Some annual reviews

[kiwichris]

Hi team,
As we have now gone through the first batch of testing for everyone - I thought it would be interesting to post some overlaps from the fresh air guys for general discussion.

I would welcome some open discussion about what you see in terms of gains, for example, are they largely structural or functional in nature, what has BP done, what sbout power at BP, etc... I will leave this open before posting my thoughts (Andrew and Ginny will stay quiet too!!)

Chris

[Daniel Auger]

Here are my thoughts on the results

Ian
There is an overall improvement with some interesting changes. In 2009 when reaching above 275W, the energy was generated using/recruiting peripheral muscles. The HR could not keep up. In 2010, there is improvement at the lower intensity showing training of the base. However at the higher intensity, the line shows a higher than expected HR likely due to some sort of inefficiency (maybe in peripheral systems). Training of the base should continue. The challenge would be to identify the source of inefficiency at the higher intensity so that it can be addressed.

Matt
The performance at the lower intensity has remained the same. There was a lack of focus in training the base during the past year. The improvement at the higher intensity is likely due to high focus on functional training. The improvement could have been better with more base training during and is something to work on in the coming months.

Stephen
This is what a coach and athlete like to see. Nice performance lines showing improvement structurally and functionally.
260W @ LBP in 2009
300W @ LBP in 2010
LBP went down showing a decrease in the ability to use lactate as energy and..... changes in the stroke volume. I am not too familiar with the latter part so will not venture in commenting further.

[Andrew]

Pretty goo work Daniel...for those that don't know Daniel, he is one of our longest standing members of the BPR clan, living and training and coaching in Yellowknife.

I like his insights, as it shows both some good thought patterns, but also the problem that arise when all we see are the numbers, without seeing the athlete...

I have just been chastised for sitting down to give my feedback...so I will hold off for another couple of days...then I will "beak off" as Ginny puts it so eloquently.

[StephenU]

Wouldn't an accurate assessment if an athlete is "better" require more than 1 test from each of the two years lists.  Testing conditions, fatigue, recent functional training completed, training volumes, and any other changing variables could throw off one or both of the tests making any assumptions inaccurate.

[kiwichris]

Yes Stephen I totally agree that when we take 2 tests out of context then it is hard to draw definite conclusions - the goal of this exercise is for people to take the 2 tests as they are and draw some insights from people to get them THINKING. When we have given time for people to reflect and add their thoughts - I will give some more info to help assimilate further.

Thanks Daniel for the first come back post - come on people - lets hear what you have to say!!

ps - thanks Ginny for keeping Andrew on a leash!!

C

[StephenU]

chris, You should at least use my real Overlay..  Come on now!

[kiwichris]

nice try

[MartinC]

Hi All,
Thought I would throw in some results as well, having completed my first step test with power cranks in quite a while. (For the last little while I have been avoiding PCs due to a hip flexor/rectus femoris issue).
Unfortunately I don't have the benefit of a nice graph to throw up for easy comparison however:
W    HR1  HR2
100  105  125
140  117  135
180  129  145
220  139  150
260  148  160
300  155  167
340  165  175

HR1 test was 9/11/10, HR2 test was 2/01/10. Between these two tests my wattage at BP (HR160) has increased from just under 260 to around 320 when using the same computrainer and powercranks. Testing protocols were similar with a day of easy/no training prior to doing the step test. (Although for the latest test I did have the benefit of using my POLAR fitness test function as a guide to recovery).
I have to admit being very surprised by the results considering I would only regard myself as being back into a reasonable volume of training for about 4 weeks since racing in the beginning of September and then basically taking 4 weeks of very unstructured (read little to no significant training apart from a few trail races.) Also of note is that the program I am on contains a fair bit of what I would regard as non specific ie hiking, elliptical trainer work outs (hopefully to stimulate some cardiac changes) rather than being all about swim, bike, run and also contains one session of high intensity intervals.
Anyway it makes for some great variety and I am looking forward to seeing if the physiological changes we are looking for come out in December testing.

[kiwichris]

Martin's diligence to training and listening to his body is second to none - i am not suprised by his latest test and hope to show that the recent focus on stroke volume work is doing what we want - kinda looks like it.
Pink is yesterday - blue is from Jan

Keep up the great work Martin!!

Chris

[Matt]

Here is the data from my last step test, along with a conversation with Chris and Andrew.  Chris's responses are in Blue.
Cheers
M


Your graph is attached Matt - what is your summary based on the graph??
Why would it have changed given your kidney infection??

Chris

Good questions!

It appears that my low end power has increased, as well has my high end.
The line looks like it flattened out a bit, as well as moved up.  I would
think this shows better low end, and more sustainable high end power as
well.

Good insights on the basic shape of the line - 1 gold star.


The reasons for this could be more time on the bike (although I only did a
couple rides since the previous test), and lack of restriction in
respiration.  Andrew, I know you mentioned it shouldn't make much
difference, but during the summer we did one test with the VO2, then the
next week we did the test without the VO2 and my balance point watts were
up 20 watts (360 to 385).  I know there are other factors that could have
led to that change, but it 'feels' like it was a factor....either way,
there was improvement! (as an aside, Stephen commented that the mask that
Jeurg had felt much less restrictive than other masks he had tried).

There was 2.5 weeks between tests - more time on the bike would show a small
increase IF your co-ordination was off at the first test - with the small amount
of riding time this may have improved - allowing better performance across the
whole line. I think the mask thing is psycosematic - a perceived increase in
restriction leading to general feeling of tightness.

The other change in testing since the summer is that during both these
tests I used a cadence of 100rmp, instead of 90 rpm.  Since August I have
been focusing on riding both my mountain and road bikes at higher
cadences.   I'm not sure if this would have much of an effect on my test
results, but here are some thoughts; if my cordination is still
developing, this could result in me producing less power at higher
intensities.  However, my recovery in the last LBP test was greatly
improved over other tests.  If, by increasing my cadence, I was able to
reduce muscle tension and allow more blood to flow to my muscles, that
should positively effect my recovery.  Also, if we assume that I am very
efficient at extracting O2 from my blood as a compensator for the small
amounts of O2 my respiration system provides, a small increase in blood
flow could have a positive impact on performance.  One of the things I
have noticed with higher cadence in general is an increased HR.  However,
my heart appears to be strong, so stressing my cardiac system more
shouldn't be too much of a worry, if there is increased O2 to the muscles.
The only concern I have with higher cadence is a potentially higher
respiration rate.  I haven't really noticed this so far.  Just thinking
out loud!

Very insightful Matt!!! You are really developing the ability to think
constructively about your body!! Yes - the increase in cadence could lead to
increased blood flow due to less oclusion mashing gears - we would see this with
the Portomon (will have to wait a while for that!!). We should see over time
your HR lowering with your new found cadence - this will come with more time
spent at higher levels - 120-125 - an then up to the 140's even. Keep up the
focus in this area.

Kidney infection - the only reason I mentioned that is I was coming off a
fever on Sunday, and felt a little sluggish still on Tuesday.  However, I
felt great during the test, if a little fried after.  I can't make any
physiolocial connection from my kidney infection to my performance.  I am
still on antibiotics, but the doctor let me know that shouldn't have any
negative impact on my excersie.

I think one possibility of the better performance could be that your had allowed
your body to REST and RECOVER from the riding pre-kidney infection. Not a
pleasant way to be forced to rest - but the potential gain could be there due to
it. This will continue to the be the focus with the whole team over the next few
months as we cement some ideas of using resting HR and HR variability to allow
you guys to make better training choice along the way.
Chris

I'd love to hear your thoughts,
Cheers
M

[Andrew]

Great discussion. I Asked Matt to post this discussion to demonstrate the level of intelligence being developed on our team. I believe Matt epitomizes what we want from the BP athletes in the way he is approaching his training. Thoughtful, measured, and focused, with a clear goal of improving a specific weakness.

It will still be a number of months before Matt shows us the results of his training. But I can't wait to see him unleash his skills at Salty Dog and COBRA in May!!!