Powerbreathe

[old] kamdo · Post by **[old] kamdo** » September 11th, 2004, 5:05 pm

Prufrock, et al, Vo2 max is determined by a combination of cardiorespiratory, circulatory, and muscular enzymatic changes; basically its a function of the ability to take in, transport, and utilize oxygen. Genetics play a big role, but one can certainly improve their Vo2 max dramatically though rigorous training. This effect is certainly cumulative over time as evidenced by the improvement in endurance athletes through their 30's. The powerbreath trains the respiratory musculature (intercostal muscles and diaphragm, etc.) to become more resistant to fatigue. Even if it produces a slightly greater lung capacity and resistance to fatigue, this by itself does not guarantee a higher Vo2 max. It certainly would help the respiratory muscles to withstand the rigors of high level effort, especially towards the end of a maximal effort. It is basically resistance training for the respiratory muscles, but would not improve the cardiac, circulatory, or muscular enzymatic systems also responsible for an increased Vo2max. kamdo (kevin)

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » September 12th, 2004, 2:06 am

Kamdo, you seem to know what you are talking about. Here is a question. I've read "muscle slogans" like: -If you deliver we will use it. This meaning that the limitation in endurance sports is not the oxygen utilization capability in the muscles, but the ability to deliver oxygen there. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>basically its a function of the ability to...utilize oxygen </td></tr></table> you write. How do you explain this? Thanks

[old] kamdo · Post by **[old] kamdo** » September 12th, 2004, 7:23 am

Carl, I indicated that you need all systems firing correctly to have a significant effect on Vo2max. You need to take in, transport, and utilize the oxygen effectively. Revving up one of those three systems may marginally improve Vo2 max, but improving all of these systems in tandem produces the best results. The best single way to do this is high level training which has a built in training effect on the respiratory muscles. 1000 meter intervals will have damn near the same effect on the respiratory muscles as what the powerbreath is trying to achieve. It is very difficult to isolate out each of these three systems mentioned above and train them independent of the others. High level training is much more specific for producing the desired results and I think it is a waste of time (and nearly impossible) to even attempt to work on one system independent of the others. Time would be far better spent doing an extra session of 1000 meter intervals. Take the cyclists that are using EPO...erythropoeitin. We know that it stimulates RBC production and consequently more oxygen carrying capacity. Hence, it is working on one of the systems mentioned above...the transportation system. It does nothing for the lungs (take in system), or muscular enzymatic system (utilization). It does produce some improvement in performance, but at an incredible risk...heart attack, stroke, circulatory sludging, etc. Why...because the blood has too high of a viscosity from the increased RBC's. When one trains at a high level naturally, the RBC production naturally goes up, but there is a concomitant increase in plasma volume to allow the RBC's to circulate better. If your theory is correct...that if "you deliver it we will use it" then the use of 100% oxygen on the sidelines in a football game by these players would have some validity. It is a farce! Interestingly, their use of 100% oxygen has absolutely no validity and no scientific basis. All it does is increase the amount of oxygen dissolved in the blood...not the amount of oxygen bound to the hemoglobin molecule...it is nothing more than an expensive placebo effect. kamdo (kevin)

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 12th, 2004, 8:14 am

To add a bit to kamdo, I have found that I can be in peak cardio condition and yet compete poorly by jumping into a sport which had not been specifically training for. For example, I hurt myself while in peak condition for running marathons and hit the swimming pool as an alternative exercise. I could barely make a couple of laps for pooping out. It took a couple of months to get up to 30 minute and 60 minute workouts. Next, while in peak erging form during these past few years (and after many years of running inactivity) I've jumped into local 5km running races with similar poor results. I've attributed this to a lack of the specific muscles to utilize the oxygen that my well-tuned cardio system undoubtedly delivered. Rick

[old] kamdo · Post by **[old] kamdo** » September 12th, 2004, 8:57 am

Bayko, Well said! Excellent real world analogy. kamdo

[old] Prufrock · Post by **[old] Prufrock** » September 12th, 2004, 9:48 am

Kamdo Your understanding of VO2 max cannot be faulted. And of course the Powerbreathe product is basically resistance training for those diaphram muscles. I am currently starting to do 3-4 minute intervals which works out to around 1000 metre intervals. So hopefully a combination of all these tools will not do me any harm at all. Thanks very much for the in depth explanation of VO2!

[old] kamdo · Post by **[old] kamdo** » September 12th, 2004, 2:06 pm

Prufrock, My pleasure. Let us know how it works. kamdo

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » September 12th, 2004, 3:37 pm

Kamdo, I agree in what you say. Here is the interesting article in wich I found the slogan. <a href='http://home.hia.no/~stephens/vo2max.htm' target='_blank'>http://home.hia.no/~stephens/vo2max.htm</a> It does also point out that it is only in specifically trained individuals that utilization is no limitation. Bayko, The shortcomings when switching to running from erging for example, could also depend on techniqual, neuromuscular (firing patterns) and other body structural inefficiencies (tendons and muscles won't be able to use elastic energy, few sarcomeres will lead to premature muscle breakdown, unadapted bone hardness will lead to energy will go into stress fractures on bone and periosteum and so on)and also mental inefficiencies such as little relaxation and inexperienced racing strategies. What is you reasoning behind attibuting it to mainly muscle utilization?

[old] kamdo · Post by **[old] kamdo** » September 12th, 2004, 4:56 pm

Carl, Good article. This helps to illustrate what I mentioned earlier. It always gives me a good chuckle to see the American football pros with their oxygen masks on on the sidelines. Again, this only results in an increase in oxygen that is dissolved in the blood, and has no effect on hemoglobin binding of oxygen (since they already have maximal hemoglobin saturation) or the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. To deliver more oxygen to the working muscles, you need to dramatically increase cardiac output and/or increase the hemoglobin/RBC concentration. The powerbreath will not do this. Vigorous exercise trains all of these systems simultaneously, and with the specificity needed for the particular endurance sport in question, though there are certainly significant crossover benefits between the aerobic disciplines. I have a running background primarily, and like many runners, have slowly converted to non-weight bearing aerobic exercise. I was always impressed with the cerebral side of the running community and their scientific approach to their discipline, and am equally impressed with the depth of knowledge in this forum. Rowers certainly approach their sport with the same thoughtfulness, enthusiasm, and insight as runners do. kamdo (kevin)

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 13th, 2004, 7:00 am

Carl, It was a belief that I had come to based on having a good cardio system already in place but not getting good results. Going back to the theory "If you deliver, we will use it," I felt that I did indeed deliver. I understand your point about going from running to erging, but my main point was that I had been recently in top erging form and tried to return to some running (which I had once been good at) only to find the ability to deliver the oxygen even there wasn't enough for good performance. You link was interesting, and I had forgotten about that one. I have another of the Stephens articles downloaded on my computer (sorry I don't have the link) which I looked up this morning. It is titled Time Course of Training Adaptations. It seems to refute the "If you deliver, we will use it" theory. The excerpt that I think does this is: "It is also important to remember that the lactate threshold is even more specific to the mode of exercise than the VO2 max. This was exemplified by a study performed by Coyle et al. and published in 1991. In this study, 14 competitive cyclists with nearly identical VO2 max values differed substantially in their lactate threshold determined during cycling (ranging between 61 and 86% of VO2 max). When the cyclists were divided into a "low" and "high" LT groups (66% vs 81% of maximal oxygen consumption), it was found that the two groups differed considerable in the years of cycling training (2.7 compared to 5.1 years on average). However, they did not differ in years of endurance training (7-8 years of running, rowing etc.) When the low cycling LT and high cycling LT groups were asked to perform a lactate threshold test while running on a treadmill, the two groups were no longer different. Measured while running, the lactate threshold in both groups averaged over 80% of VO2 max. Similarly, if you are a runner and decide to add swimming and cycling to your training and compete in triathlons, you will immediately recognize that your running fitness does not immediately transfer to the bike, and of course not to the water! " If anyone is successfully using the "If you deliver, we will use it" approach they certainly should not let articles change their belief and slow them down though. If it works, do it. Rick