| Author | Message | ||
     Danz Senior Member Username: Danz Post Number: 62 Registered: 08-2006 |
Had a great weekend with Andrew, John and a bunch of interesting coaches and athletes learning more about FaCT and hearing some mind opening ideas. A great weekend of learning…so I decided the best way to continue learning is to put some info up for discussion…I’ll attempt to sort through the info and my ideas and welcome and input from anyone…I started this morning with a FaCT self assessment on the treadmill to see if the last 6 weeks of training has worked… here was my data from 6 weeks ago...I did the test as fast as I could so missed a bunch of information at the beginning (I was pressed for time)…first part of the test was 6 minute blocks Speed – HR - La 4 mph – 126 6 mph – 156 8 mph – 180 – 3.9 6.4 - 165 – 2.3 6.9 - 175 – 2.3 7.4 - 178 – 2.7 7.6 - 182 – 4.6 …for running, I thought I had a cardiac limitation…so I tried some ideas that I thought would stress my cardiac system…I also started roller skiing for a loppet in February…so about twice a week I tried my cardiac idea, twice a week I spend working on technique (plus I though it may stimulate cardiac) and once a week I did a basic endurance STF…I was very consistent with training (except a few stf’s) and felt really good and rested throughout… Today’s data: had a bit more time so ran a step…planned to start the ramp once I hit my OZ, but didn’t find it (I know it was higher and probably just under my HR for first step) 5 – 142 – 5.7 – 150 – 6.4 – 161 – 7.1 – 172 – 7.8 – 179 – 8.5 – 186 – 4.9 6.3 – 165 – 3.3 6.8 – 170 – 2.6 7.3 – 178 – 2.6 8.0 – 183 – 4.2 I don’t have the graphs but to see an improvement in cardiac SV I would hope to see a decrease in HR at a specific performance and I don’t think that that has happened…so the cardiac ideas for the last 6 weeks hasn’t worked in the way I hoped…however…everything felt a lot easier…my lbp moved up slightly which could indicate that I possibly improved my oxygen dependent pathway and that the training targeted metabolic changes, not cardiac… Now some other observations…my RF during today’s test were 18-16-16-15-17-23…so at lbp, my RF is about 23ish…at no time did my breathing feel stressed, always under control…after my last step at 183 and La of 4.2 I jumped back on the treadmill at the same speed and increased my RF from 24 to 30…I did it for about 3 minutes…I could have gone longer but definitely felt some resp fatigue…I forgot to check HR BUT checked La and it was down to 3.9…not much but it still went down and considering that I was above lbp it should really have gone up since I was working above my lbp… So…possible ideas to work on the next 6 weeks???...I am going to try to do some resp. co-ordination training at higher resp. rates…other than that I’m not sure…hard to determine a limiter, would like to try some more ideas this week to see if I can find a limiter…my brain is a little fried right now so I'm probably missing something obvious... Ideas and opinions are welcome…I’ve put myself out there… DanZ | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2829 Registered: 04-2006 |
Great work. Here some hints. 1. Watch in both test in the second part: First test: 2.3 by 6.4 and than 2.3 by You have to have the courage to do something called "double dip" I know , people like to have a protocol. But it is a physiological idea. So the first assessment is always a "tryout" to create a protocol from now on. Double dip means: If the lactate readings are less than 0.3 difference we have to assume as well some measurement mistakes , as this is not a clear trend yet. So what we do is to test after 3 min the first time and than let the person go for another minute and see the result. In that minute you change nothing on performance ( speed ) now you gain another minute and you will see a trend much better. The trend is not just in lactate but as well in HR and RF. In many cases if HR goes up and RF goes up in that additional minute you can speculate , that lactate is the same or higher and the result will give you an answer to the speculation. Once you add NIRS and FeO2 % as well as cardiac information you see even more information. 2.3 and 2.3 in a row can mean: Lactate is stable ,, lactate is on the down , but simple not enough time to see in 3 minute a clear trend, as you may be very close to LBP. And lactate may have climbed higher if you would have given more time as again you are too close to the LBP. Now in test 2 the same problem 2.6 by 6.8 and 2.6 by 7.3. Is that climbing stable or dropping and was the time just too short as you are too close to LBP intensity. you see in both cases a steep incline in lactate after the 2.6 , which could ( speculation ) indicate, that if you would have stayed somewhat longer at 7.3 the lactate may have climbed. So LBP would be 170. versus ? Summary . You may take after the first step in the second part always teh blood after 3 min and wait for one more minute for the result before you change the HR level . If the result is less than 0.3 off , take a second sample but as soon you have the sample taken decide your next new level, as you have now a trend in the same performance step and the trend is for HR and lactate and RF. Here an overlap of teh two test. The beauty : 6 weeks and a full ability to repeat teh test result.. Somebody come up with their lactate step tests and show me the repeatability of their test.  Question: I think due to the lack of the "double dip" you overestimate the LBP by 5 + beats. This would change the way teh training stimulus would take place. Next up will be the discussion on speculations on cardiac limitation and how to train Stroke volume on a speculation. The reason why we do a FaCT assessment is to get ride of speculation , as all traditional ideas of training are based on speculations instead of assessments. | ||
| Danz Senior Member Username: Danz Post Number: 63 Registered: 08-2006 |
Hey Juerg...have to run to class so did not get a chance to read it all, but skimmed...first test I did not double dip (I usually do) due to time, but in each of the recovery steps I waited 5min to be sure of trend...dangerous I know with the little lactate in the system...I did double dip in the second test at 7.3 - 178...first was 2.8 and second was 2.6...more once I've read the rest... | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2830 Registered: 04-2006 |
So here a question back: Why did you thought the cardiac system is a limiter: If it would be, what intensity would you choose ? Now here some questions : a) in some test we see that the SV reaches a plateau very early on. . So : CO = SV x HR. If I go to the LBP, which may be created by the respiratory system: What would you stress on the cardiac system if you only increase CO by HR and not by SV. b) You have a stroke volume, who reaches a top level and will drop at the end of a test. . Where would you stress here. c) You have a stroke volume , who steady goes up till to the end. Where would you stress here. Now keep in mind. Stroke volume is only the amount you throw out per beat. Now we have to keep in mind, that you as well can change stroke volume by EF % and or by position but as well the stroke volume may change by filling time availability LVET and HR x LVET = CCT. So as we are able to asses all of that we have a much better idea on what may change. A lower HR by the same performance can be a sign of a better stroke volume, but it as well could be a sign of a lower or less need for O2 due to a better efficiency of peripheral abilities or simple a better efficiency on coordination and so on. Summary: We have to keep an eye on what we speculate , versus what we know. Otherwise we basically switch from a speculative use of VO2 max and zoning based on % to a speculative use of interesting ideas with no proof at all. This is exactly why we use all the tools we have so we can show real what is going on. This is why any type of FaCT based training ideas is based on assessments rather than speculations. So the only way to actually change from speculation to knowing is assessing properly and individual. This is the reason , why there are a few smart people out there in the process of building up assessment centers all over the bigger centers in Canada so coaches , athletes and any person interested in a proper assessment can get that done. | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 27 Registered: 08-2009 |
Juerg, since you asked for a protocol.. I'll give the one I use based on FaCT. It's a decremental step test. I would have Danz start by doing his pre-race warm-up if he has one. Then begin the test at 8.5 and take the first sample. From there come down to 8.2, then 7.9, then 7.6, then 7.3 and 7.0 if necessary. Because his pace at 8.2 is likely still above his LBP, the reading should be higher than the reading at 8.5. However, if the pace at 8.2 makes the next reading come out lower, then clearly 8.2 is below his LBP. So, as soon as the current sample is lower than the previous sample, the test is over. Fairly simple really. Jose | ||
| Danz Senior Member Username: Danz Post Number: 64 Registered: 08-2006 |
Hey Jose...I like the idea...but although I guess I'm trying to find out lbp, it doesn't matter to me that much because I'm trying to look at the biomarkers on the way up trying to see changes...if I wanted to find lbp before a race, I think that would be pretty good, but I think I'm trying to look for more info than just lbp heart rate and speed...Juerg - I will write later about why I thought I had a cardiac limitation...you are right it is only speculation and without a full assessment, I can't be sure...and I have access to only some of the wonders that fact make available to the world...but that is part of the fun and frustration...was it 6 wasted weeks...some would say yes...but now I know that what I thought I was doing did not stimulate any cardiac changes... Dan | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 28 Registered: 08-2009 |
Dan, Which biomarkers are you using to gauge change? As Juerg has exhaustively pointed out in the past, HR vs Intensity only tells you that but that doesn't mean we can conclude the SV has gone up. I track my HR vs Pace for all my distance workouts and have a scatter plot going back a couple years. It gives me a very good idea as to my current fitness but because it varies so much day to day, I only consider progress when I have seen several days worth of plots under my performance line. So just using the performance line of the one day you did the LBP test, isn't a big enough sample size in my opinion. What were you using to count RF? I think RF needs to be counted by something other than your brain because you may end up altering it subconsciously. Following FaCT principles from the past, once I have found my LBP I, continue at that intensity and manipulate my breathing and check the biomarkers then to speculate as to what my weak link is at the moment. All the best, Jose | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2831 Registered: 04-2006 |
Jose, I know we discussed this interesting version once before. I tried over 25 of this ideas and it never gave me a clear information, despite the theoretical idea. There are different reasons. 1. Remember that LBP is a biomarker, that one or two or ? of the systems , may be working above their normal performance. So one is the limiter and if there is a compensator he may kick in. Now there are some open questions. 1. Warm up. . How intense and how long and how do we know the subject always was at a similar physiological level as you started to push very hard for the high lactate reading. 2. The lactate after a hard all out as in the suggestion will climb up , even if the next level is clear below balance point. With one possible exemption: The all out has to be at least 8 + minutes long. In any other case you may see an increase in lactate even if you do nothing as the lactate produced in the working muscle can increase over a certain time. Here once more the basic research in this field done in the late 1970. As harder you go as more likely the lactate will go up after the fact.  As you can see, the "after lactate" can go up over a time span of over 15 min and longer. So the problem here is , that we may be long in an intensity , where the lactate would drop , but it does not at all. Can you sent us 4 - 5 test samples from athletes you did this idea , including Respiratory frequency and SpO2 levels and if possible VO2 as well. . There are as well some other questions , concerning "safety " you push immediately and relative fast a person above LBP and we know even in young people , that the cardiac system can create some problems. Than you will stay for a while above LBP and above the Limiter comfort zone. As we do not know , what the Limiter is we take an inherent risk in a test like that . That's why we never do a VO2 max at all. You need a defibrillator and a med. person on your side, if you start doing testing in this high intensities. 3. As Dan points out, we are interested to see, how the systems may show up some careful increased problems and once we have LBP we d not go higher. In fact if we see during a careful increased step test some strange information like LVET extreme reactions and or SV drops and or fast drops in SpO2 we always stop the test and will discuss this with a medical Doctor. It is the strange idea of many test centers, that we can overload and produce VO2 max test with athletes without risk. Any VO2 max has a certain risk and there is just no place to take that risk to find something we can do easy without risk. I am looking forward to some of the numbers you collected and see how they actually develop. Cheers Juerg | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2009 |
Juerg, I'm not suggesting we start out "all out" at all!  I suggest we start out enough above the LBP to be able to have a couple steps before we find it. IIRC, my last LBP was at 240w. If I suspect a small improvement in fitness, I'll start my test at 270w and then move to 260w but my 6K erg test "all out" that takes over 20 minutes is done around 300w. As for warm-up, most athletes that I know of have some sort of routine they go through before a race and using the same one before a LBP test should be good enough. But then again, the athletes I know don't own a Physioflow so they'll never know what they are really doing. As you know, I have yet to find a SPO2 device that works while on the rowing machine. I don't have access to VO2 either. The nature of rowing as well as many other sports is to push well about LBP as the gun fires. Usually, the fastest 500m split in the 2000m race is the first one and it starts at a dead stop. Shall we then conclude that our sport is unsafe? But just to reiterate, by no means do I suggest starting all out in our test. | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 30 Registered: 08-2009 |
*well above LBP as the gun fires. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2833 Registered: 04-2006 |
Good feedback. 1. In fact rowing see teh most of athletes after their carrier with AF of all competitive sports. So that would at least mean it has some potential risks. 2. Yes in many rowing races they see ECG irregularities in races or in simulated races. 3. Rowing has teh highest incident of herniated disc in the lumbar area ( in competition with high performance trampoline ) 4. Rowing has the highest numbers of spondylolisthesis ( coincident or sport specific ? ) 5. Well above LBP at the start . This is actually not the case at all. You will see that it takes approximately 1- 3 min till the heart rate and all other physiological system react. That's why in a Wingate test you have zero values for a physiological assessment at all. You only have a very high watt number of no real value for training nor zoning . So the start all out is not even close to LBP reactions. Just because the wattage ( Physical performance) is above does not mean the physiological system actually are at LBP intensity .( That's why they can't sustain the performance much longer) The all out will immediately trigger a very high O2 independent ATP production , which closes out at the start a lot of LBP dependent systems like the cardiac , the respiratory and even some parts of the muscular system like TSI % and tHb. The tHb will imediatly drop due to the extreme forces produced from a standing position and it will take 1 - 3 min till we have an open circulation again.( some may never get it till to the end of the race) This means that the vital system, are really not that stressed at the start , as it is a very muscular overload. By about 500 m or 1 - 3 min in the race we see a take over of O2 dependent activities and they have to be maintain till short before the finish line.( if the O2 dependent systems do not take over the race is finished by 1500 m ) . The interesting part is actually , that the lactate in rowers after the race reach incredible high levels due to the type of effort they do. The problem with any reverse testing is the lag of lactate above LBP. Example: You start above LBP you will have a lactate production and if the step is shorter than 8 min you will have it climbing even after you go a little bit lower. The little bit lower will still produce lactate and it will accumulate to the still accumulation from the previous step. . Now you go a bit lower and it still will . so yes the lactate will go up . The Problem now is, that despite the fact that one of the following intensities may be below LBP you still will have the lag of the lactate dynamic and the lactate will lag 1 - 3 steps behind the actual trends. The same problem we see in MAP ideas or short traditional lactate test or Conconi tests. The next bigger problem with the reverse idea is: even if you find a LBP what do you use as a bio marker ? HR will be too high depending on the cardiac system. Watt will be to low as you come from above and are slightly " fatigued " RF will be too high as you are moving in the glucose metabolic stage and CO2 will be too high so very high RF. Therefor possibly lower TV. tHb will be very low as you come from the higher intensity and TSI % will be possibly very low due to the high and long O2 independent start phase of the test above LBP. If you have me some numbers we can look at this even closer and I will produce some numbers with some test her on bike / rower and running and compare the numbers with a from "below test." Great discussion and worthwhile to assess and See how the body reacts. The above points can nicely be seen at the green recovery line as well as if you use a VO2 assessment you will see how very different RF and VE will react together with HR , if you start high and try to drop. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2834 Registered: 04-2006 |
 As you can see. Yes the wattage at the start is far above LBP wattage in a test. But again , that is where the problem is comming up. This wattage level , because it is far above LBP ,can't be maintained over a long time ( app. 1 - 2 min depending on the MCT1 and MCT2 activities = buffer of H+ thanks to lactate and respiration) What you not will see is , that any of the physiological parameters are not even close to LBP levels. The HR will be far behind on where you would end up by that wattage. With the low HR you have therefor a low CO ( CO = HR x SV ). With the incredible hard pull and very low TV in that phase and lot's of intra pulmonary pressure you will see a very lower SV than somewhere later in the race by 2 - 3 min in, once the wattage level actually drops to LBP wattage levels . You will see in fact a much higher HR by 30 - 40 % lower wattage level after 3 min. Same as you will see an increase in VO2 in a lower work intensity than at the start, as at the start , there was not even a demand immediately for O2 due to the high intensity and as the tHb will improve ( if ) but the respiration will settle down and the cardiac activity will increase ,you will start to see an increase in VO2. This as a sign , that now O2 dependent ATP prodcution takes place as well. Now this if the athletes a properly trained and smart enough to understand the concept and not just row the way the coaches tells them to row. The reason is mentioned in the post before. The incredible hard start will ultimately not use or allow to use any of the O2 dependent delivery systems. What you will use in most of the heavily involved muscles is the O2 stored in the Hb and the myoglobin of this muscles will be used plus as well the CP and ATP. The initial hard start will create a compression of the muscles, squeezing lot's of blood out and with it even O2. So you only relay mainly on the O2 stored on myoglobin. Depending on the training they did, they may have a problem to release the O2 from the myoglobin, so you will see in this athletes a still very high TSI % despite a complete failure of further activity. The so called O2 diss curve will not move to the left but may not move at all. You need different elements to release O2. 1. H + 2. Temperature 3. 2,3 DPG 4. CO2 Now all of them are in a sudden start not really easy available. Now the body does not care that you are n a race. It will as a priority try as soon as possible to restore the low ATP level, as this will ultimately run the body in a severe problem. On the other side the race situation will still try to get you to the cave. Problem is now the 'FOOD" you need to keep going . " FOOD" in the actual meaning of energy to reload ATP and still keep going. One of the "FOOD" sources is lactate and the other is O2 in the middle phase. of the race. If you can't reload the ATP back to a dissent level there will be no such thing like an end sprint. FOOD is the FaCT term for FORCED ONSET OF OXYGEN DEMAND. . The result can be achieved if the athletes know the LIMITATION of the start problem and the "deficit" of FOOD from the system. We analyzed with some friends in Switzerland some of the results . Here some numbers who may talk more than ideas and theories. One cat. where we where looking at 500 1000 1500 2000. Winner 1.43 1.43 1.46 1.48 5 th 1.45 1.47 1.51 1.55 last 1.41 1.44 1.50 2.00 This was a B final cat. The final winner cat had 1.40 1.43 1.43 1.40 Here another cat we where looking at as well. 1 heat L: 1.41 1.45 1.45 . 1.50 SF 1.49 1.52 1.56 2.01 Now the top boats in this cat. 1.55 1.57 1.55 1.52 or the other european boat . 1.58 1.59 1.57 1.51 Now here just to show a very nice example of a possible very different physiological idea of the sport . USA ( last boat ) 1.34/1.35/1.40/1.40 Brazil(sec. last boat ).1.33/1.34/1.37/1.33 " Thoughts for FOOD " And follow up a NIRS to see the above ideas in real life. Start with some technical problems and than "proper grab" but lot's of problem to ever get oxygenation and blood flow going , Than "cool down " and going of the boat( Test on quadriceps lateralis done)  | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 31 Registered: 08-2009 |
This summer I raced 15 times and recorded almost all of my races on my GPS w/hr and it took at most 38 seconds to get over my LBP heart rate and a few times as short as 20 seconds. The actual time may be less when you consider the the hr monitor lag time. Where do you come up with 8 minutes? Sounds a little cookbook to me! hahah! But seriously, can you explain this lag of lactate dynamic and why it occurs when testing in reverse. I feel as though you are overestimating the intensity above LBP. You've said yourself that many people can maintain levels above LBP for long periods of time, thus debunking the idea of a "threshold". I don't think spending a 6-9 minutes slightly above LBP is all that difficult and definitely not enough to warrant "fatigue". Beware that the race results that you are looking at are almost worthless for comparisons. Races were postponed because of the conditions due to strong winds. The course opens up in the middle 1000 so there is less protection from the wind giving certain lanes an advantage and highly skewing the times. The LM4X event where you mention USA was last had slower times than the LM4- and those races were back to back. For non-rowers a 4X should be much faster than a 4-. There is a lot of debate about the fairness or lack thereof of the lake in Karapiro. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2835 Registered: 04-2006 |
Good points. here some add on. We did some statsitical analysing with some friends from rowing in Switzerland from all the races and we only took same heats because of the above wind and wave problems. The few examples I showed where always the same heats.This info was from the race site directly not from me. 2. 8 minutes is not , as much of what we show here from our "cook book " our idea. This is some basic research done at the university in Koppenhagen DE by the worlds leading muscle research group ( Saltin ) and they show nicely that 8 min is the minimum you may need ( or longer ) to have a proper idea of lactate level in the system after a hard all out section. Thats why in 3 min steps testslactate on the way up often lag 2 - 3 steps behind with the lactate info we actually can read. You can try very easy to go above a certain intensity , where you see lactate accumulating and check every 2 minutes over a certain time. That' where the MAX LASS was developped . Maximal lactate threshold. To find this you have to show at least a stable lactate over at least 16 min . 3. The fast HR increase in some people and the slow HR increase in other people is very common. Remember : CO = HR x SV. As your body looks for a higher CO it has two choices. Either increase SV or increase HR. If HR is going up fast you will often see a relative low and even drop of SV. The best example is , when you do a test of cardiac hemodynamic in back position and than you stand up suddently. In back position you may see a HR of 50 and a SV of 100 = CO 5 l/Min a sudden standing up will in many cases raise the HR up to 70 but in the same time we see a drop in SV down to 80 +-. If the HR drops again we see a slightly increase in SV. This is one of the basic tests we do on people with cardiac problems on Betablockers. So in many cases, where we see HR reaching levels of LBP fast we may see a relative lower Strokevolume. ( Speculation in your case ) and has to be tested to see , whether it is true. The HR monitor lagtime is from R- R as you have in a printout beat by beat recording, with exeption you have a very old model as a HR monitor. The lag of blood flow as you can see in a live rowing NIRS example is close to 1 - 2 min.. The LBP and HR is only one way , on biomarkers and is used in endurance sport as a nice way of controlling intensity. As we know, HR alone has very little help in prestart and short term activities like 400 m runs and or strenght workouts. A high HR does not tell too much as many athletes can have a pre start HR of close to LBP and reeally do not have the corresponding CO to it. The reason is agin, that everybody can start oiut easy with performance far above what they can sustain for a prolongued time or even if they can hang on for 4 - 6 min the physiological system need much longer to ctach up , if they all actually can catch up. Blood flow to the working muscles in rowing possibly in many teams never catch to the optimal level due to the far above acceptable start for their own strenght they have. Stay tuned over the next 1 year and you may see many interesting NIRS test done in Europe to find more on this part of the discussion in preparation for London.We did in fact a presentation to rowing usa coache of a big center but - Overestimating LBP. hmm I am not sure what you mean. LBP has no meaning to intensities and performance above. It just is a bio marker on the idea, that one of teh system reached a critical intensity and can't go higher. In many sports ( rwoing ) is one of them , we see great abilities to use compensators. In rwoing ideas, where wattage is the gospel we see often muscular system as an incredible compensator. The problem in muscluar compensator is the factor time. When we look how long it takes to actually try to move the TSI % down to close to zero or in animal test down to zero ( which than creates a sudden cell death or some would think rhabdomyelosis )than the critical time is 4 - 6 min. An interesting time frame when we look at race times in rowing.? In rowing we see that the wattage level at the start is not " slightly "above LBP wattage but by a lot ( 30 - 40 % in top european team.) We checked actually in Silvaplana ( and Lago Bianco ) already in preparation for the Seoul olympics the ability on how much and how long we can go far above ( at that time LT ) we could let the athletes start.( Nilson et all) Many hours of testing and training ended up with a medal in Seoul ( Schwerzmann / Bodenmann) Last but not least: Lactate lag occures in any testing idea, not just in a reverse idea as you suggest. I would simply like to see 4 - 5 test you did with actual wattage /HR and lactate trends and if possible RF and SpO2. The reason again is: A hard going out , even if not all out,but above LBP will create a glucose metabolic situation ( even in a normal step test ) This will create a higher pCO2 ( even in a normal step test). The RQ will be as a proof of this immediatly go to 1.0 . Now the RF will react and therefor you will have a much higher RF at a given intensity coming form above down than from below up. Even in the test comming from below up after an initial step test,in many casees the RF is much higher than in the first part coming up. That alone will change the VO2 needs but as well the cardiac hemodynmaic. So you will have in a case like . 8.3 mph Run a HR 180 a RF 34 and a SpO2 of 96. But on the way up you may have a much lower SpO2 after many steps as well as a very different FeO2 %. Can easy be shown with any Fit Mate or VO2 test. This means , that the lag of respiratory respond, the lag of increase of muscle blood flow and the lag of cardiac response will create a much faster lacate respons and may keep going for a while. You can very easy debunk this ideas by showing us some test results . and the exact protcol.weI will than repeat it here plus will ask some friends to repeat it independentwith the sameidea and than we can show the results on here. It will be lot's of fun to try that out. Thanks for the great feeback and nice discussion. | ||
| Danz Senior Member Username: Danz Post Number: 65 Registered: 08-2006 |
I have to catch up a bit because work and children are getting in the way of FaCT-ing my brain...bringing it back to the question Juerg ask, why I thought I had a cardiac limitation...i felt I had fairly decent peripherals because of the work I've put in the past...I rarely if ever felt difficulty breathing and my respiratory system rarely felt stressed...I was hoping to stimulate my SV to bring down my HR at specific intensities...again...it looks like the training didn't work...either I didn't stimulate/stress it enough or the intensity I thought would stimulate it wasn't high enough...and then what else would I be stimulating at the same time (the hidden workout)...although I felt really good during the test yesterday as the day progressed I got pretty tired and thought I really killed my limiter (whatever it is)...but on an interesting note this morning I feel really good...my resting HR was down, my Polar Fitest was up and orthostatic was good...so maybe yesterday's workout stimulated a functional change in SV by increasing plasma volume (as you've described before)...so now I have to come up with a plan for the nex 6 weeks to see what I'm going to do...do I try to stimulate cardiac again based on what happened to my body today...or do I do some more smaller testing this week to try to possibly find my limiter (such as RF/co-ordination)...hmmmm | ||
| Danz Senior Member Username: Danz Post Number: 66 Registered: 08-2006 |
I have to catch up a bit because work and children are getting in the way of FaCT-ing my brain...bringing it back to the question Juerg ask, why I thought I had a cardiac limitation...i felt I had fairly decent peripherals because of the work I've put in the past...I rarely if ever felt difficulty breathing and my respiratory system rarely felt stressed...I was hoping to stimulate my SV to bring down my HR at specific intensities...again...it looks like the training didn't work...either I didn't stimulate/stress it enough or the intensity I thought would stimulate it wasn't high enough...and then what else would I be stimulating at the same time (the hidden workout)...although I felt really good during the test yesterday as the day progressed I got pretty tired and thought I really killed my limiter (whatever it is)...but on an interesting note this morning I feel really good...my resting HR was down, my Polar Fitest was up and orthostatic was good...so maybe yesterday's workout stimulated a functional change in SV by increasing plasma volume (as you've described before)...so now I have to come up with a plan for the nex 6 weeks to see what I'm going to do...do I try to stimulate cardiac again based on what happened to my body today...or do I do some more smaller testing this week to try to possibly find my limiter (such as RF/co-ordination)...hmmmm | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2836 Registered: 04-2006 |
It is sometimes too bad , we have to go back and show results to actually get more attention on our ideas. Many of the closer circle know , that I do not like to take athletes as the reason why something works, as we have many more average people who can benefit much more and work much harder on their health , than Pro athletes on their genetic potential. Thoughts for FOOD. Or the lag of physiological parameters behind physical information. Using in any sport wattage or speed as a guide for information has many limitations. Much more important is do know how the physiological system will work after an initial start situation. Middle distance running and rowing are two of my favorite examples as I have most experiences in this field. This two type of athletes where regular visitors in our Altitude training camp in St. Moritz. Already than we had fundamental different ideas on how to train in this very demanding discipline. As we discuss here rowing a little bit closer I like to blend back to an earlier time. Seoul and later Atlanta. You need some athletes with not just the physical genetic but as well with the brain to comprehend what can be done with the great genetic to not mess up. Like in Cycling in rowing we have a stroke rate ( RPM in cycling ) and in running we have a stride frequency. Respiration can be supported by natural frequencies from the sport itself if properly assessed. As well higher RPM and or stroke rate per minute will change the blood flow in the working muscles. There are some critical individual RPM and or stroke rates , where we know , whether the tHb can improve after a start phase , where it will drop n any athlete. Now this is the actual key in rowing . Not ripping up the water at the start but actually " grabbing " the water. Same in swimming , where the key as well is to not have the highest power at the start of the stroke but at the end of the stroke. ( Same in ice hockey , golfing and so on. There is a great word for this in German and it comes from the old DDR training and bio mechanic ideas and still holds true. "Traegheitsbedingter Kraftfluchteffekt" No translation here possible but it is the secret of success. Now first it will show this in a great video of a great race. Check the difference in Stroke rate . The lower stroke rate of 33 would cause a unlikley return of an optimal tHb in a specific rower in this movie so the idea was to allow an optimal muscle tension with an optimal blood flow. Combined with a very unique respiration pattern we have a very different idea in that race between the later winner and the early leaders. If you look at the 1000 m time and the end time than go and check positive and or negative split. Here to enjoy :" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= 2380823499853540262# This idea has started some years back with another double rower team. Here the results from Seoul. in numbers instead of pictures. The heavy favorite was URS who finished behind the St.> Moritz team. Here the comparison between "FOOD" control and pain. 500 1000 1500 2000 RUS 1.31(1) 1.37 (1) 1.38 (2) 1.38 (3) SWI 1.35 (5) 1.36 (5) 1.35 (4) 1.36 (2) Now this interesting concept of FOOD is also used in some very smart races in horses. Here a look to enjoy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti4nU2i0N -g | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 32 Registered: 08-2009 |
Juerg, It always amazes me how you can accomplish so many things in a days time and still have time to post to these discussion. I will look for and post some results tonight. Much more important is do know how the physiological system will work after an initial start situation. How will the current FaCT LBP test where we slowly go up and then drastically come down and then work our way up, work better than the reverse idea where we start above LBP? I have never seen a rowing race or running race for that matter where anyone started walking when the gun fired. Dan, sorry for thread jacking. | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 33 Registered: 08-2009 |
This from March 2010 on myself on the ergometer: 250w 2.9 240w 3.1 240w 3.1 230w 2.7 Stopped the test and then did two more segments. 240w 2.6 230w 2.3 I don't have any data for my RF but it would be pointless anyway because it would be exactly double my stroke rate and my stroke rate likely changed only a small bit. What would be helpful would be TV. As I've mentioned many times before, I have an SPO2 but it doesn't work on the rowing machine because of the vibrations caused by the chain. I tried to adapt it to my earlobe without any luck. With the exception of the first step at 250w for 5min, the other steps were all 4min long. From this I concluded my LBP was at 240w. Staying at 240w for two steps in a row gave me the same reading and then dropping down to 230w gave me a decreasing result. Had 230w been above my LBP, it would have given me an increasing trend. If you want to try this out with people who have recently tested their LBPs just start a couple steps above what their current LBP is and come down. My warm-up consists of 15min around 150hr and then 5 minutes close but under my LBP. | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 427 Registered: 04-2006 |
Now you just have to show us the same results a few days later...that is prove that your LBP is NOT affected by diet or fatigue. The trouble is you are using wattage as the parameter, rather than using the physiologic information available. So, though your "LBP" test showed wattage of 230 today, does NOT mean it will 230 tomorrow, under different conditions of heat, fatigue, rest, stress etc. It is fun to see someone taking the ideas, and trying to work through them for their sport, but I think you have missed some of the crucial aspects we are looking for. Doing LBP testing is not trying to simulate a race...the best way to do that is to race and record biomarkers for discussion. The reason for testing is to look at the physiologic systems and how they contribute to fatigue at different intensities. Your version will not allow for that, as the 250 watt step will already be forcing one system to fatigue, while never giving it a chance to recover. And it is too bad you can only breathe at a rate predetermined by your stroke rate...and have not though too much about alternate ways of breathing. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2837 Registered: 04-2006 |
Hmm Andrew was faster. Jose do you have as well the HR reading from this one test. Can you give us 3 - 5 more tests with wattage and HR. What was your stroke rate ( I assume somwhere around 30 - 35 which would give a respiratory rate of 60 - 70 breath per min. This is a very interesting RF. We see VE in VO2 max tests of 90 l/min up to 150 in a very regular way ( some can go higher ) The highest RF we see is in paraolympic athlets on wheel chairs and ski chairs.( as we set them up with Spiro tiger for the Sydney and Bejing games) RF up to 80 but than TV .5 L up to 1 L with the accordingly problems, who come with this. Now let's just assume you have a VC of 6 liter. This would give a theoretical VC1 or 4.2 liter. The majority will use 30 - 50 % of the VC1 as TV so 1.5 to 2 L of TV in a 6 L VC ability. 70 x 2 liter would fit nicely into the possible ability. From this 2 liter about .250 L is dead space. So you will have in a 6 liter lung a very small amount of actual air with O2 and a relative Low pO2 , which therefor will show possibly up in the SpO2 readings in rowing. More interesting would be rather the TSI % readings in rowing , as you add a very big part of muscle contraction to it. Rhomert et all found, that by an isometric contraction force of 50 % of total force the blood vessels are compressed. In endurance sport ( disiplin longer than 2 min) the highest acceptable EMG % activity, where we still have a decent blood flow, is by 30 % +-. We did many years back this type of testing on some of the now most succesfull cyclists in North america and in non of the cases did we ever had a higher EMG readings than 30 +- % before we had an accumulation of lactate readings. In rowing at the start phase we have very different EMG readings, which are far above 30 % and with the NIRS we now can proof that this really drops the tHb ( blood volume ) at the start phase to a very low level.So what we try now in sports like rowing in europe is, to see, what effort is physiological optimal to have a fast and great start and hwo long can I afford to go that hard before I create a "FOOD" problem and where I may never have a chance duirng the race really to recover, with the exception , that I have to slow so much down that the race is anyway over. It is all about balance of effort and ability to recover for the middle part of the race to maintain and or even add some additional effort. I will show soon some nice information on how physiologically the LBP and above LBP wattage level is far of from what the body would do, if he would have the optimal time to get ready for that effort. True in many sports we just can't have an optimal preparation for all the systems. Some have it easier , like running and or TT in biking. Rowing is very difficult. Nevertheless we can prepare some of the systems at the start phase to very close to race intensity as we wait in rowing in the boat for the start .We can work on the respiratory race pace and intensity as well as in the tHb and even at the stroke volume preparation. Last but not least: As Andrew points out, the fundamental reason for LBP is actually to find physiological bio markers and not a wattage level. Again test 3 to 4 days in a row with this wattages and look at the lactate infos. Sent us the test results and we can all learn and may get somevery nice new ideas for different applications. Thanks Jose for all the great input and critical thoughts. So have agreat evening , Have to go back into the barn, as today is Vet. day and I have to inocculate the goats for the winter for some disease control. ( no EPO as they go very nicely without ) | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 42 Registered: 08-2009 |
So last night I decided to combine the use of the performance line start of the standard LBP test with the reverse idea to create something like a pyramid. The standard steps were all 3minutes in length and the steps I took samples were all 5minutes. I had my answer for LBP after three blood samples but went for a 4th sample back above LBP just to confirm. Curiously, the first and second steps at 240w were only a little bit uncomfortable but the last step at 240w was painful. I tried to keep the same format as Herb's software but to make any sense, I had to put wattage on the x-axis. I plotted stroke rate and not RR because it would look the same, my RR is just 2 times my SR.  Time Watts HR SR RR Lactate 00 _60 _96 19 38 03 _80 101 19 38 06 100 110 22 44 09 120 117 22 44 12 140 125 22 44 15 160 132 22 44 18 180 142 24 48 21 200 155 24 48 24 220 164 24 48 27 240 169 25 50 30 250 177 26 52 4 35 240 177 25 50 4.3 40 230 175 25 50 4 45 240 182 25 50 4.6 Opinions welcomed. | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 456 Registered: 04-2006 |
Great work to show clearly that when changing intensity very close to LBP one can see a slow and small change in lactate numbers signifying possible trends, which shows very nicely the argument against a threshold of "sudden lactate accumulation". It is interesting to note that for this particular example, the numbers happen to be very close to the "theoretical" value of 4mmol. You could really do a nice example showing the same test after 3 days of carb depletion, which would almost certainly show lower lactate readings, but a similar trend. Or, conversely, begin the test after the ingestion of a very high carb rich meal, and show much higher lactate readings. The only comment I have to make regarding the specifics of your test, is to point out that the lactate "trends" you witnessed were very small from 4 to 4.3 and back down. To see if this is a true trend, or simply within the margin of error of the device used, you could lengthen out those steps, and perform a second sample to confirm a true drop or rise in lactate at that intensity. What Juerg likes to call the "double dip" approach. Great example of some good thinking and exploring on your behalf. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 3043 Registered: 04-2006 |
Great work here. As Andrew already pointed out some double dips would be a nice version. Here some additional info. 1. With this type of LBP test we know now that your LBP performance is by 230 wattage . That's it. We cant have a LBP HR at all. Why. As you push the whole second part relative hard ( close to LBP you will always have the weakest link ( Limiter pushing ) above or just at LBP. So the weakest link , which will create the increase of Lactate will have no chance to actually recover. Now same may be true with our version. But in our version the "compensator" get a break and can drop their load.In the above version the compensator as well may have little if any chance to actually "recover" a bit. Example in your numbers. 240 wattage had on the way up a HR of 169 Than 182 at the last ( painful 240 wattage.) The change in HR after the 250 wattage is 5 beats with 250 wattage a lower HR than the 240 wattage. This shows, that the team ( including cardiac system) has to work very very hard all the time. So cardiac output is HR x SV. The increase in HR by 240 from 169 to 182 shows that HR clearly goes up. We can assume ( wattage users tell this to us ) that 240 wattage is always the same load 240 wattage. We argue that this is true for a motor but not for a physiological system. So the higher HR at the same wattage suggests, that physiologically it is not the same load. Why: perhaps the cardiac system has to compensate a lot for a respiratory limitation. Or the cardiac system itself start to be pushed to the upper limit and has to try to move the needed CO ( cardiac output, which may be the same by 240 in a different way. Lower SV may force a higher HR. Or the "food" the forced onset of oxygen delivery may create a bigger demand for the same amount of O2 for 240 wattage but now the need to "refuel" the energy stores as well. Or the increase in H+ and CO2 forces the respiration to breath much more air to get rid of CO2. This as well will need more O2 and the heart is able to deliver more by increasing HR and SV or any version possible. Now this is a great example, who shows you that we can find LBP in either HR ( old version ) or wattage this above idea. If you go the old version you have both HR and wattage as bio markers and when you add other information's like FeO2 or CO2 or NIRS or cardiac info , you can see where and what the limiter / compensator may be. Interesting in this test is how the Stroke rate really dictates the respiration rate or the respiration rate dictates the stroke rate. Question and task. Go out and row with 230 wattage which looks like your LBP wattage. Check HR and duration and take a lactate sample every 5 - 8 min. Than go and row by a HR of 165 and check Lactate there. The interesting part is, that the full test is actually what we do , when we look at a training workout on the field the trend. You go out at your estimated LBP HR or speed or wattage. Take a sample after 8 min now you have a number 2.6 for example now you keep going same performance for another 8 min and take another sample. Now it is 2.2 . result you are below LBP. it is 3.3 you are on that day above LBP 2.6 your are on LBP. | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 43 Registered: 08-2009 |
Andrew and Juerg, Thanks for the comments and in depth responses. While I was waiting for the 230 watt result to show up, I actually stayed that minute at 230. I guess most of the oxygen was in my legs and not my brain because I then just figured I would go back up to 240 to see if I would find myself back over my LBP. Now I realize that I could have stayed at 230 to see if I could find a duplicate reading of 4.0. I did realize that yes, all this told me for LBP was that it was at 230w or somewhere between 230-240 on the erg. I keep a log of my workouts and plot a performance line graph for all my SS water workouts using avg HR vs avg pace. Since I do less than 5% of my meters on the erg, I don't have accurate data for a similar performance line. If I did, it would be as simple as finding my corresponding HR to 230watts. Now I need to spend some time at 230w on the erg to find out what my corresponding HR is and then test that on the water. In the past, I have found that whatever HR I find as my LBP on the erg is the exact same on the water. As for who is dictating, stroke rate or respiration rate... I've done workouts where no question the RR dictated the SR. For this test on the way up, I can definitely say that the wattage dictated the SR and that in turn dictated my RR. When shifting to a higher wattage, the signal came in as "hey we gotta go" "pick it up". As for the way down, I would just be guessing. I actually set up a video camera to film the entire test with a microphone pointed to my mouth so I could try to get some clues from my breathing. I'll go back now and listen for changes. On this topic, is there any simple device out there that can give me ventilation numbers during a test like this? I've thought of hacking a spirometer or a anemometer but there is so many hurdles that I haven't embarked on this. I did chuckle a bit when I was done because my "LT" was at 4mmol! | ||
| Stephentoddneal Intermediate Member Username: Stephentoddneal Post Number: 19 Registered: 11-2007 |
Hourerg, Would you be willing to share the excel sheet you created your graphs with? I am trying to get 4 or 5 of the metrics on one graph ... but all on their own scale. I have figured out how to get 3 on with one on primary and a few on primary but can't get more than that... Also how do you get some selected data on the Y axis? email is stephentoddneal@me.com if you don't mind sending it | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 44 Registered: 08-2009 |
Stephen, I actually cheated a bit. I created three separate graphs with a white background and then overlapped them in Microsoft Paint! I couldn't figure out how to use more than one scale and suspect you just can't. Then at the end I created the gray background with white gridlines and pasted on top of that. | ||
| Peterg Senior Member Username: Peterg Post Number: 42 Registered: 03-2008 |
http://www.yuvalararat.com/2008/09/creat ing-multiple-y-axis-graph-in-excel-2007/ Steve and Hourerg I think you both are good on the above but thought I would put this anyhow (link to how to do 2 axis) ... from there I think in most cases I have seen you should find the data falls into one or the other ? or you can multiply/divide ? I will continue my 'google university' in excel though | ||
| Stephentoddneal Intermediate Member Username: Stephentoddneal Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2007 |
Thanks Peter...I must be attending the same classes! I have attached a screen shot of where I am at...but would love to be able to add more data with different axis values so all are readable to see trends on same graph...let me know how your studies proceed as I will you on mine!  | ||
| Peterg Senior Member Username: Peterg Post Number: 43 Registered: 03-2008 |
http://peltiertech.com/Excel/ChartsHowTo /PanelUnevenScales.html Likely this stacked format will be best you can find ... make sure you have your thinking cap on , too late for me to have a go at this (and i am on PST Timezone!) | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 45 Registered: 08-2009 |
Aha! Good finds Peterg, thanks for that. | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 459 Registered: 04-2006 |
We are working on a stand alone program that will allow overlapping of data from all sources (HR, lactate, wattage, FeO2, Ve RF etc). It should be ready in the next few weeks, and we will make it available to those who are interested. We will post examples of the display once we have worked out all the bugs. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 3047 Registered: 04-2006 |
Hallo Hourerg. Here some questions. I reviewed all your mails and forum information. So the question I have: Simple : When you did the latest test idea: Was 250 watt all out or why did you decided to stop by 250 watt.? Thanks | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 48 Registered: 08-2009 |
No, 250 was not anywhere near all out. My last LBP test gave me about 240w and I was in better shape back then. I suspected I would be under 240 but figured I should go at least one step above 240 to be able to see a trend. I didn't think there was a need to go any higher. Remember, something in my system went terribly wrong several months ago and have not done any work well above my LBP since. I'd like to wait till I feel 100% before I push myself much harder. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 3048 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here an additional question, as we do for the moment some rowing testing over mail with a friend in Switzerland to see, how we can use other ideas than SR and RR to see intensity options as bio-markers respiration rate. does not work at all. Do you have FeO2 numbers or and VO2 test information ? Reason. In rowing as we discussed before we have RR and SR and one will influence the other. The problem is, that SR can be change as a clear decision. RR could be changed in many sports as a clear made decision. In rowing the cases are somewhat more complicated as you can't change like in biking from RR of 25 to 34 in an instant. So what we used in rowing was the idea of assessing the change by the same SR in the behaviour of the respiration in TV as well as in change in pCO2. This will help you to see, whether you still can "load " Hb or whether you move yourself early into a "de-loading " stage by moving the curve to the left due to increase in pCO2 and lower pH , increase in H+ and possibly due to many hours of this type of training a very good DPG hormonal response. An old idea now very strong back in the discussion for 2012 as we can possibly now in the boat on the water start assessing all this ideas. Just a thought to see how far the rowers are on this side of the big water. I hope to have a testing device for on the water ready in about 2 weeks and than I can ship it over to be used and collect informations. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 3049 Registered: 04-2006 |
Hourerg. Thanks for the feedback. I originally thought I would write your answer, that 250 was a clear decided idea when to stop , as the march test showed a LBP around 240 watt. Once you feel better do your idea with your self or somebody you do not know the LBP range. So an all out test and than try to see, whether your idea is working and how the people feel. This is one of the reasons why we do it the way we do it. Your idea is great , once you know the LBP, but than we move it on the road or field with the ideas I often explained on this forum. You go with your LBP HR and run , row or bike or ski for 8 - 10 min steady , take a sample , see the result , take it as it is , numbers mean nothing as you will be somewhere between 2 and up. Now immediately after the sampling go with exactly the same intensity ( HR again for 5 - 8 min and take another sample. ( This would be similar like a "double dip " in a test to see the lactate trend in the same step or at the same intensity . Now you have a proper intensity info, whether you are above or below LBP ( oxygen dependent or independent add ons. ) Example : 10 min lactate 2.6 , 8 min later same intensity 2.3 Now you have the trend. Or the opposite. Hope this makes it clear to understand. | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 49 Registered: 08-2009 |
Juerg, I wish I had FeO2 or VO2 info. Next time, I will try to find a lab that will let me use their equipment for an hour. As for the testing, I'm not sure I would ever ask anyone to go all out at the top. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you ask your clients when doing the 1st LBP test to go to about 85%? | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 3050 Registered: 04-2006 |
Sure, we never do a all out test. The reason is, that we see on the way up on NIRS and Physioflow and VO2 data collection when they reach a limitation anyway. The main reason is the question to a person , who never did a test to tell us when he reaches 85 % of all out? The future will look , that we will use lactate really as a bio-marker in the field during workouts but the future test may not even have to use anymore lactate sampling included ,the way we do it and we will be able to do them non invasive. Than the person has a lactate analyzer to use for himself in the field to have a fast trend info depending on the training ideas he or she will follow. Will show possibly this weekend the first set of noninvasive tests we now have from different sources.. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 3051 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here is a nice respond I just got from Stephan from Zuerich ( SUI). He writes, that they have many top rowers, who can go at 85 % of their Max effort and still be very close if not at LBP ( or in other words have very little lactate trends info.He as well reminded me why the Conconi test worked on specific people they used in that study. Top world class marathon runners can run close to 85 % and more and still have very little to very low or no lactate in the system as they immediately recycle it. Here two classical example. 1. Korir and a comparison with european runners ( see teh max lactate levels at the end of the test. 2. Another sample from a German study on 4 similar runners with similar abilities performance wise but very different lactate trends. That's where the idea comes in , who and how we limit or compensate performance.   |