Can anyone help me with this .csv file from PolarFlow?, I can’t run it in Marco’s Colab to obtain the dfa and alfa1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/11kFdYAzAHXoRZQQD1zsV3H1nZGCqx5F9/view?usp=sharing
Thanks in advance.
Hi @Indartsu. Welcome to the forum! I think we’ve taken all the HRV, DFA related posts to this thread:
Many people on this thread also follow that one, so you should get some good suggestions, advice.
Thank you for looking into this. I have edited your file to match the HRV Logger format, you should be able to download it from here: Dropbox - File Deleted and then use the Colab (the part that loads a csv instead of a fit file).
It looks like there are a few artifacts, so I’d use the 5% as artifact threshold.
Thanks Marco for helping people selflesly. I really apreciate your work! your are incredible
1 Like
Thanks so much, I will look at it
Testing During z1 POL Base: Should I do a 30+ minute power test in three days or wait? I have done 100% riding at 65% FTP (<70% HRmax) for the past 8 weeks. No intensity above this. Last FTP test was nearly 90 days ago, so WKO5 model is going to fall apart this weekend. My concern is suddenly shocking the system without any interval work leading up to it. Maybe not a big deal; or maybe a bad idea. Any thoughts or experience with this? (Note that I plan to continue building volume at this lower intensity for another 4 weeks before adding z3 POL intervals to the mix. Got a Lactate kit, and hope to test for LT1 soon.)
1 Like
Bad idea. You will destroy all those fragile new capillaries you built by noodling around for 3 months.
4 Likes
Guys sorry for doing this but I need to point it out. We use VT1 and LT(1) interchangeably. There is of course correlation between them but those are not the same. The correlation is not precise and I read those responses are likely coincidence, not caused by the same proces. The difference between them might as high as 50W (!).
I’d assume that VT and LT will be different for different types of athletes. For example athlete with mediocre VO2max and slow muscle typology/high efficiency will have LT significantly higher than VT. And the other way around: athlete with high VO2max and fast muscle typology (explosive) will have LT significantly lower than VT. There will be of course many people in between (hence the correlation).
Now to the Dfa1 method. Lets assume it is valid. What does 0.75 value correlate with - VT1 or LT(1)?
(My bet is on the first one). And which threshold is more useful for identifying the point where polarized Zone 1 ends (so disturbance of ANS and metabolic cost starts to be disproportional to training benefit)? Any thoughts on that?
Sources:
1 Like
This is tongue-in-cheek right…? Please tell me that’s not a thing.
2 Likes
Them being close to each other most of the time is useful for practical reasons though. Everyone can feel their breath. Most people don’t have a lactate meter.
It used to be. Just ask Mike Walden, Joe Friel, or Rick Crawford.
1 Like
I don’t know about fiber type, but the relationship definitely varies depending on glycogen stores, how you train (intervals versus endurance), and even how fast you pedal.
IOW, the correlation is largely coincidental, not causal, just as you said.
1 Like
I know the reason for using VT but what about individuals for whom it is not close to each other? I’m asking for their sake. Because this is looking a bit like assuming intensity training zones based on 220-age HRmax formula. True on the population level, likely wrong for an individual training prescription. So again my question is: which one is preferable for polarized training zones demarcation: Ventilatory Threshold or Lactate Threshold?
1 Like
If you have LT1 I would use it. Otherwise use power+RPE to get close.
Edit: Also VT1 being, on average, below LT1 means if you ride to VT1 you are going to be ‘in’ the ISM z1. Doesn’t work for everyone, but as I said most people don’t have access to lactate testing.
1 Like
That’s an excellent question!
In fact, it is much deeper than you may realize (or not), as you could argue that some other “threshold” - for example, the glucose threshold - might be an even better marker.
You then have to ask, what’s the whole point of trying to stay below this intensity (whatever it is) most of the time? Is it to conserve glycogen? Minimize sympathetic activation? Avoid recruiting more fatigable type II motor units?
Only when you have definitively answered this question are you prepared to pick a physiological marker of this “threshold”, as none of them are interchangeable (which you’ve done a good job of pointing out).
2 Likes
Most people don’t have access to a metabolic cart to identify VT1, either.
(Don’t give me this “first quickening of breath” nonsense, as that’s just a restricted version of perceived exertion. You’d be better off focusing on global sensations.)
2 Likes
Wondering how all those old skool hardmen got so fast without hi-tech lab equipment, without definitively knowing their VO2max/LT/VT/BLT, without complex training configurations, etc.
The modern era is faster, mostly due to equipment advancements, but not exponentially faster. So how did the old timers get so fast without all this marginal gain faffing?
2 Likes
I think that in the old days, people that didn’t know how to train or have access to the right coaching just fell by the wayside a little earlier in their career.
Overall though, the cream rises to the top. The fast guys are successful and keep moving up the ranks until they can’t. Did a guy like Lemond need special coaching systems to win the Tour? AFAIK, he was crushing seniors when he was a junior.
With the right genetics you can just ride, enter races and go pretty far. Intervals and structure may take you up a level. After that it’s marginal gains.
I’ve been thinking about the Vaughters interview where he talks about using ISM’s ideas. ISM’s ideas were horrible for some riders. For others they worked brilliantly though it sounds like Vaughters wasn’t as nuanced as ISM and he over did it with Dombrowski.
It does make me wonder about “systems” like ISM or Ferrari. Some riders will just respond incredibly to these ideas. Because Pogacar wins the Tour, ISM looks like the most brilliant mind in coaching right now. Is it because ISM’s protocol is the best and can be applied to everybody or because Pogacar and ISM are a match made in heaven? If ISM’s methods result in failure, we probably aren’t going to hear about it.
3 Likes
But there’s always been the stars and water carriers. If the difference between eras of stars isn’t that astounding, the difference in pack fodder is probably even less pronounced. Perhaps all these modern methods/tech have resulted more in better recovery/fatigue/repeatability/longevity management rather than more overall speed.
Or, perhaps these modern methods don’t translate into the significant gains in cycling compared to other sports.
I think I’ll just stick to KISS:
4 Likes