Summary....

1. use MMSS/CP to normalize intensity NOT maximal aerobic power which is protocol dependent (hence arbitrary) and ignores the variance of MMSS/VO2max between individuals

2. adopt work-balance modeling to better explain the performance and physiology of HIIT

Enjoy!!

Since one cannot recover at "negative" altitude (unless hyperoxia is used) there is a basement limit which = passive recovery. Thus by lowering the absolute value of MMSS in hypoxia (or elite vs recreational) this decreases Dcp = aerobic "excess" available for physiological recovery (PCr etc)

5/n

Secondly, in our 2016 Wbal study we found longer TTe in the normoxic condition vs hypoxia. From a modeling perspective this is explained by lower Dcp in hypoxia ie: speed of recovery is proportional to the magnitude of excess aerobic ATP supply.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26460632/

4/n

Note also that for intermittent exercise, longer TTE = more intervals completed = greater O2def accumulated. The same result can be elicited in lesser trained individuals by altering some combination of work/rec intensities + work/rec durations. Again, easily predicted by Wbal modeling

3/n

Intensity was "normalized" to MAP. However it is common for MMSS of elite endurance athletes to be >%VO2max than recreational. Thus, it is likely the elite group work intensity was a lower % above MMSS and thus, as pred by Wbal modeling, TTE would be longer.

#NormalizetoMMSS

2/n

During pre-acclimation I noticed a change in perceptual response from <3500m to >4000m. I could feel an increase in cerebral BF as a "throbbing" sensation. This coincides with results from our 2017 study in which W' decreased around this (simulated) altitude.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28386237/