Pre Season Conditioning

[GrimSurfer]

I’m sort of with you…

I don’t think an echocardiogram would be as useful as an electrocardiogram. Echos are great for things like chamber volumes (hypertrophy) or valve issues. The symptoms of these are normally quite apparent outside of exercise.

The big exercise risk is long QT syndrome… aka sudden death. A simple ECG will determine any polarization problems that suggest this uncommon, but exceedingly dangerous and silent killer.

An ECG is used during a treadmill test for some specific things that are used to better inform a VO2 Max result… like deflection point as the body goes from aerobic to anaerobic mode. It will also give the technician administering the test an opportunity to shut down the test if one goes seriously over their max heart rate (PVCs or some other kind of electrical dysfunction).

I’m not taking any of this personally. Not in the least. I just don’t want to say anything that would lead anyone down a risky path.

Back in the day, I used the USN Diving (Air) Tables. They were great, with some exceptions,

The 60’ table appeared great… until ultrasound of the carotid arteries showed that 60’ for 60 minutes did give rise of nitrogen bubbles on ascent, particularly in cold water. We had been diving these tables for decades… sure there was the occasional case of skin bends but nothing serious. But reducing the table to 60’ for 50 minutes completely eliminated the problem with zero operational impact.

So this is where I’m coming from. Sure… get into Zone 5 if you’re healthy. Use the age HR as a guide, knowing that it is a general formula and not a specific one. But the trail, the boat, or the cockpit isn’t the place to be probing medical limits… the hospital/lab treadmill is the place for that sort of thing. You know that, of course, but others reading our banter may not.

In my specific case, my age heart rate is 160. My last VO2 Max test took me to 164. Zero issues. I stopped at that point because I was at the end of one incline and wouldn’t be able to complete the next one (so it wouldn’t change my calculated VO2 Max.

164 is not my VNE, to use a flying term. I don’t know what my VNE is… and am not really all that interested in flying my wings off to find out. It’s an arbitrary number in exercise terms because it doesn’t offer any benefit not provided at an incrementally lower/safer heart rate.

Now if I was being chased by a bear, or tax auditor, I’d drive the throttle quadrant through the shear pin and go for it.

The really interesting thing is that, in exercise terms, it’s all arbitrary…

Oxygen demands are met by both stroke and heart rate. So if one has massive stroke, then a high heart rate isn’t needed until really extreme levels of physical output.

This is said to be one of the main benefits of low intensity, very long duration exercise. It can increase chamber volume… so much so that endurance athletes are sometimes diagnosed with ventricular hypertrophy (on retirement, their chamber volumes go back to “normal” size).

Lots of professional XC skiers fall into this category because of the nature of their training and sport. This is one of the ways that they achieve VO2 Max in the 80s and even low 90s.

I suspect these dudes (and they are all men) remain in the aerobic zone at very high performance levels. This is why they keep “pace” for so long. You can’t stay anaerobic for long without performance dropping off.

So there are a lot of ways to skin the cardiovascular “cat”. None of this is as personal as it is utterly fascinating….

[Montana St Alum]

I’m sort of with you…

I don’t think an echocardiogram would be as useful as an electrocardiogram. Echos are great for things like chamber volumes (hypertrophy) or valve issues. The symptoms of these are normally quite apparent outside of exercise.

The big exercise risk is long QT syndrome… aka sudden death. A simple ECG will determine any polarization problems that suggest this uncommon, but exceedingly dangerous and silent killer.

Yes, it is fascinating.

Just to clarify, when I have had stress echocardiograms, they have consisted of ECG's given on the treadmill, with interspersed sonograms in addition to the ECG.

I had to get resting ECG's every 6 months as an airline pilot, but I never thought those really were informational, unless you already had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel!

[GrimSurfer]

I’m sort of with you…

I don’t think an echocardiogram would be as useful as an electrocardiogram. Echos are great for things like chamber volumes (hypertrophy) or valve issues. The symptoms of these are normally quite apparent outside of exercise.

The big exercise risk is long QT syndrome… aka sudden death. A simple ECG will determine any polarization problems that suggest this uncommon, but exceedingly dangerous and silent killer.

Yes, it is fascinating.

Just to clarify, when I have had stress echocardiograms, they have consisted of ECG's given on the treadmill, with interspersed sonograms in addition to the ECG.

I had to get resting ECG's every 6 months as an airline pilot, but I never thought those really were informational, unless you already had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel!

The airline ECGs we’re likely “checks in the box” for liability insurance purposes (due diligence doesn’t need to make sense. Ha ha).

A more useful test would have been an angiogram, but that would have likely put you outside the limits until the entry point healed… and those aren’t without risk. A contrast ultrasound much more useful for finding things like aortic bulges or massive plaque build up. So cool watching a contrast cardiac ultrasound though… boundary layer, laminar flow, eddies in the bloodstream.

On the other hand, we have the “stress test”… one can pass one of those reasonably well and have a massive heart attack or an aortic tear the next day. It is, as you say, all informational.

A few of my buddies hated doing a stress test. I loved it… the breathing through a toilet paper tube was only slightly more irritating than a poorly fitting regulator.

Before COVID, I signed up for all kinds of medical studies… anything that would get me into a lab.

[Montana St Alum]

My stress tests were not with a mask. Is that the VO2 max?
Also, this is probably irrelevant, but my stress echoes were at the Park City facility at about 6800 feet.

[GrimSurfer]

They can do VO2 Max either way.

Without a mask, they infer oxygen intake from heart rate and work (I guess there is some kind of constant they apply provided O2 SATS remain stable).

With a mask (mine was more like a kid’s headgear for braces holding a toilet paper tube and nose clip), they measure air intake directly.

They probably assume 21% oxygen (close enough for government work). The air crosses a heated wire, I suspect. The rate of cooling indicates flow. Since they know the dimensions of the inlet, it’s easy enough to calculate airflow and from that infer actual O2 intake. (This is how a mass airflow sensor works in a car, I suspect it’s the same for this sensor).

Not the most comfortable gear I’ve worn. And I’ve had some time with chemical generators in fire fighting gear, diving rebreathers, and regulators. It bobs around a bit, along with the ECG wires and finger tip oximeter. Hard to concentrate on the job when you’re trying to keep the gear from sliding off.

You’ve worked and lived at altitude for years, I suspect. So you’d be way more used to operating at lower altitude densities than a surface dweller like me.

Regardless, I’m sure they correct everything to STP or NTP. That way the results would be medically comparable if, for instance, you ever had an incident at a lower altitude. That would be the sensible thing to do… and doctors are usually quite sensible people.

[bauerb]

I have never heard of a valid calculation to extrapolate or interpolate Vo2Max using theoretical computations. I have only ever heard of V02Max testing being done with a gas exchange mask. my Garmin watch claims that it knows my V02max, it also claims to accurately record HR without a chest strap. data is fun to look at and is an important part of training, but nothing can replace learning how to understand how you feel during training and racing. I have spent quite a bit of time learning and becoming conscious of exactly how I feel at Z1, AeT/Z2, Z3 , etc. why does this matter? why can't I simply look at my watch and it will tell me how I feel? I race and train from sea level to 11,500 feet. Z1, Z2, Z3 are *not* the same BPM at altitude as they are at sea level. eg. my AeT at 7,000ft is 145( tested repeatedly using 60 min drift tests). my AeT at sea level is 155. my Z3 is 160~ at 6,000ft, but more like 145 at 9,000ft.( young guys climbing Mt Everest with sea-level Max HR of 200, may only max out at 120 on Everest) therefore it is imperative for me to know how I feel at each level of effort at various altitudes. no electronic gismo can tell me how I feel( and that includes the godforsaken Whoop thing). I love to look at data. I use real-time data in certain situations to push harder or more often than not slow-down. but developing a crutch based on data, will do you a disservice when all things are considered.

[GrimSurfer]

There are all kinds of ways to determine VO2 Max. I talked about the most reliable (which we agree on).

Yes, it can be measured without a mask. You know heart rate, rate of work, body weight, age, O2 sats, after all. (That medical grade oximeter is measuring 02in the blood stream. That data can be integrated with METS, body weight, and heart rate to make a very reasonable estimation of O2 intake and expenditure rates.)

VO2 Max can even be inferred using heart rate variability. Not as accurate, but sometimes data doesn’t need to be any more than indicative (good enough for showing trend — for example, is my heart rate variability improving over time due to exercise? From this, what can be inferred about the efficacy of my exercise programme?)

The calculation I was speaking of directly was for correcting for altitude, temperature and pressure from a fully instrumented VO2 Max test. That brings the partial pressure of O2 to a common value. This value is then used to recalculate VO2 Max. Or at least it should be if any of this is to be comparable….

“Atmospheric pressure and inspired oxygen pressure fall roughly linearly with altitude to be 50% of the sea level value at 5500 m and only 30% of the sea level value at 8900 m (the height of the summit of Everest).”

So without the correction, one would be left with very messy data (each data point would be accurate in its own terms however). A VO2 Max test in Denver couldn’t be compared with a test administered in Boston. That might matter to a scout, even at the college level.

Youre 100% correct in saying that a gizmo can’t tell you how you feel. But measurement devices are capable of telling you that you’re not performing as well as you *feel* you are. But that’s been the case ever since the introduction of the stop watch. Perceived Rate of Exertion is practically meaningless.

People who believe this is BS haven’t been following why human performance is coming closer everyday to its theoretical limits. It’s not just anabolic steroids and blood doping. It’s altitude training (which is a form of blood doping, albeit one that is legal), effects training, hi-low cycling, and a whole bunch of other stuff that’s difficult to achieve effects without (1) an understanding of the science of human physiology and (2) the means to collect/compare/track it.

BTW, those guys on the list with VO2 Max of 80+ weren’t born that way. Some aspects of their physiology may predispose them to “responding”, but they achieved their gains through performance training.

Some of their performance was measured in a lab… but I can assure you they didn’t train all year round in a lab. They trained, and adjusted their training, based on data they were collecting by humble devices (interpreted by very clever trainers and exercise physiologists).

Even pro sports have limits on budgets. You can’t have labs following athletes 24/7. But you can collect near lab quality data with consumer level gear these days.

Data is a tool, not a crutch. Data will not help you run, cycle, or ski faster. But you can use data to optimize your training so you have the potential (if you apply yourself) to maximize your gains without wasting time or inviting injury.

[Jurassien]

Awful lot of Skandis on that list. To be precise, 12 out of the total of 16 - and 10 of them are Norskis. Must be an explanation for that, when you consider that Norway has a population of less than 5.5 million. Maybe it's the fårikål (mutton & cabbage stew), or even the rakfisk (fermented trout). I suspect though that it has something to do with the love for XC-skiing which is instilled in them from a young age.

I've always thought that the Biathlon discipline is a very good indicator of cardiovascular condition. Some people disparage it: "What have cross-country skiing and riflery in common?". Go and run around the block full-belt a couple of times, then pick up a rifle and attempt to hold on target. Unless your fitness level is very good, your front-sight will be dancing all over the place. Top-level Biathlon athletes have very rapid recovery heart rates which enable them to do that.

[Montana St Alum]

Good point about biathlon.
Maybe it's all that Neanderthal DNA the Skandis have!
It always seemed to me that the cross-country discipline, with the addition of upper body/poling involvement was an incredible cardio work out.

[GrimSurfer]

Environment, genetics, and early development probably play some role. But there are likely training and nutritional components that can get a natural “65” to “80+” in the space of a few years.

Simply XC skiing, as good as it is, won’t be good enough.

I’ve seen a few videos of pro XC skiers cycling, roller skiing in the off season. That’s just the tip of the iceberg though, as there are likely exercise programs that trainers guard jealously.