| Author | Message | ||
     Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1796 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here a nice reading n a specific garment. The question is out there, whether the claim they make is really the reason for "improved " performance or is there another reason behind or is there really an improved objective performance. There is a lack of scientific research in this claims and it would be nice seeing some research done from universities assessing the benefit by using equipment like Physio flow and VO2 to see bio marker changes . Here to enjoy : BioAcceleration Skins™ technical compression wear has been developed and designed to provide engineered gradient compression. When compression is engineered to apply a balanced and accurate surface pressure over specific body parts, it triggers an acceleration of blood flow. This increases oxygen delivery to working muscles to enhance their performance. The circulation improvements also help the body to eliminate lactic acid and other metabolic wastes. The combination of these effects allows you to work at a higher rate for longer." | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1797 Registered: 04-2006 |
Just for new readers a possible answer from some of the worlds top lactate researchers . -- Here is an interesting start into the lactate "history ." For interested people this is worthwhile to read, otherwise check our summary of different info's and articles. " Lactate metabolism - a new paradigm for the third millennium. " By L. B. Gladden published online May 6 2004 The journal of physiology. Here the abstract : " For much of the 20 th century, lactate (La-) was largely considered a dead end waste product of glycolysis due to hypoxia, the primary cause of the O2 dept following exercise, a major cause of muscle fatigue, and a key factor in acidosis-induced tissue damage. Since the 1970's a "lactate revolution" has ocured. Presently, we are in the midst of a lactate shuttle era; the La- paradigm has shifted. It now appears that increased La production and (La-) as a result of anoxia or dysoxia are often the exception rather than the rule. Lactic acidosis is being re-evaluated as a factor in muscle fatigue. Lactate is an important intermediate in the process of wound repair and regeneration. The origin of elevated La in injury and sepsis is being re-investigated. There is essentially unanimous experimental support for a cell-to-cell lactate shuttle,along with mounting evidence for astrocyte-neuron,lactate-alanine,perixso mal,and spermatogenic lactate shuttles. The bulk of the evidence suggests that La is an important intermediary in numerous metabolic processes, a particularly mobile fuel for aerobic metabolism, and perhaps a mediator of redox state among various compartments both within and between cells. La can no longer be considered the usual suspect for metabolic "crimes", but is instead a central player in cellular, regional, and whole body metabolism. Overall, the cell-to -cell lactate shuttle has expanded far beyond its initial conception as an explanation for muscle and exercise metabolism to now subsume all of the other shuttles as a grand description of the role(s) of La in numerous metabolic processes and pathways. | ||
| Jsasseville Junior Member Username: Jsasseville Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2008 |
I think that everyone on this forum would now agree that lactate is not your enemy but your friend. That lactate is not the cause of fatigue or the feeling that you get when you are pushing very hard in training and racing. However, something(s)is causing these feelings and causing us to slow down. And some kind of training has to be done in order to reduce the effects of whatever it is that is causing these sensations and reactions. So, once we get past all the theory and conjecture the real questions are: 1. What is causing the "pain" that we feel and limiting our performance? 2. What can we do about it? So, to me, it doesn't really matter any more whether lactate is the culprit or not, I still have to figure out the best way to train. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1799 Registered: 04-2006 |
Jack , as usual simple and straight forward an answer, resp. info from the practical side of training. The whole idea on the new FaCT CLR is exactly that, figure out how we have to set up specific workouts, so we don't get that "burning " or pain sensation. The reason why it may be important to understand , that lactate is not the reason of fatigue , is as well the point of the discussion. We may have to re-define workouts , which where designed to "battle " lactate. Ideas like lactate tolerance workouts. Ideas like increasing lactate threshold and so on are clear signs, that all the workout ideas where design to beat the bad lactate influence. So as we try to look for new ways of working out we may have to search for intensities, which not always create this "ultimate " pain. Ideas like "no pain no gain " may have to be changed to : No brain no gain " ??? Here some practical ideas as we go along : We have an athlete with a limitation in his pulmonary ( respiratory system) Now we may not know that , respectively the majority of coaches and even respiratory researcher would argue, that the respiratory system is never the limitation in a healthy person with not know respiratory problems. Now let's take any workout , Interval or endurance workout. Both target the idea to either go hard but relative short or long on race pace or close to race pace. Now some may use HR , some may use wattage or speed and some may even use lactate to control intensity. In any case as soon we push harder we will start to load many systems like muscular system , cardiac system and the ( unknown ) weakest link the respiratory system. We just feel it is getting hard and we have the "burning " and perhaps the "pain " we look for , as a sign we "overload' which is good as it is a part of the idea of a workout ( disturbing homeostasis ) What we often not know, is what system was mainly overloaded. So on day one we did 5 x 5 min interval with 5 min rest as the main part of the interval . The next day out of real reasons, to give the "overloaded system " from yesterday a break we change the idea and we may go 2 h long endurance by "pushing just below the infamous 2 mmol lactate or AT aerobic threshold. or what every we use as an intensity control for the long endurance workout. So as we go for the 2 hours we check HR and or lactate and or wattage and hang on this intensity . As we go longer we now have different options. Wattage user will not care and simply will hang in the wattage zone. HR users may slow down intensity to maintain the same HR and lactate users may check the lactate and if above 2 mmol or what ever we use as a target lactate in a LSD workout we may speed up and or slow down. Now in any of this cases ( less likely but not for sure in the HR version ) we will again "fatigue" and again , as Jack pointed out we would like to know why we fatigue today again , despite the very different workout idea. Now there can be indeed very different reasons why we fatigue, but one of the possible same reason may be that the weakest link , which was still in recovery mode from yesterdays hard workout may be as well the weakest link today. So we overload again , without realizing it the weakest link and so on. This leads to a potential risk , that the weakest link will be in a UPS ( under-performing stage ) and as in every single workout it will be always push to and above the optimal intensity limit we may now suddenly see a change in some other system due to this problem. One of the reacting system could be the muscular system, as it has no such things like a designated vital organ title. Example. Based on R. Dempsey's metaboreflex idea , the weak link respiratory system will be protected over what we name ECGM ( extended central governor model ) An overload in the respiratory system leads to a vasoconstriction ( reduce blood supply ) in the working muscles. This leads to a reaction of search for the next best ATP supply line, which can be for O2 dependent FFA to O2 dependent glucose, in an intensity zone , where we would based on the tests we did assume you are LSD intensity or based on the HR or wattage you are in the basic endurance zone. As, due to a "fatigued" respiration the O2 FFA is moving to O2 glucose , we "stress" the respiration even more ( higher CO2 in O2 glucose ) and we increase the workload of the weakest link even more. This leads to the situation , ( if not assessed and understood ) , that despite the training in the "slow basic intensity " we stress in fact the next higher intensity zone, which will have a different adaptation outcome in functional and structural reactions. Now you just simply move the intensity up to the next intensity change . You move from the O2 dependent glucose to the partially O2 independent ATP production. Again this happens due to the weakness of the already overloaded respiratory system and again we train not where we believe we train or stress but we actually train in a different zone ( than planned ) If we not recognize this shifts, as we not recognize this weakness we will have earlier or later a problem due to a very overloaded Respiratory system. The pain and burning will be the same the performance may be worse or at least not better. This will lead to a circle with no answers. Let's take a different example to try to show my point. You ski and you see, that the end phase of the double pole motion at the end is lacking the last part of the elbow extension ( muscle chain ulnar deviation , triceps, lattissimus , teres m and so on ). You can see, that in slower speed the skier has a nice a great end-kick in the elbow, but as soon you go a higher intensity he looses this part of the technique. Now would we just simple go ans say , well we just have to keep pushing hard and harder and one day he just simply may kick all the way or would we try to find some training ideas, where we may be able to address the full muscle chain and included the full extension , so that under higher intensity it may just work out well. The triceps could be the weak link in the arm extension ( as the respiratory system in the above example ) Now as we keep pushing hard the triceps may be always the first muscle , who will have to switch to O2 independent help and therefor will always get a great stimulation to work O2 independent better and better, but there is even in the best O2 independent muscle a time limitation set . So as we work harder we loose more and more the ability in this muscle to actually work O2 dependent so he can maintain as all other muscles teh O2 dependent ATP production longer and can be a part of the full team longer. As the triceps is overloaded always the most of all he will be always overloaded and may simply start to loose workout ability . So the next step is, that for example the teres major will have to take earlier than usual a part of the retroversion motion and now will be the weakest link from now on , as nobody anymore counts of the help of the triceps and so on. Summary. Yes Jack is right , it does not matter whether lactate is the reason of fatigue or not. What matters is to find out who the reason of the fatigue is. And as lactate is a great info marker to show us, that somebody in the team is working on its limit we can now use lactate not to tolerate but to tell us to go back and find out , who is the culprit , that I need lactate as an efficient energy source and as buffer of H+ production. This can't be done by testing for lactate , or by using a HR formula or by using % of VO2 max or by searching for FTP. This has to be done by assessing the different system simultaneously and see, where and when a system show trend of "fatigue " or lack of recovery. We just finished 1 hour ago a test with 2 medical doctors , one from Cape town and one from Canada , where we had an incredible nice info on the limitation of the client and why hard workouts for the moment , resp. the hard workouts he is doing since many month show instead of improvement dramatically loss of performance with secondary change in blood values and drop in cardiac performance due to an under stimulation of the cardiac system. Reason . If you always have to stop by the weakness of the triceps and or the respiratory system , some other system may never be able to be stress in the needed intensity and will simply atrophy. If in the double pole motion you triceps is burning so hard and you may even have some spasm ( low ATP level due to to high O2 independent energy load. ) you may only reach 50 = 60 % of the work the lattisimus could do. So by only stressing the lattismus 50 - 60 % daily , he will start to loose some of its ability as the high workout ability seems not to be needed and what you not use you may loose. Now suddenly the triceps may feel not that bad but the lattisimus may feel bad as well. ???? So to Jack's questions. What causes the pain: Answers are still not clear , many ideas and theories, from H+ overload ( acidosis ) to Na/ K+ ) balance interruption, to hormonal reactions in one or the other directions. The reason of the pain may be somewhat more and easier to explain . Stop pushing so hard otherwise some of the system or the weakest system may just simply blow up. You may know from experience, that the "pain " may be different from one day to the other. This may be , as the "pain " from an overloaded muscle may feel different , than the pain from an overloaded respiratory system . The pain from an overloaded heart is sometimes clear ( angina ) but may be as well different in a healthy person , when CTT is to high and you simply can't go with a higher HR. What can we do about it : Well for us the answer is clear , the solution is still under progress. FaCT CLR . Search for the weakest link and than design workouts, so that the next day , after an overload , the weakest link can get enough recovery time to be able to adapt and improve. So you may have to change the idea so , that the respiratory system is not overloaded in the next day workout or perhaps even over 2 days , and as soon the bio marker for the respiratory system are back to "normal " or higher you can go a gain. This is true for any system. I can make a respiratory system without stressing the muscular and or cardiac system . I can make a muscular workout by not stressing the cardiac system. I can make a cardiac workout by not stressing the leg muscles and so on. This shifts the idea of workouts to a much more specific target setting with the only and only reason . Overloaded system only improve during recovery . End summary . As coaches we do not have to design training plans , we have to find out what was stressed and what is overloaded and now we have to design recovery plans. Problem : Nobody will pay you 500 dollars, when you sent him a sheet where the wording is : Please do not work out today your respiratory system as it needs a recovery day. How many coaches design recovery plans. ??? Remember it is the "Hidden " workout " which may be the key to success as we need to watch for the recovery and we only can do that by being able to assess the depth of the hidden workout.  I had yesterday with a University graduate a discussion concerning respiratory limitation. The "educational " idea is clear from the way the discussion went. Respiratory system is never a limitation . The "proof". If we test RMV ( resting minute volume ) a healthy person can move far more volume of air than it ever will reach in any all out test. The all out test may be a Wingate test a or a 12 minute VO2 max test. My question back was: If Bolt would run an all out 400 - 500 m he would have perhaps 1 min so it is an all out run like a RMV test . So the speed he can run is so far above the speed he ever will run in a marathon , that speed is never the limitation for him in a marathon. His answer was, yes see that is exactly the same his problem is endurance or the ability to produce efficient ATP O2 dependent. So my question was. How about the RMV test what does that tell use about the respiratory system ? This is exactly the reason why Bolt may use or not , a leg press equipment ( Power lung ) and not a treadmill for long slow runs ( Spiro Tiger ) I do not need a good respiratory system for one minute but a very good one for delivering O2 over hours. So just because I can go hard for 1 min does not mean I can go good for 2 hours. The interesting part to Jack's question will become even more interesting , as we had in the last three month an incredible increase in inquires from all different areas , who are now starting to get some ideas on FaCT CLR and we will have soon a lot more centers out there searching for possible answers in a very very practical manner. | ||
| Jsasseville Member Username: Jsasseville Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2008 |
Juerg - thanks for the great reply. You are correct that we need to change from lactate tolerance workouts to something else. My question is - is the problem in the words or in the actions? We call them lactate tolerance workouts but are we training to "tolerate" something else? Does it really change what we should do for training or should we just change the description of what we call the workout? The same may be true for lactate threshold training. Is it the name of the workout that should change but the training is still effective or should we be changing the training? Using these terms like lactate threshold etc are like using the term "muscle memory". Muscles don't have brain cells so they cannot have memories. What we are really talking about is remembered feel, something that happens in the brain, not in the muscles. But the effect is the same - we do something over and over and we learn how to do it better. If we do it enough then it becomes automatic, that is, we do not have to consciously think about the movement to do it. The real question is - does the training that we have been doing to "tolerate lactate" or to "raise our lactate threshold" make us fitter or not? Or, is there something better that we should be doing to deal with whatever it is that is causing us to feel "pain" and to slow down or max out our performance? Like all great answers your answer raises more questions. You have given a great description of training plans right now. It is what we do now for training whether we train by feel, with a heart rate monitor, with a power meter or by lactate. You have given me much to think about regarding planning training programs. What most of us do right now is to plan programs that have everything in them. This is the "throw the spagetti against the wall and see what will stick" way of doing it. If we do a little of everything then something will make us fitter. As long as we don't do too much of anything then the training that doesn't make us fitter will likely not hurt us. Your concept of finding the weak links and working on them is great. The program of testing, training and testing again is what is needed. Testing the right things and having the tools to do the testing is very important. Being able to do it with a group of athletes is also the challenge that we as coaches of teams also face. There is a time and a cost element that must be taken into consideration. For me this is the future of coaching and training. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1801 Registered: 04-2006 |
As usual Jack has down to earth ( practical thoughts ) on his mind , which I think it is all what it needs and is the reason and motivation behind the years of trying to find a way of closing the gap between the practical world of coaching and science. The questions and thoughts he is sharing here are the ongoing questions I have as well and the " answers" I will try to give over a set of threads. Why a set of threads. Very simple as I have really no clear answers to his critical questions, but rather some thoughts I move around since many years. In fact it started out as far back as the mid 1980, as we started to critically ask our self questions on the value of the testing we did daily with lactate and VO2 max testing . Many test results in athletes just simply did not apply to the theory behind our explanations. That's where we started to play around with trends and ideas and later here in Canada I had and still have the luck to have a partner in Herb , who tolerates my messy brain in searching for tools and ideas to improve the tools and options the coach out in the bush can ably to have a individual programing options if he is ready to move outside the box and combines experience with "science" in a way , that it may work to every body's satisfaction. I started last night late a comment or reply to jacks questions as a kind of more questions and after 1 hour writing and reviewing the info I push ( luckily ) the wrong button for spelling check and all got deleted. Luckily . because it was far of the way I would or should have replied and I will start new today trying to use practical examples and will split it rather into sections if possible so we can have more questions and a better discussion on some of teh points I like to make, as more as there are far of what we often read and learn and may confuse not just the regular reader but as well myself again. So please give me some time , as I will try to "justify" some of the crazy ideas with some backups of tests we do here . I will make some live test today where we try and show to two clients from Cape town , how we can make one workout pushing teh cardiac system to its limit and follow it up with the same length workout but "protecting the cardiac system from overload and pushing the muscular ( metabolic system )to the limit. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1803 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here I like to start with a question to myself and all the readers. Jack writes as a real good question : "We call them lactate tolerance workouts but are we training to "tolerate" something else? Does it really change what we should do for training or should we just change the description of what we call the workout?" I think Jack is right, if it is just a wording , than it is not of lot's of values to discuss, as the wording is so inbedded in the coaching and athletes world , that the discussion just creates confusion and sounds perhaps or perhaps not somewhat intelligent or foolish. Now here my thoughts. Yes the lactate tolerance training may as well stay as it is ,or we just take lactate out and say tolerance training. We keep the same workout with a slightly different name. Now here where I would try to think somewhat different. I like to use a different example to get ride of the "lactate tolerance" Let's say it is an all out or at least a very hard workout. Example 5 hill repetitions with 90 % of max HR if the runs or bikes or skies are longer than 5 min. If the intervals are shorter I may not be able to take HR but I may take wattage speed or time. This could be for some considered "lactate tolerance workout" ???? Now let's change the idea and say we do( instead of a hard hill repeat ) a whole body workout. Upper body strength and core strength and lower body strength. The intensity here may be measured in weights or reps, but as well it is a "tolerance" training and we may work out with 90 % of the maximal ability . Would we name this as well lactate tolerance?. Now we design a circuit for this total body workout . On day one we do all body parts.( leg /core/ arms) On day two we have planned the same workout again. Problem . My legs for examples are very very sore , and there is no way I can do the same workout on Day 2 again. It would be fair to say , that I pushed , as it seems my legs, above a tolerance level and from the three body parts the legs where either the weakest part , or the workout just overloaded this body part. As a coach I may decide to leave the legs for the day 2 ,to give them a rest and keep going with core and arms. So on Day three my legs feel somewhat better but not yet recovered and additionally after two days in a row work with my arms I have now as well very sore arms. The only part , which feels still okay may be the core. This new situation may produce the decision ,that my legs will get one more day of rest from strength , my arms will get a rest day as well and I will just load my core again three days in a row, as they seem to "tolerate" more out of what ever reason. One reason could be , that their tolerance is in another % ige level than my legs or my arms, or I made a "calculation mistake with teh maximal load, or , because there are many more muscle groups involved I may be able to use teh core different and last but not least the core muscles may have a different fiber type STF versus FTF and may "tolerate the workout different, or I have no clue way . Now here the thoughts. Try to replace legs with for example: respiratory system. Core with cardiac system and arms with metabolic . muscular system. Okay ???? Now you have instead a total body circuit a "lactate tolerance" workout. Meaning you push hard and "hope " you overload or push one of the above systems ( respectively you hope to train the body to tolerate lactate better ? )or all of them over the "tolerance level "to stimulate some body reactions ( catabolic - anabolic ) Now here my problem. What is the "tolerance level" Is it 2 mmol or 4 mmol, is it 90 % of max HR, is it 105 % of VO2 max and so on. ? If I push it as "lactate tolerance" I may plan or hope , that the body "tolerates" more lactate and or at least I pushed one or any of the systems involved in this lactate tolerance workout on and above the individual system tolerance level ( homeostasis). To be sure I did this. some coaches may take lactate , others may take HR at the end, others take HR as a timing of recovery as this are easy bio markers. Now as we take lactate we may or may not be able to say any other thing after one single sample, as the intensity was hard and long enough , so that lactate was able to move into the system. The actual values have relative little meanings as one sample. The much bigger open question is? Did I overloaded ( pushed above the tolerance ) of my Legs ( respiratory system ) or my core ( cardiac system or my arms ( metabolic , muscular system. ? Most likely will be the situation , that in this "lactate tolerance" workout the "weakest system" was pushed the hardest and the most over the tolerance level. Let's now assume in that hard hill repeats the respiratory system was the limitation. Due to the "overload " of the respiratory system. the legs ( real legs ) got tired, as the limitation of the respiratory system triggered the metaboreflex. (ECGM ) and it created a vasoconstriction to the legs ( " breath less legs") which therefor change the availability of the amount of O2. Can often be checked by assessing SpO2 at the top of the hill in the 5 reps. As there is less optimal O2 delivery but the need for more ATP during the high intensity work the body will search for ATP producers , which are efficient enough to deliver the ATP needed. In this high intensity this is most likely the path over O2 independent energy production. Now as a result of this we may see in the second or third repetition different lactate values. What as well will change in the legs is teh type of muscle fibers we may recruit. If the respiratory system would be not the limitation in this case, but the muscular system we may have a different recruitment pattern. Now under no respiratory restriction we may stay by the 80 % +- effort and the majority of fibers used here is the FTF a fibers ( see Dudley's study ) As soon we may have to switch the more O2 independent energy supply ( due to the limitation of the respiratory system ) we may work now on 90 % + which changes teh pattern of recruitment and interestingly enough we loose the optimal intensity of the FTF a fibers and switch to the FTF x ( b ) fibers and what is most surprising to the STF fibers back. Now in case, where the respiration is not the limitation we will have a different outcome, than we have if teh respiration is the limitation , despite a exact same outside physical workout ( 5 hill reps. ) Most of teh coaches ( I hope I ma wrong ) would book 5 hill resp as the same workout , despite teh fact , that the outcome may be different. Now the next day your legs ( real legs ) are tired from the 5 hills but really they were not overloaded, as some of the fibers FTF a where really not pushed above the tolerance level , as they got some help from the FTF x and STF fibers due to the limitation of teh respiratory system. So you decide the next day to give the real legs a brake , when in fact the respiratory system should get the break. So you make a LSD workout , and as it is very cold out there it fits perfect in teh schedule, as you don't like to push hard under cold conditions. ( remember the respiratory problem in many cross country skiers , which may than create a problem which can be an advantage if they get a permission to go on Salbutamol or Ventolin ( see research thread ) Spo the skier is getting a warming mask with somewhat increase inspiratory resistance, which makes now out of a slow workout to save the legs and give them a rest an even harder workout for his already overloaded respiratory system. Now as the respiratory system is overloaded in that slow ( considered basic endurance ) intensity ) and you where planning to use FFA and O2 you may actually move the body to the next level O2 and glucose ( FTF a ) and you use the muscles you thought you used yesterday. You think you use STF but you don't due to the second day of overload of the respiratory system. Now to make a long story short you see, why I think doing a "lactate tolerance " or any other training , which is based on physical planning ( 5 reps , 100 kg , 200 wattage and even just on HR ) does not gives as the information needed to have control over load and recovery , but leaves us with hope and based on experience and some good feedback hopefully from an athlete. Summary. Yes "lactate tolerance " or hard workouts stress something above the "tolerance" but what and for how long is it above tolerance and what is teh recovery time. The basic idea if I train hard will make me better is only true, if there is an optimal rest period ( anabolic stage ) following the workout ( catabolic stage ). if I don't know , who got overloaded I may not get anywhere, as I may in fact get worse. Interesting is the fact , that you never hear a coach or doctor "injecting " cortisol to make you worse, they always will use testosteron to help you to build up,. Most of the allowed and not allowed drugs we use are anabolic driven substances to shorten recovery and help to rebuild. They don't make us faster as per see mostly but they help us to rebuild and recover faster and therefor allow us to train harder. So the simple fact that we use "recovery " drugs shows , that to get better you have to plan recovery. So here what I think could be teh overall picture, when we plan a workout. It shows , that teh body is a team of players and a workout does not stimulate what we often see, rather what we often not see. Just because lactate may drop by the next 5 x hill run , does not mean that I tolerate lactate better. It can mean progress in another system rather than in the lactate producing muscles.  remember that the VO2 max is the summary of the team , who uses up the O2 and in teh pic you have some of the team members we often forget , as we focus solely on the muscles only | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1804 Registered: 04-2006 |
Okay I like to try at least to put that into some pictures, instead of too many words. 1. An overall body workout as described ( upper / lower and core) will strain the whole body , but will possibly strain, if all parts theoretically would be loaded the same way foremost the weakest link will be "overloaded " the most. So any follow up workout in the same way or with the same muscle groups involved will potentially "overload " first and again the most the one , who was already after the first workout most overloaded and would need the longest recovery time to react with a positive adaptation. So over time the weakest link will either "drop " out, or if the "race " regulation needs to have the whole team at the same time over the finish line the slowest or weakest link will " drag " down the stronger team members, as they never have to push in an intensity , where they would overload. If you are a top runner and you start working out daily with your 100 p overweight neighbor and run for the next few month that speed you most likely will use performance. So a " lactate tolerance" workout really may not end in a result of better lactate tolerance but can end up in an uncontrolled overload of the weakest link becasue we are focusing on the wrong idea or name or hope what it may do. Here the idea. Your end result 5 x hill run, or your max wattage or what ever is teh result of a team apporach. The team has different members and you have to know, which member is the weakest link tio have an optimal team result. Daily pushing hard may only burn out the weakest link and therefor over time despite the very hard workout the team will be slower. Overloaded weak member and loss of performance from the strongest member due to too low work intensity .  Now in that team as you can see you have different members which may have different function at the right time, as that may be the strength of each of them at that specific time. Now the first step is to find out the team member with the weakest overall function , so he can hang on to the finish line. He may have only one function , which may be to hang on but will never be in the wind as it would slow down the team. For example your respiratory system. ( or your heart and so on ) Now once we established the weakest link we know , that in a "lactate tolerance w" workout the metabolic part is up not due to a weakness in the "metabolic situation , but due to the weakness of the respiratory system. So the next step is to see, what in the weak link : ( respiratory system ) is the weakest situation there. Is it inspiratory strength (diaphragm ) is it expiratory strength . Is it coordination between inspiration and expiration. Is it a problem , that the sport specific movement forces an inefficient respiratory pattern on the athlete. ( Rowing , double pole in cross country skiing ). So the "new team " is now your one athlete , the respiratory system. Now we do the same here in a smaller team. We assess the weakness in this team member.  aS YOU CAN SEE, THE RESPIRATORY TEAM MEMBER HAS IN ITSELF SOME AREAS, WHERE HE MAY HAVE A WEAK LINK. Is it , thathe has a too high RF , or a too low TV or a not optimal FeO2 ( based n TV or Hb ) and so on. If the limitation is the TV we may have to focus on respiratory training ( endurance. ) If the FeO2 is high and it does not drop with increasing the TV we have to check his Hb ( nutrition ( check with Mary Ann NOC Johsua Tree California) So we have as you can see in any workout , whether it has the name lactate tolerances or not or threshold training or not the same question: What is pushed to a "tolerance " level respectively above the "tolerance " level. If we do not know , which "team member" is the limiting member , than we may be suddenly up for a surprise, that 4 very strong guys will have a very poor result due to the fifth member , who work the hardest and always above his ability to recover good enough so he could actually improve, but rather got worse. In this situation all his team members had to stay with his intensity which overtime was far to low to be able to maintain their own fitness level and they started to drop down with the fitness level as well, with the difference that the weakest team member dropped due to UPS ( under-performning syndrome ) and the rest drop due to UDS ( under-developping syndrome ) The end result is a okay team with lot's of potential but bad coaching due to the fact that there was no "lactate tolerance problem in the weak link at all. Here a short practical graphic and data collection from a test we did 3 day's ago to see whether the respiratory / cardiac. metabolic or transportation system may be the limitation of this clients, as despite the fact of very hard workouts he is doing he is getting worse. I show you her a print , where you will find the limitation when you go carefully through the numbers.  | ||
| Danz Senior Member Username: Danz Post Number: 31 Registered: 08-2006 |
I think I'm writing this just to get an answer (or more questions). RF seems high at the start of the test and TV low. But I don't know because I haven't seen any other tests on this client or a ton of tests on the fitmate. Between minutes 24-26, respiratory frequency dropped (manipulated to see the result?) and then True O2 dropped as well. Now compared to the stage before that, wattage was the same but now TV is over 3L (if I'm reading correctly and doing the correct calculations) whereas in the stage prior, still same wattage the TV was under 3L. So possible limitation in respiratory system. But now as Juerg has mentioned, this just the big team member. What is the smaller team member? Inspiratory weakness? etc. Juerg? | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1805 Registered: 04-2006 |
Dan , you pretty much got the full "team picture. I did not show the cardiac assessment , as he has no cardiac limitation on the bike at all. I will show later when we go step by step over some simple ( not absolute truth ) ideas and test versions we can do as grass root coaches to find limitations in cardiac respiratory and or metabolic system. What Dan describes is pretty much what we did. There is a small correction to avoid confusion. True O2 would be the O2 we really use. We calculate True O2 by taking the O2 % in the air which is about 21 % and teh values you see in the print out the FeO2 % is the amount the client is breathing out. So as FeO2 is increasing ( closer to 21 ) as lower the true O2. Example 21 % in 18 % out so true O2 is 3 %. As lower the FeO2 as more O2 is in the body left or used. So what we did or do : We go in an intensity , where we see a lactate trend. Now if any of the ECGM ideas have some merits , than we seem to have reached in one of the team members a limitation , which forces the body to try to produce the high demand of ATP with O2 independent delivery systems. This will be visible a little bit delayed in a trend where lactate is increasing. In this case we did prior to the respiratory manipulation a " cardiac " manipulation to see, how the VO2 ( o2 demand would change. What we use is the info and change of the left ventricular work index ( we will talk more about that over the upcoming winter ) . In short the LWC index is a direct info we see on the screen and is more or less the info on MVO2 ( cardiac )s needs or use ). In patients where the doctor has to make a decision to give beta blocker , the LWC index would be a very nice tool to see, whether the medication really helps or may make the situation worse. What we would like to see is an increase in SV and therefor in CO ( cardiac out put by the same or lower HR. So by the same LCW index a better activity of the heart. Now to try to move that in the sport it would suggest , that the real progress in an athlete in cardiac work and ultimately in VO2 and performance is the ratio between MVO2 and his actual VO2. As better the ratio as more likely we can hang longer on a high intensity without "kicking " in the CG and therefor loose muscle recruitment. Same is true for the respiratory system. As you can see on the data collection . We "manipulated, resp suggested to the client to breath deep, what he did with the problem , that he had to quite immediate after 2 minutes due to "fatigue" resp as you can see increase of lactate and sever heavy legs ( sudden ). If there would be a transportation system ( Hb low we would had a very different result. ( we actually did a Hb test as well to confirm our trends. We will have in the NOC JT soon the ability to have very small point to point Hb and Hct testers and will do in the fall much more in that direction together with some simple nutritional test so we can integrate this in the FaCT CLR assessment with minimal cost. Great Job Dan yes you got it fast and easy and the next step now for us here is to design tomorrow for this client a 8 week program and than retest and see possible trends. Summary . Goal in this client is to avoid daily overload of his respiratory system on the one side and make a very specific respiratory training for the weak link in the respiratory system on the other side. | ||
| Danz Senior Member Username: Danz Post Number: 32 Registered: 08-2006 |
Juerg, based on what you've written here in a previous thread and in discussion with AndrewS I've been doing my own "grassroots" testing to try to determine my own limitation and feel that I've found it and have created some ideas for the next 6 weeks. Now a question: If a grassroots coach, using your above ideas can find what system is the limitation, can they take it a step further and determine what "player" within this system (team) is the limiter at the moment? My guess is yes for the respiratory system possibly determining whether inspiratory muscles are a problem or expiratory muscles; co-ordination problems at higher RF's; I can't figure out the transportation system problem right now. But I'm unsure about muscular/metabolic or cardiac without having access to more technology. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1806 Registered: 04-2006 |
Dan's question is great and moves us back to Jack 's initial point: Does we just rename the workout, or do we really change the workouts. To make it a very short answer. NO, I think despite all the discussions we have here, we may not see very big changes in the type of workouts. We still do LSD and still may do the 5 hill repeats and so on. I think where the change may come in with all the findings we are working on is not the workout but the ideas before and after the workout. Preparation for a workout and more important the recovery observation after a workout. I believe strongly , that the majority of the top athletes work out far too many hours and therefor get into a conflict with recovery time. This leads to "overload" reactions or, if would we look from an industrial point of view to a "RSI " repetitive strain injury. Meaning that the ongoing use and repetitive nature of an activity with too short recovery in between will rather lead to a decline in performance than to an improvement.. That's again where the "lactate threshold " training or lactate tolerance workout comes in. If we don't know , what and how we strain the body we can't actually plan a proper recovery program and we may add some very good and effective hard workouts at the wrong time to a training program. That is actually , where the experienced coach and athlete is coming in . From many years of experience and possibly mistakes ( as at least myself learn better from mistakes) we learn how to NOT train or better when to scrap a workout and relax. This is the fundamental problem in young coaches and athletes, as they are very motivated to get going and work hard and harder but sometimes we work not smarter. Changing the name of the workout : perhaps yes but more important is to asses the timing of the workout . In nutrition our specialist in California uses the term CHRONO nutrition. Meaning that the timing of food intake may be sometimes at least as important as the actual supplement or food we take. So back to Dan's question . Answer Yes, I think we are way underway to find very easy bio markers and ideas to help the grass root coach to start the FaCT CLR thinking process and over time you may like to add some more and more technology. This is actually one of the reasons , why the Level I course potentially is the most important part of the idea. The understanding of the "protocol" so you can see when and where you actually change the "protocol " to assess one or the other team member. What is the difference between "grass root " bio markers and using some more technology. In the grass root markers you always have some "insecurity " in the answer as you always see some individual variation. But I am sure it is already much more individual than any existing cook book approach. I like to make an example of a potential bio marker on SV in an average trained person. It is the LLL or lower linear limit .  This is an overlap from our own line course but I will start on the Forum to take it apart to have a better understanding on the idea this weekend and you can follow exactly the possibilities you have by understanding and reading the performance line and some possible interpretations. For the moment just look at the green and light blue line and you see a so called negative deflection. This seems to be often the case when we reach the HRV or RLX or Own zone start. If we have a positive LLL deflection , than that is not always the case, as this people seem to react instead with Heart rate more likely with Stroke volume changes. I will scan some of the tests we got from NOC Detroit and Martina Golden during her testing and you can see than how it will look on a printout. To end this part ,and as you can see why we plan this fall some " research weeks " where we sit down with some NOC center owners and just simply play with the toys and hopefully than find some more an additional ideas on how to use the trends and move it down to easier bio markers like HR, RF, SpO2 and lactate and potentially some new markers we are working on. | ||
| Jsasseville Member Username: Jsasseville Post Number: 12 Registered: 11-2008 |
Thank you for the responses. I think that now we are talking about a process that can help athletes and coaches to take the science and use it properly in planning and application of training. As I see it this process is: 1. Test to find the weaknesses. 2. Plan and do training to work on the weaknesses while at the same time maintaining the strengths. 3. Test to see changes and/or to find the next weaknesses. 4. Train 5. Test again. ETC ETC For the coaches in the field, especially for those in xc skiing, the ability to test is really limited by a lack of testing apparatus, protocols that work, knowing what and when to test. for many, once they know the weaknesses they have the tools to design and implement the proper training. But they have little idea if what they are doing works. So they continue to do a little bit of everything and hope it works. This is why there is too much training most of the time. We really don't know what is working or what the weaknesses are in an athlete so we proscribe every form of training and hope they get better and not worse. It is only when we get to the racing season that we know if it has worked or not. If it has not worked then by that time it is usually too late. If I had a way to test skiers that was not too expensive and relatively easy to do then I know that I would have faster skiers. This is what I am looking for. Until then I can only use field tests that simulate xc skiing to see if they are getting faster. I don't really know what part of their training has made them faster or slower, though and I really cannot, from these field tests tell them what they should do next - at least not based on what the tests have told me. This is what I have always thought was the weakness that we had with all of the physiologists that I worked with while with the National Ski Team. They could all tell me what the results were from previous training but none of them could help me to plan the future training based on the testing that they had done on the skiers. I look forward to a testing protocol that will tell me both. | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 269 Registered: 04-2006 |
Interesting that you mention XC skiing. We have been working with the coaches in the Okanagan for the past couple of years, and in particular the coaches at Sovereign and Larch Hills to provide them with exactly what you are looking for...simple, easy to perform testing protocols that can help assess the wekest link in the system. Of course, this is not new...Juerg was doing this at Silverstar 20 years ago, when he first developed LBP testing. And it has only taken the "high performance" staff 20 years to consider offering the same testing to their athletes. It has been a pleasure working with Darren Derochie, who Juerg will remember from years ago, and who is willing to challenge the "old school" mentality, and approach his coaching from a different perspective. It makes for some fun debates, as his "job" still requires that his young athletes perform well, while my job is simply to support their long-term development. It is nice for me, as I get to explain that how they race this year doesn't really matter to me, as it may be 3-5 years before our crazy ideas will lead to the success they are looking for. Of course, they keep proving us wrong, by competing well beyond what we thought they should be capable of, considering all the weaknesses we keep identifying. There are now 8 cross country skiers in Vernon/Kelowna/Salmon Arm committed to using the basic FaCT principles in their training plans, with Darren directing the program, and FaCT-Education supporting them with ongoing testing, both on and off the hill. To date, nearly every athlete has shown a tremendous weakness in respiratory conditioning, and have therefore begun some specific training programs with Spiro-Tiger. We will be reassessing them again at the end of October, to see how the program has helped, and whether we can make any specific recommendations for the beginning of the winter season. So, yes Jack, Juerg has given skiers a system that is "not too expensive and relatively easy"easy to perform, as you were looking for. He was using it 20 years ago, and we continue to use it with our group in the Okanagan. I presume you will be using it wherever you are also, if you have not already. I welcome you to join us at Sovereign/Silverstar if you are in the area so we cna give some real-time examples of the testing in practice. | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1807 Registered: 04-2006 |
Thanks for that nice feedback from Jack and Andrew. I fully can see Jack's point as I worked over many years in this situations. This is one of the motivations for me to try to find a simple , but still effective way of moving all this testing with this tools into the field. There are two ways I look for. 1. the high performance group , where money get used for many ideas with little effect in some cases. I see in our camps in Europe athletes spending 8 - 10'000 dollar on anew bike every season , but no penny to actually get an assessment done to see the real equipment and understand how the real equipment works, which is their own body. A 8'000 dollar fit Mate is no expense for a pro athlete and his coach , nor is a 16.000 physio flow, when you know you will use that tool sometimes daily over the next 6 - 10 years. So here I have or see very little excuse of not being able to do what we explain here. 2. The bigger group is the often at least as dedicated group of volunteer coaches or coaches in the development areas, where much of the basic for a successful active life style is set with heaving fun , learn discipline towards their own body and even learn how the own body may actually work. Jack works so great in that area and this are the coaches with years of experience and dedication , where some simple and cost effective ideas will make a big difference for us in FaCT , as we get positive feedback and critics from this which helps us to go ahead and find more possible ideas to transfer science into the field. I like to kind of finish here the initial thoughts started by jack to "close" the idea and than start exactly back on his idea on looking for very simple test ideas on snow for skiers, but as well for other outdoor sports. Here the "finishing line of the TEAM work. Above I tried to show , that maximal efforts like Max wattage , and when we go to the filed the points Jack made, Time trials or actual races are great to see the TEAM working . If the result is great we are happy , if not we are somewhat lost , as we don't know who was the weak link in the TEAM I showed you one possibility on the respiratory side. I like to show here a picture from one of the very important TEAM players , the cardiac system and will just very brief explain how the TEAM member heart in itself may have some stronger and or weaker links and how different training intervention can influence this weakest links in positive and or in negative way. So here the TEAM member Heart .  There are two intriguing point I learned over the last year by playing with the Physio Flow. The idea , that heart rate alone is a great tool for a workout has to be set into the full context of the cardiac ability . Yes don't get me wrong , a heart rate monitor is an incredible good tool as a physiological bio marker to use physiological zoning . But as everything it is just one small window. HR may have to be brought much more often into combination with performance , respiration , SpO2 sats and so on . we will show that later on how we may combine different ideas. Here very brief the point in some practical ideas. 1. A higher HR does not always mean a higher Cardiac work. The cardiac output as the product of stroke volume x heart rate can in fact drop , as the HR may go up and the stroke volume may be dropping. In healthy athletes that can be the case under different conditions like heat, dehydration, but even more interesting is it under race or mental stress. I hope that Yvon may one day show us some new ideas on that. We actually had some test , where the stroke volume was relative high at the beginning , but HR low and during the increase in performance the stroke volume dropped and the HR went up . I like to show you here the graph ( thanks to NOC Detroiot and Martina Golden )  HR on the bottom , left is in ml SV and right in L/min CO Now the most interesting part is , when we actually go and watch for the cardiac work , which is measured as left ventricular work index. Thta's when we can see, that with a higher or the same HR the heart sometimes actually works les. Here a test from 2 days ago done by NOC Capetown group of JJ Leroux. This is the printout , where we tried to actually in the upper one , stress the cardiac system without stressing to hard the respiratory system and or the muscular system. The lower line is than a workout , where we tried to reduce the cardiac stress but overloading the muscular system. As a practical application this could be helpful after a race, where we may have overloaded the cardiac system , or after a "cardiac workout" so the next day we give the heart a break but we may like to stress the team member muscular system. As you can see on the LCW index it worked to our won surprise nearly to good and now we have to try to repeat that over and over again to be sure it was not a fluke. The training was actually as you can see a three minute step training like the first part of a FaCT. The reason is simple. We where wondering , whether the LBP is by the same LWCindex. If it would be , than the heart my be the limiting factor. If not , than the limitation may be in the upper workout on another system , than the lower workout. } | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1808 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here the print from the two different workouts. Sorry was not enough capacity on that thread.  But now let's go to a very practical idea and see whether I can get that idea over so readers can use it perhaps. I like to move that part on the FaCT testing forum , as it is a part of the basic idea on FaCT HL ( heart rate and lactate. Here the print so you have to connection easier.  | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 271 Registered: 04-2006 |
Just to clarify...on the HR/SV curve from the post on Aug 27, 6:48pm, do we see a steady decreasing stroke volume throughout the step test from HR 80 to HR 150 along the bottom line, but then see a dramatic INCREASE in stroke volume at that same HR, and sustained over the next 5 intervals? If I am interpreting this correctly, you changed something dramatically to force the heart to either expand to a larger EDV, or to improve ejection fraction. In either case, the logical intervention would have been to alter breathing pattern, or possibly cadence. As you know, we have xperimented with these ideas, but don;t have the physioflow data to back up our perceieved feelings, and simple biomarkers of lactate trends and VO2. The question I have, is could you please tell us which type of breathing pattern, or other intervention changed the stroke volume so dramatically? I realize this is new information, and may not have the same affect with other athletes, but what interests me more is to see once again, whether if we intervene in a similar manner, can we use our simple biomarkers that we have access to, to give us some idea whether we will have the same affect on cardiac dynamics. By the way, I assume you took lactate samples through the second portion of the test, and would expect that with the dramatic increase in Q, that lactate may have in fact dropped despite the small rise in HR. Just my theory... | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 1812 Registered: 04-2006 |
First to the clarification. Yes: the interesting part is the area where the client was at a HR of 140 + You can see that the SV was from slightly above 60 ml than to 80 and finally by pretty much the same HR up to 125 + ml. Meaning in this case, that a HR 140 + really is not always the same cardiac work, as the SV changes and therefor the CO ( cardiac output as well. Second . Yes at the HR of 150 at the first time we where above LBP in that action and the lactate was above 6.4 Following the change in muscle activity ( we did not alter the respiration at all at least not voluntarily but I was not even checking that yet but will check the Fit mate info and will post here the respiration in this specific situation.) The lactate in the increase SV situation in fact dropped very rapidly and to a level below 2 mmol and than towards the end increased again to above 6 mmol. What we try for the moment and I made another case study the same way in another person is the change in muscle activities due to different muscle chain activation. I am not clear yet , whether we have a pattern here an we need some more cases . We will possibly do a week in California with some people and see on different sports the possible trends or not. What is the goal. It is the crazy idea , that I may try to find a way to be able to decide, which system I like to overload and in the same time be able to recover another ( at that moment overloaded system. The above example was a tryout for this idea. Can I keep the SV down but still for example stress my muscular system. Or can I stress the heart ( cardiac system ) but recover for example my legs. Or can I stress the respiratory system but avoiding a strain on the cardiac system. For me this is a dream , as I would be able to stress a cardiac patient relative early after a heart attack on systems like muscular system and or respiratory system without stressing the in recovery mode placed heart. Or in an athlete I may have a sever muscle overload from a down hill run ( eccentric ) but I like to keep the respiratory system going and in fact may even like to do an acidic workout but like to avoid using his legs. Or I see, that the heart is the limitation but I still like to push his muscular situation above muscular tolerance but like to avoid cardiac overload for that moment. We need another I hope 6 - 12 month and I hope this fall to be able to start with 3 athletes a specific program with the goal 2012 . It needs some courage and some information to trust an try the prototype and we will see after 2 years as it may take that long to change some structural idea to be sure there is a structural change. | ||
| Jsasseville Member Username: Jsasseville Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2008 |
Andrew - I was lucky to meet and talk to Juerg many years ago in Silver Star and have been using LBP testing with my athletes for many years. We use it to test regularly along with a battery of field tests. We also use LBP testing to set training zones to control skiing. We are certainly very different than what is happening in the rest of the xc skiing world, both in Canada and abroad. There you will still find lots of talk about lactate threshold, aerobic threshold, lactate tolerance VO2 max and its importance and that lactate is your enemy. I don't think that this is too different than in most mainstream aerobic sports like running, cycling and triathlon as most of what I read in the popular literature still refers to these terms and concepts. I have integrated Juerg's work into what we do for training for many years along with work from Helgerud on intensity blocks and stroke volume and what we learn from researchers in Scandinavia as it relates to xc skiing. I also have, third hand information on what Dave Smith is doing with athletes at the U of C. Over the years we have been very successful using LBP testing, but I would like to take the next step and I have been trying to decide for a year or so where to go to next. Is it physioflow or spiro-tiger or what? We have almost 50 skiers here that we test on a regular basis so something that we can do as a group is always better for us. So Andrew, what tests do you do on the skiers there? | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 272 Registered: 04-2006 |
Jack, I knew you had extensive experience with skiers, and a history with Juerg, so I was surprised when you quoted that you were still searching for "simple easy to use testing protocols..." We use a number of different tests with the skiers we help, but all are based on Juerg's basic HL FaCT protocol. We add respiratory assssment to this as part of our Level II testing, which makes use of the Bioharness to help assess functional limitations in breathing patterns, and then use Fitmate in addition, to help identify both structural and functional limitations during exercise. We have been using Spiro-Tiger successfully to overcome a number of athlete's "medical" issues, who have been diagnozed with everything form asthma, and GERD, to paroxysmal vocal cord paralysis. In each case, the doctors did not recognize the extreme weakness of the respiratory system in these athletes, and with some basic training techniques, we were able to solve this issue fairly quickly, and certainly without the need for prescription medication. These of course are all individual tests, though we often run our testing in groups to save both time and expense of setting up. You obviously have experience with the field tests that Juerg describes, and we make use of both treadmills and cycle ergometers to help with more reliable reproduceable physiologic step tests. We do the step tests with the knowledge that these "lab" results do not give a prediction of how an athlete will perform on skis, but do give an excellent opportunity to see how the different systems work at different intensities, and also a chance for the athlete to work under controlled circumstances, where we can discuss different breathing patterns etc., and watch how it impacts the physiological parameters. I don't know where you are located, but perhaps we can invite you to join us at one of the Level II/III Certification Courses that we are offering this year, where we would certainly enjoy hearing more about your experiences with LBP testing and practical applications, and where we might be able to share more information on how to apply these newer measurement techniques to what you are already doing. Certainly, the Physioflow will be an incredible addition to the program, and as we plan our future courses, we hope to include this as a key component to our Level IV curriculum. It will take some time for us to develop this, as we still do not have a unit in our possession to work with on a daily basis, though we are partnering with some medical staff in Kelowna who are interested in supporting this project. If you are coming out West for any early season skiing, we would be happy to have you join us for some testing. www.fact-education.com |