Post Number: 8
|Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 10:53 am: |
I'm hoping that maybe Juerg or someone can tell me what this means concerning training:
I've always had a very high racing HR in relation to my max HR. For instance, when I was in my 20's and bike racing, I had a max (though I only saw 188 on a Polar HRM) estimate of about 190. At that time, I could time trial at 183-184 for 2+ hrs before seeing a dropoff in speed.
Fast forward 20 yrs, I'm 44 yo and I race kayaks long distances, i.e. 1-4 hr races. Today, on my kayakpro kayak ergometer, I did a 45 minute time trial, and kept my HR at between 177-181 for the last 40 minutes. As a reference, 183 is my max observed HR in the last few years. My ability is in the range of national elite, but sub international elite. VO2 max - years ago of 65, and I'm a slow-twitcher.
I did not do a lactate check during this last effort, but from the many times that I have tested it with the LactatePro, my guess is that I was in the steady state range of 4-7, far below the 15 that I once saw in a sprint a year ago.
My questions are thus: I would guess that I'm the type of athlete that has very good peripheral adaptations, lactate use, etc. and a high LBP in relation to max HR (LBP a year ago was 168) along with a VO2 that is not world class. Does this say anything about what types of training I should be doing? What I mean is this - LSD training, LBP training should maximize peripheral adaptations. But, I would hazard a guess to say that my peripheral adaptations might be maximized already, and that my limitations might be shifted back onto my VO2. Can I make that conclusion? And, if true, what would that mean for my training going forwards if peripheral adaptations are nearly maxed out and VO2 was max'd out years ago? Efficiency? And that would bring up the next obvious question concerning another athlete who's max sustainable HR might be 20 bpm below their max HR. Is their training plan more straight forwards, i.e. focus on peripheral adaptations?
Post Number: 2327
|Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 04:27 pm: |
Erik , I like your post , as it just fits perfect in one discussion we have with a similar aged reader in very good shape.
He has to discuss with himself the concept of 2 and 4 mmol in lactate trend and the traditional idea of a classical lactate curve as he does not fit in this at all ( as most people not fit in there )
Your case shows another traditional concept of training zoning which is the idea of 220 - age as a maximal HR.
Plus the idea , that VO2 is not useful for anything because it is really just a summary of overall O2 use and that's it.
What we know from your individual physiological info on here is :
1. You can sustain a high HR over a very long time.
2. You have an LBP of about 170.
3. You can sustain 4 - 7 mmol lactate for a long time.
What does that help us :
a) the 4 - 7 mmol lactate indicates, that you are not ( NOT ) a slow twitch-er but rather a FTF a twitch-er, as the high lactate trend and the ability to sustain it rather indicates that you fuel in that time with glucose and to do this for 45 min as you indicates is absolutely possible but the main muscle fiber type , ho prefer this energy source are FTYF a fibers.
People with many STF fibers and therefor high mitochondria density often show no very high lactate trends. Not that they don't create lactate , but rather can concert lactate more efficient so that it just simply can't be measured in high concentrations.
b ) the high HR means , that you move your blood with a high HR but perhaps a relative ( not really sure ) low Stroke volume. What we can assume , but would have to be tested ) is the situation of your LVET. It could be a very low LVET ( below easy under 180 ms ) which allows you to go that high HR and feel good.
This would or could indicate a relative low SV and a possible slightly use of your left ventricle as more a pressure pump than a volume pump . This would be not surprising in your sport as you work with the upper body and create as well mechanical strain on your heart as we see in rowing.
That means , that you may use your heart as well with a very high EF %.
Result, You will be functionally always working at your limit.
This is often seen on athletes , who loved to do high and hard workouts , when they were younger.
To change anything here you may have to radically change some basic endurance workouts ideas and you may not be able to do that in the kayak , as all is trimmed for what you have now.
You may have to try to find an activity as a balance , where you have a higher LVET so that you start using your heart as a volume pump and set a very different and new stimulus.
There is a dialectic contradiction in adaptation.
You improve because you can adapt but because you adapted you don't improve anymore.
Once coaches and athletes understand this natural rule, than they see, why programming and repeating the plan from a successful season will ultimately move you back wards rather than forward.
Hans Selye put it nicely as he mentioned that training ( stress) not has to be always overload it has just to be different.
Here an example from a client.
In Running Cardiac is the limitation.
LVET 140 - 160 .
Very high HR and okay SV. EF % 90 + %
When we tested on the bike :
LVET above 250 , HR low and EF % 75 - 80 % .
So cardiac training to make it different and not always stressing the heart with a high EF and a fast LVET but rather changing the stimulation will produce a new adaptation stimulus and therefor a chance for cardiac remodelling in this case. How long do you change. No rules just good assessment. That's why with FaCT we are not interesting in the maximal info but in the developpment of the body to a good performance, what do we change how do we change it how does the new idea shows up in the follow up assessment.
If you look at VO2 max. This will not change anymore but may drop.
On Max HR this will unlikely change but perhaps drop.
Max Watt well why did it changed. If it is increasing you are happy but have no clue why it increased. If it is dropping you are lost.
Assessing Physiological parameters is the idea of FaCT so we see what has changed and how it can be explained based on the changes.
Post Number: 9
|Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 06:00 pm: |
Juerg, thank you for the detailed comments.
I don't understand how LVET could change between one sport and another. Isn't LVET a physiologic measurement that is based upon the neuromuscular recruitment pattern of the myocardium and largely genetic? I understand how it could change with disease such as variable wall thickness infarcts, amyloidosis, maybe changing preload and afterload. But, are you saying that if I ran, rowed, XC skiied, swam, or something other than kayak, my LVET would change? That's very interesting if true. And, if true, would the change be secondary to the different sport or because of different levels of exertion? Or, would there only be a different LVET when the other sport is limited by peripheral/muscle factors as opposed to cardiac, as in your example athlete?
Post Number: 2329
|Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 09:16 pm: |
Erik , great questions and inputs. Here some questions back before I go into some more thoughts.
" I don't understand how LVET could change between one sport and another"
Where did you learned , that LVET could not change ? ( Research paper and infos ? )
Here first a simple example.
In rest many people have LVET of 250 and over 300 ms
If somebody has a resting HR of under 50 we often see in rest LVET of over 300 ms and lot's of "irregularity ( HRV above 50 and up )
Now if in this person LVET NOT changes and he is a younger athlete and can go up to 180 - 200 HR than you have in 1 min a CCT of 300 x 200 = 1 min.
Meaning his heart is contracted in 1 min for 1 min despite he beats 200 x ??????
You already gave the possible reason of change in LVET : " maybe changing preload and afterload "
The preload EDV as well as the after load SVR can change dramatically based on the sport discipline and even in the same sport due to change in intensity.
Where is the problem , that most coaches nor exercise physiologist still have the idea :
:" . Isn't LVET a physiologic measurement that is based upon the neuromuscular recruitment pattern of the myocardium and largely genetic? "
Let's forget the theory and look at real tests live in motion. That's where the problem sits. We have in north america basically no University nor institution involved in sport research , who actually has real live data under motion , who can test that. All the so called "validated" tests are done based on mathematical calculations and or only under resting conditions. What I show you here is a real live info marking situation and you make the conclusion. The LVET is an EKG measurement and there is no question about Validation of that equipment ????
Here an overview and I will give more info.
Same sport = running with different speeds.
Speed first part 7.5 HR 141 LVET 187 SV 137
8 155 191 133
8.5 161 162 162
9 165 150 149
Last section 1 min change again from 7.5= 9
Average HR 148 LVET 188 and SV 136
This is a trend we see in all the tests we did in the last 11/2 year LVET is dropping as HR goes up but different in different people . And different in the same person n different sports.
Here from the same person the values on the bike:
Running change from 200 ms down to 150 ms
On the bike here the pic
The lowest LVET on the bike as you can see is 222 ms and we never see an LVET on the bike below 200 ms since over 11/2 year regular testing.
We had the same or close to the same situation 11/2 year ago in running. Now we see easy LVET values under 200 in every workout we test.
I like to see a research paper showing in action LVET , which does not change or an LVET which is intraindividual the same in different sports.
The fact alone, that VO2 , HR and VE and all common parameters are clearly different in different sport would strongly suggest that the same could be true even in theory with LVET. For us crazy people we see, that it is different and we would need a very strong research paper proving the opposite.
The ability to test now as a basic coach this cardiac information non invasive as well as O2 Hb situation intracellular completely changes the idea in sport testing and we are just on the forefront of a major shift in testing ( assessment abilities for the person on the street from a person on the street with incredible new technology.
The situation may soon be , that the "pushing the limit " test center and coach may be the first time ever a head of the traditional Institutional testing and assessment ability , as public organisation just simple can't keep up anymore with the runaway development of the technology if they don't watch out carefully.
Having to go to a big lab or test center for a VO2 test is just simply a thing of the past as we can see so many different informations easy simple and no risk in a home testing ability.
Post Number: 2330
|Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 09:35 pm: |
Here another LVET screen in different activities in the same person.
All datas are completely unfiltered.
The first section till " still on treadmill " are all at rest with all different types of respiratory interventions followed by different sport activities like jogging easy , jogging HR is on LBP HR rowing and cross country.
Summary : we see, that we can interfere and challenge cardiac action by choosing different sports for different goals.
Here a very practical approach we do now on local patients.
Cardiac problem s like after a heart attack or bypas surgery or valve replacement.
This are all very different cardiac rehab situations.
Classically they take 220 - age or make a Bruce protocol , which only tells them what " HR as an EKG but no volumetric changese nor why the blood pressure has a certain level.
BP is the result of cardiac out put in Stroke volume against an afterload resistance like SVR.
Both can influence the work on the heart.
Example. Person 1. Used to run before the heart attack but not biking.
In running h so that the cardiac system was the limitation.
So after the heart attack a non go for a while in this sport
BUT. we see, that in biking his LVET as well his SV never get challenged as his limitation is based on his local leg muscles. NIRS shows a very fast drop and no challenge for the heart. So we can use the limitation of his legs to protect the heart and still have the person enjoying some challenging workouts.
Problem: I just had to made an assessment for a disability claim.
The result was very very clear and the outcome as well. The insurance claim manager and so called rehab specialist just simply was not ready to accept the assessment , so new assessment with 220 - age rule and the result s was terrible. Problem again. Nobody down in that company really had any idea on what the difference is between the accepted 220 - age rule ( despite betablocker) and a real live assessment. It will take possibly another10 - 15 years before we see a change towards our fun ideas and possibilities.
Post Number: 10
|Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 04:53 am: |
Fascinating printouts, Juerg, thank you. Assuming that the physio equipment is valid and accurate for what it's testing - I won't argue that because I won't understand the explanations! - your first example athlete sees a dropoff in CO, HR, and a rise in LVET at 9 mph. What exactly happened at that speed? Did the athlete reach his/her max and then "shut down"? Maybe CGM come into play?
In the cycling LVET graph, is this the same athlete as the first?
So, if I understand correctly, LVET changes in different sports based on whether the heart or the muscles are the limiting factor. If afterload is high, as might be seen in upper extremity sports like kayaking, rowing, double poling, then the heart tends to act more like a pressure pump; and if the sport has a large lower extremity vascular bed, like running or xc skiing, then afterload might decrease, and the heart might function more like a volume pump. Of course, intensity plays a role as well. Did I get any of that right?
If LVET is lowest with running, does that say anything about our evolutionary adaptation to exercise, like is running "healthiest" / lowest stress for our hearts?
Post Number: 2332
|Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 08:07 am: |
Erik , You are great great analyzing and fast pick up of the ideas. here some add ons.
1. yes same person in running and biking.
2. no very individual and not sure about evolution rather than training.
We see in top cyclist the opposite pattern , meaning a low LVET in cycling but a higher LVET in running.
3. Validation of the Physio Flow. Don't take it personal , but in north America this is the first question for equipment coming from another part of the world.
This idea and units are used in europe and in Asia now in operation rooms . There are now as we know in Canada hospitals like Mt Sinai or Toronto children's hospital using it as well.
Just because it is not invented in north America does not mean it does not work . It seems actually rather more and more the opposite.
But don't worry . We have top guys from so called top research University who where able to make a statement after 15 sec that this never works.
Great mentality from a research guy and it smells rather on a side of ( "why did I not figured this out - guy , than an open minded research person .
This opens as usual the question:
Who validated teh current accepted 2 and 4 mmol lactate concept ?
Who validated the VO2 max concept.
Who validated the fact the 60 % of VO2 max is the same intensity in every person on the same equipment.
. I like to show this very old slide again and will ask the questions there in a different way . here we go .
Now the common rule for VO2 testing is either on a bike or in running .
So we test this two people on a bike as it is the equipment the test center has. Yes it is a very expensive bike with all the tools and gadgets.
K has a VO2 max of 50 and R a VO2 max of 65.5
Now take 80 % of this. Now we start the study with all gadget we have. Strain measurement for cardiac fatigue ( sorry ) or blood tests for what ever interesting information on Cortisol or any other enzyme.
The training is done in running.
Take 80 % from the bike test and move it into running. What happens with the 80 % of K and or R.
True would be not that smart so lets train them in biking , where we tested them.
Is the 80 % on the bike form the VO2 max result from the bike really the same stimulation for their ability and the VO2 max based in their common activity.
Could it just be , that the limiting system in K is different than the limiting system in R ???
How about the so called random group we have in all this studies and we test them in biking or running . Are they all the same used on this equipment or may it be possible , that in this random group some people would have a higher VO2 max in running than in the tested biking .
Could it be possible , that some of this people over the 8 week study may actually learn a better coordination in one or the other sport as they have a different coordination ability based on their previous activities they did.
How about result , if we test all the people on upper body ergo meters.
Now please don't take this as a critic but rather as an opportunity for all individual readers to see, why we search for other options as technology is evolving . We are far away to understand what is going on and we never will but what we hope is to find some different ways of working as coaches and or as test centers to offer people the individual approach needed to have fun and create a personal best result for what nature has given us.
There are many many open questions. What I experience over the last 20 plus years is, that education really is not changing . We still have top be able to repeat what the teacher tells us to pass the exam. We don't learn to understand why some questions remain open and what are the different direction we may find based on the common knowledge a better or more updated answer.
Any body , who experienced Dr. A. Sellars ( www.facteducation.com) great education session will agree, that they leave surprised on what can be asked and what has to be considered and will understand , why there is an ongoing developpment of information and ideas and that what we may think works now may be changed tomorrow. This is not wrong but simply a part of openness to the fact , that we know very little to understand the most ?????
In our 2010 series of We-Search we exactly will try to do just that .
Open the opportunities to use top quality equipment to challenge our current ideas and methods to either find out that they are really working well or that they may have to be adjusted to the new information we can come up with .
I hope to have the draft ready to show you here after this weekend.
ha ha I always hope and I had the idea of NIRS ready to go , till I tested Herb and it threw may whole ideas over board as it shows as well a very very individual pattern and the actual research papers I was working through may have missed some very basic rules as they started to work with NIRS.
Stay tuned as it will get even more confusing to finally be moved into a basic idea on individual assessment rules.
Erik thanks so much for this very nice and great thread you opened here and I hope I was able to keep the mind open for further ideas. Juerg
Post Number: 11
|Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 12:38 pm: |
Juerg, this brings up another question:
Is it possible / or even optimal, to change back and forth between cardiac as the limitation and muscle/peripheral changes as the limitation, by varying the workload that the working muscles are doing? For instance, say that I was cardiac limited by some parameter on a kayak ergometer while "kayaking" at a normal level of resistance. Could I add resistance, such as a friction drag on the flywheel (or bungee cord around a boat on water), keeping the drag low enough that it doesn't significantly effect the neuromuscular coordination, shift the limitation onto the working muscles, and thus change the LVET? I suppose that with cycling, this is already happening when you shift gears and continue to measure wattage and LVET, except that the cyclist usually maintains the same cadence. But, what happens intra-sport with LVET when movement slows with increasing resistance? Does it shift the heart from a pressure pump to a volume pump?
Thank you for all your thoughts and time.
Post Number: 2334
|Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 01:08 pm: |
Nice you start thinking like a FaCT guy ( Brain )
This questions you have here are exactly on what we are working on .
The question , whether I can intra sport wise change and challenge the different systems, or whether certain sport specific movements don't allow a change in stimuli in an easy way.
To give us more answers we have to keep testing . The idea would be really , that sport associations and Physiological personal in this associations would actually take over this task and than share this information as soon they have some trends. Reality is , that nobody shares anything with anybody in the world of research. They wait till they are out as the first people.
Our idea is to get as many sports and coaches involved as possible so we can gather much more info to learn more.
So your questions are well taken and we will work on this ideas over the next little while and as well on the water. That's where again our WE search - Re search camps come in to involve more coaches into the use of the equipment so we can go through all this new ideas of testing and assessing.
Again the current situation is, that people are interesting in their VO2 max as a test and that's it. They are not even interested how teh VO2 max got produced , nor what it really may help for workouts. As long we are stuck in that mind set we will see very little changes or even ideas challenging our self.
Great points Erik and I will try on the weekend to test some of them during my workout.
Post Number: 14
|Posted on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 08:43 pm: |
Erik, in my uninformed opinion, I would suspect that by adding resistance to the exercise and making the muscles work harder, they would be the ones to see the main adaptation. IIRC, Juerg mentioned in another post (don't remember which) that weightlifter hearts tend to be more pressure pumps and cyclist tend to be volume pumps. Therefore, if an adaptation did occur in the heart because of the increased resistance, I would suspect it would go in the weightlifters direction.
As a rower suspecting my limitation is muscular, I recently started doing more resistance training with a rope dragging from my boat (similar idea as the bungee you mentioned). I have to admit that I don't embark on these workouts concerned with the adaptation that will occur in my heart, I do the workouts in a way I think will not tax my heart but will tax my muscles.
Juerg states "whether I can intra sport wise change and challenge the different systems". Again, in my uninformed opinion, I'm going to guess "yes". For us rowers, I'm guessing we can manipulate our breathing, resistance, leverage, etc. to elicit different responses all while being inside a rowing boat. But maybe we (or Juerg, the one doing the actual research) will find that different activities like biking, running or lifting might work better to target certain systems than just manipulating variables while rowing.
Post Number: 2352
|Posted on Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 11:08 am: |
Erg , very great information and the ideas you bring up are all a part of our work ahead of us over the coming years. As the big majority of research not even used the equipment we have we can't expect to have many answers in a short time.
We are in discussion with a rowing center in the USA on integrating the equipment in their on boat testing , but the very forward thinking head coach has first a major battle ahead of him with the classically trained exercise physiological guys , who are inters6ted to test in the lab on rowing erg and in altitude rooms. Question Is for what : for their own interest or for advancing ideas edge for you and me on the road to coach better and smarter. Will keep you updated.
The New NIRS will give us plenty of info on the interaction between strength and O2 circulation.
More muscles ( Strength ask for more ATP as they work and the question is : Who delivers this ATP. Second more muscles ask for more blood vessels and the questions is : Who delivers the production of more blood vessels. More muscles ask or produce more SVR and this increases the workload on the left ventricle. So what do I stimulate in cardiac development. The next question is: If the heart size stays the same , the contraction force is optimal so EF % is on its limit what can I improve next to move more blood to the working areas ?Many more question and the key would be to see, what the cardiac system is doing with and without drag and what the O2 supply is doing with and without drag . Easy t do this days and even on the water.