In the Zone

[Jon H]

[quote="Michelle"]We could also try nose breathing/diaphramatic breathing for a spell as well, as long as everyone promises not to look at each other in the duration, and we all bring lots of tissues.

[Sylv]

Jon you have to do it for a little while, and continuously, before it clears up. Then all you have is a bit of fluid (liquid) snot rather than solid (breathing-obstructing snot), and it's easy to get rid of it by blowing out of your nose hard once.

I was late and it was raining this morning so had a fast run, can nose-breathe @ 160 bpm

[Marky Mark]

[quote="Michelle"]Marky Mark and Sean.

Having tried and got popped out the back of the 17's last week, I am really and truly going to try the 15's this week. So if you are up for it I will see you there.

Last week, I could just see John C following up the Reigate steps, so the 15's nearly caught me. Still, although things may be fine with the 15's in theory I think it would be better to have a group of LBP riders as you need to power down the hills in order to keep your HR up.

The last 3 lbp rides have been 14.4 mph, 14.8 mph and 13.5mph respectively (yesterday, very windy and also doing isolated leg intervals leg so that slowed me down even more

We could also try nose breathing/diaphramatic breathing for a spell as well, as long as everyone promises not to look at each other in the duration, and we all bring lots of tissues.

On the question of gearing, I too have a triple, which is great for going up the hills, but it's like I almost need 4 rings at the front, because I am finding I am nearly running out of gears to push on the way down.

Now that's something for Shimano to sort out

[Andrew G]

Marky, Think you'd have to go to a compact if you want smaller gearing. You may be limited to how big you can go at the rear depending on your length (sprocket size and cage that is).

I don't want to cycle behind you lot either if snot rockets are going to be flying with gay abandon.

[Antloony]

Blimey Marky boy, no wonder your struggling with that gearing, as Mr suggests go for a compact. I ride a compact (34-50) with an 11-23 rear (yes I know finbar ) No wonder your struggling at times, thats TT gearing your riding around with, not good for hills unless your planning on walking up them.

[Andrew G]

11-21 for TTs .

[Antloony]

Not with the new 11 speed campag

[Juerg FaCT]

In the Zone :
This is one area we are working on for the moment.
What does it mean to be in the zone.
The main question during and discussion with coaches and exercise physiological interested people is:
What creates a stimulus on any biological system
How strong does it has to be
How long do we have to apply it
How often do we have to apply it .
When does the body changes from the functional reaction ( always in any case of a new applied stimmulus ) to a structural change.
Functional reaction is the immediate reply on a uncommen stimmulus or on a fast change in the demand to the body to maintain homeostasis. Balance.
Simple example. You sit and now you suddently stand up. This sudden change needs immediat respond from the body in different systems. The respond depends as well ,whether you planned it or whether you did it as a reflex ( sudden extreme noise) Depending on this 2 possibilioties , different system will respond different.
Now and functional reaction can only take the possibilities from your already existing resources.
So we have to "overload " the target resource and therefor push this particular system into a new "in-balanced" level.
The tricky part here is : How far above the existing load do we have to go?
How long do we have to wait before we can apply the same stimmulus again. And the ultimate question: Will the body try to adjust the stimmulated structur, so that this specific stimmulus is not any more something strange.
Once the body adjusts ( adapats ) to the stimmulus with not just reacting , but actually building a stronger system ( Bone density, more blood vessels, bigger heart , more mitochindria ) than we actually can speak from a structural change.
There is the fundamental problem of many of the existing research of our "modern" time. It is simply time restriction.
Research like hte Gibala example of teh Dudley example are great but over a time span off 8 weeks there are no or very small structural changes possible.
Structural changes will take month and even up to years.
Structural changes are the key of success in many sports , as once they are present you can build on this structure again some functional reaction:
Example.
2 athelets VO2 max of 70. One can use 72 % the other can use 85 %. Which one is faster ?
Hmmm Are you sure ? think again .

So when we come back on Zoning :
If we assume 250 watt is always the same stimmulus , than we have to assume , that despite the duration of a workout, the possible change in outside temperatur, the for sure change in glucose availability . and many more physiological changes during a fixed wattage. The stimmulus should be always the same.
We know , that this is not the case.
Under different temperature, there is a different blood supply ( heat control over the skin )
We know the heart rate is higher and therefor there is a different strokevolume and cardiac output there.
We know , that if Glucose is getting low we change the energy supply towards , what ever is availavle and so on.
So in keeping a fixed wattage we steday stimmulate the body to search for new functional reaction at that particular time and demand.
The great advantage of this stimulation is a very fast functional improvement in nearly any possibility the body can react and a fast performance increase.
How far can you functionally push ?
So the only next step in this case is :drugs: to overthrow the natural safety level . Now you take 85 - 90 % of your full potential.
If you like to improve further you need now to improve the bodies structural situation and whne using the higher structural system you may only have to use 65 % to prodcue the same performance.
Example : Heart size : resp. stroke volume . You can push out 125 ml and that's the max .
Now you train , so your heart can throw out 175 ml ?
By using Biomarkers like HR , RR, Lactate and others to stay in a zone, you not swith from one functional reaction to the next but you push this particular intensity to an overload.
What we research for teh moment is exactly that.
We compare fixed wattage versus fixed biomarker with different goal setting.
Example : Stroke volume.
We train with a fixed wattage and see , how the heart reacts in Stroke volume /Cardiac output/ Energy supply / LVET ( left ventricular ejection time/ EDV enddiastolic volume and so on.
Prelimenary test show that under fixed wattage , we never reach actually a level of stimmulation in any of the parameters, They steady adjust till one of the system failes.
By applying a fixed biomarker : Same heart rate over a certain amount of time , or a fixed respiration rate. we see that certain parameters stay nice and stable and the system , which is stimmulated starts to get "fatigued" and overloaded.
We believe , that this way we can actually control and decide, what we like to achieve over time and which system is for the moment the most limiting factor of a further improvement in performance.
Let's take the hypothetical idea that "Smilie George " has a limitation from his resiratory system.
So if he psued a fixed wattage , than the respiratory system will be the first one to be overloaded.
So the body will react accordingly, by protecting this system with trying to search for other system to step in to compensate.
One of the reactions will be a vasoconstriction to his legs to avoid additional O2 to move to his legs ( Dempsey and metaboreflex) This lower O2 delievery in his legs will force teh leg muscles to change the way it produces ATP so from perhaps fat abnd glucose and O2 to mainly glucose and O2 , or in higher inetnsity to glucose and O2 and glucose and oxygen independent delivery ( lactate in the system )
So his workout will actually stress his legs ina different way , due to protection of his pulmonary system
By staying in a fixed RR and a fixed TV we will stress the pulmonary system by trying to avoid a compensation from other systems.. So we stress his pulmonary system , by avoiding an increase in heart rate and an increase in O2 demand or change in energy supply , due to the restriction of his pulmonary system. This wat we avoid the system to compensate and force the system to stimmulate specific the pulmonary system
This idea can be applied to any otehr system , by understanding the compensatory reactions the body can apply.
Sounds complicated but once you have your mind set into this direction you will have many more answers to questions, which are often answered with mythological explanation.
Here a historical example.
In the old greek time wrestlers inrend to drink bull blood and even into this day we think that eating meat from "strong " anuimals like a bull may make you stronger.
May simple question back is:
What was the foodsource from that bull ?
he he no not B.S Juerg
No proofreading due to time restrain , as so many research have , as the Ph.D has to be finished in 8 weeks.
That is B. S

[Paul H]

Hi Juerg,

Is there any chance you could put a summary or conculsion at the bottom of your posts.

[quote]Once the body adjusts ( adapats ) to the stimmulus with not just reacting , but actually building a stronger system ( Bone density, more blood vessels, bigger heart , more mitochindria ) than we actually can speak from a structural change.

[Juerg FaCT]

Paul , thanks for this question.
My answer would be:
Functional training is unlikely changing the body into more structural adapatations.
The major research done in that field is done by Hans Selye , the father of stress reasearch and we have major information about that on our forum.
So , as I am a small spot compared with his incredible research I do , as so many people do , rely on his work.
I think Rob showed one the basic principle of functional reaction which can lead over a certain amount of time to a structural adapatation.
The major still open question is:
How does a stressor has to be applied, so that repetitive functional training leads to a structural change.
This is the long standing open question in any reaearch project. Why do certain people show faster structural changes with exactly the same stressor , and in other people it comes to a breakdown of the systems.
The answer may be in the simple fact. that we are all reacting individually.
This is eaxctly the point, why we try to find individual bio marker based "zones" and try to avoid % of a maximal performance or test version.
For some people working out on 80 % based on a FTP test may be very successfull and the timing they do that just optimal. Meaning the rest and workout ratio is just so good , that the initial functional reaction triggers a very ealy structural change.
Another person following the same plan and the same intensity 9 as his FTP ) is exactly the same may see no progress at all , as 80 % just simply may not stress enough us a single workout , or the time between teh worjkouts may be simply to far appart. The third with all the same plan may be injured in no time, as the 80 % intensity will trigger as well a functional reaction , but the recovery in between does not allow the body to try to swithc to some structural changes.
The timing , how fast a functional stress may turn to a structural reaction is very different from system to system as well.
Skin has a very fast reaction time after a functional stress ( blister ) to a thicker skin as a structural adapatation.
Bone is somewhat slower muscle app. similar . tendon ligaments again need longer and more repetitive optimal functional stimmulation. Nerv tissue may be one of the slowest ( co-ordination ) and so on.
The later is one of teh big discussion , whether we can change RPM after many years of cycling so easy. ( example Ulrich / Armstrong discussions )

Summary Paul you are right if you take it by the word.
Any functional workout can lead ,( but has not to ) to a structural change if physiological properly applied.
To see , whether we have an optimal timing and ratio rest /work we work on a FaCT system , where we can assess the above open questions.
Do we have the answer.
No we are still far off, and that what makes it so interesting / We try to add puzzle to puzzle.
What we are working on just now is the interesting question , whether certain workouts really can stimmulate the heart differently ( stroke voulme and EDV ) and what is happneing if we stay on a fixed performance versus a fixed stroke volume.
Here a very short glimps into the first trends we can see.
Fixed performance.
1 After a certain time ( depending how close we are at the FTP level or LBP level ) we see a sudden change in the hearts reaction. The intitial increase in SV ( stroke volume with a very stable LVET ( time the left ventricle is open ) suddently sems to change . The SV starts even dropping and the LVET is dropping as well. This may lead to a not optimal diastolic time and a loss of cardiac perforfomance. The CO is mostly the same.
Question to Paul : do you think we stimulate now more LVET reaction , but loose the SV stimmulus .
If we stay in a fixed HR and fixed RR we se a drop in performance ( wattage ) byt we see no change in LVET but a sudden increase in SV and CO.
Question to Paul : Do you think this would be an overload for SV ?
The second big field we try to assess is the big discussion of "Lactate tolerance"
As we know by now , there is no such thing like lactate tolerance ( Hill, Nokaes, Brooks Gladden ,Kratz a.s.o )
So the focuss is much more on the question :
How do we stimmulate MCT 1 and MCT4 behaviour and what type of workouts can do that.
Stay tuned for questions on this interesting topic.

[Robh]

Here's a diagram copied from Juerg's forum showing Functional/Structural adaption.

[img]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t209/sbc205/1638.jpg[/img]

[Paul H]

Juerg,

[quote]Question to Paul

[Juerg FaCT]

Hallo Paul.
Thanks for your reply . I have no answer either , and that is very often the case. So what we try for the moment is to work just before it drops ( as you suggest ) and one group just after it dropped , and than reassess and after that change the groups to the other version.
The interesting part in sport is the mythical believe , that it alwasy has to be an overload.
Many stress researcher ( with Hans Selye) as the leading father in this area ) as well as many endocrinological reseaearcher don't believ in overload as the only way of stressing the system.
The majority today believes, that it has to be some kind of a change form the "normal" daily level. This does not has to be harder and faster , just different. The newer believ as well in sport is that the changes come over hormonal shifts casued by changes.
CERA is a very nice new generation example, where we not overload the system at all , but switch the way the hormonal reaction in the EPO axis will react.
Many hormons are this days split in
a) functional hormons and structural hormones.
Here an example of a functional hormon " Adrenalin
and her one for a structural hormon Testosteron.
So many ideas in training foccuses on this interesting idea.
Question is asked :
What does the training releases : a functional hormon or a structural hormon.
Does a functional hormon has some connectiion with a structutal reaction or is it simple just here to creat a functional reaction to survive the meoment.
So many more open questions here than answer but a very interesting way of looking into new ideas in training processes. Thansk Paul.

[Paul H]

I would guess where SV drops is close to "AT" pace - above LBP so would expect this to be a good training intensity to work at.



Rob said you have worked with Seb Coe, do you have any stories?

[quote="Robh"]I suspect the point where SV starts to drop varies greatly depending on your endurance levels and would expect the best stimulation would be just before this point.