Does anyone have access to the full version of this:
The devil is in the details (protocols, durations, equipment used, etc.). I have some questions, so if you can get your mitts on the article, let us know.
I usually can. My sister is an MD-PhD student, so she can usually snag 'em. I fired off an email to her. I’ll let you know what comes of it. If someone else can provide in the meantime, though, go for it. It is ONLY $25, though in case you develop a conscience about trying to steal research from hard working scientists… 
Does anyone have access to the full version of this:
The devil is in the details (protocols, durations, equipment used, etc.). I have some questions, so if you can get your mitts on the article, let us know.
If you’re wondering how long each oscillation in power lasted and what impact that had on the normalized power, the answers are 1) 30 s, and 2) ~10%.
It is ONLY $25, though in case you develop a conscience about trying to steal research from hard working scientists…
As you presumably already know, those hard working scientists don’t see a penny of any revenue a scientific journal brings in, and in fact typically have to pay page charges ($25-100/page) to have their papers published.
If you’re wondering how long each oscillation in power lasted and what impact that had on the normalized power, the answers are 1) 30 s, and 2) ~10%
Why, yes. How did you know? 
So – hasn’t it been your argument for some time that 30sec on/off oscillations won’t really elicit the effect that the NP calculation is trying to capture?
Also, how is it that 158% and 73% work efforts were averaged to arrive at a 90% “average” work rate? Something is amiss there…
Finally – what intensity is “CP”, relatively speaking?
Any other thoughts from you?
And BTW – I wasn’t asking anyone to violate copywrite and post the article here. I just wanted to ask questions.
Does this mean my sister will not be buying me a Porsche for Christmas? And here I thought kynurenic acid was my big meal ticket! Yet another case of The Man keeping the little guy down…
EDIT: PS - Rick, I was just teasing you…
EDIT: PS - Rick, I was just teasing you…
I know…I just want to make sure all readers know I wasn’t trying to do something that shouldn’t be done. I publish a weekly newspaper column and it bugs me when my columns show up in places that haven’t asked for permission.
Answering my own post…
I visited the wattage forum and read through that thread. My questions were answered over there.
I’ve got a PDF copy of the paper if you still want it. PM your email and I’ll send it your way.
craig
Can you point me in the direction of that thread? I’ve been off the grid for a few days and can’t find it. The topica search function was of great assistance, as always, though.
Thanks
The topica search function was of great assistance, as always, though.
Thanks
LOL!
http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read?sort=d&start=44139
A post by Andy C. on 10/10 starts the thread.
Does anyone have access to the full version of this:
The devil is in the details (protocols, durations, equipment used, etc.). I have some questions, so if you can get your mitts on the article, let us know.
If you’re wondering how long each oscillation in power lasted and what impact that had on the normalized power, the answers are 1) 30 s, and 2) ~10%.
Andy,
Am I reading the abstract incorrectly? Over on wattage, you said:
…when expressed as a percentage of the initial
value (which helps to control for differences in pre-exercise values)
there was a tendency for glycogen utilization to be greater in the
variable intensity trial (i.e., 59 vs. 53%), for PCr to decline more,
for blood lactate to be higher, etc. (I’ll leave it up to someone else
to do a power calculation to determine how many subjects would be needed
for such differences to achieve significance. )
When I look at the numbers in the abstract, it appears that the glycogen amounts declined more and the lactate levels rose more in the CONSTANT power case as compared to the alternating case (as a percent of initial value). That doesn’t jibe with your statement above. Are the numbers listed in the incorrect order in the abstract?
Thanks.
I was struck by this…
“To the best of our knowledge, only one study has compared
the muscle metabolic responses to alternating-intensity exercise
compared to constant-intensity exercise.”
(Ref. 21 being a study out of Tim Noakes’ lab.)
A substantial ommission considering the impact (in my view) of studies performed by Essen specifically relevant to this article. Oh well.
Thanks again.
Andy,
Am I reading the abstract incorrectly? Over on wattage, you said:
…when expressed as a percentage of the initial
value (which helps to control for differences in pre-exercise values)
there was a tendency for glycogen utilization to be greater in the
variable intensity trial (i.e., 59 vs. 53%), for PCr to decline more,
for blood lactate to be higher, etc. (I’ll leave it up to someone else
to do a power calculation to determine how many subjects would be needed
for such differences to achieve significance. )
When I look at the numbers in the abstract, it appears that the glycogen amounts declined more and the lactate levels rose more in the CONSTANT power case as compared to the alternating case (as a percent of initial value). That doesn’t jibe with your statement above. Are the numbers listed in the incorrect order in the abstract?
Re. glycogen: note the qualifier “…when expressed as a percentage of the initial value…”.
Re. lactate: note the qualifier “blood” (data for which are not in the abstract).
Re. PCr: my statement is consistent with the abstract, i.e., muscle PCr content was lower in the alternating exercise trial.
I know that you had your questions answered already, but I thought I’d hit a couple of them anyway for the potential benefit of others.
So – hasn’t it been your argument for some time that 30sec on/off oscillations won’t really elicit the effect that the NP calculation is trying to capture?
The normalized power algorithm uses a 30 s rolling average to account for the known time course of numerous physiological (esp. metabolic) responses to changes in exercise intensity. The 30 s on periods used in this study therefore aren’t completely “flattened” by this aspect of the algorithm (nor should they be!), but they are significantly damped. The result is that even after you apply the 4th order weighting, the normalized power of the variable intensity trial is only slighty greater than that of the constant intensity trial, commensurate with the fact that differences in the metabolic response between trials were small and not statistically significant.
what intensity is “CP”, relatively speaking?
http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read/message.html?mid=903428277
Thanks.
I was struck by this…
“To the best of our knowledge, only one study has compared
the muscle metabolic responses to alternating-intensity exercise
compared to constant-intensity exercise.”
(Ref. 21 being a study out of Tim Noakes’ lab.)
A substantial ommission considering the impact (in my view) of studies performed by Essen specifically relevant to this article. Oh well.
FWIW, there are also a number of studies using sinusoidal exercise to elucidate the control system parameters tau, delay, and gain for physiological responses, but since none of them employed muscle biopsies, they technically don’t contradict the quote above.
Yes, but gosh,… a simple medline search for “intermittent exercise” brings up four of Essen’s papers, three of which specifically address muscle metabolism. You’d expect a term paper on the subject to have those references, so, to not even be aware of them to the best of their knowledge… Evidently, the reviewers weren’t aware of them either though.
On a more important note,… am I going to have time to ride in St. Louis?
Thanks
Re. glycogen: note the qualifier “…when expressed as a percentage of the initial value…”.
Right. For the CONSTANT trials the “post” value is 220.5, which is 53% of the “pre” value of 418.8. For the VARIABLE trials, the “post” value is 259.5, which is 58% of the “pre” value of 444.3. So…it appears to me that the level of glycogen dropped by 47% in the constant trial vs. a drop of 42% in the variable. Again…am I calculating something incorrectly?
Re. lactate: note the qualifier “blood” (data for which are not in the abstract).
Aahh…I didn’t catch that. Any thoughts about why the muscle lactate levels would appear to be lower? Are the “off” sections of the variable trial allowing some of the lactate to be “flushed” from the muscle…especially since (now that I’ve seen a copy of the full study) that the biopsies were taken after a 2 minute “off” period?
Re. PCr: my statement is consistent with the abstract, i.e., muscle PCr content was lower in the alternating exercise trial.
Yes…I didn’t mean to imply that that portion of the statement didn’t make sense.
Thanks for your help!
Yes, but gosh,… a simple medline search for “intermittent exercise” brings up four of Essen’s papers, three of which specifically address muscle metabolism. You’d expect a term paper on the subject to have those references, so, to not even be aware of them to the best of their knowledge… Evidently, the reviewers weren’t aware of them either though.
Ah well, as we all know the peer review process isn’t perfect. Still, it’s got to be embarrassing to state it as “To the best of our knowledge…” only to discover that your knowledge is rather incomplete.
On a more important note,… am I going to have time to ride in St. Louis?
I don’t know your travel schedule, but the location of the meeting is only a few miles from some really nice roads, and depending on how far/long you wanted to ride, odds are you wouldn’t get lost. So, if getting in some miles is a priority, I’d say that it should be possible (weather permitting).
I would venture to say that the Lucero you’re riding IS a Porsche in bike terms. Why be greedy?
Chris