolic hormone , so is workout a catabolic action. So as we would most likely give testosterone in that case, the cleaner way would be : REST and proper nutritional intervention and potentially changes in the workout schedule. Now here for all "thinker" Mary Ann"s contribution on FaCT and connection with Nutrition. to enjoy .  Summary: In all the cases, where we see drop in performance we would look for a "recovery " intervention over different ideas , like change in training stimuli . Change in loading certain systems. Avoid cardiac stress but maintain or load respiratory systems and so on. Proper nutritional intervention, or simply rest. So really when we look at from this angle you really don't need a trainnig program . You need a recovery program and a recovery coach. You basically go out and workout, than assess the hidden workout and than plan the recovery accordingly to the result of the assessment. If you plan to do just a few workouts a week you may produce a deeper Hidden workout , which would force you for longer recovery ( less training units ) if you like to work out daily you may have to plan fro less deep hidden workouts. Now when we move that into the real world and take any training camps, than we have to ask the critical question of the value of most of the training camps. For most of teh people I believe a training camp is more likely a survival camp . Here a question I always ask at the second day of our camp in the evening presentation on " Value of a training camp. First question I ask our clients : What did you booked : A training camp or a survival week.? Second question I will ask randomly people in the room : How many hours did you train since the last 2 days upon your arrival. So here a typical answer. Yesterday I was riding the :"prologue " always without leaders but with friends.. That means it was the first " race day " in the camp. Prologue is mostly 2 - 3 hours loop. Than second day they moved themself in one of the 12 intensity groups. The majority will go in a too high intensity group , as they choose a wattage level or average speed level , the had on a good day on a flat road at home, but underestimate the travel , the change in up and downs and so on. So 95 % of new comers and 80 % or repeater make all the same mistake. So the 4 - 5 hour ride will end up above LBP as a hard day . So 2 days and they collected 6 - 8 hours on high intensity workout. So next question : How many hours a week do you work out at home normally . Most common answer: 3 -4 x for 1 - 2 hours. This equals 6 - 8 hours besides a 40 hour job and commitment to a family or a social life. So my short summary for this intro is : Well that is great , so now you did your weekly stressing and the next 5 days you can go to the beach and enjoy live in Spain. In fact most of them would actually benefit from this. Reality is , that the actually "stock " up over the next 5 days daily another 100 - 150 km , all pushing limits and on the official rest day is the actual TT as there again is no leader to stop at least the most extreme speed. End result. Many of this client are getting sick on the bus home already , some already teh last day in camp and a lot the next day at home, as their immune system completely collapsed. The value of "living " like a pro for one week brings them back every year, The value for their own performance is most likely very little if not negative. This point alone motivated us to run our training camps in California very very different. There are " recovery camps" learning to understand the value of a balanced training recovery cycle. Well let's see , what responds we get on this hot topic. Juerg | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1633 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here a very interesting statement from an athlete, who is coached by one of the best wattage zoning coaches. The statement would pretty much produce the question: If wattage is always the same physiological intensity , than the problem with breathing just simply can be ignored and he could have just stayed on his fixed wattage level and race there. As it seems from his statements that was not the case and there was some physiological system limiting the idea on staying on a wattage zone ( physical zone ) Just to get some brains thinking here the statement. " "When the rain came my lungs started to do better...and I started to get some strength back," said Bishop. "I had problems today...I am actually pretty proud of how I raced. I thought about pulling out because I was dying." It is interesting to see , how even top athletes explain some feelings with very interesting words. I don't think , that he had a strength problem at all and as the situation changed for the respiratory system he did not get his strenght back at all , he simple was able to increase the SpO2 back to a situation so that the ATP production was back in the oxygen dependent zone. This allowed him to have a balance situation between ATP use and delivery and he was able to have again enough motor unit recruitment in place to be able to keep biking. The drop in SpO2 started to kick in the famous metaboreflex from R . Dempsey and it created a vasoconstriction to the working muscles which lead to a reduced availability of blood and therefor O2 and the demand of ATP in the given intensity was higher than the supply over oxygen dependent energy production so the O2 independent situation started to increase which lead to some delivery problem of an economical ATP production. He could have used instead of wattage bio markers like HR and respiratory rate and could have answered his own feeling with some better ideas than he got the strenght back, when in fact he got the O2 dependent energy supply back.. As you can see on the same day two world class athletes ( one with "lactic acid" and one with strenght shows, why we have so much confusion in the coaching world, as the result of an athlete will give his words so much more "power" that he can nearly tell anything and his fans and readers believe that this is the real answer. This just some thoughts n a Sunday afternoon before I go for a relaxed bike ride. The goal today is RPM resp. co- ordination. in combination with the highest EDV possible. The training will look like that: On the indoor trainer a preparation for a high EDV by watching live on the computer the increase in EDV as I choose different intervention. Once I reach the optimal EDV I go outside for a 90 min ride by the same : Feeling , respiration rate and HR but play with RPM between 1-- - 120 cadence. Than i return and check , whether the EDV stayed up the whole 90 min or how much it may have dropped during the ride. Have fun and enjoy the rest of the weekend. | ||
| Robh Senior Member Username: Robh Post Number: 450 Registered: 12-2007 |
Hi Juerg, I have some basic (dumb) questions on the following :- Juerg wrote :- “We did some long slow endurance rides, in an intensity , where we where hoping it is a STF intensity ( main fuel source FFA. ) as well as relative long rides on intensities , where we thought they are aerobic ( or in today's words O2 dependent ) So the LSD workouts where done with just liquid ( water and Schuessler salt for electrolyte and cramp control ) The FTF rides ( just below LBP where done with water and time limited by pure change in HR versus performance. So as long they could hold the same performance we would keep going ( wattage or speed on a flat stretch if there was no wind ) Example one. LSD which where rides of 4 hours and longer ) we would do at the end of the ride a short 3 - 5 min all out burst and checked lactate after that and ammonia . The next morning we would test again lactate pre and post breakfast. Now here the interesting part.” My questions :- Regarding the STF rides done on water & Schuessler salt how many hours/mins beforehand did your athletes have breakfast? Whats the minimum time required to have breakfast before a ride? I’ve heard you quote 20mins? The reason I ask is most of my rides are done early morning like between 5-5:30am so I’m up 30mins beforehand. Depending on the workout & fatigue level the sessions can range from 1hr to 5hrs. Being up this early to have a 300 calories breakfast as most people have quoted on the web is not practical as I’m out the door 30mins later. I do my rides without a breakfast. I’ve read from Hammer Nutrition that eating inside a 3hr window for rides of 75mins plus can accelerate glycogen store depletion. Is this true? Here’s a news tip I received from Hammer Nutrition last week :- 14.) Don't sacrifice sleep to eat a pre-race meal. OK, you're convinced that it's a good idea to eat at least three hours prior to the start of your race. "But wait," you say. "My race starts at 7 a.m. Are you telling me I have to get up at 3 a.m. or so just to eat?" Well, you could get up to eat if you're so inclined, but you don't have to. The fuel you've got stored in the muscles? It's going to be there, full strength, even after a night-long fast (really). In the morning your brain may be saying, "I'm hungry," but your muscles are saying, "Hey, we're good to go." Bottom line: do not sacrifice sleep just to eat. If you've got an early morning race start, the best strategy is: * Eat a high quality meal the night before (topping off liver glycogen stores) * Get an adequate amount of sleep * Have 100-200 calories of easily digested fuel (Hammer Gel is ideal) 5-10 minutes prior to the start of the race That's right, 5-10 minutes prior, not one or two hours prior. The key, in terms of muscle glycogen depletion rates, is in the timing. If you must eat before the start of your race, you need to complete consumption three hours prior. If that's not logistically feasible, have a little something 5-10 minutes prior. Do that and you won't expend your hard-earned glycogen too rapidly. Jeurg, without having access to level III testing I don’t whether I’m eating too much or even too little on my STF rides. I know the general guidelines seem to be 30-60g per hour. Whats the benefit of riding on water alone for STF rides? Does the body get lazy if feed with glucose when not required? Riding with no breakfast based on the Hammer nutrition idea that my glycogen tanks are still intact from the night before are my cardiac hemodynamics values the same as if I did have some breakfast beforehand? Cheers Rob | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1659 Registered: 04-2006 |
Simple answer on what we did or do with no warranty that this is smart . If the goal is STF we take no breakfast and nothing other than water and schuessler salt and just simply will be very slow. The simple basic idea is to use the stressor FFA and try to force the body to produce ATP with O2 and what is available. Problem . We have to go slow. Second problem the post nutrition may have to be protein. depending on the ammonia situation we had. We in a second phase added two additional ideas BCAA and L Carnitine to it with the schuessler salt. BCAA to avoid a dys- balance between tryptosine and BCAA see somewhere in the Forum the explanation and L carnitine based on some research from a Swiss company ( Sponsor ) to enhance FFA metabolisme. Than later we added L- Glutamine. Most of this is based on some very extreme endurance race experience like the Swiss Gigathlon and the race across america and the dead valley experience with Clavadetscher. That is for training only and for races there is much discussion on that whether you go the same , as your body may be used or you give the additional help of glucose. I think much of this discussion is in the beginning still of research and most likely very very individual. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1662 Registered: 04-2006 |
Rob , if you go on the thread "practical application " you will see an additional info on your question worth while to discuss. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1672 Registered: 04-2006 |
I was reading today this interesting "research" in a running magazine. It shows, that not just the cycling community is fighting tradition on physical zoning versus physiological zoning. It is the same in the running community. I like this research , as it contradicts in itself the problem of using speed or min / mile as a "pacing" tool for races or workouts. Here the summary: The study was a case study from a Ph.D in the USA, using an environmental chamber. First of all: The information and data collection was done over and over again at least since the 1970 - 1980. It is always amazing , that the name of an university will help you to publish a study and now its the newest and most advanced information we can get. The study was done to show, how HEAT may influence certain physiological bio markers. The study was done by running in two different temperature for 1 hour with a pace of 8:30 / mile. Run A was in 53 degrees F Run B was done by 90 degrees F Here the expected result : Bio markers Run A Run B Heart rate 158 175 Rectal Temp 101.98 103.46 Lactate 0.978 4.04 Sweat loss 27.05 ounces 54.10 ounces Percent dehydrated 1.3 2.6 Plasma Volume -0.2% - 10.9 % The outcome was clear. Under heat conditions you loose performance, resp. if you try to maintain performance ( speed /Watt ) you may run the risk to "blow up " with heat exhaustion. Nothing really new and it shows nice, that if we would use some bio markers like HR, RF and or SpO2 and or Lactate, we could actually control this risk. What this study did was nothing other than using an old clear answer to make a new publication. You would think , that in this day and age , if we repeat a very common study we would at least add some additional information in, so we can perhaps explain the lactate trend . For us this is an example , where we use the Physio Flow, and we did this in the spring in Joshua Tree with Mary Ann Kelly. ( NOC California ) Heat - dehydration - lower plasma volume give a clear theoretical indication , on how the cardiac hemodynamic may look like and we saw that live. The drop in plasma volume ( due to loss of liquid on the one side and the distribution of a lot of blood to the surface to get ride of heat will drop the EDV and with the EDV likely the SV. As SV dropes but the speed is the same HR has to try to go up if still possible to maintain the CO ( HR x SV = Cardiac out put CO ) The study missed some very easy points to assess. 1 What happened with respiration ? What happened with VO2 trends What happened with FeO2 trends and for sure what happened to cardiac hemodynamic like CCT The increase in lactate shows a trend towards more need of ATP over the O2 independent energy delivery. Indicating , that somewhere the runner reaches a critical limitation of one or the other or a combination of systems. In this case we only really know , that heat changes the way your body reacts. So we know the stressor , but not the reaction the stressor triggers. Which is too bad as it helps nobody. Now here the contradiction. The summary states properly , that under heat we have to think , that pacing a race on time will not be a good way to go , as the physiological systems will react with much more work to maintain a proper core temperature. Our solution , and I expected a similar suggestion would have been to listen to the body and use some easy available bio markers like HR, RF and in a workout lactate to adjust the physiological intensity , instead of just blind follow the watch and the planned time. Well far off with my hope. The suggestion is a "cook book " with a list of times. So you have to look the race day forecast. The suggestion is for a marathon run. Race day forecast and your time you can reach and the pacing you can calculate. 50 * F 60 * F 70 * F 80 * F 90 * F 3.00 h 3.05.24 3.10.48 3.16.12 3.21.36 4.00 h 4.07.12 4.14.28 4.21.36 4.28.48 5.00 h 5.09.00 5.18.00 5.27.00 5.36.00 So here you have it . Life and sport is really simple, just take a calculator, don't worry about your body size, training ideas, nutritional interventions and so on. The calculator will tell you what you can do and just simply use the watch and the pacing time and you have your result. This above study shows so nice and beautiful , how a physiological system has to react and can react and we can simply listen to it and individually react depending on the situation. The most interesting part in all this discussion is, that all these studies where or are done often from Ph.D guys in physiology, turning a physiological reaction and system in a mathematical study . I could see this done by a mathematician for his final work on statistic, but the big difference will be there, that statistics based on a collective of 1 or perhaps 6 - 10 just simply has no value nor any indication on what the trend will be. Well that's just a nice weekend reading to think about again : Physical zoning versus physiological reactions. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1675 Registered: 04-2006 |
If we are already on the running scene. The next big "sale " or sell will be power meter for runners, where we can measure three dimensional forces like on a power plate and than this can be converted into wattage, so you will not run with speed or time or pacing per miles, but you will run with wattage. We already can do that indirectly since about 2 years with the bio harness, as the individual system will give us three dimensional g forces and than we can use them and bring them into correlation with something called "activity " level. As you run and "fatigue " you will see the activity level changing depending how you adjust your running style to the "fatigue" fresh runners often show initially a higher activity level and a relative strong change in the vertical g forces but a relative stable horizontal and frontal g force activity. As we settle down to a more economic running the vertical g forces change and are getting lower and the horizontal and sagital G forces stay the same, so the overall activity level is actually dropping. \ As we get from economic to a "fatigue " style we often see an increase in horizontal G forces, as well in sagittal g forces due to additional rotation and sideways movements. The activity level will increase. This is from a technical observation very interesting but it has again the weakness or risk , that teh "running wattage " will be used for zoning and pacing , when in fact it is a result on physiological changes where again any system can be a part of the increase of 'Fatigue" with the weakest link contributing the most first and "dragging " the other system with , as they may have to try to compensate for the missing contribution to maintain the same "running wattage" and therefor will fatigue earlier as well. Example: > one of the weak links in running may be some parts of the running motion involved muscle chain. You have as a fore foot runner for example the muscle activity calf/ quadriceps/ gluteal. A weakness in the calf will produce over time a higher impact on the ground do to lack of "shock absorption " by the calf muscles. This will add some additional strain on the next guy ( Quadriceps and this is even more eccentric work. More eccentric work lead to a reducing in motor units by the same Force ( watt) and therefor we have less fibers contributing the same amount of total "running wattage ". So less muscle fibers producing the same amount of "running wattage " will have to find a better and faster ( higher energy flux ) of ATP contribution. This means , that despite running the "running wattage " ( so it looks like the same work load ) we actually change the team , who contributes to that same performance. Now the higher ATP demand on less muscle fibers will change the energy delivery for example from FFA O2 dependent as the main contributor to Glucose O2 dependent as now the main fuel source. That means in a marathon for a 4 hour runner the chance to run on Glucose only the second part of the run is very slim ( 2 hours ) and if he "switches" to that energy source already after 1 hour and keeps his physical performance on his "running wattage" he may be up for a surprise, as the marathon finish may steady be pulled further away for him. So what potentially will be the next big " advantage and progress in running training will be really a fall back on a very expensive tool to the old age of believing that performance tested in physical units is the way to go. The features of "running wattage " will be great to asses the weakest link mainly in the economy and muscle chains in running with an open mind, that the reduction in muscle recruitment could as well be linked to a "limitation of the cardiac system T . Noakes or the respiratory system ( vasodilatation / Dempsey ) So by switching from a time / miles paced marathon to a more " running wattage " marathon we at least eliminate the influence of hills and wind, but still not the limitation of influences like heat , altitude and other factors , who directly will influence physiological reactions. The key again will be to optimal combine the information. The "running wattage " system will for sure help us to try to use our FaCT CL system in the field , as we could run on any road without worrying on climbs and drops and surface and wind. Pretty much the same as on a bike. Solution for people and coaches, who like to be ahead of teh game is the Bio harness personal version . Beside using all the G force and activity level information you as well have in teh same time the HR and respiratory frequency as additional bio markers. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2497 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here an interesting "quote " from a top guy. But first . If watt is the most objective and best way for intensities and watt users believe watt is always the same performance than read the quote carefully. He simply could have biked at FTP ( functional threshold power and not care about any physiological reaction if FTP is always the same performance. Perhaps there is a bit of truth on our ideas on the " weakest link " ( weakest team member ) will decide the physiological performance rather than using physical ( watt information only . Here to enjoy and to get some thinking going . : '" It’s been a hard day,” Contador said after losing time on the Ospedale climb. “There was a head wind on the climb and I suffered a lot with three kilometres to go. That’s when I told Alexandre Vinokourov to stop pacing. “I couldn’t breathe anymore,” he added. “I preferred to finish climbing at my own rhythm. It’s a pity I couldn’t turn the good work of the team into success.”Se his words " team " and who was the weakest link in the team and what was the weakest link in that link . ? Well true the majority of coaches and even exercise physiologists still will argue , that respiration is never the limiting factor as well. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2622 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here another nice info to show , that watt is not watt. "Note: If you train by power, don't use your normal zones at altitude. Your power at any given heart rate will be reduced and sticking in normal zones will dig you a big hole in three weeks. Either retest at altitude after a week of adjustment and set up new zones, or just calibrate your power output by your heart rate - that is, use the heart rates you ride at home when riding in your power zones and ride whatever power those turn out to correspond to at altitude. " | ||
| Juerg Moderator Username: Juerg Post Number: 3301 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here a nice study supporting our idea, that watt is not equal watt as performance. It is always the same physical load but may need different physiological response. This is one of the first and rare studies supporting our idea, that TIP ( training intensity profiling ) should be done not only by using performance as intensity profile but rather looking at both physical performance as well as physiological demand. As long we keep only performance ( watt ) as the bench mark for training zoning we will have some struggle to understand the results of training loads and adjustments, the body is doing . The TIP ( training intensity profile ) has to take into account the performance in connection with physiological responses by different systems. This is why IP ( innovative performance ) has this different ideas of TIP by using so called functional TIP and structural TIP. Any training or stimulus always starts with a functional respond, Properly set with load and recovery the functional respond will create a performance improvement based on a better use of what is already available. Once this is optimized the only way the body can improve is by building upon a new and better structure. The key is to improve functionally , than add the right idea of structural training and so on. There are many great studies out using just the response on a functional stimulus to justify certain training concepts, when in fact structural adjustments need some time to be achieved. 8 weeks are simply to short to have a stimulus to achieve a stable structural respond. Even in bone fracture, which was a great structural simulation ,the healing is not finished in 6 weeks. Here the great study which , when you read carefully, supports our " crazy " idea nicely . Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 000¨C000, 2004. Effect of Exercise Intensity on Relationship between VO 2max and Cardiac Output Authors: Jean-Marie Lepretre 1, Jean-Pierre Koralsztein 2 and Veronique L. Billat 1.2 1 LIGE D¨¦partment of Sciences and Technology in Sports and Physical Activities (STAPS), University of Evry Val d‟Essonne, Evry, France, and 2 Sport Medical Center of the CCAS, Paris, France. Abstract: Effect of Exercise Intensity on Relationship between VO2max and Cardiac Output Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) is attained with the same central and peripheral factors according to the exercise intensity. Methods: Nine well-trained males performed an incremental exercise test on a cycle ergometer to determine the maximal power associated with VO2max (pVO2max) and maximal cardiac output (Qmax). Two days later, they performed two continuous cycling exercises at 100% (tlim¦¤100 = 5 min 12 s ¡À 2 min 25 s) and at an intermediate work rate between the lactate threshold and pVO2max (tlim¦¤50 = 12 min 6 s ¡À 3 min 5 s). Heart rate and stroke volume (SV) were measured (by impedance) continuously during all tests. Cardiac output (Q) and arterial-venous O2 difference (a-vO2 diff) were calculated using standard equations. Results: Repeated measures ANOVA indicated that: 1) maximal heart rate, VE, blood lactate, and VO2 (VO2max) were not different between the three exercises but Q was lower in tlim¦¤50 than in the incremental test (24.4 ¡À 3.6 L¡¤min-1 vs 28.4 ¡À 4.1 L¡¤min-1; P < 0.05) due to a lower SV (143 ¡À 27 mL¡¤beat-1 vs 179 ¡À 34 mL¡¤beat-1; P < 0.05), and 2) maximal values of a-vO2 diff were not significantly different between all the exercise protocols but reduced later in tlim¦¤50 compared with tlim100 (6 min 58 s ¡À 4 min 29 s vs 3 min 6 s ¡À 1 min 3 s, P = 0.05). This reduction in a-vO2 diff was correlated with the arterial oxygen desaturation (SaO2 = -15.3 ¡À 3.9%) in tlim¦¤50 (r = -0.74, P = 0.05). Conclusion: VO2max was not attained with the same central and peripheral factors in exhaustive exercises, and tlim¦¤50 did not elicit the maximal Q. This might be taken into account if the training aim is to enhance the central factors of VO2max using exercise intensities eliciting VO2max but not necessarily Qmax. Keywords: Stroke volume, Arterial-venous difference, Cycling, Hypoxemia |