| Target Zone | Suggested Intensity |
| Z1 | 65-74% |
| Z2 | 75-84% |
| Z3 | 85-90% |
| Z4 | 91-96% |
| Z5 | 97-100% |
In this study, why do you think the 90% group for TTE did not have significant improvements?
And furthermore, for CCP coaches out there, how did they determine what was anaerobic running capacity - and how does one determine that by time domains only?
Surely, we can't say that by doing something in a certain time frame makes it anaerobic capacity for all can we?
post to comments
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering where all the ladies have gone? Haven't seen many posts from anyone in a while. That totally sucks by the way. I have been AWOL due to personal stuff but I want to come back it's just hard to get a grasp of how I am doing when there is nobody out there to compare to- crap!
ReplyDeleteI would say that the 90% group didn't see any improvement because they didn't do the last 10% - didn't go hard enough!
ReplyDeleteSoren
yesterday's
ReplyDeleteA1. 100,110,115
A2. 70/hand, 73, 75x12
B. complete
C. complete
fully recovered
It looks as though the subjects were required to complete the 110% effort prior to the 90% effort in the same day, possibly not leaving them recovered enough to get an accurate evaluation of 90%.
ReplyDeleteI have to imagine that they were relying on the subjects perception of an anaerobic effort at that intensity and their honesty in evaluating their own effort level.
m.28.6'4''.225lbs
ReplyDeletemake-up post; sorry for the length
10/15
A. 242
B. 90kg, 95kg, 95kg, 100kg, 100kg
C. :33, :30, :30
Saturday's Tester
1. 24:25 (subbed Row)
30 min rest
2. 14:09
Notes: K2E took forever; huge goat of mine, as I really struggle with the kip. Was happy to finish Part 2as rx'd, but frustrated it wasn't faster. Failed at 47 on first round of DUs, rested about :45 secs and got the 50. No other breaks.
Today, making up 10/17
A. 40(3), 60(2), 60(2)
B. TGU--26:58; very slow and steady, felt like an eternity
C. 5055m (probably a little too hard the last 2 mins; Joey W's post was in my head and I had to get to 5k)
The numbers illustrate what Mack observed. 100% was in the 185 range in the first group and 90% was 385 for the same group. Much more than a 10% back off in performance.
ReplyDeleteLike Mack said, may have been 90% "perceived effort" after having gone 110% and 100% just prior.
I'm with Mack... it seems they did 110% earlier in the day, and 90% later that same day... don't know how far apart the efforts were or if there was any opportunity to refuel between efforts.
ReplyDeleteIf the only fuel provided was the caffeine, creatine, amino acids, then they weren't provided with the glycogen necessary to replenish what they would've burned in the 110% effort.
Also, I'm trying to crack the #s and what "Peak Velocity" must have meant, but I'm thinking that these may not have been well-conditioned athletes or that the tests were really close together because the 110% TTE at 2:00 doesn't seem to match the 90% TTE at 6:00.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI may be misunderstanding the study since I've only read the Abstract, but were not the tests run at a percentage of the Critical Velocity, a predetermined speed... not subject to perception?
ReplyDeleteThe way I read it, the study determined the PV for each subject using a Critical Velocity Test, and then attempting to evaluate the effectiveness of supplements at various percentages of that speed. The subjects perception of effort should not be a factor in how fast they were running.
It could be the case, though, that since is was the second test of the day they didn't have the mental fortitude to continue to an actual TTE. But this would be ignoring the fact that on Day 2 they did 105% and 100% efforts and the results showed a positive correlation even on the second effort that day... when they should have been even more spent on the second test which was at a higher intensity.
Personally, I get the feeling that they are implying that 90% was far enough below the Critical Velocity that the supplements intended to benefit anaerobic performance were not a significant factor.
I tend to agree with Mack and Chris about whether it was a true 90%, though with a graded exercise test, the percentages are not RPE but actual data extrapolated from the initial test.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, since they are looking at improvements from using a supplement, if we shouldn't be looking at the energy systems used. The 110, 105 and 100 are very clearly anaerobic with some oxygen support at the latter stages of the time period, while the 90 is mainly oxidative. The fuel sources (ATP/CP) in the anaerobic can be primed with caffeine, creatine and aminos (if I remember correctly BCAAs are best), all ingredients in the supplement, while oxidative energy is much more fat and glucose dependent.
The question about whether anaerobic capacity can be tested in the same time domain for everyone is tricky. Too many factors, including the ability to deal with pain and one's lactate clearing capacity, vary from person to person to say that one time domain tests a capacity for all.
Just my thoughts...I might be off and hopefully James will chime in here if I am.
Brandon
Did part 2 of Saturday's Tests.
ReplyDelete10:58
Wall balls were a killer, double unders were effecient and easy. Never did 50 WB in a row before. Ughhh.
I think I'll try to hop back on to the regular programming tomorrow and skip Sundays recovery workout.
Lisa,
ReplyDeleteAMEN sista!
Got an appt. for Wednesday to get my back adjusted and then I intend to be back at it.
You and me....starting Wednesday?
Alright lady you are on!! yay! I am a weakling right now but anxious to commit and get back on track.
ReplyDeleteYesterday's recovery WOD
ReplyDeleteA1. 43(3), 53(3), 58(3)
A2. 43(10), 48(8), 53(8) - DB/hand(reps/leg)
B. 33# DB (lost count, probably just short of 100) some after running
C. Sub'd 5m on airdyne/ 5m running / 3-4hrs outside playing with my son
Hit Part 2 from saturday and Sunday's recovery:
ReplyDeletePart 2: 13:15 wall balls were definitely not UB, DU's were UB.
Sunday: 30x 3- 45x3- 50x2 (RD's)
45x8x3. Sorry for the short post, but have to run! Thanks Coach!
Lisa and Ali-
ReplyDeleteI was on a mini mental break and then vaca in Puerto Rico. Back in business tomorrow! It is definitely motivating seeing ladies posting. :)
I have been following OPT at our Box with Coach BK for about 8 weeks now but we are a week behind. I would love to start posting again and I agree..I always look to see what the other chicks are up to.its motivating and inspiring!
ReplyDeleteOct 12th double:
ReplyDeletePart 1:
avg. watts for all 8 rows=582
rest 15-20 min
Part 2: 15 min amrap of 5 chins/7 ohs
10 rounds + 4 chins...all rounds UB
Ok ladies lets get to work and kick some a%£
ReplyDeleteoh yeah...one small note...for my 5 min active rest between row sessions, I used the airdyne and felt great gettin back on the rower afterwards.
ReplyDeleteI only read the abstract...
ReplyDeleteThe graded exercise test seems to be the key to the answer. The runs were based on a percentage "of the peak velocity (PV) determined from a graded exercise test." What was this test and it is known that the test took into account that the 10 blind participants would have different muscle fiber types? Depending on the Zone (keep in mind that everyone's zones are different) that they were tested in, will determine their ability to perform at percentages of that Zone. I too believe this to be a probable case of perceived exertion in the second runs (following runs of higher exertion.
Thanks for this post.
ReplyDelete