My Spirotiger just arrived this past week and I've yet to really test it out. What is the Spirotiger? It's a respiratory system training device. Sure, it's much more expensive than other training devices such as the Powerbreathe ($40), or Powerlung ($140), but this is the first true trainer that is meant to train your respiratory system in a very endurance-sport specific way.
When performing supplementary respiratory training (i.e. not when you are running or swimming or cycling), you want to be able to maintain a respiratory frequency and tidal volume that is quite intense. However, if you decide to do this without breathing into a bag (breathing your own CO2), you will end up hyperventilating.
How it works
To prevent this, the Spirotiger has a built-in breathing bag that lets you work your respiratory muscles hard (as if you were running a 5k or 10k running race), but you breathe a bit of your own carbon dioxide, which allows you to not flood your bloodstream with excess oxygen.
In addition to the Spirotiger, I also purchased a Spirometer to measure FEV1 and FEV6 (forced expiratory volume in 1 sec and 6 secs), which allows me to keep track of my progress with the Spirotiger.
I also purchased a finger pulse oximeter, which allows you to monitor the SpO2 % (or Oxygen that is saturated in your haemoglobin) to ensure that you're getting enough oxygen whilst using the Spirotiger.
A full review will come later... here's what it looks like:
http://crazymotion.net/spirotiger-appliance/wpym_yN6OXYkjAy.html
No, the girl does not come with it!!!!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Runaway Train
Goodbye
Your pocket full of dreams
Your mind in a daze
Keep on chasing rainbows
Fly high
Leave the past behind
The dark road you take bears no escape
Your pocket full of dreams
Your mind in a daze
Keep on chasing rainbows
Fly high
Leave the past behind
The dark road you take bears no escape
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
All the most useful information
VO2 Max
When people use a metabolic cart to test VO2 max, they tend to leave the test with just one piece of data - their VO2 max test. Many people dread the test, because it pushes you to exhaustion, and many people rarely have the ability to get to the point where they cannot take another possible step.
I wasn't really interested in the final VO2 number, which purportedly tells you how fit you are, by determining just how much oxygen you can actually use in your body. However, I have several problems with VO2 measures. Most of which is discussed capably by the author of the following link:
1) The black upward sloping line at the beginning – this is the point where I assume the body is getting warmed up. As I started from “cold turkey”, the body is producing the energy (ATP) through the oxygen independent mechanism. It is not using the oxygen as efficiently as it should despite the low intensity. I think that this portion, I was running nearly 10:00 per mile at the beginning and slightly faster toward the end (maybe about 9:00/mile).
2) The first red trend line appears as though there is some sort of “steady state” reached. These points are well below my LBP HR of 167, which was determined through FaCT LBP analysis in December.
3) Now, once we cross the 170 range in the performance ramp-up, you can tell that the FeO2 increases quite a bit, which shows that expired oxygen is increasing as a percentage of total air exhaled. I would surmise that this is because we have crossed into the production of ATP that is mostly oxygen independent. As a result, any inspired oxygen isn’t being extracted to the muscles and is being exhaled again.
4) Once I reached my peak, I dropped the speed down to where it was at the start. Notice how my body goes into O2 dependent ATP refuelling stage – i.e. the downward sloping line. I wanted to walk very badly, but, I tolerated the “pain” and within minutes, my breathing and my legs felt better, and I did not need to walk.
5) Once again, there is another trend line that shows this “steady state”. I believe at this point, oxygen is used very efficiently, relative to all the other intensities I was running at. Note how FeO2 trendline is slightly lower than the FeO2 from before.
6) Again, once we get into the higher HR ranges, the 170 ish range, the FeO2 slopes upward noticeably again.
So this confirms two things for me: I have found my BI-STF-G (basic slow intensity fibre-glucose) zone, and I have found my FTF-G zone (fast twitch fibre zone). Also, that the original LBP test that I did with Absolute Endurance was BULLSHIT, and the second LBP test I did with Rick Choy was absolutely perfect.
Some issues for discussion:
- Why did the TV peak so early? What implications does this have on my training plan and program?
- Does this imply a respiratory system limiter? An inability to deliver oxygen from the very beginning point of entry? Is this a structural or functional limiter? How can I tell? If it's structural, it implies that my diaphragm and intercostals aren't as strong as they could be. However, if it's functional, does it imply that the amount of oxygen that is binding with the blood supply in my lungs is limited, and therefore TV did not need to be that big to support the oxygen inflow? (Don't forget, 21% of air is oxygen)
- If we are always only as good as our limiter (our bottleneck), should I always train with the view that I do not over fatigue the limiter?
When people use a metabolic cart to test VO2 max, they tend to leave the test with just one piece of data - their VO2 max test. Many people dread the test, because it pushes you to exhaustion, and many people rarely have the ability to get to the point where they cannot take another possible step.However, I did the testing with a stark determination to get the information I needed. As a result, the test took nearly 3x as long as the normal protocol that this laboratory runs.
I wasn't really interested in the final VO2 number, which purportedly tells you how fit you are, by determining just how much oxygen you can actually use in your body. However, I have several problems with VO2 measures. Most of which is discussed capably by the author of the following link:Then what the hell was the test for?
I have been participating, with vigourous passion, in the Feldmann and Chlebek Testing System Forums. And I have been understanding some basic human physiology from an alternative angle. DISCLAIMER: all of you PhDs and MSc students in established universities will probably think I am crazy, but that's okay.
The Purpose:
So, the test that I performed with the Metabolic Cart was to examine the reaction of my respiratory system to increasing loads of exercise. Specifically, I wanted to see
1) How the depth of my breathing (Tidal Volume, TV), the rapidity of my breathing (Respiration Frequency, RF) changes as exercise got progressively more intense.
2) The rate of utilization of the oxygen (as measured by FeO2, fraction of air that is expired oxygen, i.e. oxygen that was not absorbed). This is an important measure, because it indicates when oxygen is no longer absorbed anymore by your muscles, and when your muscles move into a state of energy production that is independent of oxygen. (Commonly termed "anaerobic" by classical exercise physiologists).
The Procedure:
Initial pace: 9.5 kph
Step duration: 3 minutes 30 seconds (00:03:30)
Step increment: 0.5 kph
Once I reach a subjective "oh damn, this hurts, I cannot go any further", I turn the speed back down to the original speed. And then perform a second ramp-up back to the lactate balance point reference heart rate (LBP HR). The second ramp-up helps to confirm the findings in the first portion of the test.
The Results:
The following diagram plots RF and TV versus time:
Notice how Tidal Volume peaks very early into the first ramp up. This is very, very peculiar. I was running a very slow pace - around 6.8 mph or so. Compared to my half marathon pace of 8.6 mph, which is closer to 2/3rds into the exercise session (just before the second ramp-up).
Meanwhile, to support the constant flow of air, Respiration Frequency naturally has to increase. Think of it like this:
Ventilation (Air Supply) = Respiration Frequency x Tidal Volume
Litres per minute of Air Supplied = Number of breaths per minute x Volume of air per breath
If Ventilation keeps increasing (you need to get rid of increasing amounts of CO2 being produced from exercise), then either TV or RF needs to increase. In this case, TV actually starts to decrease and RF has to overcompensate. This is manifested physically in the form of weak, shallow breathing patterns that mimic panting. And this is exactly what I found to be problematic in some of my recent races. A lack of ability to get the air I need (or more likely, a lack of ability to intake oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide quickly enough)
The following diagram, meanwhile, plots FeO2 versus HR. Heart rate, in this instance, is roughly a function of time. Here are my thoughts on this:
1) The black upward sloping line at the beginning – this is the point where I assume the body is getting warmed up. As I started from “cold turkey”, the body is producing the energy (ATP) through the oxygen independent mechanism. It is not using the oxygen as efficiently as it should despite the low intensity. I think that this portion, I was running nearly 10:00 per mile at the beginning and slightly faster toward the end (maybe about 9:00/mile).2) The first red trend line appears as though there is some sort of “steady state” reached. These points are well below my LBP HR of 167, which was determined through FaCT LBP analysis in December.
3) Now, once we cross the 170 range in the performance ramp-up, you can tell that the FeO2 increases quite a bit, which shows that expired oxygen is increasing as a percentage of total air exhaled. I would surmise that this is because we have crossed into the production of ATP that is mostly oxygen independent. As a result, any inspired oxygen isn’t being extracted to the muscles and is being exhaled again.
4) Once I reached my peak, I dropped the speed down to where it was at the start. Notice how my body goes into O2 dependent ATP refuelling stage – i.e. the downward sloping line. I wanted to walk very badly, but, I tolerated the “pain” and within minutes, my breathing and my legs felt better, and I did not need to walk.
5) Once again, there is another trend line that shows this “steady state”. I believe at this point, oxygen is used very efficiently, relative to all the other intensities I was running at. Note how FeO2 trendline is slightly lower than the FeO2 from before.
6) Again, once we get into the higher HR ranges, the 170 ish range, the FeO2 slopes upward noticeably again.
So this confirms two things for me: I have found my BI-STF-G (basic slow intensity fibre-glucose) zone, and I have found my FTF-G zone (fast twitch fibre zone). Also, that the original LBP test that I did with Absolute Endurance was BULLSHIT, and the second LBP test I did with Rick Choy was absolutely perfect.
Some issues for discussion:
- Why did the TV peak so early? What implications does this have on my training plan and program?
- Does this imply a respiratory system limiter? An inability to deliver oxygen from the very beginning point of entry? Is this a structural or functional limiter? How can I tell? If it's structural, it implies that my diaphragm and intercostals aren't as strong as they could be. However, if it's functional, does it imply that the amount of oxygen that is binding with the blood supply in my lungs is limited, and therefore TV did not need to be that big to support the oxygen inflow? (Don't forget, 21% of air is oxygen)
- If we are always only as good as our limiter (our bottleneck), should I always train with the view that I do not over fatigue the limiter?
And full disclosure:
- I am not an exercise physiologist.
- I do this purely based out of interest and identifying my personal limiters
- My relative VO2 max is 60.7 ml/kg/min for those who were curious.
Would I have done anything differently in the test?
- Yes, I would - I would have tried to elongate the warmup so that I can find my BI-STF zone, when FeO2 returns to normal at the beginning stage, so that it is not upward sloping.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Rethinking current exercise physiology paradigms.
From someone I highly respect:
1.In case of existence of a CGM ( Noakes ) or ECGM (FaCT ) we would have very simply put 3 main situations where LBP may be influenced. a) In a "normal" helthy developping person , there may be a natural balance in developping respiratory systems , cardiac ability and metabolic extremity muscle development. This natural unique situation may lead to the point , where in a gradual step test the timing , where one of the systems ( heart , respiratory , extremity ) will reach a critical intensity of oxygen dependent energy production will be +0- at the same time. This gives us than the idea, that VT ( ventilatory threshold, CTT or cardiac threshold , and the non existing Lactat threshold as traditionally though for the extremity muscle are all reaching the limitation at the same time. b) There may be a real limitation of the respiratory system ( COPD ) or a simple cold in a normally healthy person. Now we will reach the VT first. So the respiratory system will have a limitation to move O2 into the blood and therefor to the heart and the extremity muscles. This reduced ability of the needed O2 supply will lead to a change in the VT as the first limitation , thna to a change ( less O2 available for the extremity and the heart , but the heart could beat stronger and faster, if it had more O2 , but now due to the lack of O2 it will kick in the CGM and the recruitment of the legmuscles will drop and therefor we will have a shift from FFA to glucose/ pyruvate - lactate- oxygen independent ATP prodcution , as ATP demand overrules the O2 delivery or ATP production with O2 = reaction + increase of lactate in the system . = decrease of LBP in a test. c) Respiratory syetm is good, but the caridac system is "fatigued" or we simply reach a limitation in SV and EF % and therefor the CO only can increase over HR. For us that could be potentially the CYY 9FaCT terminology ) for cardiac contraction time which is the result of HR x LVET . We use 30 seconds as a potential limitation, as over 30 sec. contraction time the filling of the coronary arteirwes is shorter so supply and demand of O2 may perhaps go out of balance. If this is the case, than again CGM will kick in with the now well known reactions and the lactate as a Bio marker of changes needed in the energy production in the extremity muscles due to the ATP demand and supply problem.
1.In case of existence of a CGM ( Noakes ) or ECGM (FaCT ) we would have very simply put 3 main situations where LBP may be influenced. a) In a "normal" helthy developping person , there may be a natural balance in developping respiratory systems , cardiac ability and metabolic extremity muscle development. This natural unique situation may lead to the point , where in a gradual step test the timing , where one of the systems ( heart , respiratory , extremity ) will reach a critical intensity of oxygen dependent energy production will be +0- at the same time. This gives us than the idea, that VT ( ventilatory threshold, CTT or cardiac threshold , and the non existing Lactat threshold as traditionally though for the extremity muscle are all reaching the limitation at the same time. b) There may be a real limitation of the respiratory system ( COPD ) or a simple cold in a normally healthy person. Now we will reach the VT first. So the respiratory system will have a limitation to move O2 into the blood and therefor to the heart and the extremity muscles. This reduced ability of the needed O2 supply will lead to a change in the VT as the first limitation , thna to a change ( less O2 available for the extremity and the heart , but the heart could beat stronger and faster, if it had more O2 , but now due to the lack of O2 it will kick in the CGM and the recruitment of the legmuscles will drop and therefor we will have a shift from FFA to glucose/ pyruvate - lactate- oxygen independent ATP prodcution , as ATP demand overrules the O2 delivery or ATP production with O2 = reaction + increase of lactate in the system . = decrease of LBP in a test. c) Respiratory syetm is good, but the caridac system is "fatigued" or we simply reach a limitation in SV and EF % and therefor the CO only can increase over HR. For us that could be potentially the CYY 9FaCT terminology ) for cardiac contraction time which is the result of HR x LVET . We use 30 seconds as a potential limitation, as over 30 sec. contraction time the filling of the coronary arteirwes is shorter so supply and demand of O2 may perhaps go out of balance. If this is the case, than again CGM will kick in with the now well known reactions and the lactate as a Bio marker of changes needed in the energy production in the extremity muscles due to the ATP demand and supply problem.
Heart rate training ... or not
For years, I have been using heart rate training, thinking it's the be-all and end-all of guiding intensity through workouts. Of course, we are told the same stuff, that there will be day-to-day variation of heart rate levels for a given intensity because of dehydration (how thick your blood is).
Rethinking Heart Rate
You obviously run, ride, or swim if you're reading my blog. Or you're a secret AK fan. Haha. Whatever the reason is, let me throw a question out there:
Have you ever thought that everything that you have been taught regarding heart rate training is a complete lie?
If you haven't closed the browser window yet... read on.
Cardiac Output, not Heart Rate
If you've taken Phys Ed, you might know this equation:
Cardiac Output (CO) = Stroke Volume (SV) x Heart Rate (HR)
Where,
CO = litres of blood pumped per minute
SV = volume of blood pumped per beat
HR = beats per minute
It has been argued that cardiac output is the most important determinant of exercise. The higher the cardiac output, the better one's physical performance. Think about it like this - if we assume the oxygenation of the blood is consistent throughout the day (which it isn't, but since science likes to hold variables constant, we shall assume this), then for a given level of cardiac output, you are delivering x L/min of blood to your muscles for use. (Of course, another assumption is that we assume the muscles are able to make use of the oxygen at the same rate, day after day... which is not the case)
Increasing Cardiac Output:
If you increase cardiac output, it might mean that there is greater oxygen demand by your muscles (extremities, or respiratory). So, you can induce a higher cardiac output by beating your heart faster. But what about if you increase stroke volume? I.e. the amount of blood pumped per beat? Yes, that means your heart muscles are getting stronger, which means you don't need to beat as many times per minute, to achieve a certain level of cardiac output.
Waiiiit. You are telling me things I already know.
I know. But I have always wondered these questions:
1) Effect of low glycogen stores on heart rate. For me, my HR always increases.
2) Heat and HR. Hotter it is, HR is higher. Why?
3) For the same workout (same wattage on the bike, or same pace when running on the treadmill), why is my heart rate so different between each session, assuming rest and hydration are at similar levels?
4) Why does my heart rate sometimes not drop following an interval? Does that mean I'm not ready to go?
Anyway, this is what I have come to learn.
Heart Rate and what it's really for:
Heart rate, in the absence of other information, tells you this:
- How many times your heart beats per minute.
Meanwhile, it doesn't tell you any of the following:
- Creating exercise zones based on HR solely. Firstly, determination of maximum heart rate is difficult (how do you really know you've reached your max, especially if you are an inexperienced athlete). Secondly, heart rate is primarily a measure of the cardiac system and while there is correlation to other systems (respiratory and muscular), heart rate does not tell you about each of the other systems directly.
- You can't use HR to gauge recovery from intervals. If cardiac output is being reduced because of stroke volume (as witnessed by many elite athletes), then you won't know when to go again.
- Just because you ran at a HR of xxx bpm does not mean that you will have the same workout the next day. This brings up the concept of physiological stimulation. If I run at xxx bpm or xx:xx pace or hold xxx wattage, does it mean I am stressing my system out the same way? If I run at 136 BPM HR today, maybe my stroke volume is vastly different today than it was yesterday due to fatigue (lower ejection fraction today than yesterday). And you are producing less cardiac output. And you might be producing ATP from an oxygen independent source to make up for the overal energy output.
Further Reading:
I'm compiling a list of articles that I've read from the Journal of Applied Physiology and similar ones that discuss the importance of cardiac output. And weaknesses of heart rate training. I'll put them up when I find them.
Rethinking Heart Rate
You obviously run, ride, or swim if you're reading my blog. Or you're a secret AK fan. Haha. Whatever the reason is, let me throw a question out there:
Have you ever thought that everything that you have been taught regarding heart rate training is a complete lie?
If you haven't closed the browser window yet... read on.
Cardiac Output, not Heart Rate
If you've taken Phys Ed, you might know this equation:
Cardiac Output (CO) = Stroke Volume (SV) x Heart Rate (HR)
Where,
CO = litres of blood pumped per minute
SV = volume of blood pumped per beat
HR = beats per minute
It has been argued that cardiac output is the most important determinant of exercise. The higher the cardiac output, the better one's physical performance. Think about it like this - if we assume the oxygenation of the blood is consistent throughout the day (which it isn't, but since science likes to hold variables constant, we shall assume this), then for a given level of cardiac output, you are delivering x L/min of blood to your muscles for use. (Of course, another assumption is that we assume the muscles are able to make use of the oxygen at the same rate, day after day... which is not the case)
Increasing Cardiac Output:
If you increase cardiac output, it might mean that there is greater oxygen demand by your muscles (extremities, or respiratory). So, you can induce a higher cardiac output by beating your heart faster. But what about if you increase stroke volume? I.e. the amount of blood pumped per beat? Yes, that means your heart muscles are getting stronger, which means you don't need to beat as many times per minute, to achieve a certain level of cardiac output.
Waiiiit. You are telling me things I already know.
I know. But I have always wondered these questions:
1) Effect of low glycogen stores on heart rate. For me, my HR always increases.
2) Heat and HR. Hotter it is, HR is higher. Why?
3) For the same workout (same wattage on the bike, or same pace when running on the treadmill), why is my heart rate so different between each session, assuming rest and hydration are at similar levels?
4) Why does my heart rate sometimes not drop following an interval? Does that mean I'm not ready to go?
Anyway, this is what I have come to learn.
Heart Rate and what it's really for:
Heart rate, in the absence of other information, tells you this:
- How many times your heart beats per minute.
Meanwhile, it doesn't tell you any of the following:
- Creating exercise zones based on HR solely. Firstly, determination of maximum heart rate is difficult (how do you really know you've reached your max, especially if you are an inexperienced athlete). Secondly, heart rate is primarily a measure of the cardiac system and while there is correlation to other systems (respiratory and muscular), heart rate does not tell you about each of the other systems directly.
- You can't use HR to gauge recovery from intervals. If cardiac output is being reduced because of stroke volume (as witnessed by many elite athletes), then you won't know when to go again.
- Just because you ran at a HR of xxx bpm does not mean that you will have the same workout the next day. This brings up the concept of physiological stimulation. If I run at xxx bpm or xx:xx pace or hold xxx wattage, does it mean I am stressing my system out the same way? If I run at 136 BPM HR today, maybe my stroke volume is vastly different today than it was yesterday due to fatigue (lower ejection fraction today than yesterday). And you are producing less cardiac output. And you might be producing ATP from an oxygen independent source to make up for the overal energy output.
Further Reading:
I'm compiling a list of articles that I've read from the Journal of Applied Physiology and similar ones that discuss the importance of cardiac output. And weaknesses of heart rate training. I'll put them up when I find them.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Some more thoughts.
PASSION
I'm not talking about just triathlon, or my studies, or anything else like that. I'm talking about my "passion" in general, whether I am talking about why VO2 max is the most RETARDED measure, whether I am talking about credit default swaps, or why I train 15 hours a week, so I can swim, bike, run in a circle.
When I talk about something, and I am passionate about it, or just display a lot of passion when talking about it, if the other person does not understand me, they tune out. That's fine. It's their way of saying "I'm dumb and I don't want to know why certain things work like this..."
- I f**king hate when people click the button just to get things done.
- I hate when people say run around this loop at xx:xx pace because that's what you need to do to get fitter. Have they ever stopped to think that the human body is so complicated that maybe it's not a simple rule of running xx:xx pace.
- I hate when people are doing accounting and "they just do it" because that's what they were told. Actually, seriously, that annoys me so much. And maybe that's why I hate accounting BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE NEED TO DO THINGS LIKE THAT. F**k it.
- I hate when people tune out on me when I am talking about something that THEY asked about. Especially when there's further explanation or the other side of the story. They just want to hear what they want to hear.
- Why the hell are swimming pools 25 yards or metres? Why do we do 100m repeats? There is no physiological reason to it. It's easy because the swim coach is f**king lazy and refuses to walk around on deck. (No, not you, Kelvin or Dan. I'm speaking about others)
- When I try to be proactive and try to help people understand what it is they're doing... why does it always turn into "AK, you're so arrogant, you're so overconfident, shut up, you don't have any right to tell me etc etc" ... listen, I'm just trying to help, or start an interesting conversation. This especially happens when I talk about stuff at work. To a lesser extent when I talk about exercise and fitness with people who are faster.
-----------------
Now that I've had my rant... I just want to thank Steve Bentley, my coach and friend, for sticking by me through all these years. Even when I kicked him to the curb, he still forgave me and took me back in. He is the role model for the perfect listener.
I'm not talking about just triathlon, or my studies, or anything else like that. I'm talking about my "passion" in general, whether I am talking about why VO2 max is the most RETARDED measure, whether I am talking about credit default swaps, or why I train 15 hours a week, so I can swim, bike, run in a circle.
When I talk about something, and I am passionate about it, or just display a lot of passion when talking about it, if the other person does not understand me, they tune out. That's fine. It's their way of saying "I'm dumb and I don't want to know why certain things work like this..."
- I f**king hate when people click the button just to get things done.
- I hate when people say run around this loop at xx:xx pace because that's what you need to do to get fitter. Have they ever stopped to think that the human body is so complicated that maybe it's not a simple rule of running xx:xx pace.
- I hate when people are doing accounting and "they just do it" because that's what they were told. Actually, seriously, that annoys me so much. And maybe that's why I hate accounting BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE NEED TO DO THINGS LIKE THAT. F**k it.
- I hate when people tune out on me when I am talking about something that THEY asked about. Especially when there's further explanation or the other side of the story. They just want to hear what they want to hear.
- Why the hell are swimming pools 25 yards or metres? Why do we do 100m repeats? There is no physiological reason to it. It's easy because the swim coach is f**king lazy and refuses to walk around on deck. (No, not you, Kelvin or Dan. I'm speaking about others)
- When I try to be proactive and try to help people understand what it is they're doing... why does it always turn into "AK, you're so arrogant, you're so overconfident, shut up, you don't have any right to tell me etc etc" ... listen, I'm just trying to help, or start an interesting conversation. This especially happens when I talk about stuff at work. To a lesser extent when I talk about exercise and fitness with people who are faster.
-----------------
Now that I've had my rant... I just want to thank Steve Bentley, my coach and friend, for sticking by me through all these years. Even when I kicked him to the curb, he still forgave me and took me back in. He is the role model for the perfect listener.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
