| Author | Message | |||
     Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2461 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here to share some info's on the difference in SV.As we approach now the 200 test marks we are closer to see trends, that classical ideas on SV may have been rewritten or at least have to be opened for discussion. Problem. Many of the existing research are based on very small numbers but collected from accepted institutions. Nevertheless I like to see some studies coming up now with numbers we have before we just simply go with statistical results and speculative conclusions. The beauty of some of the following data's. They are not collected from us we just assisted in their work in running the equipment properly and there are done by a University in Quebec. Here a simple example, where we believe the weak link is the cardiac system and we can see that from our ideas in the step test as well as in the practical application in a bike run test. Here for you to make your own conclusion.   | |||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2462 Registered: 04-2006 |
here two other tests , where we believe ( test ) that the cardiac system is the limitation.   | |||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2463 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here a comparison of two bike test with very different SV by same intensities. HR , SV and CO  and second 2 test in running with same speeds and different outcomes. HR SV and CO  | |||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 371 Registered: 04-2006 |
Can you give us a little more information? On the first "step test" did the athlete increase wattage, or was wattage kept stable from the 10 minute mark to the 30 minute mark? If indeed it was a step test, than we see a "plateau" in SV on the bike, with a higher stroke volume running that could not be sustained. And this is where I presume your cardiac limitation conclusion is drawn. | |||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 372 Registered: 04-2006 |
On the first comparison test just posted: It is clear the higher CO for Feldmann is derived form both a higher HR and a higher SV, which results in very high cardiac output numbers when comared to Courtney. My question is: Why would the Feldmann subject require such a dramatically higher CO for the same intensity? Is it a coordination issue on the bike, or simply a matter of requiring more oxygen to supply the well-trained oxygen dependent pathways. It is also a shame we do not have Feldmann recovery data to see how the cardiac parameters recovered compared to Courtney. | |||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2464 Registered: 04-2006 |
Ohh the same pics here again the first example:   Okay here is the test ,lower pic and you can see the change in SV at the end. This was a real all out VO2 max test to complete exhaustion. Then they designed an interval 30 min workout based on VO2 max % followed by a 85 % VO2 max run section. We believed from the first test , that the cardiac system is limiter and using VO2 max % and wattage based on VO2 max test and calculation of intensity based on this will not work. The load would be far too high as the heart struggled far before the vo2 MAX WATTAGE VALUES. The results shows a 85 % RUN which should be no problem to do, but there was a complete collapse on SV as you can see, with actually visual extra systolic reaction in the last 5 minutes of the workout. Different ideas of training and testing . One is an institutional backed up idea and one is just simply our bush pilot fun games. | |||
| Holman325 Senior Member Username: Holman325 Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2009 |
Thought here Juerg, or maybe observation to check my FaCT brain. 1.) Training intensity on the lower pic, to sitmulate stoke volume development is the most consistant and steady output. For reference on that graphic, ~220w @ about the 27min time frame. My rationale for that is this. Cardiac data / stimulation after that approximate point then becomes slightly inconsistent, and begins a general trend downwards. Where does this intensity correlate with LBP? I'm sure that you were holding that part back. Although you did say that this was a VO2 MAX to exhaustion. 2.) What was the Run intensity after the transistion in the top graphic? What was it based on, HR for the run / Speed??? 3.)Obviously my ignorance with seeing the graphics is affecting my understanding of what I am looking at but it is getting better with seeing these more now. Great case Studies. 4.) I have an idea right now in my head with an athlete who attempts to do some intervals right now @ LBP-5. Claims are that they cannot elevate HR above LBP-10. We are using this -1 prescription as it is our only field repeatable guage at this time, save wattage, but that is not accessible with them as of yet. Would be interesting to see what is going on cardiac structure/function wise. Will be speaking with SF about getting this athlete in to "play w/ Physioflow. 5.) How important is landmarking and lead placement, and consistency of the placement with landmarks? I would imagine repeatablility issues may occur from assessment to assessment. I really wish I could attend Cali, but will consider your other option. Slow night here at work  Unlike last night! I like being a bush pilot, and not a cookie stamper!  P.S. Andrew and Juerg I have a development potential for WE-Search and I,II,III courses. follow up with an email Sunday evening.  | |||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2465 Registered: 04-2006 |
the intensities they choose are based like always on VO2 max test and from there on the performance . In cycling on wattage , in running on speed. There is no other way as they use above 1% VO2 intensities for the interval. So as there is no such thing like 120 % VO2 they use the wattage of the 100 % VO2 and than calculate top the 120 %. Repeatable values less dependent onason electrode placement. There where a few independent studies done with exactly this question. The error is in the range of +- 3 % and is therefor even better than the VO2 ERROR WHICH IS 5 % +- AND IS ACCEPTED. same AS WITH ANY OTHER KIND OF LAB TEST . so ELECTRODE PLACMENT IS LESS A PROBLEM FOR THE ACCURACY THAN MUCH MORE FOR THE PROBLEM THAT WE MAY USE CONATCT , BECAUSE THEY ARE PLACED ON MUSCLES, USED IN THE TESTED SPORT. Example in cycling avoid the sternocleidomastoideus. Or black neutral EKG not on the pectoralis in rowing but on the sternum center and so on. So repeatable very easy. I have test from myself now with over 4oo test. 100 where for nothing as I made many mistakes with electrode stability and or skin preparation. 100 + where not good as we had to get rid of many other problems and with the guys from Manatec we have an incredible group of people ready to accept ideas and change what we need to have to change. From the over 150 tests on myself I had difference in resting levels of +0- 2 % and in biking on the same wattage a difference of +- 3 % if I thought I was the same hydrated and the same recovered. It is very reliable and on the other side we have very great feedback info during workouts. Last but not least I will show here a test we did yesterday with a limitation of teh cardiac system and what the client really will see at the end.
| |||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2467 Registered: 04-2006 |
John the lower data where you see a SV trend downwards in the above last yellow graph is actually a " warm up till the first line , where you see the wattage and than a VO2 max test with 3 min steps and 30 watt increase. As you where reading correct, there is in fact a drop in SV as higher the Wattage go. As teh HR graph shows just a steady increase in HR but a drop in SV produced in fact a plateau in cardiac output. The interesting part is , that it was at the same point as they declared a plateau of VO2 max. ( Which was actually true.) The classical conclusion than was, that the leg muscles just simply can't concert more O2. Which may be true as well. But the question is why ? Is it the limitation of the mitochondria or vascularization of this athletes legs or is it the CGM ( Noakes ) where the Cardiac system just simply has to protect itself and therefor reduces recruitment in the legs so they simply have no other choice, then try to survive somehow for a moment by going over to O2 independent energy production. Now here is a fundamental difference we have. They start now to work very hard workouts to improve this situation. One example of the hard workout is the other printout. The idea was to really push hard interval as you can see with short recovery and hard push above 125 VO2 max and than follow with a "controlled" race pace of 85 % running speed from a Running VO2 max test. The rest is up to discussion and the printout may indicate some different picture , than a limitation from the legs. . Andri and myself will go through all the datas from this test and see, what trends we may come up with. The fundamental difference in teh training philosophy is, that they believe you have to stress the body above VO2 max. We believe VO2 max is the picture of the whole team and in this team is a very weak team member and if we always push above VO2 max always the same team member will be stress and finally will actually fail. Our idea is to recognize the weak link and than design workouts to maintain the stronger members by challenging them with out overloading the weak link. Taking Max values never will produce from our point of view an optimal situation for the weakest link. Just some simple thoughts from the north . | |||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2468 Registered: 04-2006 |
To the graphs with two people on it some info in general. The first one with C and F. Two young people. one 32 and heavy into biking ( Tour de Rockies ) the other 24 and now endurance sport just multi sport from rock climbing to MTB to swimming to basketball but nothing organized at all. The second one a Iron man athlete above 40 and a young health athlete just 20 using different sport activities to control his diabetes I problem and planning the activity based on this and his blood values. C and F was biking and the lower was running on a treadmill with 1 % incline. |
