(Update – Jan 22nd, 2016! I’ve now published my in-depth review of the Gen2 unit. So you’ll want to swing over to that post for all my thoughts after months of real-world usage. Enjoy!)
Today BSX announced the second iteration of their lactate threshold focused product with their Gen2 unit. You’ll remember that BSX started on Kickstarter about 18 months ago, and then started shipping their first generation product this past winter. The Insight was designed to measure your lactate threshold and give you guidance to develop training zones for running and cycling (depending on which product you bought).
The 2.0 edition really has two core pieces – first is the software on both the device and the web/app platform that have been updated. Then there’s the hardware components on the device itself that have changed, most notably around improving ANT+ & BLE connectivity. Connectivity has been a challenge for some users, in some cases causing complete data loss upon completing the test (resulting in large fits of anger). And while BSX has been able in the vast majority of those cases to save the test data, it caused a pretty big rift with users.
One of the most visible new features will be the addition of Muscle Oxygenation (SmO2), a space that has previously really only been occupied by Moxy. The muscle oxygenation data is measured within the BSX pod and then broadcast over three different ANT+ variants:
– ANT+ MO2 Profile (for supported devices)
– ANT+ Running Cadence (for legacy devices)
– ANT+ Cycling Cadence (for legacy devices)
It’s the first one that’s most interesting – that’s because that allows capable apps (mostly trainer based and Connect IQ based) to pickup the muscle oxygenation information from the Insight device directly. Whereas otherwise you have to use the second two options, which is to channel that information over the existing running & cycling cadence channels that are found on any number of devices out there today. You can see an example of that here with the Edge 810, where’s it’s being sent over the cycling cadence channel. The obvious problem there being you then lose the real cadence information.
This information is also transmitted to the BSX app via Bluetooth Smart, such as below. That way they can record the data to your training log.
Now BSX will readily admit (similar to Moxy) that the muscle oxygenation ‘industry’ (read: just them two companies) is still fairly new and thus in some cases you’ll be charting new territory when it comes to how to use the data to train and race. It also doesn’t help that platforms like Training Peaks or Garmin Connect today lack ways of capturing/recording the data with your existing training data. So you’re more reliant on the BSX apps for now.
Still, there’s fascinating research going on, and BSX is working with many of the same industry leading names that started doing power meter training/racing research years ago to try and formulate how best to use that guidance. And a lot of that guidance will be dependent on the continual use aspect that we’ll discuss in this next section.
The Gen2 model has some changes designed to support daily training/racing usage. That means you can use it while on your normal runs and rides, and not just on lactate tests as the Gen1 model was.
They’ve introduced a few hardware features that make this possible, starting with the ability to give it various tap commands to start transmitting data. Then there’s the slightly changed calf compression sleeve with added light blocking technologies for outdoor usage (the earlier sleeve didn’t work as well outdoors). Not to mention changes in the light sensors to increase accuracy over a broader range of people and skin types.
Then finally, outside the device itself, the web site and app being updated to handle all of these new workouts. Each of these workouts giving you muscle oxygenation data as well as data collected from ANT+ sensors such as heart rate sensors and power meters.
Within the mobile app it’ll allow you to simply scroll through your different workout days and get the data seen above. This is for both cycling and running.
Within the new app, they’re going to be rolling out Wahoo KICKR trainer control. This means that the app will connect over Bluetooth Smart to the Wahoo KICKR trainer and control your wattage automatically during lactate threshold tests. That’s pretty cool, and will make your life just a tiny bit better at a point in time where your life is probably not terribly great (as anyone who has done a lactate threshold test can attest to).
The unit simply pairs to the KICKR using the existing Wahoo KICKR API’s (via Bluetooth Smart) as seen at the bottom of the app, and then will just automatically control each wattage level throughout the test.
I asked them about support of ANT+ FE-C trainers, and they said they were quite open to it and didn’t believe it’d be that complex for them to add down the road as part of a software update.
Of course, the biggest challenge that BSX probably faces is how to bridge the gap between the people that backed the Gen1 product, and get them onto a Gen2 product. Without those Gen1 supporters, they basically wouldn’t have a company or be where they are today. There are no doubt certain software/web aspects that Gen1 people will benefit from by default, but there’s also a hard reality that other features just required a hardware change. For example improved antenna design to handle improved ANT+/BLE connectivity.
In order to try and soften that blow, they’re going to offer an upgrade program for existing users to get them onto the 2.0 devices – rather than having to purchase a new device. New devices would otherwise be $299 (Running), $369 (Cycling), and $419 (Multisport).
Right now they’re still running the financial numbers for what that upgrade cost would be, but I was able to pin them down onto a quotable price range of “Definitely under $100” for existing users to upgrade to the new Gen2 devices. Given the volumes that BSX produces at, their cost structure is still fairly high – especially for these sensor components, so their ability to just hand out free devices is more limited than a larger company like Garmin. Hopefully though they can get that cost to upgraders down as low as possible. I think if they can get it into the $50-$75 range that’s fair, since I know of no other sports tech company in the market that offers a massive discount year over year for new hardware products.
Just to help understand all the differences, here’s the chart of how the two devices compare:
BSX Insight Features
|BSX Feature & Capabilities||Insight Gen1||Insight Gen2|
|Lactate Threshold Tes||Yes||Yes|
|LT1 and LT2 results (AeT and AT)||Yes||Yes|
|Dashboard Progress Graph||Yes||Yes|
|Training zones based on LT Result||Yes||Yes|
|Customizable Percents for Training Zones||Yes||Yes|
|Pairs to ANT+ HR & ANT+ Power Meters||Yes||Yes|
|Improved ANT+ Connectivity||-||Yes|
|Connects via BLE to app on Mobile (iPhone/Android)||Yes||Yes|
|Improved BLE connectivity||-||Yes|
|Basic calf compression sleeve||Yes||-|
|Enhanced calf compression sleeve with light blocking technology (required for outdoor activities)||-||Yes|
|ANT+ broadcast to watch via Run Cadence Profile||-||Yes|
|ANT+ broadcast to head unit via Cycle Cadence Profile||Yes|
|ANT+ broadcast via MO2 Profile||-||Yes|
|Results Shareable Socially||-||Yes|
|Graphs of Daily Activity||-||Yes|
|Deep sleep state for prolonged battery life||-||Yes|
|Headless start ability (Can use without mobile app)||-||Yes|
|Improve Tutorial Flow||-||Yes|
|Compare Daily Workouts||-||Web Only|
|LED indicator for device state information||-||Yes|
Last but not least- the device should ship to folks on Monday, November 2nd, 2015. They appear quite confident in that date, and given what I’ve seen over the last few days poking at a device – I’d be fairly surprised if they miss that date.
With that, thanks for reading! If you’re looking to burn a bit of time, here’s all my Interbike 2015 posts!
—Update – support the site! Found what you read above useful? If so – then you can support the site here by ordering the BSXinsight 2.0 Lactate Threshold Sensor via Clever Training. Units started shipping Monday, November 2nd as planned. In addition, by being a DCR reader you can save 10% on your cart with coupon code DCR10MHD (and free US shipping)!
The three versions are:
Running Edition – $299
Cycling Edition – $369
Multisport Edition – $419
I was one of their Kickstarter backers and let’s just say I was underwhelmed with their gen 1 product. IMO, another thing they need to address in their gen 2 product is their charging cradle. Personally, I think they should just integrate some form of wireless charging (e.g. Qi). They also need to at the very least shave some of the plastic down around the USB port as I had difficulty finding a cable that would fully seat in mine.
I see a mention of using Connect IQ to use the M02 profile. I didn’t see any mention of a new Connect IQ app though. Is there any plan to release one?
Moxy has 3 out there now:
link to apps.garmin.com
Thanks Eli! That is good to know.
We do not have immediate plans to release a new Connect IQ app. When training with your watch or head unit, we believe the best experience is to use an existing ANT+ field. We’re working closely with our partners to make MO2 a standard on future watches and headunits.
Yes, it would be great not to need to use Connect IQ but if Moxy hasn’t had any luck with getting future devices to support their sensor what makes you think you will?
Here is to hoping part of the Ant+ forum announcement includes custom data field can access custom ant+ channels and save the data to the FIT file for an activity. I can dream, right?
Eli , there I a watch with direct SmO 2 and tHb feedback look at the MOXY website or try to get info from Roger Schmid from Fortiori as they have some companies lined up as well live feedback over long distances and coupled with Video as well. We run here in Canada and in Europe full team is supported workouts live strength workouts and interval workouts but as well live feedback in tennis figure skating track and field or what ever sport you like to use live feedback on metabolic information’s. The option to see it live on your watch works since 3 years on any watch with ANT where you can have HR or speed or cadence so you have SmO2 and tHb as well .
As a gen 1 supporter I was let down by an app never getting created that would give real time feedback while running. This was a stated goal that never came to life. Multiple emails made it sound like it was on the way but it never happened.
When I emailed about the Gen 2, asking if it would have this app, they haven’t responded (8 days since my question to them). Without real time feedback of the data the device was designed for, throwing in other data is worthless.
If it’s definitely under $100 then I’ll be a day 1 upgrade. I was expecting more along the lines of it being like $100 off the current prices. I’m fairly happy with my Gen1 and it’s numbers match up closely with my field LT tests (never had a true blood based lab test though) and if it gives me more features at that price point I’d be super thrilled.
I’m curious, Christian, how has BSX affected your training exactly? What kind of measured benefits did you get?
Hey Christian. We’re excited to hear that this has helped in your training! We always love to hear feedback.
My thoughts exactly. Before BSX I was training to easy. After the testing I trained in my levels and ran a 5k pr at 43 years old. The bias for BSX is to run a bit high in terms of running speed and perhaps a bit low for heart rate.
I was at first pissed about the upgrade as I didn’t think they were treating us G pigs well. If the cost stays around their cost then I’m in. I provided BSX a lot of feedback via Twitter (irony accepted) and I’m glad they are serious about keeping us early adopters happy.
I’m no shill for the company – I post here a lot and have been on Ray and TRS podcast a few times. Gen 1 had issues. And if Gen 2 addresses even a few of those issues this is going to be a great (however potentially niche) product.
Control of the Kickr for bike sets is key.
Smart of the marketing team to think about us Gen 1 buyers as thought leaders and not another revenue source. Bravo
You do know Golden Cheetah has supported moxy in 3.2:
link to goldencheetah.org
link to sporttracks.mobi
Seems like Moxy is doing all the hard work of getting support for the data in software and getting people to figure out how to use the data
Not all the hard work 😉 They didn’t code Moxy support in GC 🙂
Well I’m sure it was one of these people: link to goldencheetah.org
But I mean going out and trying to get support for the new metric
I have v1 and it never worked properly. Grand total of one partially successful running test and zero cycling. Connectivity dropped all the time. They’re not asking for money to deliver an upgrade, but the functions if the original device.
Exactly the same here. One partial run test (HR did not register, zero bike. Issue: connectivity.
Happy to hear the upgrade the device and get V2 to existing user. 50 to 75 as Ray mentioned looks reasonable and I will definitively upgrade
Hey Benji. We’d love to help you with any issues you are having, please reach-out to us at firstname.lastname@example.org so we can get down to the problem.
If it’s under $100 then I will also be a day 1 upgrade, I was expecting a lot more than that.
Of course, lower figures are better here – $50 and I won’t get stung by customs, which makes a difference.
During to original Kickstarter campaign there was mention that even if it did do Ant+ MO2 it wasn’t as good as the data from Moxy as BSX reports relative blood oxygenation whereas the Moxy reports absolute blood oxygenation levels. Is that still true with Gen 2?
With the limitations that Connect IQ have, even with the apps its impossible to get a 920xt watch to record extra data into the FIT file it generates for a run/ride. I’m guessing this device doesn’t have any memory to save on it like Moxy does but can the app save the data so it can be exported and then merged with the file from a GPS device? See the way golden cheetah does it: link to vimeo.com (So while you need to carry your phone you still get all the data while not using the GPS of the phone allowing it to use much less battery power)
I wonder what “Deep sleep state for prolonged battery life” is. Wish it had some sort of switch on it. Say if I carry the device in my backpack to work and then go run after work I would hope it could stay off the whole time and not wake up just cause it senses movement from the backpack moving. Sure footpods work fine without a switch but they also use way less battery when on.
Does it still have all the limits as the v1 product for sharing the device with others as it was basically attached and registered only to your device?
If you can just elect to “cheat” by recording it as cadence data (run cadence data is pretty worthless anyway), then you’d have it in the FIT file.
Had the same thoughts about relative vs absolute oxygenation. From the screenshot of the graph with min/avg/max values it looks almost if they’d be able to report absolute values?
Now that BSX people are posting here hopefully they can answer
Hi Eli. Thanks for the questions – we’re happy to clarify these things.
– Yes, BSXinsight tracks absolute oxygenation.
– Yes, data is saved on BSXinsight. The storage has a capacity of over 12 hours of data, or about a week of use for an average user. There is no need to carry your mobile phone with you in order to collect data for a daily activity. You can send your data from the BSXinsight to your mobile phone to receive immediate results. Once you dock the device to the desktop app, the information is pulled off BSXinsight and you’ll be able to download a CSV file from the website.
– Updates to the hardware and software have allowed us to turn off BSXinsight automatically when you are not using it thereby extending the standby battery life to over a week.
– At this time BSXinsight requires pairing to one account.
Thanks for getting the details.
– “absolute oxygenation” So this is a change from the v1 product?
– For getting saved data off the device you need to go through the web site? The smartphone app and desktop app can’t just pair with the device and do it there? CSV file? I’m hoping you don’t go the route of a custom format so all existing apps that use the data (GoldenCheetah, Sporttracks,…) can just work with BSX.
– automatically turning on and off just seems problematic and worries me about just being able to thrown the device into a backpack and not have it turn on by accident. Also “over a week” may be much better then before but as a sealed unit without a user changeable battery if you aren’t using the device for awhile and the battery drains out you wasted a recharge cycle for no reason and left the battery in a low power condition which is bad for the battery assuming you’re using li-ion. So I guess when not in use you expect the device to be stored in the charging cradle plugged into power.
(For those interested in this see: link to batteryuniversity.com )
SportTracks will import .FIT files with muscle oxy data, so if BSX can export those, it will work, “out of the box”. I assume GC works the same.
CSV export is a non starter for most customers – “ain’t nobody got time for that in 2015″… assuming there is demand, we’d spend that development effort getting direct API sync integration going.
Recording into a separate track like Cadence is nonsense. It’s a hack which has the effect of mangling your fitness history. Besides which, I can say that SportTracks at least makes assumptions about data – relevant ranges, decimal precision, labels, time in zones, yadda yadda. You gonna do quadrant analysis w/ power vs smo2 now? Yikes. And finally, we’ll be looking at developing new muscle oxy metrics and analysis, depending on that being recorded separately in the proper data bucket.
So the data challenge as it stands today is integrating the muscle oxy data into a single FIT file alongside the other ride metrics (speed/HR/cadence/power/etc) at the head unit. This means Garmin firmware updates, which is… uhm…. “worrisome” 🙂 Or.. use a different head unit – your phone for example.
Side note – the peripedal app currently supports the muscle oxy ANT channel and has direct automated sync to SportTracks…. *IF* you’re doing trainer workouts, consider it.
The other data challenge which is particular to Moxy is multi-muscle oxy data tracking and analysis (left / right / “control”). Technical discussions have started on that.
super great thoughts and sharing ideas. I like to ad some additional points here, as many of the readers here are very focused on sports like cycling and triathlon and possibly some running. The beauty in cycling is the great work we se and sharing ideas on golden cheetah. This is so great to see, as more and more people see, the interesting combination between physical performance as wattage for example, but the interesting influence physiological reactions can have on day o day performance ability. Thee is much we learn now and much more we still have to lean and it most llkely will never end which makes it so much fun.
Here just a small inside view outside cycling. We use NIRS equipment since many years in sports like ice hockey downhill skiing rowing simple basic personal coaching or strength training ideas and feedbacks and last but no least in rehabilitation form basic ACL return to stroke people and so on.
NIRS guides us to maintain individual feedbacks on optimal sufficient stimuli’s as well as getting in the shortest time unit the most benefit out of it.
An interesting situation is that we can have in a simple program like Peripedal up to 8 units running , so 8 athletes are getting tested at the same time or 8 muscles can be observed. This makes combination with SEMG and NIRS and additional feedbacks over cardiac hemodynamic and VO2 equipment a fascinating play ground with the end result to find a way back to the grassroots users with all compromises we have to do to make it decently simple and keep it still individual;.
So any technology in getting the dats faster and easier to read is a huge step
forward. For any tech people we have as well a Spanish company who has a live video track with muscle oxygenation feedback which is great to use in many sports like boxing or motocross and so on as you see live what happens and what is going on with this reactions in the body. .
The sky is the limit and with long range options we now can watch during for example a tennis game when and what systems may start to limit some of the performance.
Countries like Switzerland but as well Check with a huge advanced Hub in Prag with Jiri Dostal do some incredible work in this field and sharing in some world wide groups . Small hint there is a big user group outside the cycling and endurance community , who my have a lot feedbacks if we are all ready to share and are not stuck on classical ideas to much . NIRS is a dialy applicable tool and I just have now as I write this 2 clients in early in the morning a COPD person looking at NIRS to combine his respiration with a speed in walking allowing him to be independent as well a young person with an ACL not yet allowed to load full but we do a combination of hypoxic workout with minimal physical load but maximal O2 utilization ( so little load needed to stimulate high intensity metabolic ideas. to have him ready for the ski season. NIRS guides them just now with live feedback. Hope everybody has a great day and enjoy them as there are only so many summers left.
I wanted to update this and provide some more detail.
-YES, our SmO2 IS absolute and has been tested many times against published, referenced, clinical labs, as posted here:
link to dcrainmaker.com
-The Gen1 never reported real-time SmO2 so I’m unsure of the meaning or point of the question if it’s a change from Gen1.
-Yes the data is saved to the BSXinsight, no, you don’t need to go to the website to save it, you can just dock the BSXinsight, open the desktop app and click “sync”, as shown in the pic, here:
If you want the CSV file, after syncing, you can log into your dashboard, go to the activity, and scroll down for the download option. The CSV file basically has 1 second data points with decimal value.
-Our developers and engineers have tested and tried many config options with sleep, wake, on/off modes as well as ways to transition from one to another mode. There are pros and cons to each method and we feel we picked the best balanced option currently attainable. The device is always on, losing at most, 1% batt per hour in “sleep” and it appears to lose 12-17% per hour while recording and broadcasting, but we’re still doing firmware tweaks that can change this. To go from sleep to wake, takes a few taps, and uses slightly more battery for the seconds it’s awake, until going back to sleep. We’ll continue to explore options, as we add additional features.
I had been thinking that only a below $100 upgrade path would be fair given how useless some of their first gen devices had been, but not really expected it to be in that range, so it’s definitively good to know that they are playing fair.
Looks as if it connects only to the KICKR as a power meter when in KICKR control mode? Given how much my KICKR is off even after spin downs, and the instability of the external power meter feedback loop of KICKR’s firmware (compared with TrainerRoad’s feedback loop), I’d hope it can also connect to a power meter other than the KICKR when controlling the KICKR resistance…
Though it’s good that their daily activity mode is finally released, I am not sure that the calf would be the muscle I’d want to measure SmO2 in daily activity mode using their calf sleeve (Vastus Lateralis is my default when using the Moxy), given that SmO2 values differ a lot between muscles and the calf doesn’t do the main work when cycling. Still, it would be practical for me when I need one more SmO2 sensor than the number of Moxy’s I have access to, and I guess I can just tape it somewhere onto my legs instead of using their sleeve.
I’m not yet convinced that measuring LT on the calf really makes sense but I’d be happy to be convinced otherwise.
It can connect to any power meter. In the case of a KICKR, you get the added control.
I think he is asking that when connected to the kickr for controlling the training can the power numbers come from some other source.
I do hope its easy to transfer the unit to measure other muscles then just the calf assuming you have a way to block external light interference. Wonder if there is any logic that would be needed to read from other muscles then the one its designed for. I’m guessing no since the moxy can be placed anywhere and still work. I’m hoping they can do some sort of silicone rubber sleeve the unit can fit into to block excess light and then it can be easily put under bike shorts and get a good reading. (ok, highly unlikely to happen)
The pessimist in me thinks they want to get the new version to v1 adopters because even if they make no profit on the sales the increase in volume allows them to build the v2 units cheaper. I also think its to try and offset the negative reation they got from the v1 units having issues
Right, no, it only appears to support a single power sensor pairing at this time.
“Though it’s good that their daily activity mode is finally released, I am not sure that the calf would be the muscle I’d want to measure SmO2 in daily activity mode using their calf sleeve (Vastus Lateralis is my default when using the Moxy), given that SmO2 values differ a lot between muscles and the calf doesn’t do the main work when cycling. Still, it would be practical for me when I need one more SmO2 sensor than the number of Moxy’s I have access to, and I guess I can just tape it somewhere onto my legs instead of using their sleeve.
I’m not yet convinced that measuring LT on the calf really makes sense but I’d be happy to be convinced otherwise.”
I think they went with the calf for a couple of reasons. It is a good general use case muscle being the primary one. Yes the VL is much more active in cycling, and possible running but they is a HUGE variation in the size (for a sleeve) of everyone so that could be an issue.
I am of the school of thought that whatever you are measuring, as long as it is in a repeatable format (place, equipment, etc) then the data is just as good. For example,we all know the range of accuracy of powermeters. If I am using pedals and they are 20 watts lower than Quarq, as long as I always use the pedals to track training and progress there won’t be an issue but if I switch, then it can be a very large issue.
We all know cyclists LOVE to boast about power output but at the end of the day if you are using the same equipment consistently, it doesn’t matter if you are at 280 or 300 watts for ftp, as long as consistency in equipment is there.
I said all of that to say that I think the calf is ok for running and cycling (they are both under a certain amount of stress) as long as it’s repeatable.
That seems to assume that there is a direct correlation between the calf and the Vastus Lateralis. If the calf isn’t used as much then it won’t be trained as much so measuring the calf means you’re measuring something that is not adapting to the training.
If your doing intervals how do you know if the muscle has fully reoxygenated? The calf muscle since it wasn’t stressed as much should also be done recovering while the other muscle that was more stressed is still recovering. The opposite for measuring the stress put on the muscle. So in effect you won’t see the plateau you’d expect to see in a muscle that is being fully stressed. Power data doesn’t have that as there is no true limits to the numbers.
If you stuff it under your bike shorts along with something to block light coming through the shorts wouldn’t the BSX device work for measuring the Vastus Lateralis?
Not really an assumption being made other than the assumption of measuring the same thing over and over, you can track progress. How accurate is that measurement is the major debating point I believe and that is left for those much smarter than me 🙂
I think part of what was missed is that the calf is a good middle of the road place to measure because of ease of use and repeatability. Yes it is not the most dominant muscle when cycling but I think it gets more activity on the run than cycling so it, to me, is a good compromise.
In theory you could place it under your shorts and roll out except the placement may not be where it was before (with the current design of the sleeve, while not exact, it is much more accurate and removes a large part of human error) and the muscle density is different.
Initial testing of baselines was done on other parts of the body and the calf seem to provide the most accurate and repeatable results.
With all of that said, I am just a data nerd and coach. The 2 guys pulling the strings there are far more knowledgeable and “degree”d up than I am. 1 is a Dr and the other a mathmatician-ish, so maybe they can provide you with more of the technical reasoning behind why they selected it.
I just know I have used it a lot and was doing daily runs before it was even the possibility so I know what it can do and am biased towards the success and accuracy.
Currently, you can only connect to one power meter at one time. If your power numbers are coming from a different meter with the KICKR controlling the protocol, then likely the recommended protocol provided is not being executed properly (depending on how far off your KICKR reads from your power meter).
While there are subtle distinctions in muscle oxygenation depending on the muscle monitored and the sport type, the calf is a suitable muscle to monitor for both running and cycling. We have done extensive testing on many muscles that are recruited during exercise to validate this result. That is why we have designed a custom sleeve to properly mount BSXinsight to the calf in order to ensure the best measurement possible.
Hi, thanks to everyone who has replied to my thoughts. Appreciate that. 🙂
Concerning KICKR control:
My point is that, although on the first look it appears nice to have built in KICKR control, if it connects only to the KICKR during the protocol the accuracy of the BSX result will depend on KICKR. And many KICKRs including mine aren’t very accurate.
A short internet search will reveal to anyone that – sorry Wahoo – KICKR accuracy is soso. While some report it being relatively accurate, say within 5W, many others report it being inconsistently off by much more. I know from my testing so far that my KICKR is sometimes accurate, but often inconsistently off by 10 or 20 Watts or even more, even after spin down.
Unluckily my experience with power matching using the KICKR firmware update was not positive either (wheras the power matching implemented in TrainerRoad feels acceptable to me).
Therefore, at least for me using my KICKR, a KICKR control function without power matching is pretty much useless, and I’d think that for all the others having problems with KICKR accuracy this would be similar.
Sorry I don’t understand what BSX Athletics means with their reply. Although it may be good they are replying on here, “then likely the recommended protocol provided is not being executed properly” makes it sound as if I’d be doing something wrong or my thinking would be faulty, and I object to that. If their reply is just saying that, if the KICKR is off, the protocol will be off, and the results will be off, then that’s exactly my point too. 🙂
Concerning measuring on calf:
My point is only that the calf would not be my preferred location for daily measurements.
I am absolutely not criticizing using the calf for the LT test. I actually have great respect for the BSX engineers: It’s not easy to calculate LT from measuring SmO2 on the calf, and for the few times my gen1 unit has been properly working, the results were similar to a conventional 20 min protocol. If they can solve that engineering task, that’s fine. (The problem I see is only that BSX should publish their results instead of just saying they did their homework.)
I am also not criticizing the calf sleeve per se. I think it’s great for running. It also helps not having the sensor moving around during a workout. I’ve also played with the idea of sewing “moxy” pockets into my cycling shorts, so, I absolutely agree to use garment pockets to position a SmO2 sensor. I’m diverting but I don’t believe though that the calf sleeve allows for exact repeatable positioning of the sensor on the calf. My SmO2 values will differ if the sensor moved just by a few centimeters on my calf, so I’d need a tattoo for exact repeatable positioning. 🙂
My point is that for the daily activity mode, the calf would make it too difficult for me to interpret the results. Say I wanted to use use live SmO2 data to determine when to stop warming up and proceed to interval training, or, how far to go with those high intensity intervals. Unless I wanted to train my calves in particular, I would want to measure SmO2 on a muscle that is either doing a lot of the work, or on a muscle that corresponds with a muscle that is doing a lot of the work. From my experience with using Moxy, most muscles don’t correlate with each other, and my calves in particular don’t correlate with my VLs. If I wanted to train my calves I would measure there, but at this point in my training I’d prefer measuring on other muscles like my VLs which contribute more to my cycling output. VL is also an easy location because SmO2 in VL responds well to training load and it is convenient because I can just tuck in a sensor under my cycling shorts instead of wearing a compression sleeve.
To BSX: It might be just me, but, just thinking that it might feel better if you’d not just say “BSX Athletics” but stated your name even if it was just an alias?
Eli go to the MOXY website and lock the light shield which can be used and we fit it easy under bike shorts or ice hockey sleeves or under downhill ski dresses, speed skate uniforms and so on.
Have to say I’m a bit peeved about this. Purchased a Gen1 just a couple of weeks ago after quite involved discussions over the phone with BSX about my particular use case. Not a mention that it might be an idea to delay the decision for a week or two. Then yesterday, before I have even done the first test, I receive an email thanking me for my support and saying that, for more money, I could get a Gen2. I understand that you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and there is motivation to get rid of old stock before it’s unsalable but right now I’m feeling pretty ripped off.
Think I’ll just return the thing and go back to taking bloods.
Hi Wal. Thanks for letting us know. Please feel free to contact us at email@example.com.
Definitely *not* peeved. BSX has been incredibly responsive, and I’ve enjoyed doing the assessment (it accurately figured out I suck). I’ll definitely spring for the upgrade if it’s $100 or less, if only to have my suckage more accurately detailed.
Hi Richard, we’re happy to hear the experience has been positive! Hopefully we’ll be able to help you turn “suckage” into suffering 😉
I’m actually pretty happy with my Gen1 BSX. Have completed several run and bike test. Some problems getting all devices connected, but once they are connected, they stay connected.
If the upgrade is in the $100 range I will upgrade as soon as possible.
Ray, do you know if a Gen1 sleeve will work with the Gen2 pod?
I would recommend not using it. I have been using the gen2 “alpha” for a little while now doing some testing and research for them and will say there is a pretty noticeable difference in the 2 sleeves. I did some testing for them months back, outside, trying to see the functionality of the Gen1 in a daily use case and that is when the sleeve issue occurred. Too much light leakage. Props to them for addressing and correcting this!
Full disclosure, I am a former employee of BSX before they moved and have worked closely with them from a coaching and testing aspect since then.
Their new Gen2 is everything that it says it is and maybe a little more. I am very happy they finally got to the point with the connectivity being much better! They are definitely trending in the right direction.
Hey TorsteinVH, great question. The Gen 1 sleeve is designed to be used for inside only. The Gen 2 sleeve has additional light blocking technology for outside use. If you qualify for the early adopter upgrade program the Gen 2 sleeve will be part of the package. Otherwise, the Gen 2 sleeve comes with the Gen 2 product.
When I received the email yesterday I was really pi**ed. If it comes down to under $100 I’m just somehow pi**ed. Another lesson learned: don’t buy a 1st gen gadget.
I actually do not have a choice. My gen 1 unit is pretty much useless. Connection drops all the time. I don’t care about the Moxy information, I just wanted to use it for FTP testing but at the moment it is too cumbersome.
So I still can’t select the power meter manually? The unit still works only with ANT+ distance?
And can anyone explain me of what the value of BSX’ AeT estimate is? Mine is at around 95% FTP. Some reviews out there report similar estimates. All very high compared to the common definitions for AeT. I know, there is not a single definition for LT1 and LT1 (or however you want to call them) but how would you use their estimate for training?
“And can anyone explain me of what the value of BSX’ AeT estimate is? Mine is at around 95% FTP. Some reviews out there report similar estimates. All very high compared to the common definitions for AeT. I know, there is not a single definition for LT1 and LT1 (or however you want to call them) but how would you use their estimate for training?”
You are saying that your “LT1” determination is 95% of ftp? Obviously that would not be accurate…Have you contacted them about that? Their customer service is pretty solid and they are quick to get a reply, even when they may have to do some research for the answer.
Using the estimate, when accurate, for training is an incredibly valuable tool for increasing your Aerobic base. I have been using the data from their device to coach my athletes and have noted substantial aerobic gains in just 4 weeks of using the AeT they have provided. See image for this chart I have built to track just one of my athletes utilizing their AeT prediction in a training program I designed.
In the end, just reach out to them and let them help you! I hope this helps!
I actually contacted BSX support about this. And the hassle of getting all my devices paired. I must say their response was pretty useless. The recent firmware update (they didn’t mention that they are working on something but left me with the feeling that I’m too dumb to get the pod close enough to the powermeter/HR monitor) hasn’t changed a thing for me. An now I read it may be hardware related. Honestly, how much more can you “bs” your customers?
Regarding LT1/AeT: they just sent me their standard one or two sentence defintion of AeT. No response to my high value. Now if it was just me, but as already alluded to in my previous post, I’ve seen several results from other people reporting similar high values for BSX AeT.
Stefan shoot me an email and let me see if I can help as I can understand your frustrations!
mindrightmultisport @ gmail.com
I know the value of having those numbers be very accurate and when I was working there that was one of my main focuses!
Hi Stefan, we’re sorry to hear about this experience, it’s certainly not our intention to provide vague information. We’d love the opportunity to help clarify. Please do contact us again at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.
I contacted you a week ago. Received your automatic repsonse. Apart from this: silence.
What about the “we’d love the opportunitiy to help clarify”?
Does it connect to watches over BLE (like Ambit 3)?
There would need to be a BLE muscle oxygen spec first. Or do you mean faked running/cycling cadence over BLE?
JL, No, the BLE connection is only to a mobile phone.
Also a Gen 1 backer, also more than slightly peeved…even at the new price point for adopters. How do you justify offering what you were promising in the first product in the new one? “Only 50-75 USD…I sit in another country. By the time I’m done with the exchange rate which has gone down the tubes, import duties and shipping I’m probably closer to paying about 200USD relative to the Gen 1. Which I have been able to use about 3 times since I got it due to connection issues.
In my mind, BSX sold a DEFECTIVE product, managed to figure it out in G2 and now expect us to fit the bill for producing what they should have produced in the first place.
I have participated in other Kickstarter campaigns, but this has been by far the worst experience. Too many broken promises (delivery dates missed repeatedly, functionality that went missing in the “final” product vs the campaign…and so on and so forth). The product has a lot of potential, if for nothing more than stimulating competition in a very exciting space, but the way in which customers have been treated has been mediocre at best.
I am saving up for a Moxy…and when that comes I will order that – I have much more confidence in their support and business practices than that of BSX.
I am an international customer, too, and had the same thoughts about exchange rates, shipping and taxes. I hope that, to be fair to all customers, at least worldwide shipping will be INCLUDED in the upgrade cost.
Same here. It’s realy a pain with the german customs and presumably it would be cheaper to buy the Gen2 than upgrade my Gen1 with the taxes, shipping and exchange rate.
I know this is an older comment, but I understand the frustrations you had, Etienne.
I wanted to make sure everyone was taken care of, who had shipping/VAT issues. Wayne@BSXAthletics has been putting in some crazy hours, in addition to his normal duties, personally calling to resolve every case of VAT/duties/fees being applied.
So anyone who still has an issue, just contact us on our site, which will open a ticket to get it taken care of. Again, we did the paperwork correctly, but some shipping and customs officials are incorrectly looking at the value sheet and ignoring the official warranty documents and price paid. Every case that has been called has been easily corrected, with acknowledgement of their mistake. However, some countries take more work and require we complete forms, which takes a bit.
Please be patient with shipping, we have had an overwhelming demand for the Gen2 BSXinsight, which we’re carefully, and quickly attempting to scale and meet demand.
I’ve received the update via e-mail from Wayne L. Apparently “additional research has been initiated” by Fedex who asked for the commercial invoice.
Still waiting to see how it pans out – I haven’t heard anything directly from the local Fedex agents who seem to be quite happy to ignore the situation until they are prodded.
I suggest you look at changing to DHL – all shipments via them have gone off without a hitch.
Thanks for the reply. I’m sure Wayne is all over it, but I’ll see if he needs any help.
Appreciate the advice as well with DHL. I will pass it along for review. Shipments without a hitch would be very welcomed!
Hi there! Simple question. There is quite a price differential between both Moxy and BSX, I’d like to know what are the exact differences between both devices. As a coach, I would love to obtain one of the systems for clients, but hesitant.
Oops! Didn’t mean to add a large picture of my face haha!
For me the biggest differentiators are:
You simply have to contrast the responses of BSX and Jeurg above (one of THE authorities on NIRS in general and Moxy specifically) and long list of complaints (mine included) on this review and here (Gen 1 quick look) link to dcrainmaker.com
to contrast the type of info you’ll get from one or the other. E-mails to BSX have gone unanswered or been answered in the most vague of “we’ll get back to you” sort of way. Every query to Moxy (e-mail and forum) has been answered in detail in short order.
BSX: Gen 1 (product where I have experience). Poor. Maybe Gen2 improves on this, maybe it doesn’t.
As a coach you’ll find the BSX hard to work with – unless I missed something and they changed their licensing model which at the moment means 1 device is linked to 1 user. You want a different user? Create another profile and link another BSX unit. Moxy is reusable as many times and with as many different athletes as you would like. For a coach this should be the deal breaker.
The Moxy doesn’t look sexy but by all reports seems to work straight out of the box and does everything it says it does. I had issues with the BSX Gen 1 from day 1 and using it has been so hit and miss I’m no longer bothering.
BSX: Looks like good value for money – if only it worked as promised in the first place and could be used with multiple people (no reason I can think of for it not to be able to do this except for some artificial limitation imposed by BSX to drive sales of the hardware).
Moxy: On the expensive side, but it works.
You’ll find we’ve come a very long way, after getting through some growing pains and dialing in our hardware/firmware for the features and consistency expected. It took longer than we wanted, but the feedback we’re getting is the Gen2 BSXinsight is extremely positive.
You can now use the device with multiple people, on different free accounts, profiles and apps. It no longer requires pairing to a single account, you just open up the app and connect to the BSXinsight, do an activity, and sync it on your computer, to whatever account you want that activity tied to. If someone else does an activity, they do the same and sync it to whatever account they want the activity shown on. If you share an account so all the activities are there together, you can rename them to identify who did which activity.
As for support, we’re extremely focused on stepping it up for the best experience possible. We know we’ve been slow to respond, as we’ve quickly grown, and aren’t looking to throw around excuses, only get better, and faster.
I’ve addressed many other topics below in this comment section, related to connecting, syncing, accuracy, testing & study references, and more.
These are all very positive developments – particularly the ability for multiple users to use the same device.
Thank you for the information and update.
I am very biased as I work with different NIRS equipment since many years and I write a forum support for MOXY , so please check my information from independent users.
First big difference is:
I can use one MOXY on as many different customers as I like and I can use one MOXY for any different activities I do. So it is NOT bound for running or cycling or combination only.
NIRS is much more used for activities like strength workouts or interval workouts but as well for assessment to find individual intensity s form all your customers you have in any endurance sport you liek to assess in the field or in the gym. With MOXY we have a live feedback over a big screen in a gym if you like or on a lap top or where ever as a graph and as numbers . Different software can give you feedback now for SmO2 and tHb.
THb is often much more important as a feedback than SmO2 . More information is available on moxy forum and I try to be as objective as I can be with all the weakness we have when we prefer one or the other equipment.
. NIRS is a direct feedback on what we where looking for indirectly since ever.
We used VO2 at the mouth level for assessing aerobe and ” anaerobe” we used lactate as an idea indirectly to how to understand O2 trends. Now we can look it directly with still many weaknesses but some clear steps forward. So we finally can trakc O2 relatively nicely so why would we step back use NIRS to find an indirect marker again.
There are many personal coaches now in Europe and in the uSA using NIRS direct during workouts with customers.
We hope in our Fourm to help as good as we can and more and more users step in to give you some directions and help on how to use NIRS no matter what equipment you may use.
Truly thank you for the passionate feedback and comments. We are inspired by all you athletes looking to train smart and achieve your personal best, whatever means you decide on.
We know there is a desire for details around the early adopter upgrade program, and are committed to reaching out directly to every person that qualifies in mid-October with detailed information. Please be sure the email tied to your account is up to date.
If you have any immediate questions or concerns please reach-out to us at email@example.com. We do take pride in our customer service and work super hard to make sure our customers feel supported.
If this was a pure technology thing there would be sceptics all over this, but because it is physiology they are getting an east ride.
There are no published papers on either this device or the Moxy device in Pubmed and I also couldn’t find any published papers demonstrating any training benefit.
One paper does mention how they measured, what they called muscle oxygenation and it is not muscle oxygenation they are measuring anyway. They are measuring the oxygenation of Heamaglobin in the blood.
There is a similar protein in the muscle called Myoglobin. Calling the measurement of blood oxygenation muscle oxygenation is just dishonest. No way around it. Both of the companies’ websites come across as snake oil salesmen. There may well be people in their technology department who think their advertising people are morons, but then they should really have a word.
Given that blood entering muscle will be nearly fully oxygenated, unless under extreme exercise or in people with other medical problems (eg. a fontan’s circulation), what this device is probably measuring is oxygen extraction (as a percentage).
That might be useful, but at the very least they should be honest about what they are measuring and the obvious flaws. For example one of the biggest adaptions to exercise is that blood is better targeted than it was before, including by a large increase in the number of blood vessels within muscles. This means that a trained muscle can extract the exact same amount of Oxygen, but the percentage fall in Haemaglobin oxygenation is less. Or put another way for the same ‘muscle oxygenation’ recorded the amount of Oxygen extracted by a trained muscle is likely to be very much higher.
Also, this is not a lactate threshold. Anyone telling you it is lying. Lactate is not a bad thing. Tissue is more efficient when it uses Oxygen, but when that system is overloaded the system that doesn’t use Oxygen is much more important. Just because lactate is being produced doesn’t mean that the levels in the blood are high, because it is also removed by the liver. The lactate threshold that most people refer to and that can be measured with simple blood tests is when the liver becomes overwhelmed by the amount of lactate. In someone with liver failure the point when lactate production increases significantly and when the liver is overwhelmed are going to be very close, but most of the people who read this blog are a long way from having liver failure and one of the points of training is to improve lactate metabolism and separate the two points as much as possible.
You could argue that the local effect on the muscle pH effects the Haemagobin-oxygen disassociation curve, but again this is not the same thing as what professional athletes are measuring. Given all the other factors I very much doubt you could see a shift in the curve anyway.
You could argue that you are waiting for the global blood pH to change, which then effects Haemaglobin oxygenation, but I think you’d easily miss it and, as it is a global thing, there is no logic to using blood with an active muscle.
And what if you did altitude training? The concentration of Haemoglobin goes up, so for the same percentage ‘muscle oxygenation’ actually more oxygen is being extracted from the blood.
I would advice anyone thinking of purchasing these devices to ensure two criteria are met before giving these people any money:
1) well conducted peer reviewed published evidence of a training benefit. Ignore anecdotes; people will also say homeopathy worked on them and that is clear nonsense.
2) Someone needs to publish a paper explaining how the device works in a good physiology journal. What they have on both their websites is clear bunkum.
I don’t doubt that they will try to point to data, but don’t allow them to con you with badly conducted un-published research or nonsense published in an obscure journal.
I’ve requested and reviewed a lot of cardiopulmonary function tests in patients; if they really have found a magic way to measure lactate threshold they will be able to publish it easily (and quite possibly get a Nobel prize).
“Well conducted peer reviewed published evidence of training benefit. Ignore anecdotes.”
This is an absolutely ridiculous standard to apply considering that there’s almost no science proving that ANYTHING is effective for endurance training. Steve Magness sums it up pretty well in this post: link to scienceofrunning.com.
If you used training methods prescribed only by peer reviewed studies, you’d be doing HIIT or some other such nonsense. The fact of the matter is that high volume training became popular because of the anecdotal experiences of athletes. It seemed to work for some people, so more tried it, and now it’s been universally adopted by high level athletes, despite the fact that there’s no science saying that you need to run over 100 miles/week to reach your potential.
These devices are just like GPS and heart rate monitors. If you’re interested and you have the cash, you should try them. If it seems like they add something to your training, then keep using them. If not, then don’t. Once you have the broad strokes of a training approach in place, the details are largely matters of intuition. That goes for even the greatest runners and coaches in the world.
Nice response and absolutely agree ..
We use biomarker equipment to find limiters and potential compensators.
So we look with Physio flow on clients like SV reactions and EF % to see, whether we overload for example the right ventricle in clients and than try to react accordingly before it is too late or to avoid further problems.
We look in people with a respiratory limitation, that we not overload the kidneys .
Now these is complex and expensive and with NIRS we have a cheaper tool with all its limitations to actually look for limiters and compensators, as well in sport. Limitation of , for example blood flow so we create a delivery limitation which therefore creates really a time bomb for further optimal activities.
Now with NIRS tHb will give us some interesting feedbacks.
Example . Figure skater. starting with a triple combination. we see that after the second jump the CO can not compensate anymore for muscle contraction and we create an arterial occlusion in the quadriceps. Now the pooled O2 in there is a limitation and in the third jump this limitation is reached. NO further O2 available to maintain optimal ATP needed levels and to protect pO2 levels. so reduction in motor unit recruitment . So loss of jumping height and struggle and perhaps crash or bad jump. Now too short step combinations in between this triple jump set and the next double jump combination . Not enough recovery ot SmO2 ( Cr.P ) due to occlusion reaction and the skater crashes in this double jump combination. Simple practical adjustment is to add an additional x seconds to the step combinations in between to let tHb recover and with it SmO2. The step combination have to be favorable for blood flow so no one leg spin in a squat position which make this even worse.
That’s were NIRS can make an immediate easy to address progress helper. many many more examples and we just discuss a SV change workout over a certain time in cycling on the MOXY forum.
Hmm this is a cheap and biased advertising for an interesting but super messy forum.
No, what is ridiculous is claiming that the lack of evidence of other things means evidence is not needed here.
In the times of leaches and blood letting there was very little evidence for medical therapies, but things have thankfully rapidly improved. And people back then thought leaches ‘added something’ and ‘kept on using them’. Doesn’t mean they did any good.
I lie to give a feedback on here to some emails I received after my figure skating example. Some where very positive some where let’s say different. (smile ) I like to give the feedback here as I triggered the emails from here. The positive feedbacks Here in a summary.
It makes a lot of sense looking at delivery situation and if possible to change it that easy to improve short-term performance due to a functional improvement. BUT. Most readers on DC are not figure skater so do you have a similar idea or application for cyclists.?
Absolutely and I try to explain it short and we can still discuss later on here if possible or on other forums if there are additional feedbacks and ideas.
Physiological bike fitting. is the application.
One example . Crank length
Test intensity could be FTP or a 5 1 5 assessment so fixed different wattage levels and we look at most efficient physiological reaction. Originally we used NIRS combined with VO2 equipment, Physio flow and blood assessments and SEMG.
To costly to complex but lot’s of fun. Today we may be able to get close but not all answers with just using NIRS.
What to look for.
a) delivery restriction or improvement using tHb trends.
b ) combine with SmO2 trend to see, whether the new set up creates a higher delivery of O2 than utilisation or O2 demand or are you balanced in metabolic delivery and utilization or are you creating a higher O2 demand , than you can deliver.
SmO2 alone will give you this information but tHb will give you the feedback in combination with SmO2 on who actually is the limitation and or who may try to compensate. You can see we use MOXY /NIRS not really for intensity control alone , ( can be used if people lie it ) but it is a actual exercise tool to train systems you may like to improve or target.
You can compare MOXTY with a pair of cross country skis. If you like to improve cross-country skiing you need most likely some cross country skis . You may in the beginning not improve athletic performance but cross country specific coordination and therefore despite the same physiology you will be more efficient and therefor perform better.
Same with MOXY you like to improve O2 utilization you need a tool who gives you the feedback and the option to bike and see, whether the technique you choose actually changes utilization.
You like to improve efficiency in pedal stroke you use a tool MOXY to see, how the blood flow may change when using different techniques in a pedal stroke. So any NIRS equipment can do that and you can use it on any muscle and any person no limitations at all.
If you believe you may need it as well to find what ever you believe in like MAXLASS FTP LT VT2 or what ever you can try to use NIRS as well.
For me it just does not make a lot of sense, when over all this years we desperately where looking for this golden egg of aerobe and anaerobe witch, we know it is all about having O2 availability and because we had no tool to follow O2 reactions and trends we needed indirect methods like checking at the mouth level or in the finger tip and than where hoping , that we where close , or as close as possible, to figure out where this critical point or speed or HR level may be.
Now as we can relatively nice, with limitations, track O2 trends , we use it to go back wards to prove something when we actually can see it live. Basically we use an x ray. than we can get an MRI and unfortunately we find something on the MRI which we did not had on the x ray, so we simply discard the findings from the MRI and only take from the MRI the information, we as well can find in the x ray. ??????
I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t seek evidence, or that we should abandon science. I’m saying that science simply tells us very, very little about how to train. There is no such thing as a scientifically proven method of getting faster. Every breakthrough in training methodology has come through experiments of one. Observation of elite athletes strongly suggests that certain practices are effective. But how are you going to prove it scientifically? Are you going to get a large sample of athletes to train for 20 hours/week for years? No. You’re going to get a heterogeneous population of 12, most of whom are not athletes, and you’re going to train them for 6 weeks. If it’s a choice between the widely adopted practices of the world’s fastest humans and the findings of those kinds of studies, I’m going with the former every time.
And it appears it is not possible to separate Haemoglobin and myoglobin oxygenation using near-red spectroscopy. This is even more of a bodge that I thought. The physiology of Haemaglobin and Myoglobin are way different. I wonder if anyone at either of these companies actually has any idea what they are actually measuring.
I like this respond as it shows the incredible complexity in the whole exercise physiology. . What I do not like in the response is in as in many responses , the missing of the source ( name at least we do not need a back ground and titles just a personal name so a discussion or exchange of ideas can be done person to person.
There are many statements there some are great and positive critical one , some may need some deeper reviews as well as we have in all statements we all make plus the great situation, that many statements and ideas today have to be reviewed tomorrow due to progress and new information’s.
Here just a very small correction.
NIRS equipment producer from extremely expensive once to less expensive once like BSX and MOXY all this producers are well aware of the unfortunate yet not solved problem of separation between Hb O2 and Mb O2.
The area, where we get feedback with NIRS is from the area , where we have blood vessels and muscle cells so we have the feedback from O2 on Hb and O2 on Mb.
Both blood vessels as well as Mb are in the muscle . ( true we as well have blood vessels in the skin so another additional discussion point which some NIRS equipment tries to address with simultaneous different depth feedbacks. So name it SmO2 or some name it TSI for tissue O2 saturation when they as well include the skin is an interesting and simple terminology which means we look at O2 trend changes in the muscle without distinction of Mb or Hb O2 situations.
2. MOXY was compared with magnetic resonance reactions and the results are very great.
There was just a nice webinar organised by MOXY with some top people who exactly as you, where very positive critical, but instead of slamming without a name behind the statements, different equipment, went ahead and did some real research with comparing it with Magnetic resonance equipment to see the weakness and strength of an affordable NIRS. The comparison was pleasantly accurate..
3. I look forward for EB to show some studies proofing nicely that any of the equipment or ideas we use is the reason for improving performance. . Or is it the fact that people start a regular organised active plan that they may actually make progress.
. Summary. Great and very nice critical review so the next step for all reader’s is to critically and positively go through the statements we have above and than make up their own research path to get the answers from many smart people out there working in the field of NIRS over many years and with many up and downs like we all have when conducting ideas for new directions.
. Critical positive with the real name on the paper is a very welcome direction, so we can discuss very in depth and with a result .But always keep in mind, that most of the statements we throw out are hopefully based on some research from some smart people, where there are very few out there who contribute to all of our wisdom and many may be confused what some created.
So no matter whether it is a BSX . MOXY Portamon or any other NIRS device, the fact is that we step into a great new direction in popular use of this interesting technology even when some may not like to look at closer with all what has to improved and all what is already know to be a great additional for rehabilitation and controlled individual activities.
Shall you buy any of the equipment.
Not at all, first get some time and start reading working and understanding the ideas behind and than ask yourself, whether there are reasons you may enjoy the use of any of this devices for FUN for control of some health problems and or for additional feedback to your ideas of training programming and development.
Than get a night of sleep and rethink the decision.
I hope we all do that for any thing we may go and buy.
Smile doe we do that really ?
If you give me your name address and phone number on this place here and will sent you a FREE MOXY to try out for 6 weeks and you can take any ideas apart on what you try to show or proof and we can show the result again here for everybody to discuss read and see weaknesses and strength and what your like to make as a point above. I as well sent you a free software so you can have a live feedback as you move and can easy store and save the datas so we can show it here.
I hope and I assume, that you will be able to compare and combine the MOXY NIRS information with other equipment like a VO2 equipment some kind of cardiac hemodynamic equipment and most likely easy with a SEMG and last but not least with some additional blood testing directly. Perhaps you may even have access to a million dollar magnetic resonance equipment so you can as well compare the trends of NIRS with this . ( there are studies out there who did this , but we need a great one from you including publications ( not needed in a journal it is good for many of us on this discussion forum here.)
I am looking forward with lots of interest and positive thoughts on your positive contribution on here.
Juerg Feldmann firstname.lastname@example.org and I am a very biased contributor to any NIRS involved ideas no matter what equipment is out there.
I’m the CEO at Fortiori Design LLC. We make the Moxy.
I apologize if there was confusion on the nature of what we call muscle oxygen monitoring. Our “Introduction to Muscle Oxygen Monitoring Ebook” discusses the issue of hemoglobin and myoglobin in some detail. It also covers the terminology which, to the best of my knowledge, is fairly standard in the NIRS industry.
Please let me know if additional information would be helpful on this topic.
The eBook can be downloaded here.
can the gen 1 be paired with a suunto2s (ant+). as far as i understand, it would take the cadence field, right?
can the newer sleeve be used with the gen 1, so that the gen 1 can be used outdoors?
thank you in advance
I have not interest in engaging in a weiner waving contest. As Keynes may have said ‘when the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?’.
As previously stated all that is needed is either;
1) well conducted research demonstrating an improvement in training to be published and peer reviewed in a decent journal
2) the physiology to be published by a decent physiologist
Thanks you Roger for the link to the document. I have read it and it is not 2. However, the claims made for the Moxy are far more reasonable than those BSX make for their device and lumping you together with BSX would seem unfair. There is nothing stopping you publishing research supporting the claims made in it though.
I still wouldn’t consider buying one of these devices until either criteria 1 or 2 had been met. I particularly wouldn’t buy one of the BSX devices as their website makes wildly improbably claims; make them prove it before parting with any of your cash.
Nice and well accepted answer with great and fair points. I just can tell you that we are in the process and working on different fronts on your accepted and well brought up points . Thanks for you critical feedback and points. Juerg Feldmann factquestionss @hotmail.com
BSX website: “BSXinsight uses revolutionary technology that allows you to look inside your muscle, measuring your lactate threshold”
Home page. First paragraph. Until they can provide evidence to prove that statement stay well clear.
Which part? It seems pretty clear it can give you your lactate threshold. I’m not sure where they haven’t checked off that box. Others and myself have had side by side tests done, and it matches a traditional method quite well. No?
I too have complained above but with regards to FTP estimation I’m quite satisfied. My BSX estimates are spot on with my 0.95 x 20 min all-out wattage field tests.
Ray, I’d really appreciate to learn more as I am not a specialist in this field: My BSX gives me plausible numbers, no problems there, BUT, information available on the web like link to fellrnr.com and the papers it cites suggests that:
(1) although incremental power tests for LT are very common (and possibly even totally accurate enough for a normal cyclist), they are not accepted by the whole scientific community as a scientific method. Therefore, doing the BSX incremental power test and comparing BSX output with lactate numbers from blood samples taken during the test (as you reported in the earlier post about BSX) might not really count as a proof that it’s working. Did you compare with, say, numbers from a MLSS test as well? Are the results of the BSX reproducible? If they are not (and the numbers of my BSX don’t seem to be), is there any way to find out whether that is due to different form or due to lack of reproducibility of the BSX?
(2) the correlation between LT and SmO2 patterns might not occur always in all subjects. Has BSX found SmO2 patterns that always work? Or, does the BSX algorithm has an internal variable for the confidence in the calculated result, so that it may tell you when it failed?
Sorry for repeating what I wrote in my other comment, just really interested as I see a lot of unanswered questions.
Thanks Takura for the clarification – good questions indeed.
Also BSX homepage:
“BSXinsight analyzes your unique biosignals”. The word biosignals is used a lot on acupuncture and reiki websites too.
I too am a bit concerned about the possibly misleading information BSX gives and their secrecy when trying to dig further, or, as they say, never trust a company that says “patented” without providing the patent number, 😉
but that hasn’t stopped me from backing the unit, trying it and have fun learning things I did not expect to learn, like what can be done wrong when designing an user interface or providing customer support …. well okay, saying I tried it is a bit exaggerated as the gen 1 device stopped connecting with the sensors after a while. The firmware update seems to have remedied that issue on my unit, so, need to test again.
I am not really a specialist in this field, but as a scientist I think a few possible concrete questions about BSX based on information from link to fellrnr.com could be:
If the BSX is aimed at providing results comparable to blood-based incremental power lactate tests, the requirement is that SmO2 patterns correlate with lactate levels (and of course that the BSX device actually can identify those patterns). Published research seems to indicate that the correlation is not always evident in all subjects. Has BSX tested/solved this? Can I expect that BSX works on all cyclists?
While incremental power tests are common, some argue that they are only of limited value because lactate levels don’t stabilize that quickly. Continuous SmO2-measurement has the potential to give reproducible results on the level of a MLSS test, which could really be revolutionary. Has BSX done any comparison against MLSS? Or is that expectation too high?
Just using SmO2 data as with the Moxy (or the 2nd gen BSX?) obviously “avoids” these traps leaving all the interpretation to the user. SmO2 responds in a few seconds after changing a load and, from my experience, hits a nice balance between providing new, previously unobtainable information and agreeing with your body sensations, so I feel pretty comfortable using it for easier interpretations like understanding and optimizing warm up or using it as an indicator of “matches left”, even without scientific proof. Need to dig a bit deeper into this in order to identify limiters etc though.
Dear BSX, please allow the app/device to choose exactly WHICH power meter and heart rate monitor it is connecting to when connecting. I do my (attempted) cycling tests on a Wattbike at the gym and there are several of them in a row being used at any given time – all broadcasting ANT+ data and most riders broadcasting HRM data… and the Gen 1 has no way of selecting which signal I’m connecting to.
And please don’t over-promise and under-deliver. I don’t really need any of the realtime stuff personally. I just want my device to connect reliably and intuitively to my phone and peripherals for doing LT tests.
I was a Gen 1 early adopter and was extremely frustrated with connectivity issues (to the point of near uncontrollable rage at times). Having said that, the five tests I was actually able to complete successfully did produce results that seemed in line with my performance and were helpful in calibrating my training load.
I will get a Gen 2 – but please don’t blow it again with the connectivity.
Totally agree with you on this. I actually contacted BSX on this. They told me that they would use the ANT+ feature “proximity search”, e.g. the devices closest to each other will be paired. Therefore, if you hold the pod right next to you HR/PM sensors you should be fine.
However, reading through the ANT+ message protocol defintions I must say the process is not as straightforward as it sounds. Do all devices send out the same signal strength? I use a Kickr and P1 pedals. Can I be sure that the Kickr signal is not stronger than the P1 signal?
The app must just show the ANT ID. This would already inspire some more confidence.
I truly hope BSX is not foolish enough to rely solely on the proximity feature for pairing. The Wattbikes at the gym are situated very close together and the computers are mounted out in front of the handlebars, whilst the BSX device is on the back of my leg. The geometric distance to the adjacent bikes to the left and right is not that great and a proximity search could easily mix up the signals. BSX would be leaving the possibility wide open for some very unhappy customers with device pairing complaints in such a circumstance – again.
My Garmin 920 displays the signals of all of the Wattbikes by ANT ID and asks me which one I would like to pair with. And very easily, I can scroll to my specific bike and connect. No issues, no doubts, no rage.
If someone from BSX advises me to prop my leg up on the handlebar next to the computer while pairing devices… I’m not going to have a good sense of humor about it.
I appreciate BSX is commercializing an interesting technology they have developed and that the Gen 1 was a Gen 1 and some growing pains are to be expected. I’m still happy to support BSX. But given the connectivity issues of the Gen 1… it should be THE top priority of BSX to make connectivity completely bombproof on the Gen 2. A “proximity search” is not bombproof.
If my test results on the Gen 2 end up using power data from the adjacent cyclist’s bike I may finally take a sledge hammer to the BSX as I wanted to do at least a hundred times with the Gen 1.
I simply pair my devices before I put the pod in the sleeve. The pod actually touches the powermeter or heart reate monitor when I hit connect in the app. Then I put the BSX pod into the sleeve. I think ANT+ proximity search is more in the range of cm and not meter.
I actually had more trouble with pairing the pod with my android phone.
Please send over the sledge hammer once you are done….
I tried the BSX once more today with the new software and a new android phone. Pairing went well on the third try, then I did the test, finished it with the phone showing connect status with the BSX and the HRM and… then came an error message telling me that pairing with one or more sensors had failed…
On second thoughts, I might get a sledge hammer right away now…
Now here before you use a sledge hammer what you can do to control the quality of the muscle contraction.
Use any common NIRS from the current market as they are available and working well since many years. Now if it is a real NIRS, than you have feedback on oxygenation, which is called SmO2 % or some companies ( great companies ) name it TSI %. The second feedback. which you will have is tHb for total hemoglobin. Under certain situation tHb is an indicator of blood flow or( it has its limitation as so many things ). SmO2 is only of value, if we as well have the trends in tHb as SmO2 is a % of tHb. So if you look only at SmO2 you can have a not optimal, if not even wrong idea on what is going on in your muscle you test. You can for example have a severe drop in SmO2 in this muscle but in the systemic situation you will have no feedback about this. That’s why SmO2 can , but in many cases , has nothing to do with the classical idea of a heavily discussed LT idea.
If you use SmO2 trend to find a Break point and than you use a lot of imagination to correlate this with LT you may need as well a feedback for the athlete on his for example 10 km running time or 40 km TT result.
This just in case you will get no Break point in the SmO2 graph , but you do not like to disappoint the client so you have the TT time and therefore can give a very great indication of FTP as it is given by the athlete it self. FTP is the real value and SmO2 from a specific muscle can , but not has to, confirm a metabolic balance.
Now this will be the case if you use a sledge hammer.
To destroy a good build equipment you need a very great muscle contraction quality, meaning you like to recruit as many motor units as possible. In the early days a surface EMG was a great and still is a great tool to see this great contraction quality.
If you have a NIRS you get a feedback as well.
very explosive great hit will create an immediate arterial occlusion and tHb will not move at all.
If you may hesitate before you hit you will first create mentally provoked a muscle compression so tHB will drop due to compression. Followed by a hesitation of the movement but big enough contraction so tHb will increase due to outflow restriction towards a venous occlusion and if you are really mad you may reach at the end an arterial occlusion. The successful feedback will be
a) a still or for sure not functioning equipment
b ) a drop after the impact of tHb as a sign of a occlusion outflow reaction.
See picture from a great person from Florida who was not mad but very pleased looking at this NIRS reactions live as he tested his biceps during a simple demonstration on how NIRS can work.
I just thought I’d do a reply here as I’ve had mostly positive experiences with the BSX. Out of four tests so far I’ve had 3 successful and 1 unsuccessful.
The one which failed was due to the calf sleeve slipping down and off my leg. After an email to BSX they suggested I wear the sleeve tight up by the crease of my knee and that fixed the problem.
The most negative thing I’ve had is that it won’t currently sync with my mac so I’m instead using a Windows VM. I also agree with the connectivity being difficult – I tend to spend around five minutes getting everything paired up and waving devices around each other before a test.
On to the positives though.. I’ve been using the device during a return to running after a long period off with a knee injury (bursitis after doing an accidental superman onto concrete running down a hill). I first used it to set a baseline of my fitness and then retested at 6 week intervals to help see my progress and to make sure my heart rate / speed zones were still in the right area. I’m just about to taper for my first marathon in four years after 14 weeks of intensive training after the base period – I’m doing one final test this lunch time to see how my fitness is looking.
It’s been both motivating and reassuring being able to do this test (without one off testing price tag putting me off each time) and it definitely helped me stick with the base training (weeks of running around my LT1/AET and resisting going too fast) as I could see the results in the tests. It’s also kept me going with the marathon plan as I could keep seeing the results.
So long as the new device is < $100 including taxes & shipping I won't grumble at the upgrade. I think given this is a kickstarter they've done very well at shipping a product which does fulfil it's basic functionality – albeit overpromising on the extras at the beginning (cadence, daily training, swimming).
Of course, if this wasn't a kickstarter, I'd probably be a bit pissed 🙂 But it is a kickstarter and I've now got a little working preview of the future.
(Of course this isn't to dismiss everyone who's had a worse experience than me, I just thought I'd add in here how it's been for me too).
Ok dumb question, where/how do you wear this?
Do you lose any accuracy when doing the lactate threshold test on a normal trainer with a power meter, rather than a KICKR or ergometer with perfectly controlled power? Or rephrased, does power need to be perfectly consistent or can there be the variance of eyeballing it on the trainer?
I use a Kickr that is controlled by my P1 pedals. Quite frankly, I would find it difficult to hit the target wattages on my own (e.g. without wattage controlled by my Kickr (which reads the wattage from my P1s)). According to two reviews out there I’m not alone. Escpecially in the higher wattages it can be tricky to keep it constant for 3 minutes.
Why don’t you just simulate a step test on your “normal trainer” and see how well it works for you?
So I’m curious. The Gen2 is available for pre-order up on bsxinsight.com. Why put it up for pre-order before letting the “early adopters” know how much they are going to get shaken down for a fixed device that does what it was originally supposed to do?
Notice the price they are charging for pre-orders? They are obviously making a profit off of them while they have said they won’t be making a profit off the early adopters. (Even if you don’t want to trust their “no profit” claim and want to assume they are going to make money, going by the above comments saying it will most likely be less then $100 vs the $300 for their cheapest preorder their profit margin is very tiny in comparison) So they have a strong incentive to know the actual cost of the device to make it before setting the cost for early adopters while a small cost difference won’t really impact pre-order pricing.
A few other reasons:
-The price of manufacture in general drops the more units they sell. So the more pre-orders they sell they cheaper they can make the units so they can better figure out the cost to manufacture when they know how many they need to make.
-They aren’t a large company so guessing the cash influx from pre-orders will have a big impact on their cash flow
-They announced at interbike so while they have the initial popularity from the media reporting on their device they want to allow people to pre-order now as many of those people if they couldn’t pre-order may forget about the device and not order if they had to wait.
None of the above requires trusting BSX at all
I get what your saying. Perhaps they will base “cost” pricing on how many pre-orders they sell…
As far as pre-order price goes though, it’s the same as their normal pricing, so no “surprises” there.
Look another company trying to do the same thing as BSX: link to humon.io
More competition = Lower pricing = More adoption = Maturity = Athletes win.
I think a big thing to be weary of, and that has been alluded to before is that we have to be weary of false claims and not quite open regarding not knowing what we don’t know.
That is why I’m more trusting of the likes of Jeurg and Andri because they don’t do cook books (zones) – we have some additional ingredients now, but whether you’re baking cupcakes, muffins or pies is up to you to figure out.
Last but not least- the device should ship to folks on Monday, November 2nd, 2015. They appear quite confident in that date, and given what I’ve seen over the last few days poking at a device – I’d be fairly surprised if they miss that date.
Did I miss something or did they post the early adopter price and method of ordering one? If these are in fact supposed to ship in 2 weeks I would have thought they would have sent something out by now.
Last contact I received from BSX (having been an early adopter of the first release) was on 16 Sept from Dustin Freckleton announcing there would be a special scheme for prior early adopters and we would receive more information on this in the near future, the scheme being a discount for the Gen 2 device.
I have not received any communication from BSX since and thus am surprised to hear they plan to ship new devices in two weeks. Either I individually fell off their list of early adopters, or they have not contacted the entire list. I’ve dug through my inbox and spam folder and don’t believe I could have missed an email from them.
I don’t believe they’ve announced pricing, I’ll inquire. I do have a Gen2 device now (arrived yesterday) and am testing it – so it does exist and appears to work from very casual testing I’ve done this weekend.
Last conversation I had last week indicated they were on track for that Nov 2nd date.
upgrade details coming soon:
link to twitter.com
Any date for review of Gen 2 device? It is up for order now it seems, not just pre-order.
I’m planning the same time as release, assuming no blockers.
Looks like they just sent out the email to current owners. $79.99 to exchange the Gen1 for Gen2; I’ll take it.
I purchased the first Gen BSX insight and now regret ever hearing the name. The unit I received was over a month late being shipped and I have had nothing but problems with the software and the connectivity of the device. And today I get an email saying for an extra $79.99 I can get a unit that does what the first generation was supposed to do!! Really!! I went to the website and tried the live chat to find out what was going on. They said it had to do with apparently them having to get new engineers to fix the screwed up hardware and software so it can work like it was supposed too. The old platform couldn’t be upgraded to do what they said it could be upgraded to do. So now the people that purchased the Gen 1 unit can for the incredible low price of $79.99 can have a unit that we were supposed to have to begin with. I think they released the unit way too early and did not do the testing they should have so now we pay the price for there mistakes. I guess it cost a lot to hire people to fix a problem with a defective device but I have never been asked by a company to pay for there ignorance. I can assure you I am not and will not recommend this device to anyone and will be sure to post on any blog/web page/Facebook/Bathroom wall and anywhere else I can that this is a terrible product and a way to conduct business!! Now I feel better
Well, the upgrade price is ok, BUT they should let folks keep the old one for all their troubles. Not that it was much more than a paperweight but it was better than nothing.
Can anyone tell me if they are able to connect their Gen1 device to the app to enable the software update released a few months ago using a Mac? I am running a MacBook Pro with Yosemite v10.10.5. I connect the device via USB but it still keeps telling me its not connected and therefore I can’t update the software. Numerous emails with BSX have not solved the problem.
Personally I’m happy with the upgrade offer at $79.99 (email received today). I’ll go for it.
Yes, same here. I will accept their offer, too. Eventhough I have to add shipping and customs to the EU. I put this into the “never buy a first Gen product” drawer.
However, I still did not get a response on my AeT issue. Even though BSX told me here that I should get in touch with them AGAIN. I did. Nothing happened. I mentioned this here. Suddenly someone from BSX responded and told me their engineers will look at it. This was about 1 month ago. Guess what, no response since then.
At a personal level I can understand it. BSX must go through a heck of a time at moment. As a customer, who will have spent > $500 I’m “somehow” annoyed.
Anyone receive their coupon codes yet?
How exactly do they expect us to return our old ones prior to the 2nd if we
a – need to wait for coupon codes
b – need to wait for them to send a prepaid label to our address
c – get the old unit back prior to shipping
They wait till the 9th hour to send all this out and once again it’s the early adopters that suffer. First having to shell out $80 for functionality that was promised in the original and then not receiving any priority since they want us to send back the old unit first. This should be a case study in how not to run customer service.
Got my coupon code today. Ninety seconds later I had the unit ordered. Easy peasy.
I bought mine band new in box in eBay – was told today they would do nothing for me and I am stuck with the Gen 1. They didn’t even inquire to see if one of their authorized distributors chose to distribute through the eBay platform. It just an excuse to screw over one of their customers.
Companies like BSX are happy to take money selling no their product to individuals as distributors (I know because I’ve talked to one) but then if that individual uses a particular distribution platform, they act as if you stole their product by disavowing you as a customer.
I am , as some readers may have seen , more interested in the physiology of NIRS. nevertheless I am still intrigued on how the equipment is sold. I got a ebay message as I search for stuff like many of us on ebay.
Now here the prices.
BSX cycling 275 Us % versus 369.99 on the BSX website.
BSX multi 364 on ebay versus 419 on the BSX website.
Can somebody explain, whether I get the same service, if I have problems if I ordering from e bay ???
The short answer is no. Btw I did see a Multi up for $179 on ebay (Gen 1).
Honestly, I would NOT buy a Gen 1 as it’s a broken product and they won’t even fix it for $80 if you didn’t buy it directly from them.
My read of the Gen 2 upgrade terms is that BSX is keen to reclaim the Gen 1 devices (from US customers) or disable them (for non-US customers). This makes sense in that they don’t want to create a secondary market for the old Gen 1 devices (on eBay or elsewhere) of customers doing the $79 upgrade – either because this could cannibalize sales of new devices, or in the case of my specific Gen 1 unit, hurt their reputation because of its connectivity problems.
Even before the announcement of the upgrade, Gen 1 users might note that BSX limited the transferability of the devices between user accounts. If I recall correctly, a device can only be transferred once. Or maybe it can’t be transferred back to an account its been disconnected from, I don’t remember.
I can appreciate where BSX is coming from with this. I tried to be clever and use my one device for both myself and my wife, thinking that since all we use it for is an LT test every 6 weeks, there’s no point in buying two. But the device can’t be repeatedly switched between accounts. Instead you have to use one account and keep switching the body metrics. And the account history is a mess of course.
Probably BSX doesn’t mind if a husband and wife use the same device… but for LT tests, in theory, an entire cross country team, or much larger group, could use the same device. Which could impact sales and hurt BSX’s business model. It’s a bit like licensing the right to use the device and selling the hardware wrapped together.
This may be part of what is behind BSX’s posture towards eBay purchased devices. Personally I haven’t seen any merchants on eBay who appear as though they’d be an authorized distributor, but that’s just my impression. BSX’ distribution agreements may expressly restrict eBay sales. Who knows.
A few people here have posted some rather cynical comments. BSX over-promised and under-delivered on the Gen 1… and they seem to have limited resources on the customer service front, fair enough. At the same time, it’s likely they are a small company with limited resources trying to bring a novel technology to market – maybe the management is better with the technology than they are with business management or product launches. But the $79 upgrade seems a reasonable gesture to make amends. Some comments implying BSX is trying to screw customers at every turn, including with the upgrade, require more imagination than I suppose I’m capable of. I’m doubtful the company has sufficient profit margins to cover something more generous, like a free upgrade. Which would we prefer, a $79 upgrade or an insolvent BSX and nothing?
Suunto marketed its original Ambit as a device that would receive future updates and increased functionality as time wore on… and then infuriated everybody with an announcement that it would no longer receive updates upon the surprise release of the Ambit 2. Did they offer people a $79 upgrade to the Ambit 2? No. Their response was basically, “f**k you… buy the Ambit 2.” Only after it became a colossal PR disaster did Suunto finally back down and say they’d do one or two more token updates for the Ambit 1.
It’s a new technology, new product, new company… there are some growing pains.
Whiners never seem to be at the front setting the pace.
I can agree with most of what you say, however, you do need to look at it from the perspective of those folks who never got the gen 1 to work properly. There are many folks that never got a successful test completed due to connectivity issues. Personally, I never got my gen 1 to display oxygen % or HR values. I always had to sync the device and send an email hoping they could fix my data.
That is what I would call a defective product.
Sure $80 to most of us that dished out $300-400 for these isn’t that bad, but if a car manufacturer sold you a car that kept breaking down and couldn’t be fixed, wouldn’t you expect either a refund or a new car?
Just because this is new tech, doesn’t give them carte blanch to release an unfinished, untested and for many a broken product.
Fair enough. In your case they should probably refund you in full for the Gen 1 and let you buy the Gen 2 at the standard price… mathematically the same as getting an upgrade for free I guess.
Mine worked successfully a total of 5 times (3 on the treadmill and 2 on the bike). About a hundred other times, it had rage-inducing connectivity problems. The 5 results were helpful in calibrating my training though… ripped 20 minutes off my marathon PR in Berlin this September.
I’m thinking of giving my Gen 1 a little love-tap with the sledge before sending it back to our BSX friends. That’d be a lot more gratifying than them letting me keep it. The upgrade offer didn’t mention it had to be returned in unsledgehammered condition. I bet I wouldn’t be the only one to do this.
This whiner will be down close to USD 690 and almost a year of time to get a functioning unit. That is a heavy price to pay for somebody elses growing pains and failure to keep promises.
They must really be overwhelmed with this upgrade. I received the upgrade code via email but when I try to use it to order the Gen 2, it doesn’t show a discount. I’ve sent several emails without response and their phone lines all go to vmail. Frustrating!
Scott. I experience the same. Although the code did work for me. No reply to e-mails so they must be very very busy I guess.
The way they did this upgrade is just stupid. First they wait till the last minute to give a price. Then you have to respond to an email expressing interest. Then 3 days later after they “validate” you they send you a code. Then you get to order it. Done? Nope. Then you need to *wait* and *wait* and *wait* for the return mailer to show up so you can send your old one back before they send you the new one.
I’ve done RMAs on Hard drives that were faster and easier than this. The way it works is they send you out the new one immediately and you have to send the old one back in the packaging they sent you. Simple and less bullshit.
I’ve mentioned this here before but wanted to ask around again: does anyone experience trouble with the Android BSX app? I often get a “you’re offline” message. Either when I start up the app or at the end of a test. But of course I am online.
The only way to get it running is to switch off my phone. After boot up it’s working again. I did not experience this hasse with earlier versions of the app (don’t know how often it had been updated though).
Just got a message mine is shipping with fedex. Only issue is that they did not see my mail (on Monday!) that I wanted a smaller sleeve. Arrggh
I’ve been one of the vocal “my unit isn’t working and I’ve wasted my money” persons. I’ve managed a grand total of 3 usable sessions thusfar with the GEN 1 (and by usable I mean I had the unit +Ant power/HRM paired) at the same time and could complete a test.
I ended up going the Moxy route (which worked pretty much out of the box with incredible, personalised support).
When the GEN 2 was announced, I thought that there wasn’t a chance in hell that I was going to throw more money at BSX….so what do I do, I go and throw more money at BSX…after all, it’s only 80USD to get a unit that functions as promised in the original kickstarter…well, not quite. If I add up everything spent now, it comes out to more than 550USD (Original kickstarter backing + 80USD for the GEN 2 + SURPRISE! 55USD for international shipping+14% local sales tax and import duties).
Why did I spend the additional on a Gen 2 device when I’ve been complaining since day 1 (missed shipping deadline 1+2+3+4, unit not pairing and had already ordered the Moxys)? Because I don’t like the idea of having an expensive door wedge blinking at me from its charging cradle. Will this turn out to be a case of good money thrown after bad? I really hope not, I would honestly like to see BSX make good on their promise to fix this and see the body of knowledge around NIRS and it’s use grow.
Between all of the chaos in here…
Does anyone have a discount code for the gen2 device (for non gen1 owners)?
Seems like all of the 10% codes I found online aren’t working anymore.
I ordered the Gen 2 using the uograde offerafter having received the Gen 1 through Kickstarter. It is with FedEx, but Fedex now asks me for the EU customs code to finalize importing the unit. Does anyone already have experience with this?
I also contacted BSX, but that might take a few days, and Fedex starts charging money for storage after two…
My gen 2 unit is still in transit, however, my gen 1 invoice says “Harmonized Tariff Number: 903180”. A quick google search reveals this for example:
link to tariffnumber.com
I guess that’s what they’re asking for.
Many thanks for that! Now I have to wait and see whether FedEx is happy with those numbers 😉
You can use google to look up the commodity code.
This site should give you at least one free lookup.
link to dutycalculator.com
For South Africa it was:
As I have already pointed out here for several times, I’m not a BSX fan boy. Their customer service sucks (really …. don’t make promises you can’t keep) and the whole gen2 issue is highly annoying.
HOWEVER, I just plotted all my BSX FTPs against my 0.95*CP20 values. For every BSX test I did a standard 20 min test within 1-2 weeks. My estimates are almost on a 1:1 line. Impressive. Even tests where I was slightly sick would agree. In total I have 6 data points.
Regarding J Feldmanns (or whatever his name is) comment above: I used arbitrary values for FTP in the inital questionaire: no effect at all on my test results. Your accusations are simply wrong. Why don’t you test the device yourself before you make these accusations? In particular when related to a competitor product. And no, I’m absolutely not affiliated with BSX. I’m just a customer.
Ray, hoping that you might have talked with the BSX guys on the scientific aspects of what the BSX is really measuring (and what they use as an input to their calculations), and that you might be able to pass that information on when you do the review of the gen 2 unit???
Completely agree that the BSX gives totally plausible values (and mine is also reliable after firmware update) and if someone is just comparing with the somewhat rough 0.95*CP20 estimate the BSX would seem good enough to me too, but would still like to see the scientific background as BSX makes a lot of references to science in their marketing.
Are there specific calculations you’re looking for? Just want to be as specific as possible in my ask. Meaning, just FTP, or?
They need to provide more transparency in terms of the why and the how of what they are doing. Saying they tested 700 people and it works because we say it does, but won’t disclose anything because it’s private, does not qualify as proof that what they are doing is scientifically sound nor give anyone the confidence that they really did test 700 people.
Hi Ray, here is a list of questions that would help me – and I think others too – understand what the BSX is and how to use it properly. Nine questions overall, sorry it’s a bit long; would be fine if you just picked what you agree would be of interest and make sense to know…
I am not doubting that they did their homework, but, as I posted before, there seems to be some material on the internet that throw some doubt on whether NIRS in combination with a step protocol will give results that are not just plausible but scientifically “correct”. The second part are questions that occurred to me when using the gen 1 device, and finally some as a Moxy user.
Accuracy, precision, etc:
(1) Assuming it has been tested agains blood-lactate tests in step test protocols, how accurate and how precise are the LT values that the BSX reports? Hoping for an answer of the form “50% of X tests fell within A% difference and 95% fell within B%”.
(2) Has it been tested against MLSS tests (that are considered by some to be “more” scientific)? If not, are there any plans to do so?
(3) Have any tests been done by independent organizations? Have any (preferably peer reviewed) papers been published about performance or used methodology, or any plans for the future?
(4) Should users expect that measuring on either leg will give the same result? If not, which leg should be used?
(5) Will finishing (i.e. aborting) the test at 140% LT and 120% LT give the same result? What if the user finished for whatever reason at 100%LT? What if at 80%? Have the answers to this question actually been verified by cutting off the final parts of a long test session and feeding the first portion into the algorithm?
(6) Will it tell me if for whatever reasons it can not compute a reliable number? One reason could be too much diversion from the target power, or not? Are there any other possible reasons it may not be able to compute a result, like, individual physiology, no observable deflection point (?) for whatever reason in a specific test, etc?
(7) How large are “typical” variations of the LT output that are not caused by changes in athletic form, but just caused by inaccuracy, daily minor variations in condition or riding technique, etc? Although this will depend on individual characteristics, if it told me my LT has increased/decreased by say 5%, should I consider that significant or just an artifact? – Or, would they have some sample data of riders who have, say, used the BSX every week or two over, say, half an year, together with comments about changes in training intensity, competition preparation, illness, injuries, etc. Such a data set would really be useful in order to understand what to expect from the BSX when used over a considerable length of time.
About SmO2 measurement in daily use:
(8) Are the SmO2 numbers “relative” as was said earlier or “absolute” like the Moxy? In the latter case, should users expect that the SmO2 numbers reported by BSX and Moxy would match? It will not output tHb though?
(9) How and with what result have accuracy and precision of the SmO2 measurement function been tested?
I like to get back to Stefan to correct a possible mistake I may have made . I can’t find anything regarding what he wrote below , but in case I wrote something like that ( we all forget sometimes so called selective memory ) thna I i like to give te si ource of thsi potentila idea. So here as promised a nice article to read and to comment on. True we also develop selective reading and only read what we like to hear.
Regarding J Feldmanns (or whatever his name is) comment above: I used arbitrary values for FTP in the inital questionaire: no effect at all on my test results. Your accusations are simply wrong. Why don’t you test the device yourself before you make these accusations? In particular when related to a competitor product. And no, I’m absolutely not affiliated with BSX. I’m just a customer.
Here the link
link to fellrnr.com
Absolutely agree. I will try to find again the paper . where tthey sent this to BSX including the author so everybody can give his honest opinion.
Thanks for the reminder
Not to beat on the BSX exclusively, the other question to be asked of the moxy folks is why they believe their device is better compared to the BSX gen 2, considering they charge almost twice as much and don’t attempt to predict LT1 and LT2.
Thanks for the question. First I may be the wrong person to answer your question.
I am very biased as I am using NIRS since many years far longer than MOXY is on the market.
1. I can not recall that any body of the MOXY staff or people involved in the MOXY projects claim, that we are better than BSX I would say we are different.
MOXY is affordable baseline NIRS equipment and as such gives feedback over trends in blood volume( flow ) and oxygen trends.
That is it. It can NOT find L1 or L2 as it is NOT a blood less lactate analyzer like BSX is. Short back ground to show the difference.
Using NIRS daily in may clinic I use it for different ideas.
Example this morning.
I have just now a 84 year old gentlemen working on his DNZ A spiral strength pattern and we like to see when he needs a break and which body part is the one which really needs the break.
So 4 MOXY on different body parts and I see and he sees on the Screen when he needs a break or change pattern or whine the break is over and when the workout for him is over. So before I used an incredible NIRS equipment Portamon form Artinis te rolls royce of portable NIRS the technology. Small problem price range as so often for many users.
After my older gentleman I have three people coming in strapping a MOXY on their body and get a physiological individual guided wok rout.
a. A COPD person who will do a normocapnic hyperpneu wok rout for his diaphragm and he has a NIRS on his sterno claido Mast to stop as soon he smirches from Diaphragm to auxiliary muscles
At the same time I have a cardiac rehab on a bike and the goal today is to reduce load on his right ventricle. as there is his for the moment limitation.
So he has one moxy on a leg muscle VL and one on a non-involved muscle so we can see, when delivery Cardiac ” reaches the limitation and he uses NIRS to track CO2 reaction to be controlled for the idea of reweave right ventricle work.
At lunch break I asses a Dr. form South Africa after a ultra run 65 km 4000 m altitude difference to see, whether his cardiac system has recovered now so we can go back to workouts, where the cardiac system is involved again. And in the evening we do some interval workouts with squatting an skating ideas and look on recovery speed on Cr.P over NIRS feedback and see what we achieved in the last few weeks . So I cna have one to 4 MOXYs on as many different people as I like and can do anything from endurance assessment to find limiter and compensatory to interval length intensity and duration as well as rest ruination. I can check muscle contraction quality and I can see recovery stages. I can assess or train a figure skater on the ice, a rower on the water a swimmer in the pool an ice hockey player on te ice and a wheel chair athlete in his chair. I need one MOXY for all of that so incredibel cheap now to use NIRS.
. What I can’t do is.
I can not test lactate as it is a NIRS equipment and as such it gives feedback based on the NIRS idea on trends in blood volume / flow and in trends in O2 situations.
I use a lactate analyzer once in a while for specific reasons.
I can combine NIRS and lactate but than it si getting very confusing.
Why. I can have an increase in SmO2 indicating More O2 in the tested muscle but at the same time I can see as well a lactate increase indicating a higher activity barometrically where lactate production is involved to be sued for example as a part of buffering H +. So somehow the opposite as expected.
I can have a dropping SmO2 indicating a higher demand than delivery but I can have a drop in lactate despite less O2 delivered than utilized ???
Than I can even have a flat SmO2 indicating a stable delivery or utilization but I can have lactate be stable like Max Lass or I can show over time a drop or increase in lactate ?
So you can see MOXY a very poor equipment to measure lactate as it is a NIRS equipment.
So we can do a lots but have some limitation.
BSX is a blood less lactate analyzer and as such they seem to have found a way to do that and as I can recall they think they even can add a lactate number to their information over time. That will be incredible as it than can be used for early detection of sepsis. We tried that many years back but where not able to find a solution so now it is here with BSX.
we and the main problem, that lactate is a systemic feed back and as such very different than a local NIRS feedback,. We had so called break points on all different muscles at different times and depending on our step length in protocols we had different end results as well as different muscle reactions.
This lead us to give up and use NIRS for what it is a feed back on O2 trends and blood flow / volume trends.
So for teh price , one moxy is doing it all for us on all different muscles and different people.
Now back to steve . tell me how many BSX you may need for any of the above applications ? I hope you see my point.
MOXY is NOT better it is just different
Well, the BSX doesn’t measure LT1/2 either it finds what it believes to be those values based off of detected changes in SmO2 during a ramp test. They look for some deflection point and then based off their “research” etc. etc. they estimate LT1 and LT2 as being some distance near that deflection point. Also the Gen 2 doesn’t seem to have to be linked to one account (thus can be used by more than one person).
The Gen 2 BSX can be used on any body part (in daily mode) and does show changes in SmO2.
Issues with BSX support (which is pretty bad) aside, what features does the Moxy have that the gen 2 BSX doesn’t?
Steve thanks for this nice reply and that I great news so people like husband and wife can us either BSX now and exchange it and that makes lots of sense as well you can use it on any muscle . Great step forward and yes it is nice that they could learn and see from portamon and MOXY and what NIRS is doing since many years.. So why the difference in price for a running or cycling device , when it can be used anywhere for anybody ?
They say you can use it anywhere for daily usage. For their LT test protocol they say their algorithm is based off the calf muscle.
Realistically the only difference is in which LT test protocols are available (cycling, running, both) which they claim uses a different algorithm and requires power for cycling. For daily usage I suppose you could just get the cheapest one.
apologies, big rant below but I just wasted life time.
Received my gen 2 device yesterday and was looking forward to use the daily feature today. However, I’m stuck here at home because I can’t pair the device with my Edge 500. The Garmin does not find the sensor. Yes, I paired it with the app first. Actually, how can you unpair it from your app without killing the app? Or switching off BT ?
Just tried with PerfPro and GC. Those two do not find the ANT+ either.
Seriously BSX, WTF!
Not sure what steps you’re following. But I just tried it and it works just fine on a Gen2 device:
1) Get BSX near you, open app
2) Go through steps for either Daily Workout or Test
3) Press the ‘Start’ button so the countdown begins
4) Search for devices, your Garmin will now find the BSX sensor as a Speed/Cadence sensor. It will NOT appear before this point.
5) End & Discard workout.
From this point forward your Garmin will automatically and instantly re-pair to the device when you start your daily workout or test.
Thanks for your quick response. Highly appreciated.
According to the slim manual you have to pair it before ANT+ can be used. I had thought this would be a one time requirement. So I did it in the “Settings” menu. I was not aware of that you always have to run the app and pair the device before you can receive ANT+. And that you have to start a Daily Workout in the app. That’s a huge drawback for me. I had thought you can simply record via ANT+ without the app.
Had this been communicated clearly before? The manual is not really very precise about this.
Hmm, it may work the other way, I’ve always just recorded via the app as well since the Garmin devices don’t really support SMO2 data very well, so it’s messy for me to use the cadence/speed when it’s not really cadence/speed. Even more so if talking running. Note that you don’t need to take your phone with you – just to start it. You can stop it by docking.
Once Garmin allows recording to the .FIT file for Connect IQ early next year, then it’ll make more sense to record with a Garmin for me.
I use Golden Cheetah. Therefore, I would have just changed the data column name in the corresponding *.json file. I’m not so interested in cadence anyway.
It definitely does not work without the app. I feel this should have been communicated better by BSX. Things like this just lead to frustration among customers.
Info I received in a discussion around SmO2 and tHb on Garmin devices was that they were hoping to add the display of the data fields to some devices as soon as this November and .fit recording in some devices next year. You may be out of luck with the .fit recording on the 920xt, Fenix 3 due to their limited processing power, but possibly in luck if you’re an Epix owner. They want to add it, just not certain if they can.
Source was the program lead for connect IQ in a webinar hosted by the guys from Moxy last month.
link to forum.moxymonitor.com
Wonder if the new fr 230/630 have enough cpu power
Skipped around a bit in the Webinar – what’s the timestamp where they say that?
DC thanks for visiting the MOXY site and we appreciate that we can help for other NIRS users to get some new ideas ahead.. Nice to see BSX starts to use cadence and speed options for Garmin watches as well. For NIRS interested people we only can say go once in a while son the messy forum as we share many ideas and thoughts we do with NIRS sine many many years so nothing really new but many open questions and many great discussions. There are some Garmin watches who show live SmO2 and tHb and you do not need to give up speed and ro cadence any ore when using other NIRS devices which are on the market.
Well they say first impressions count. All was going well on my first cycle endurance test until the app crashed. I’ll have to leave it a few days now for a retest as I was on the rivet, just holding on for the final few seconds to complete a segment…… Bother….
Can’t quite recall the time stamp. There was a slide with a whole bunch of Garmin devices and question marks.
After all the hassle this morning I finally got to train late afternoon. Two workouts with my brand new Gen 2:
1) MTB outdoor, mostly smooth fireroads, 100 min
2) Kickr indoor, right after the outdoor workout, 120 min
Where to start? There were so many litte annoying issues. First of all, the Android app still sucks. ANT+ sucks too.
It took me some time to connect my device. The problem is with the Android app. You get error messages and the only thing that helps is rebooting your phone. Just killing the BSX app process is not sufficient.
As you can see in the charts, many drop outs. Yes, I rode a MTB but mainly on very smooth fire roads. Hey, and this device is intended for running !!! Interestingly, during the downhill (flow trail, not very bumpy) complete drop out. Now I’m not very interested in my downhill SmO2 data but this is just wrong.
Now it would be nice to compare the ANT+ data with the BT data gathered from the phone app. Well, I don’t see anything with Firefox or IExplorer . The chart shown on my phone, I have no idea whose data this is but the tiny chart is definitely not related to my ride today.
So I came home, hopped on my Kickr. Could not pair my Kickr Powermeter with the BSX app. Could not pair the BSX pod with my Edge 500 anymore. However, I could pair it with PerfPro. But look at the first 30 min. For every 10 s of recording I got a few secs of drop outs.
After my indoor workout I pushed the BSX app’s “Pause” button. I found myself on the Dashboard again. No option given to save the workout. Workout lost on the pone. It may still be on the pod. Actually, I don’t care but this is just another testament to how crappy the Android app is.
There were several other little annoying issues, it’s hard to remember them all. For my particular use case I can say: forget the daily feature and pray that the test feature is working with Gen 2.
I’m on iOS, so I can only speak to that. A couple of things to note:
A) The app in workout mode isn’t actually streaming the final data to the device. Rather, that’s stored on the device and then transferred when docked. So when just looking at the little graph on the screen, if there’s a data drop (handled over Bluetooth Smart, so very much possible) – that doesn’t show on the final data sets uploaded by BSX.
B) When you finish a workout (by holding the pause button down), it then transfers via BT a superset of the data, but not the full data. That full data detail is only done via the docking station. Just something to be aware of.
C) The good news there is that in the event of a crash, the data is still saved since it’s all on the device. Of course, that’s really only useful in workout mode. As in test mode, you need the app to guide you through. Fwiw, in using it about a month now, the only crashes I had were on beta versions of the app. I haven’t had any crashes since being on a final prod app.
D) I didn’t have any issues pairing with my KICKR, aside from it occasionally finding the wrong power meter. You’ll want to ensure it has the KICKR logo, versus just saying in plain text Wahoo Fitness, which is the generic ANT+ power channel. Simply hold to have it search for something else.
E) It sounds like in your case you were mostly trying to stream the data to another device and store/record it there (totally valid). Fwiw, almost all of my testing has been in just starting the recording from the app and then leaving my phone behind. Upon return I end the recording and then download the data.
I’ll include two random images of my two most recent daily workouts (one ride, one run) in a subsequent comment post in a second. No drops in that data. Maybe for tomorrow’s ride I’ll add a Garmin to record the data on the SMO2 side and see what that looks like, seems like something useful to know.
Here’s today’s run. It was about 1hr 15mins of mostly steady-state, with 4xSprints at the end. Then there’s about 15mins of walking (was sent on an errand before I could take the sleeve off). Personally I wish there was an easy way to slice off stuff like that.
And here’s Thursday’s trainer ride. This was a build, followed by 30/30’s, then some sprints. You can see power at the bottom, and then a Scosche HR strap paired in the middle. I was having some ANT+ interference issues in the cave this day and this actually performed better than the 4 other Edge 520’s that all dropped power at once (had installed a new WiFi repeater). So I see 2-3 HR drops early on briefly, but otherwise good. Power looks good here too.
Stefan thanks for sharing this info from your MTB ride I like to share some here form a MTB world cup many years back at Mont S.A in Quebec.
It was a joint effort from Claude Lavoie form the University of Trois Riviere and our small crazy group. We where looking some specific feedback on tow loops to see, whether our assessment and limiter findings would as well show up in real live diurnal a race. This was the data form an actual winner at a MSA world cup.. What you have here is O2Hb and HHb at different depth of his VL muscles.
second chart, showing that nothing is shown on Firefox or IExplorer:
I’ve found it (the graphs) show immediately on Chrome, but sometimes takes a few seconds to enumerate on IE. I haven’t tried on Firefox.
and the second workout indoors
now with pic
What app is that?
Golden Cheetah. The workout was recorded with PerfPro.
Well, hopefully they come out with the Gen 3 soon that fixes the connectivity and dropout issues of the Gen 2. I guess it’ will cost another $80 to “fix”.
I guess their engineers are about as competent as their customer support. This gives new meaning to “stop the pricks”.
Im an early adopter and have done 8 ramp tests successfully wih the BSX albeit the regular connection issues at the start of each test.
I am very hesistant now to upgrade and paying usd80 + usd55 for a gen2 that may not work that well. I dont want to wait another four months to get the gen2 because of poor customer communication and leaving me without a device to do my monthly ramp tests.
Did a brief plausibility check between SmO2 data from BSX and Moxy on my first ride with the gen 2. No conclusions, it’s just one data set and plenty of possibilities that something might have gone wrong.
The range of the values don’t match, with Moxy ranging from about 80% down to single digits, that’s like 75% points range, while the range of the BSX was only about 20% points. Would be nice to hear from others how their units match up.
Moxy claims to measure absolute saturation (I don’t have the equipment to check that claim), of the BSX I actually don’t know; I think I read some while ago that they’d only be able to measure “relative” saturation. Would anybody know whether it is indeed relative and what that means? (Relative to what?)
The data shown are from two successive intervals with sensors on quadriceps (Vastus Lateralis, VL) and calf (Gastrocnemius) on both legs. Switched BSX between left and right calf, with Moxys on remaining 3 positions which makes 4 sensors in total. SmO2 data from my left and right leg don’t usually match, so that’s not a problem, but I hoped to see similar trends between BSX and Moxy, i.e. both timing of changes and range of SmO2 values.
With both sensors, we see SmO2 starting to decrease a few secs into the interval, bottoming out, and then refreshing to original levels after the end of the interval, so that’s a good thing, but the range of the values are quite different. From this data I’d guess that BSX’s SmO2 values are not absolute values like those of the Moxy?
As with power meters, this is just a comparison and the data does not show which if any of them is correct. It’s actually worse and more like comparing trainers, as you can’t place two sensors on the same location of the same muscle (and even slight offsets can effect the values). FWIW, Moxy publicizes information about how they test for accuracy.
I kinda wondered the same thing on comparisons. In talking to a few people, it sounds almost near impossible due to differences in muscles. But open to hearing if there’s really any way to compare them from a technical standpoint.
Without heavy medical equipment (I believe the Moxy is tested for accuracy using such), the best I got so far is:
– simply swap them quickly while riding at constant load. The Moxy takes just a few seconds two stabilize, reports repeatable absolute values and just slipping them into cycling shorts legs is usually good enough, at least indoors. Have tested Moxys against each other this way, and they are about perfectly precise. This method might be difficult for not-absolute sensors though?
– swap 2 units between intervals and look at trends. Even if it’s just two as in the graphs above, it can be suspicious that they are measuring the same thing. Repeat more intervals and the trends should be more obvious. This should give enough time to stop/start the BSX from scratch to circumvent artifacts from swapping.
– place 3 sensors on a “long” muscle like the VL. At least in my legs, SmO2 will practically always decrease downwards; if the data does not, it’s kinda suspicious.
Concerning absolute or not: using humidity as a metaphor, absolute humidity from 0 to 100% would be most useful, allowing comparisons and judgments; a relative humidity percentage could still be useful depending on usage but you’d like to know what it is relative to; a simple index that just shows up/down trends could be better than nothing, but of limited usefulness. Really need to know what the BSX is actually reporting, whether it really is a percentage or just an index, and if it is the former, what it is measured against…
Minor issue: Live SmO2 values recorded by WASP and downloaded CSV data seemed off by about two seconds compared against the same HR sensor in both data sets.
Great information and thanks for haring this data with all of us. Remember I am biased so take this with some considerations. Long before BSX and long before MOXY some great brains Like W. Collier for example from Artinis and other great people worked with NIRS and could see the huge potential. It was mostly stuck in Labs . Than the Greta Portamon was here and we where able to go into the field. The graph from the MTB world cup is one of this data jewel collection.
So when Roger form Frotiori MOXY got in contact with us we dad the first interesting steps . Comparing MOXY with Portamon .
Here what we did . This is an occlusion test for validation of the range SmO2 can go as we should see a drop close or to zero.
This is a picture form a study done at the university of Bern for his masters thesis by Andri Feldmann Occlusion test and really there was only one really nice occlusion. NIRS experts may see which one and why it was a perfect closure of the occlusion strap.
After this we did like Mr. Takura did over a span of ye one year and still today we often combine both equipment. Now not anymore to compare but they actually give us more ideas on blood flow or better blood volume changes due to certain situations like for example heat reactions Both MOXY and Portamon use some different ideas on TSI % versus SmO2 % but when we look the R-values they give like Hd difference we see they test and give the same output. below an overlap of a now named 5/1/5 an years back we named it IPHAD for individual assessment off homeostasis disruption.
You are the critical observer
ops thee occlusion test is missing here it is
Ray look at occlusion validation assessments. You can do it with a occlusion test equipment or you can do it naturally by createing local occlusion over muscle contraction like I showed with a biceps curl set. As well look at your own numbers at your loads with HR 175 +- and over 300 watt loads in your small game you did. If you compare mark the optode positions exactly +- on your leg and than place it there for same loads. if you do not overload in the assessment or it is short like two hard loads SmO2 will not create a huge variation. Here an overlap of tHb trends from athletes we got sent in. Remember tHb is NOT absolute but we look at trend there. look the overlap in two test with a few days in between Here the biceps simple assessment to see levels in SmO2. Occlusion under activity will deplete the local O2 source very fast compared to a passive occlusion test where it takes time to reduce O2 due to inactivity.
The gen1 was relative blood oxygenation. The GEN2 according to their support (but I think they use a magic 8 ball to answer questions) uses absolute blood oxygenation.
I hate to say it. Based on those charts the BSX doesn’t look to be reporting accurate results. Oxygenation should vary a lot more than that. The moxy curve looks more in line with what I would expect. This is not good news…. so much for using this thing for daily workouts. With that little variance in the values you can’t do anything with the data. Look at the HUGE dip in the Moxy value. That is what really happens when you hit out on an interval like that.
Small explanation why absolute values are more useful:
Absolute SmO2 can provide clues to judge simple things like
– that you are ready warmed up (for me that’s like when I start out at say 50-60% and hit 70-80% during refresh intervals)
– that you are reaching your limit and won’t be able to give much more (when you are down to single digits showing oxygen delivery limitation, nothing more to burn…)
but also allows more intricate analyses by “calculating” the amount of still superfluous unspent oxygen by simply subtracting given value from 100%.
All that you loose with non-absolute values. (Hope I did get this right?)
But then again, they had announced only relative values for gen 1, so even if the gen 2 really is not absolute, which I won’t judge from just this one dataset, it’s not that BSX didn’t hold their promise… but if their support indeed talked about absolute values for gen 2, this would be a bit disappointing…
Oops … subtracting from 100% (or even better from a baseline value in an not involved muscle) would be the spent oxygen … knew something was wrong …
Takura nice reading and nice to have some NIRS ideas on here and not just technical questions on equipment.
Here what we like on NIRS when we have absolute values.
We can use the absolute numbers for many directions. Here an inside view on a NHL player. Brian Kozak from next level is the leading coach on ice and dry land in moxy applications in north America. Here a very rare inside view in that world. A dry land ice hockey simulation workout and you see two smo2 traces a very dark and less dark one . The very dark green is an upper body feedback of SmO2 the less dark green is feedback from his quadriceps . Than the test to see, how close the dry land works at least in the view of metabolic demand comes to skate on the ice. Nevertheless it is a kind of strange that today still many NHL teams get their athletes tested on a bike for VO2. How about testing pro cyclist on a skate mill and test VO2 . How many would agree with this. Ice hockey is test on the ice and NIRS is the tool of choice, when we like to test many players in a short time and find out load intensity and recovery time in between shifts and how many shifts a player can do and still recover and see, what recovers faster upper or lower body and much more.
upps that is the wrong graph this is muscle contraction quality to see, whether the muscle contraction on and of ice is close to the same. What is shows it is unfortunately different but not unexpected , So here the metabolic information. Smo2 is a great feedback on metabolic dynamic and tHb a great information for delivery feedback they both hang closely together. In many cases when we only have SmO22 we can not tell optimal what is going on. We can for example have a very stable SmO2 level but in reality we may be not on a what some may like to call it MAX Lass or optimal FTP, we may be slower or too fast and tHb will give the additional feedback as well as the feedback whether we may run into a delivery problem sooner than later or not.
Sorry it took so long to direct address this. I wanted to put together the test, results, and references to fully cover the accuracy concern, which I can appreciate wanting to know. So, the BSXinsight Gen2 SmO2 is calibrated for absolute measurements within a range from 0% to 100%, where 0% indicates that all hemoglobin in the tissue volume directly below the sensor have completely given out their oxygen and, thus, consist of deoxyhemoglobin, while 100% indicates that all hemoglobin in the tissue directly below the sensor are oxygenated (oxyhemoglobin).
The Figure below shows SmO2 values monitored in the forearm during a long term arterial occlusion. During long occlusion living tissue continues to consume oxygen to sustain its metabolic processes, up to the point when all oxygen has been consumed. Once the occlusion is terminated oxygenated blood rushes to reoxygenate the arm, leading to high oxygenation values. In the experiment below we see a minimum SmO2 value of 2.8% and a maximum (after occlusion) value of 83.6%, demonstrating the BSXinsight’s ability to monitor the full range of oxygenation values in tissue.
Comparing those values to an expected baseline of 80.6% (using arterial and venous values available in the literature for example, from Medbo1 or Bloos2), and an absolute minimum oxygenation level of 0%, we see that the range of 2.8% to 83.6% is very close to the expected range, with a maximum deviation of 2.8% and 3% at the lowest and highest values, respectively.
1. J. Medbo, “Examination of blood haemoglobin concentration measured using the OSM2,” in The Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation, v.6, pp. 92101 (2009)
2. F. Bloos and K. Reinhart, “Venous oximetry,” in Intensive Care Med., v. 31, pp. 911–913 (2005)
If you prefer it as a basic, common-term explanation: The BSXinsight Gen2 has gone through extensive testing, where blood flow was cut off, with a tourniquet, to measure max and min values reported by the BSXinsight Gen2.
The testing was performed the same as in the clinical lab tests, and the results were as expected. The graph represents the consistent results found, where the range was 2.8% to 83.6%.
This IS repeatable, but we don’t recommend trying it, especially on the leg, given the required force to stop flow in the arteries. We’re very confident your BSinsight Gen2 devices will show this range with a 10 minute, properly used tourniquet that cuts off blood flow. However, you risk tissue damage and blood clots doing this, so, again, we DON’T recommend you doing it.
My personal thoughts on this, from my research and logic, is reaching 0% muscle oxygenation is impossible from a healthy, alive person, that isn’t purposely cutting off blood flow, to the point of damage. 😉 So, just think about that, when setting your range expectations.
ALSO, while the decimal value is significant data, in our case, I completely understand how some might want to see a relative, scaled range, based off their capable range, in order to identify smaller trends more easily. But you have to understand, if we fudged the numbers to make them look better, those who rightfully want to see absolute, would be very disappointed.
So, we’ll talk about giving the option to make your scale relative, if you wanted to see more of the 0-100%. If people really feel relative data is more useful to them.
Adam , thanks so much this is great information and it is great for all NIRS users to see.
What I am most impressed is the duration you did this occlusion with 12 min occlusion. So for any out there. as Adam points out not even try to think on this 12 min occlusion test as it is nearly unheard , well it is now . and shows on here. Nice is if you could as well show the O2Hb and HHb level as well as tHb during occlusion test as it is fun to watch the initial effect when closing it off. Thanks for sharing this.
Adam, great to get this level of information!!! Had kinda given up on getting any such information from BSX, personally very happy to see this, but also think that it’s very important to release this kind of information to acquire consumer trust.
Not wanting to draw conclusions too early …. but this could on the other hand make someone question the scale at which Moxy reports SmO2? I personally get into single digits during a hard interval, which could already be unrealistic; I have seen that some people get down to 0% when they are not even riding that hard, which could be unrealistic and kind of reduces the usefulness of using the Moxy for that person.
Personally I think that, if the data can be trusted, and the display scales to the given range, then an “absolute” scale makes more sense than relative scaling.
Don’t want to rush things too much, but
– any possibility we might get more of this level of information also for the LT test? (I think I’ve brought up some possible issues in an earlier post.)
– any possibility that the BSX unit could in the future also output tHb (which I believe it currently does not)? I would somewhat expect that internally it is calculating not just SmO2 but other measures as well?
I’ve found that placement makes a huge difference. Even changing it by a few centimetres can make a huge difference, that is why I think looking at the trend during a session is more important than the absolute values compared to other sessions. As you know, muscle type and conditioning will also play a huge role in how much you can desaturate as an individual…so I don’t know how valuable it is to compare individuals to each other considering the amount of variables between them and between sessions.
as usual you make some very valid points.
One interesting nirs idea would be to make an occlusion test as you have a BSX and a MOXY so same arm same timing and than overlap both occlusion trends . Now important is that you should not do an occlusion test as Adam did with 12 +- minutes. Best would be you email me and I can give you a protocol we do for occlusion test like this and how you proceed. This is a very interesting topic as occlusion workouts have taken over in some gyms and nobody really looks too close on what actually happens during the occlusion and at the same time when they work out. A overlap would look than about like this. This is an overlap of a full TIP assessment with Portamon from Artinis and a MOXY equipment.
Hey Takura, thanks for the reply and questions!
We fully recognize the potential value of tHb, done correctly. We’re not going to rush it to market, as we’ve seen done, resulting in inconsistent data. We have too many valuable data partners that, giving incorrect data to, even if it looks good, is worse than no data at all.
So, it’s something we are heavily focusing on and hope to make available soon, but don’t have any official timeline announcement.
With the LT testing data, we now allow SmO2 data downloads (via our dashboard) of your performed test, but of course that’s only 1 metric (though a major one) used in the algorithm. I believe more usable data will be released in the future, but it has been protected because of all that went into making it happen.
There is testing done daily, not just as scientists, engineers, but as athletes. We’re all putting our own sweat into this. The past 4 weeks, I have over 800 road miles, at an average normalized power of 298W. Then there’s time on the trainer as well, not added to that. When I get on the bike, I think about all the things I want to learn and ways to collect those data points. Like you mention, I’ve tested other devices that I can easily hit the floor with 0% readings, but my focus here is BSX Athletics/BSXinsight, as this is a BSXinsight review comment section ;). I’m here because I’m extremely passionate about this company, products, and team, who are ALL putting in an effort at least equal to mine. I want to help answer questions and share thoughts on what’s great, and what we can make better, and how.
I have series of emails concerning some questions to this topic I juts like to make a short comment on here agreeing with Adams points.
see above Adams great point
“My personal thoughts on this, from my research and logic, is reaching 0% muscle oxygenation is impossible from a healthy, alive person, that isn’t purposely cutting off blood flow, to the point of damage. ? So, just think about that, when setting your range expectations”
so his other point he makes on NIRS info:
” So, the BSXinsight Gen2 SmO2 is calibrated for absolute measurements within a range from 0% to 100%, where 0% indicates that all hemoglobin in the tissue volume directly below the sensor have completely given out their oxygen and, thus, consist of deoxyhemoglobin, while 100% indicates that all hemoglobin in the tissue directly below the sensor are oxygenated (oxyhemoglobin). ”
is somewhat in a contradiction. I do not know how BSX exactly works but all other NIRS equipment when they show low or zero clearly do not have zero O2Hb. a low number simply means allow pO2 pressure as well a limitation from the technology. . Remember NIRS does not make a difference between Mb and Hb O2 loading so unlikely is zero a zero value but a limitation of the ability to read very low levels of O2 on Hb and or Mb. It is less a personal believe but a fact based on some great studies and research . Here a very short part of one of the leading groups on this.
“Richardson et al have concluded that: ‘‘…intracellular pO2 remains constant during graded incremental exercise in humans (50–100% of muscle VO2max)’’ so that: ‘‘With respect to the concept of the ‘‘anaerobic’’ threshold, these data demonstrate that, during incremental exercise, skeletal muscle cells do not become anaerobic as lactate levels suddenly rise, as intracellular pO2 is well preserved at a constant level, even at maximal exercise’’ (p. 63168). They also conclude that: ‘‘Net blood lactate efflux was unrelated to intracellular pO2 across the range of incremental exercise to
exhaustion’’ but was ‘‘linearly related to O2 consumption’’ (p. 62768). Another study confirmed these conclusions: ‘‘…consequently these data again demonstrate that, as assessed by cytosolic oxygenation state (deoxy-Mb) during incremental exercise, skeletal muscle cells do not become ‘‘anaerobic’’ as lactate levels rise, because intracellular PO2 is well preserved
at a low but constant level even at maximal exercise’’”
Now as Adam showed nicely with a occlusion test the values in BSX drop down to very low levels indicating , which is not surprising that they use a NIRS technology.
So as he points out
” So, just think about that, when setting your range expectations.”
But you have to understand, if we fudged the numbers to make them look better, those who rightfully want to see absolute, would be very disappointed..
Absolutely agree and great point made and it is important for newcomer in this bio feedback ideas to get some pointer in this directions. So I like to make a super simplistic feedback on here to show you what you or when you can expect some lower or less lower numbers.
A artificial occlusion test is really a “forced” delivery problem.
meaning , that I stop O2 delivery to the working or O2 needed area and as such the cells in this are will have to take on what is already there.. So that is what D Adam explains nicely the O2 need of any cell and the reason why we see SmO2 dropping to a very low even zero level depending how the NIRS can get absorb or reflect. I will show a nice occlusion test with BSX and MOXY at the end done on the same muscle so all the same conditions and it shows NIRS works nicely no matter on the name or brand.
Now in a 6 min occlusion test, which is what is done during research due to risks involved we can assume if the occlusion is properly done, that we have very to no O2 inflow and we use from Mb and HB O2 as long as possible. Now the fun part is that we do nothing and have no blood flow. so we are basically on a resting metabolic energy consumption. Now there are nice formulas under occlusion, where we can calculated the amount of energy or O2 used..
In this simplistic case, we assume the whole body is under occlusion so we have no O2 supply anymore.
Resting metabolic rate may be 1800 kcal/ 24 hours so we have 75 kcal / h or during occlusion situation of 6 min we use about 7.5kcal /h.
No NIRS equipment will show very low levels of SmO2 as shown in occlusion tests.
Now we do an activity . first . . If we increase the load slowly we give the delivery systems time to react to the O2 demand and as such many will be surprised, that in a VO2 max test or a 3 min LT step test the SmO2 values do not go very low depending on limiter and or compensators.
But if you do a Wingate test you will see a similar low level like in a occlusion test. This is for many surprising as a wingate is a typical classical anaerobic assessment but with NIRS it shows , that O2 use is higher per time in a Wingate than in a VO2 test. For all the great critics on here, there are many publications in accepted papers who show this results.
So lets go back to why we can see very low levels in NIRS assisted workouts.
Let’s do a ride and push a short hill up all out for 30 seconds.. You go to the base of the hill with a HR of 120 as SV of 120 so CO of 14.4 L / min
So approximately 3 x higher than in your resting occlusion test where you may had a HR of 60 and a SV of 80
Now at rest in the occlusion situation your capillarisation is relative sleepy and you just move the O2 needed to keep every body happy in the tested area which may be 50 – 70 % of SmO2 values
In the beginning of the hill situation you will have in most cases a much higher SmO2 so the resting SmO2 will increase..
The highest values you may see are depending on the equipment somewhere between 90 – 95 %( There are many factors who avoid 100 % readings.
Now you push up the hill suddenly so delivery system will be surprised and you create a natural delivery problem which is close to the artificial occlusion created delivery problem.
Now 30 seconds all out . Your working metabolic rate in a 1 hours all out can easy be 1800 kcal / h ( and that is NOT all out ) so 1800 in 60 min will give you 30 kcal in 1 min or in 6 seconds , the duration of the occlusion we are down to 5 kcal
This moves us relative close to the same situation a sin an occlusion test and that’s’ why when we use NIRS we can see tsi very low numbers in a workout depending what wee do. There are than some other very intriguing options left for the body to react.
So to support Adams point
“So, just think about that, when setting your range expectations.” ” if we fudged the numbers to make them look better, those who rightfully want to see absolute, would be very disappointed.
Adam great points and absolutely agree. And here for all NIRS sceptics a occlusion test sent to us from a MOXY and BSX user Thanks so much
Got a very fast respond on my e-mail.
In short as Adam mentioned :
I’ve tested other devices that I can easily hit the floor with 0% readings,
Absolutely again agree and as outlined above why we see low values so close to zero. Now the emails asked me to stop chatting and show evidence of Wingate and VO2 test which is accepted . .
So here one and we can add the question to what happened when Adam used another NIRS besides or even with BSX that he could see some very low numbers.
Regarding my MTB ride yesterday. I took a closer look at the BT app gathered data and the ANT+ data. As already alluded to above I can’t view the data on my notebook. Therefore, I can I only look at the tiny chart on my smartphone. I wish I could post here a screenshot comparing it to the chart above.
BT and ANT+ data are really off. No drop outs with BT. Everything very plausible. In contrast, ANT+ data seems to be pure nonsense. SmO2 goes up during a VO2max effort, while BT captures it well (an in particular: differently).
Wil be interesting to see if this is just my unit, where ANT+ module is not working properly, or my combination with Edge 500.
Gen 1 was so bad after trying it and failing to get good enough pairing to power meter etc it sat in a box where it remains. Upgrade to Gen 2 was straightforward and shipped quickly. In the UK the carrier collects tax for her Majesties Tax office so I expect a battle to convince them that I only need to pay tax on the upgrade price, not the “shop” price!
Everything pairs quickly, Stages PM, variety of HRM inc MIO and Garmin, and iPhone 5. No gone through tests yet but no problem recording 50 mile ride today, hope that by the spring this will be helping preparations for 2016 races.
Problems so far: 1) In Safari getting to look at the graphs is proving difficult or impossible though I can see them on my phone. 2) I can pair the BSX as a cadence sensor on my Garmin 810 but as soon as it picks up the power meter the cadence defaults to that picked up from the power meter and it kicks the BSX reading off. I might have to RTFM and see if there is a way round this!
Short summary – Shame they did not get it right first time with Gen 1. I think Gen 2 will do what I want it to.
Unfortunately, there is no BSX FM to RT. As far as I know, Garmin Edge devices will default to picking up cadence from a power meter if one is present. So there may not be a workaround to this.
I have a Stages on my MTB. I checked “Sensor details” on my Edge 500 and it was definitely the BSX connected as cadence sensor. So it did connect back to the Stages cadence.
Yeah, there’s really no good way around this till Garmin opens up the .FIT file recording in Q1 2016, which would then enable the SMO2 recording on it’s own channel.
I used it today with a 920XT on my ride in that configuration (as cad), just really a non-ideal configuration.
Update to my last post: Graphs work in Chrome suggesting problem is with Safari. Fascinating to see how the data showed changes muscle oxygenation just before I blew on a long hill and during a sustained sprint effort. Will be interesting to see if I can use it to help pace time trials as well as determine training zones.
Just found the answer to my question here: link to dcrainmaker.com
So might be possible with some power meters but not Stages. As well as the 510 I have a 910xt so no problem seeing and recording data but more complicated to overlay the graphs for interpretation.
Just saw your message MarkL. thanks
Anyone elso notice conflict between Stages PM cadence and BSX Smo2 reading in cadence windo? I noticed when I pair my BSX pod with Garmin Edge 800, I can see my Smo2 in the cadence spot, but since I have a Stages PM, the Stages cadence takes over the Smo2 when I start pedaling. Have you had this issue Ray? The Smo2 reading works fine as long as I disable Stages PM.
I also notice that you have no speed reading when Smo2 takes over the speed/cadence sensor. Is there a way to get speed back? Thanks!
You can’t do that. All head units will take cadence from a PM when both a PM and a cadence sensor are attached.
That’s not true, many PM/head unit combos don’t have this issue, including my own setup, using the Powertap P1 pedals and over half a dozen different head units/watches.
Unfortunately, the SPD/CAD work-around, to let SmO2 show under cadence while we wait for the profile to be added, falls victim to some of the devices and firmware where Garmin has set priorities. We’re working on another option for those with the issue, which so far is reported to be Stages and Garmin Vector pedals.
I just put in a suggestion at the Garmin link below to add SmO2 to Edge units. Hopefully more people will do the same.
link to www8.garmin.com
Thank you, Andy! We’re pushing had for this with multiple companies and some are close, requesting it helps!
What half dozen head units are you using that work with PM like Stages? CAn you name them?
To tell you the truth, I didn’t find any ANT+ SPD/CAD capable head units/watches the Powertap P1 pedals didn’t work with, in combo with the BSXinsight.
In the case of Stages, if you search around for ANT+ units, like going here: link to thisisant.com
and select bike computers, you will find some that allow you to set priority and even manual connection of your cadence source by ID. So, Stages would, in theory, work perfectly fine in that situation with the BSXinsight.
I don’t want to focus too heavily on what unit is best to use in order to see SmO2 through your cadence profile, as it’s merely a work-around, which some people have to give up data they want, for it. I don’t have dates to give on which company will have SmO2 when, or which (if any) current units out there will get a firmware update to support it once it’s released. But I do have a hunch, and hope, one is coming very soon, with SmO2, and I will happily let the world know when/if that happens 😉
Not sure if it’s relevant, but there is a Muscle Oxygen ANT profile, but I cant seem to find BSX listed anywhere on http://www.thisisant.com. Anybody know if they’re using this ANT standard or not? And if so how it’s implemented?
They are using the spec (I’m able to see/validate it in WASP). I suspect it’s just that they haven’t completed certification yet. Many times it takes Garmin months for it to show up in certifications. In fact I think it was the Edge 1000 (may it was something else recently, but I’m pretty sure it was the Edge 1000) that was delayed about 8-10 months while they worked out one minor quirk.
2 head units with PM disabled on one. Problem is you generate 2 fit files. Makes analysis more complex.
Regarding cadence, PM and BSX: I may be able to explain my MTB ride now. Yes indeed, it reads cadence from the PM, however, it switches back to BSX when you stop pedalling for 10-20sec. Once you pedal again it takes the data from the PM again.
Since SmO2 data was shown while not pedalling, e.g. field showed data > 0 while standing, I did not expect that sensors would change during a ride. No “new sensor” messages were shown on my Edge 500.
So the latest total cost tally to get a (hopefully) working unit:
Original sale Gen 1:
Gen 1 unit: USD 426.04 (Including Shipping)
Taxes: USD 60.00
Gen 2 unit: USD 79.99
Shipping: USD 54.99
Taxes: USD 65.00
Total: USD 686.00
Somebody explain to me how the additional USD 200.00 is justified to get a working Gen 2 unit?
How did the taxes and shipping get so high? Even in France, if they listed the taxable value of $79, it’d be at most $18 in taxes (19.7% or whatever it is this year).
Also – do keep in mind if someone just straight up purchases a new Gen2 unit they wouldn’t need all the other stuff.
Basically it comes down to the incorrect amount being listed on the waybill and shipping that costs almost as much as the Gen 2 unit “replacement”.
The shipping is International via Fedex – only option given on the order.
The taxable value was listed incorrectly on the Waybill by BSX – it was listed as USD 419.99.
Fedex took it upon themselves to include the shipping on top of that and then add 14% sales tax plus another approx 30 USD for the customs clearance fee.
I’ve been having a week long battle with Fedex to get the correct taxable value listed. Not sure I’m going to win this one.
Ahh yes, so that definitely comes down to BSX screwing up the customs value. Like you said, it should be $79USD. And quite honestly they should offer USPS delivery/hand-off for that.
As for winning FedEx battle…I lose that battle on a weekly basis here in Paris. I’ve pretty much given up on even trying anymore. 🙁 Someone at FedEx is getting rich off of me.
Just took a look an my invoice. Darn, it says $369 and not the discounted price. However, “purpose of shipping” is “warranty” and not “sold”.
Fedex bill with cutsoms, sales tax and handling fee should arrive in a few days. I wonder what they will charge me.
Here in Germany you can file a complaint against the handling fee. This usually works out but is a hassle to do.
I had the same situation. Except that duty was higher in Poland.
I understand the frustration, we’re having it here as well in regards to this. The paper that some customs officials are trying to reference is the item value, to show it’s an equal value item for warranty. The invoice with the amount paid and warranty reference is in the plastic sleeve. Out of the hundreds shipped like this, it is looking like as many as a couple dozen were mishandled by customs where they tried to apply fees based off item value.
We followed the law as well as used multiple shipping authority references to the way we did this.
We’re putting together an email to send out to everyone to give instruction to help, on the chance anyone else has unnecessary fees applied to their package. We hope to be sending it very soon.
Did a small test tonight with Moxy and BsX gen 2:
Bsx on left calf, moxy on left VL. Do different muscles. Take that into account. Some interesting read wrt these muscles: link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
So. 3 min no pedalling, then slow warmup 10 min. 20 min 300 watt self selected cadence (88). 1 minute stop pedalling. 4 min easy riding. 10 min 240 watt cadence 100 into 10 min 340 watt self selected cadence (88). 1 minute no pedalling. Few minutes low wattage and then some in the saddle sprints for 25 secs. Here the result. Moxy above, bsx below. Red is wattage.
Overall (my) findings wrt data / trend
– lower variability smo2 in bsx on calf (kind of consistent with article above, but should also see in an incremental test)
This week will do other way around as well. Moxy on left calf and BSX on left VL.
– pairing powertap did not work
– pairing wahoo tickr did not work
– downloading data (yes i docked) did not work (hence the printscreen in my graphs in the pic)
Great info Ruud. Nice choice of wattage 240 as you see on the MOXY 5 min step test possibly end of ARI or M SmO2 1 and 300 +- is your FTP plus minus classical terms we would say metabolic SmO2 balance. so 340 is above SmO2 2 so dropping.. Interesting iss that by 340 wattage you drop in VL as you are above SmO2 balance but in the calf you are actually higher than in the VL and higher BSX SmO2 in the calf by 340 compared to 300 watt. . Now switch position and see and sent my the csv files from MOXY at least so we see tHB reaction to understand the reactions properly. Interesting is the small SmO2 or easier term the low utilization of O2 you show in your calf when you look the BSX SmO2 amplitude . As well will be fun to look at HHb and O2Hb If you lie sent me the csv from MOXY and I can show some ideas on here. or on the NIRS forum
Hmm clicked too early post . Even more fascinating is the 240 watt load, where you deoxygenate more than at 340 in your calf . So once we have the MOXY calf feedback by the same workout loads we can tell much more as we can look at the MOXY data in our ideas and see, is it your way of your technique change in different loads.. If this is the case than can you imagine you do a 3 min step test and your SmO2 actually increases towards the end and by 240 your SmO2 is lower than by 340. That will be a fun way to combine with lactate readings and create a calculation for a LT ??? So a cook book will tell you by the BSX SmO2 values of 240 slow down but by 340 speed up ??? Welcome in the 20 + years of NIRS mysteries.
Even though I answered your questions yesterday, you didn’t respond, so just to make sure:
Your devices didn’t pair because:
1) To pair a new device, you need to put your finger on the bar and hold as it’s searching. Otherwise it defaults to the mode of only use a previous device (to have faster connecting). Sorry we weren’t clear on that. It says it on the app screen, but is only there for a bit, if you’re not watching it.
You couldn’t download your activity because:
2) To be able to download an activity, you must sync the BSXinsight, not just dock it. Just click the sync button on the desktop app. Otherwise, your dashboard will just reflect a basic graphic of your activity that the phone sends via the server to note you did one.
Downloaded worked. Forgot to sync in with the tool. My bad. Had quick response from bsx support team.
Glad to hear a few of you guys got the V2. I forked out the money, plus two-day-shipping, the day after the coupon for the discount arrived. Told them to ship to a friend currently in the US and advised them about the limited time window.
But nada, not even an email telling me of any delays, so my friend is on his way back soon and I am without the device for a few weeks until somebody else stops by with Uncle Sam.
At least the taxman here (plus the shipper) do not get mislead by misleading accompanying shipping info.
The BSX story is really not a happy one for this author, with V1 not pairing once device and HRM at the same time!
I apologize for this delay. Whenever there are special requests made in shipping this can cause delay and/or confusion, especially when we’re shipping hundreds of units at a time.
Regardless, this is no excuse, simply an explanation. My sincere apologies. Bottom line is, a return envelope was sent to your US address. We have yet to receive a return device and so a unit has not shipped. Looking further I now see why.
Please drop me a note in the morning to dustin@BSXathletics.com so I can clarify and we will get this taken care of asap!
Sad to see the tax issue. In fact as soon as I ordered the gen 2 I asked them whether they would take care of this issue, but did not get a response from them on that question. Now I know why. I also have to say that I haven’t had a letter yet so until then I might be lucky…….nah
Wayne@BSX has spent a lot of time, going one by one, and calling those that had an issue with the duties/taxes/fees. So far, every single case has resulted in the official’s admission of us doing it correctly and them not following procedure. Then it’s taken care of. If your case hasn’t been handled yet, it will, I assure you.
They need to rename “live chat” to “dead chat”. Can’t seem to get anyone to respond anymore. I really wonder if they have real people working there or if it’s some sort of automated response system that just gives random answers to questions just to make it seem like they have a customer service department. My guess this is all being run out of the trunk of someone’s car.
Received my BSX Gen 2 and did a couple of tests.
The iOS and the Windows apps seem to work fine. I can download and view SmO2 along with HR (did not try to connect PM or FP yet). Cool.
But I cannot my Fenix 3?!
I go to Settings > Sensors > Add New > Speed/Cadence. But I get a “Pedal to activate the sensor. Try again” error message. I tried to power off & on the watch, and re-search “for all nearby sensors and accessories” but I get a “No sensor found” error message.
Any Garmin users who can help?
Has anyone managed to connect a Garmin Fenix 3 to the BSX Gen 2?
My BSXinsight connects to the iPhone app and to my Garmin HR. It seems working fine, and I can transfer/download the data via the Windows BSX app.
I understand we can also “broadcast” the SmO2 values to the Garmin watch using “SPD/CAD” profile but: 1) I do not have “SPD/CAD” profile on the Fenix 3. 2) The “Speed/Cadence” profile does not detect the BSX device.
Thanks in advance.
I just updated the connection page and included step-by-step pics on connecting the 920XT, which may help:
link to support.bsxinsight.com
In the case of the 920XT, the “Cadence” field is only pulled from a connected sensor under “Foot Pod” and the same “Cadence” field in cycling, is pulled from a connected sensor to “Spd/Cad”. The BSXinsight can be connected to both at the same time and it will pull the correct one.
Also, refer to the Fenix 3 instructions:
link to www8.garmin.com
Be sure and hold the BSXinsight right next to the watch, when connecting it as a sensor.
Oops, I meant:
In the case of the 920XT, the “Cadence” field ***FOR RUNNING*** is only pulled from a connected sensor under “Foot Pod” and the same “Cadence” field in cycling, is pulled from a connected sensor to “Spd/Cad”. The BSXinsight can be connected to both at the same time and it will pull the correct one.
I really need to get this proof reading art down…
Simple question: you say that BSX connects to a iPhone via Bluetooth. Does it connect also with a iPad, which also has Bluetooth?
I would like to use a iPad for indoor cycling application.
Hi Jacques, While the design isn’t formatted for the iPad, it works perfectly fine on iPad 3+, which supports BLE (Bluetooth 4+).
I appreciate the many mails I got over the last few days and the many BSX data sent to me for interpretations.
I can’t make interpretations as some of the features we use with any other NIRS equipment are not ye available in the BSX data so you are better on sending the datas to BSX as they are the real experts in this interesting tool. The send most common question I got is, whether NIRS is actually used in reality in or somewhere already. NIRS is used since many years in many different sports with live feedback . so nothing new here at all. The technology is out ether and Artinis with the small Portamon is leading the way since many many years. NIRS is used in personal coaching but as well in group workouts.
Below you see a workout from a top European ice hockey team during a dry land workout so all work together but each athlete has his individual philological feedback goal and is guided by his own bodies feedback. This picture got sent to us from SWINCO ( Swiss innovation company from Zuerich
Ok, now Im still considering again to upgrade to gen2. Two questions from users of gen 2:
1) Do you feel that the range of connection of the gen 2 and the ease of pairing with HR straps and power meters are better than the gen1 now?
2) When you conduct the ypur threshold test, does the app show the readings from the power meter in real time? We didnt have that for gen1 so I have no idea whether the power meter is still sending power readings or not. It is an extra thing to worry, which is not a good thing. When doing threshold test, your mind should be calm and not worry about all these technical issues to stress yourself mentally.
1) I haven’t had any connection/pairing issues on any activities to date.
2) Yes, it does – continuously showing HR & Power, or when running, HR & Pace.
Third and forth question,
3) Whats the real world battery life of the gen2 device?
4) When you use the app during an outdoor ride, are there connection issues between the gen 2(on your calf) and your phone(placed in the jersey back pocket)? I assume we have to start the app from the phone.
5) When does the gen2 device gets powered and start draining its battery? As soon as you take it off its craddle? You cant switch on the gen 2 device later on in the middle of the ride? Lets say I take off my gen 2 from its craddle and then transport my car to a bike location which takes 1 hr travelling time. And once I reach there, I begin my ride. So when do the gen 2 starts using its battery life? After I remove it from the cradle or at the start of my bike ride?
3) That’s harder. For whatever reason the desktop app for me never shows less than 97% – no matter how long I use it. :-/
4) You do have to start from the phone today (‘non-phone’ starting is coming in December). But once started it honestly doesn’t matter what happens to the connection, data is stored on the unit. Heck, you could actually throw your phone in the river and just re-dock the BSX afterwards and it’ll stop the activity and upload. Or, you can just stop the activity on your phone (it’ll reconnect) and you’ll be good.
5) Upon tapping it a few times. It goes to sleep after a while again. But it doesn’t actually turn on the sensors until the app tells it to.
The desktop app battery % is off. The blue flash is charging and solid blue is fully charged. But we are working on the % to make it more accurate as well. The new mobile app, releasing in the next few days, will have battery % reading, through the BLE app itself, which will be much more accurate.
From our testing and reports from others, the shortest we’ve seen an activity last from a full charge is just over 6 hours (with power meter and HRM connected). It’s also tested to last 100 hrs in low battery state (just sitting out of the dock). So, yes, it’s always on, but an hour drive will lose around 1% of battery and 1 hour of use, should use between 12-17%.
The BSXinsight phone connecting is very fast and consistent now. When connecting to a new device, you need to hold your finger on the search bar for a couple seconds to tell it to look for something new. I don’t think we communicated that as well as we could have and people didn’t notice it on the screen.
For the power displaying on screen, we do it for the daily workout, and we also had it on the assessment, but the feedback was people didn’t want it, so it was removed. Maybe we should consider a toggle option, because you make a great point.
I have cycled with the Gen2 and recorded sessions of up to 5 hours but on my winter bike that does not have a power meter. Fascinating data. Biggest take home message for me so far is the time it takes muscle oxygen to stabilise. I think I can use this to design personalised warm up routines before I race.
Mind sharing which part of the ride when your MO is stabilising that interest you?
I wonder whether there is a correlation between MO and HR and if this link has been determined, we can just refer to our HR data.
Agree about using SmO2 to optimize warm up, as that is what I too did (with the Moxy) … and my performance has got significantly better (though I don’t really race) and rides also subjectively feel more comfortable.
Just keep in mind that different muscles might behave differently, so you might want to back check on all major involved muscles – you don’t have to use that sleeve. The Moxy guys often suggest that this ability to measure specific muscles instead of a made-up whole-body concept like LT is one of the strength of NIRS devices. (In my case, left leg warms up slower and tires faster but is stronger during peak; both calves tire faster than quads.)
Somewhat ironically, my SmO2 values tell me that the warm up implicit in the BSX step protocol is too short for me, so I added my own warm up routine as there doesn’t seem to be a scientific reason not to do so, just need to be consistent.
From the comparison I posted above I think that the accuracy of the BSX should be enough for optimizing warm up. The Moxy will make it a bit easier though to decide when your SmO2 values won’t get any higher (when they are close to 100%) or lower (in single digits). The numbers of my gen 2 BSX so far didn’t seem to go into those extremes.
As for HR correlation, agree it would be nice, but I don’t think their is.
From my limited understanding, there isn’t a very good correlation. HR is only one part of a very complex story that determines your performance.
When you’re “warming up” you are essentially stimulating your body’s “fight or flight” response to prime it for action.
E.g. Think of when you watch a scary movie or ride a roller coaster – your HR will be WAY up, but you’re essentially sitting still and not using O2 to do any work…
Put differently, HR is ONE of the factors determining the POTENTIAL to DELIVER SmO2. i.e. CO=HR x SV, where CO=Cardiac Output, HR=Heart Rate, SV=Stroke Volume. HR doesn’t reliably tell you how much O2 is actually IN your blood and it doesn’t tell you how much blood is actually reaching the muscle vs your critical organs.
Both HR and SV can vary during a session – so how do you know how much oxygen is making it to the muscle and how much of it is being utilised if you know only HR?
I can have a very high heart rate one day or even during a session (due to fatigue, illness, dehydration, body temperature, exercise effort), and my SmO2 values will look exactly the same because my body is able to compensate up to a point (the inverse is also true).
It would be pretty much like trying to guess a car’s fuel consumption by looking only at the rev counter and not knowing the size of the engine, the weight of the car, whether it’s going uphil or downhill or what the air/fuel mixture is set to.
Thanks a lot. Really appreciate the explaination. So next question is how do your improve muscle oxygenation?
I just bought a Pulse Electro Magnetic Frequency(PEMF) device and a lot of research has been done on PEMF improving smo2 or ATP production. Im still reading up on that.
Well, since “warmup” has been brought up… Feedback we received from a sports science S&C coach, who has been doing extensive testing, is he’s unexpectedly found he can get the same results in a 14 minute routine, to replace their standard 20 minute warmup. Although he’s finding much more than that.
“Wow, a NIRS warmup device”… right? Yeah that’s why I’ve not been in a hurry to bring that up. I think I’d take “Bluetooth leg warmers” over that because it has a better ring to it lol (boss is gonna kill meh!)
Lukman, you ask about SmO2 stabilizing. He’s probably referring to when you start your activity, your body reacts, depending on effort, by increasing oxygen uptake (like increasing breathing rate), sending more blood (heart rate, prioritizing engaged muscles over other muscles and organs) and dilatation. All of these things, depending on if you’re doing varied warmup sets, and the intensity, can yo-yo your SmO2, depending on the level of intensity, as well as your body’s compensation/reaction abilities. It can overcompensate and your SmO2 actually increase with a low or moderate effort.
You guys shared some great info and great points. Heart rate is a good data point, but it’s a lagging indicator that is greatly affected by external conditions. From temperature, adrenaline, caffeine, food intake, and even what’s on your mind, to name a few things.
Muscle oxygen is like monitoring incoming fuel, used fuel, unused fuel, and how efficiently it’s being used, vs. a heart rate monitor being a delayed RPM gauge.
SmO2 isn’t simply tuning an LED to bounce back a signal that the brightness reflects the oxygen level of your blood. There are many things to factor in order to get accurate muscle oxygen readings.
To get the most accurate results from person to person, you have to consider many things, like:
Then there are many different data points, related to muscle oxygen, for the bigger picture, like:
-oxygenated blood levels
-deoxygenated blood levels
…so much more.
As for your other question, Lukman, how to improve muscle oxygenation… of course the immediate things would be your breathing efficiency, hydration, bike position/running form, for blood flow. To specifically train your muscle oxygenation, there are a lot of theories being tested. Some are focusing on your power/pace to SmO2 ratio, and others on trying to increase your potential range (both peak and valley).
Below I’ll post up the intervals I did and explain
1 minute sitting
2 minutes 50W @80rpm
2 minutes 100W @80rpm
2 minutes 150W @80rpm
30 sec 550W @80rpm
1.5 minutes 50W @80rpm
30 sec 550W @100rpm
1.5 minutes 50W @80rpm
30 sec 550W @80rpm
1.5 minutes 50W @80rpm
30 sec 550W @100rpm
1.5 minutes 50W @80rpm
30 sec 550W @80rpm
1.5 minutes 50W @80rpm
30 sec 550W @100rpm
1.5 minutes 50W @80rpm
30 sec 750W @100rpm
1.5min 50W @80rpm
30 sec 750W @100rpm
1.5min 50W @80rpm
30 sec 750W @100rpm
1.5min 50W @80rpm
30 sec 550W @100rpm
1 minute 50W @80rpm
Here are the 550W/750W intervals I did. We’re always doing random testing in the office on the trainer, to collect data. But in this case, I wanted to change up my cadence while under a load, to see if it had any change in my SmO2. Keep in mind, our app shows 15 sec time samples, to it’s not as detailed as downloading the raw file and graphing.
But look at how my peak SmO2 jumps on recovery on the 750W vs. 550W intervals, yet the bottom isn’t so significant. We have a lot of data and ideas around how low and high can it go and what does that mean in relation to fit level and potential, as well as how to train it. However, I wouldn’t call it significant, as compared to the other studies we’ve done with thousands, so we need to keep collecting! We’re all in it together, learning, just as people did when the power meter came out.
Adam, good to see someone from BSX posting about such things.
Concerning warmup, what I looked at is more about how SmO2 decreased during the same hard effort after varying warm up protocol and less the SmO2 during the warm up itself. Wouldn’t call that scientific or anything, but …. for example the new protocol “increased” the LT computed by BSX by roughly 10% while making the step protocol more comfortable too. (sorry don’t have the data at hand)
One question, if you could clarify: the range of SmO2 values of my BSX gen2 and my Moxys don’t match, as I posted earlier. Would you have any thoughts about that?
Getting a bit off topic – so after this I’m done.
I’ve looked at PEMF before. All the answers around “How does it work” seem to be very psuedoscientific handwavy explanations.
I’d be very sceptical of any claims where a magnetic (static, pulsing or otherwise) does anything to the human body except heating it up a bit – what would the mechanism be? Human blood contains iron, true, but it is in VERY low amounts and isn’t in it’s metalic state anyway.
Easy example – think of an MRI machine. I can bet you that an MRI is orders of magnitude more powerful than anything you bought – why don’t the patients end up as ugly splatters on the inside or have their bodies fried?
MRI machines create fields 0.5-2.O tesla.
PEMF systems are in the PICO or MILLI tesla range – e.g..
0.000000000001 of a tesla at worst and 0.001 of a tesla at best.
You probably get exposure to more of a magnetic field sitting in front of your computer screen (milli tesla range) than you would from most PEMF devices.
A good resource is usually quackwatch.com
Final note – my general test, if it’s been on Dr. Oz, it’s BS.
Great info, and great question.
Again, I can’t speak to it like our engineers and scientists can, but I love this stuff and have picked up a good amount, enough to hopefully help. So, this isn’t an official BSX response, it’s my thoughts on it after a lot of geeking out, testing devices, and talking with the experts.
Muscle oxygen has many related metrics that can be measured and/or considered/calculated. Not only is there SmO2, but there’s others, like, SvO2, SpO2, SaO2, and other metrics. There are different ways to read this data and pull out the measurements from the “noise”. After a lot of study, we found what we feel is the best absolute, accurate, and consistent way to get the Smo2. The range we reflect, is backed by the literature of true oxygenation ranges and is precise to the point the decimal value is significant, which we provide in the activity download.
Keep in mind there are other things we look at and consider, things like tissue density, fat layer, skin color, ect.
Can you check with your engineers regarding the range?
It seems to me that the Moxi range is more actionable (i.e. I’d rather see SmO2 go from 40 to 80 than sit in a narrow range of 50-65).
I did a few daily workouts and 1 assessment and I’m not seeing what I would consider big enough changes in the SmO2 value.
Not sure what the truly expected ranges are, but I fully expected to see values around 75 or 80 and values as low as 30 during hard/easy efforts etc. The range just seems too narrow.
Adam great information and I love the fact that we start here to talk about NIRS and not always about not optimal function of an equipment. Below not a critic to Adam but some information on what he talks about.
” Muscle oxygen has many related metrics that can be measured and/or considered/calculated. Not only is there SmO2, but there’s others, like, SvO2, SpO2, SaO2, and other metrics. There are different ways to read this data Not completely good information
SmO2 is the ” word” for the indirect assessment of the O2 exchange in the muscle. in the capillary network plus minus arterioles and venules.
What we have to keep in mind is that the O2 from the Mb ( myoglobin is a part of the feedback we get from indirect information using NIRS technology.
This is what we use SmO2 for.
The other terms have different definitions and are different measured. The other indirect but now peripheral measured feedback on O2 is the finger puls oxymeter for example and you use SpO2 to explain what you measure. So very different and not to be confused with SmO2. In fact a combination of SmO2 and SpO2 is used in specific workouts like hypercapnic loads or hypocpanic loads for certain specific simulations.
SaO2 is arterial O2 information and is tested in the blood.direct.
SvO2 is tested as well in the blood with a pulmonary arterial cat. assessment. To finish this you as well have a ScvO2 for the central venous O2 situation in the blood.
So the terminology is very straight forward and this is important to not start the confusion we have in classical ideas , where LT and VT and ANT and AT and all the different threshold mean for anybody different things.
SmO2 is for the information of O2 trends in the capillary +- network including feedback of the Mb O2 situation. There is one more ( more ) but often used term in NIRS with portable NIRS equipment . It is TSI % for tissue saturation index.
Portamon from Artinis Ulysses this term as the have a very great way on looking at different depth at the same time so look at skin and muscle O2 situation at the same time That’s where you have the term T1 T2 T 3
Hope this feedback is somewhat help full.
For people looking for in depth use of SmO2 feedback options there are different forums available you can go to. So no need to believe it is new it is all out there just new for many not familiar with the introduction of NIRS in activity options. So no need to re- invent the wheel.
Again not to correct Adam as it is great to have some discussion or information on here about NIRS rather than Fed Ex problems The bottom of SmO2 reactions have at least as much feedback options than the top of the scale so both are very helpful.
What we have to understand is , that SmO2 alone has some limitations as it is a % of the tHb which is loaded with O2. So a higher SmO2 value means a higher % of Hb is loaded in the available blood volume. So you can have 60 % SmO2 but really may have less total O2 available; than after a load where you may see 50 % SmO2 So when we do strength workouts or interval workouts, where muscle contraction pressure will influence blood flow and therefor tHb values we have lintel do no good feedback on SmO2 alone.strength.
So 500 watt and 750 watt have different reactions on muscular recruitment as well as on inter-muscular coordination. So higher or lower SmO2 values have to be taken with some careful considerations and as soon you add the tHB information you will have a nicer feedback whether you actually create a delivery limitation or whether you reached a utilization limitation.
Some additional thoughts on warm up and NIRS. There are many discussions and examples on other NIRS Forums on that sine a while.. Important ti sto have an idea for what activity you like to prepare your body. So for example for a 60 min TT or a ice hockey game.
The goal is very different and the idea on what you like to achieve or see on live feedback with NIRS is different. One key element is the duration or wait time between end of ” warm up ” and start of event. The second important part is on how your event starts out.
Do you start out , where you know you will have no matter what a delivery limitation so you will dig deep in local utilization or do you start out with a situation, where you integrate many muscles at the start compared to the actual ongoing event and so on. SmO2 alone will not be an optimal ( it is a start ) feedback as you as well need to have some ideas on how blood flow and volume may be reacting or triggered.
Adam, thanks for your reply on range, sounds fair enough to me. Agree with Jake though that some more details from BSX engineers would be welcome at some time.
Juerg, thanks for explanations of terminology and thoughts on optimizing warm up. One question about terminology: With the BSX there occurred this question about whether the SmO2 values reported by BSX are absolute or relative percentages (former meaning real % whereas the latter would be just trends?), which might be a bit of a sloppy wording as giving a percentage is already relative and the question here might only be what the reference is? Or is this phrasing correct, common usage?
Takura, thank for sharing your ideas and thoughts on here. Two directions which are interesting to follow in discussions., when working with any NIRS equipment. First it is interesting to see the growing interest in the cycling community and it will be very interesting to see, how 2 worlds find each other . The physiological feedback ideas and the physical performance ideas.
Both will benefit and it is amazing that it took this many years for endurance athletes to pick up the new technology of metabolic tracking. In rehabilitation and personal coaching NIRS is a fix integration with top coaches since many years. So lots of information can be taken from there to avoid inventing the wheel over and over again. .
1. SmO2 values and how to use it. There are the math wizards who have to answer this with formulas and what models they use to find the SmO2 %. Than there is the practical approach I do from a physiological point of view.
Questions of how is this or that equipment validated.
? My question back : with what do you like to validate . What is the golden standard to validate a NIRS equipment ?
So what I do is a simple practical, approach.
You do a so called arterial occlusion test. I showed some pictures from 3 different NIRS arterial occlusion test before.
What do you expect.
a) you like to see a drop in SmO2 down to as close to zero as possible..
Than you let the occlusion go and you create something called hyperemia reaction. meaning you see SmO2 moving up nicely and very high and very close to arterial saturation so SpO2 levels which are somewhere around. 97 +- Now you can repeat this 2 / 3 times and should see a similar smooth drop in SmO2 as well a similar increase back to a high SmO2 value.in a similar time range +-
Now if you like to be very picky you can do this before every workout to be sure you have a working NIRS and you than can adjust the theoretical o% to the lowest number you see and 100 % to the highest number you see when re bounding SmO2.. Now in a good NIRS equipment this should not have to be done as close to o% +- and close to 95 % +-.is set in the equipment
If you do not like this idea of an occlusion assessment you can do a practical natural occlusion test. I showed a tHb reaction earlier on in this site form a biceps set from training center in Florida wee did a few years back.
Here another one from a squatting workout. The data’s are from the Red Bull research centre in Santa Monica California. Done a few years back. Green is SmO2 and brown is tHb trend
The second thought will go back to ” warm up” Again not a critic to anybody but some thought to avoid what happened when you start using NIRS.
The cycling centre who was able to reduce the warm up from 21 minute down to 14 minutes. This is where the battle for many coaches will come in. The battle between cook book numbers like time and performance versus the physiological reaction the body will have to get through, depending on the goal setting of a warm up for a race and or for a workout. The word warm up is very misleading and we use the word performance or activity preparation. instead.
There is not time involved just live feedback and physiological reactions. Besides SmO2 and tHb are two small parts of an optimal warm up as many other factors play a role to prepare for a specific tasks.
One gentleman on here asked. . How do you improve oxygen saturation.
So if your physiological assessment shows, that you have a saturation problem or limitation your warm up has already a goal to prepare for that specific goal. If you find out that you have a stroke volume limitation, than your warm up will be very different.
If you like to improve de-saturation, so utilization, than again your warm up has to fit that specific training target. You can do anything but you need more time and may not be able to hit the target, you have set for todays workout. The beauty is with NIRS you can see it as you do it and nothing really is lost , you just learned that your current warm up makes it very hard to stimulate for example utilization levels.
Hope this gives some ideas for many great ideas coming out here. Thanks for sharing
According to post #26, the BSX gen 2 reports Absolute Blood oxygenation.
Hi Eli. Thanks for the questions – we’re happy to clarify these things.
– Yes, BSXinsight tracks absolute oxygenation.
– Yes, data is saved on BSXinsight. The storage has a capacity of over 12 hours of data, or about a week of use for an average user. There is no need to carry your mobile phone with you in order to collect data for a daily activity.
It would be interesting if someone could do an aterial occlusion test with the BSX. I’d like to see if it really does go down to 0 and back up to close to 100. It seems that this is something that perhaps should be calibratable per user.
I haven’t done too many “daily” workouts yet, but to me, the range seems too small to be used. Basically when I was “warmed up” it went to maybe 65 and after some intense intervals I was able to get it as low as 48/49. Maybe my expectations are wrong, but I would expect a bigger drop than 15 from easy Z1/Z2 to Z6 work. I mean if your legs go from easy work to screaming hard work does SmO2 really only drop 15%?
Allow me to give here some input for discussions. Not to be right or wrong just some feedback we collected over time.
When we use ” absolute ” values in NIRS we look for a kind of a scale which tells us .
You are fully loaded in the observed muscle so close to SpO2 or arterial saturation or we name it close to 100 % Most NIRS have on the careful side a +- 5 % variation. So a reading of 95 % can be close to 100 or close to 90.
The other end of the scale is what we do all when using % for training intensity zoning so it would be 0 %. Now you really hope you never reach this as other wise you are in trouble. The inaccuracy off many equipment including NIRS equipment may show up as 0 % but you have to take it with some care and you simply know you are very low in the tested area.. Now remember your NIRS maybe somewhere on the Vastus lateralis on your leg which is the preferred muscle for many studies when running or cycling is involved. Now that is a very local feedback and therefor has its limitation as well plus the penetration depth is limited as well plus you add some fat layer and skin layers to it and your see very fast the limitations Whether the VL is a great choice can always be discussed. How deep does we get with NIRS. That is somewhat individual from company to company
In simple terms what ever equipment you use look the distance between the light source and the receiver. let’s say it is 3 cm. than penetration depth is app. 1.5 cm You can take a cheap skin fold caliper and see, whether the place you like to fix a NIRS makes sense alone form the depth penetration. Remember to divide the cm skin fold you have by 2.
There is as well a limitation how far you can get light source and receiver apart due to the properties of the light and the absorption and the reflexion of the light. This I better explained by the producer of any NIRS device.
Now many great feedbacks on here form NIRS users and as well many questions , when it comes to SmO2 values. First : Do NOT try to expect a value just simply look what happens first.
SmO2 values can be all over the place as it reflects nothing other than the % of loaded Hb and Mb in a total situation of all Hb and MB in the tested area.
So keep this in mind.
second it represents when using one single NIRS the feedback of a very local isolated body part.
So when we use a NIRS a simple biceps curl will be a great feedback for the equipment. As more muscle groups are involved as more careful do we have to be with the interpretations of numbers Using a single NIRS on a cross-country skier can create more confusion than information. In a cycling motion we are somewhat better as we have a bigger part of the body relative little involved. ( well in an all out load we may have to review that statement )
So when we look at options of how I can push my pedal down you can see, that very great coordinated cyclists have a huge potential in a medium load situation to shift the activity form one muscle group to another and still maintain the same wattage. We do this very often in coordination trainings with cyclists but as well with stroke patients to show , how they can sue different muscles to maintain the ability to walk or bike by simply having a better coordinated team. When we do this and we look at hamstrings calf and quadriceps we can shift the SmO2 numbers form lo to higher and visa verca.
This is a very common often not seen reason, why wee do not find a break point in a SmO2 declining curve or we may even see an increase in SmO2 towards the end of an all out load. We may as well see in NIRS, who measure muscle O2 versus NIRS who measure tissue O2 a shift due to heat reactions so in a TSI % equipment we may see O2 going up towards the end of a hard load versus the SmO2 dropping not only due to use of O2 but as well due to shift of O2 to the skin. To perhaps make a break here we can say.
NIRS had the big advantage of telling us local reactions versus VO2 in a mask which tells us systemic outcome. There is a big discussion we have on different forums on this Fick versus usability of it in local muscle reactions.
Summary: Start out with looking the SmO2 numbers without idea, where it should be. Thee only idea where it suppose to go is when you do an arterial occlusion with or without activity involved.
Kaatsu training will benefit form NIRS use to avoid some very common problems like rhabdomyelosis reactions. If you like to see more on the systemic reactions with NIRS you can use 2 equipment and you can see super interesting reactions n which now allow you to have a better idea on local versus systemic O2 demand and reactions. The picture shows you a situation of three Wingate tests in a row. The data’s where collected during a NIRS seminar for the US army from a group out of Ft. Bragg
Juerg, thanks for your explanations. Understand that warm up is a very vague term.
Wondering a bit whether you could give maybe some links or hints to how to do an arterial occlusion test, as Google doesn’t give me any hits? I do imagine it’s probably something like using a blood pressure cuff or maybe just holding down an artery for a few seconds or even just a pose where there is your own body weight providing pressure on arteries. Would understand though if a public forum is not the right place to give such instructions…
Jake, that’s exactly the usage of “absolute” that I was wondering about, as the common usage of “absolute” would I believe refer to the amount in weight or volume whereas “relative” is the term for a ratio given in %, as in absolute vs relative humidity. link to en.m.wikipedia.org
Though I do understand that what BSX is saying is that it’s not just measuring trends on an arbitrary scale but real percentage, and I myself have used that phrasing in some of my posts here, as SmO2 given in percentage of maximum possible oxygenation is by itself a “relative” measure, the correct (though admittedly awful) phrasing should probably be something like “relative oxygenation on an absolute scale” or “absolute measurement of relative oxygenation” or “oxygenation relative to the minimum/maximum oxygenation possible”?
(If anyone has difficulties following, Moxy has more explanations on this here: link to my.moxymonitor.com)
If you email me short I can give you some ideas on how to go about occlusion because as you mentioned I do not liked give that on here w as there are some risks involved.
Instead of re-posting duplicate comments in different areas, I wanted to make sure you saw the occlusion results the BSXinsight had, since you expressed an interest in this. The test was done true, to the clinical lab test, found in the published references, See comment 177:
link to dcrainmaker.com
Also, some thoughts on moving away from absolute, to relative ranges, by person, in attempt to having more spread, see the follow-up comment 182:
link to dcrainmaker.com
Adam, when will we start to see some pointers towards training with BSX SmO2 as opposed to just setting training zones? I think it has potential for optimising individual performance way beyond that. As an older athlete with an interest in physiology I am sure I can work out some experiments to test my own response to various warm up routines and subsequent race pace performance but some pointers in the right direction would be helpful. There are some very useful comments appearing in this thread but it is getting more difficult to pick out topics as it gets longer. Do you plan to open any discussion in the BSX blog page? Any way, for starters here is one reference I have found that may be relevant and would suggest that we need to look at our own responses and not get hung up comparing absolute SmO2 with other athletes who will be of different ages and levels of training. Finally, any correlation between SmO2 response to exercise and gene profiles that determines response to training?
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013;789:157-62. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7411-1_22.
Aging affects spatial distribution of leg muscle oxygen saturation during ramp cycling exercise.
Takagi S1, Kime R, Murase N, Watanabe T, Osada T, Niwayama M, Katsumura T.
Mark L ,
thanks for this great input here.
This will be interesting to see and it will be nice to compare on what we do in individual training stimulations using NIRS technology and how LT threshold ideas with NIRS will be used for specific stimulations.
Your point of individual feedbacks from NIRS is where the work is done and where the fun starts. Bio feedbacks , is it form HR , RF or NIRS or SEMG have all one in common. They interact as a team approach and as such formulas will be available but do they work ? From our data collections in this field by combining many different live feedback options, NIRS is one of them, we can first of all find the reason for performance plateau respectively we can try to get as close as possible to find limiters and compensators.
The tricky part in this attempt is, that we had to rethink many classical introduced and educated ideas, and this I sometimes in itself a big process.
We tend to work with NIRS integration more towards :
1. Find physiological feedbacks , where delivery and utilization trends show up.
Than look for reasons why we have a delivery or a utilization limitation. Based on this findings you than design an individual physiological guided workout. Now keep in mind that NIRS often is used in one specific location and a such this has to bee as well put in consideration.
We often place n NIRS on minimal or non involved muscles depending on the goal setting you may have.
Here a practical example:
Iron man triathlete. In short . He has a respiratory limitation (Not a metaboreflex)
This will show up when using NIRS on an involved muscle very specific . as you will see tHb reaction going up and SmO2 will drop sharp. If we take SmO2 alone we may have some other reasons for a sharp drop.
Reason why we look at both is:
O2 Diss curve shift due to respiratory limitation.
The shift will be to tee right meaning the O2 is less sticky and can be better releases.
Main reason pCO2 is increased and it will bee at least 40 mmHg plus to see a reaction like this..
The tHb ass a indirect feedback in some cases of blood flow / volume or Hb concentration will show and increase due to a vasodilatation effect from the increased CO2.
Now here is the fascination, where classical ideas or theories have to be reviewed at least.
In this case depending on the timing of blood sampling we will see despite a drop in SmO2 ( break point ) a decrease in lactate. Depending on the time delay later we will or may be sometimes see an increase in lactate. All depends on the person.
Main reason is , that NIRS checks on a local area and gives feedback from this specific area , where as lactate is a metabolic feedback measured with an unknown time delay and concentration trend in a finger or ear for a summary of a systemic concentration of what ever is left over in lactate in the blood when sampling.
Now once you have your limiter than you can start using NIRS to work on this specific stimulation in all different fun ways. It is called physiological stimulation independent from physical performance information. In many sports this iss easy to do. In sports where we have a great objective physical feedback like wattage , we may have to move our minds somewhat further to understands that the same physical wattage load is not always the same physiological stimulation. Meaning that 240 watt today may not limit todays respiratory system but tomorrow 240 watts may actually be far to hard for your respiration and therefor the stimulus yesterday was different than it will be today.
The result can be a very different compensator is needed today and if we do not know what this is we may load tomorrow the compensator we overloaded already today without actually knowing it.
I like to show you a feedback form this triathlete.( he gave permission to show it.
It is a old classical FaCT test or lactate balance point assessment. paired with a respiratory intervention to see how his cardiac hemodynamic may be reaction.
Than we had at the same time a NIRS on and a VO2 equipment on and a SEMG system on as well as you can see blood lactate values. You can see a steep test and loads and lactate values as well as all cardiac feedbacks from SV pot HR to CO and so on. After the full steps test we followed up with an additional step test .
The fascinating part is the blood lactate reactions as you can see as they drop despite that fact we go harder. There are some additional very intriguing findings not seen on the pic.
1. VO22 max is NOT Max at the end of the step test first section but is higher at the few steps at the start to the second step test.. NIRS ( SmO2 ) and lactate reactions are very individual and do not really respond the same. SEMG and NIRS often resend similar bit again not always.
Respiratory reactions are very dependent , whether respiration is a limiter or compensator and as such tHb will react accordingly.
you are you and any calculated % of any somewhere tested max values or specific points are a great way to make statistic and as long we like to be a part of statistic this is great. If we lie to use our own bodies respond we may lean towards some more individual physiological feedbacks and that’s’ what we do since many years , not very successful as most can see, as the big hindrance is classical ideas and believes Here the fun assessment I talked about
Many sport institutes, sports science labs, and professionals, as well as teams and athletes are running long-term testing now. Some with the intent to share their results, many others, to keep it to themselves for training/racing advantages. We aren’t sponsoring these groups, they are coming to us, excited to get at this data and use it for tons of different sports and studies.
We’ve been testing like crazy as well, trying to answer our own questions, as many more keep popping up. We want to start sharing info as we learn, but to put it out there, it needs to be significant, which takes a lot of time, subjects, and work. As far as discussion, anything is possible, but there are a lot of communities with many thousands of athletes that are starting to test and discuss their thoughts already.
To give you some examples of a few things I’m personally interested in, just with cycling:
-How does cadence impact SmO2 levels, and what really is your specific “optimal cadence” and is training at your “optimal cadence” better, or worse for results?
-Understanding your body’s current condition, as it compares to your power assessment (LT) and how to accurately adjust optimally, if I were to do a time trial today.
-Dialing in your aero positioning without only focusing on “aero” and standard ratios that worked for others, when we all have different bodies. At what point and position are you restricting lung capacity and/or blood flow, resulting in your body’s ability to deliver oxygen to engaged muscles?
-How to dial in interval training to your specific recovery speeds, rather than the standard set times a coach said, with minor adjustment for age and heart rate trends. If you pause between an interval, what point in muscle oxygen recovery is best to begin another interval if your goals are: efficient training, peak power, increased LT/FTP, or faster recovery speeds.
-Do I have an optimal muscle engagement ratio, and what is it? For example, with rowers, while everyone is different, you want to know where your most potential improvement is, in the case of a lagging muscle group. Rowers use legs, back, arms, and it’s important you use your energy efficiently with the right muscles in ratio for the best ROI for both power and endurance. What about cycling, quads, calves, hams, glutes, hip flexors, ect. Depending on the level of effort, level of fatigue, and things like standing vs. sitting, I tend to engage these muscles at different ratios, but I do what feels natural, should I be? If not, how can I change that? Adjust body/fitting and cleat positioning, as well as focus.
-Do you breathe in the nose, out the mouth? At what rate? Everyone’s nasal cavities vary in flow/restriction and surely at some point there’s a negative tradeoff for some people.
-What about compression gear, how does it affect blood flow/muscle oxygen at different levels of compression and intensity.
There’s so, so much more. It’s like kid in a candy store for sports science right now hahah.
Adam. thanks so much for this great summary. Sounds like a great dream comes true that many start to agree on all what you list there.
What is somewhat surprising is that basically every single pint you see as great opportunity is most often already research and can be easy found out there.
RPM and NIRS have some great studies available from a far time back.
Compression ideas and different ways on how to approach the testing with NIRS equipment and used with NIRS over different penetration levels like T1 T2 T 3 is done over an dover again. Clint Friesen form Georgia Florida did some longer studies on this a while back. multiple NIRS placement and looking for breakpoint s are done to excess with all same results, there are often different breakpoints in leg muscles depending on many conditions.
Left and right difference including blood flow restriction , some great studies done on short track skaters by Cooper.. Respiratory involvement and different sport, See ACSM presentation by the group out of Prag Jiri Dostal.. Influence in Volley ball . basket ball and ice hockey . where there are hundreds of tests done by Next level sport and Brian Kozak and the NIRS systems are fully integrated in school sport in Ontario sport schools. Some great on snow research form Swiss ski and swiss tennis. Integration of NIRS in figure skating. And the list goes on.
So nothing against what BSX is dong but the wheel has not to be reinvented the part iss just sitting on the band wagon to I enhance and speed up the transition from classical testing like LT or VO2 testing to implementation of bio markers and one of them is NIRS.
I love to see different companies coming up with NIRS equipment but the key here is not to show how good each company is to create a business case, but how NIRS can be sued for the person on the street now who can make a choice and can now afford even lower priced great equipment like MOXY and BSX
Snapshot of muscle oxygen and HR 15-30 minutes into a group ride. Right calf. Outside temp 8 degrees C.
Markl see your first graph for the first part of the ride you where in the group and not leading the group as in your second graph. The first graph, if you look closer is nearly a mirror of your HR. So what you see is a SmO2 reaction where, when HR goes up SmO2 goes down as you increase demand of O2 so you take O2.
As the loads , where HR increased ,where relative short ( I do not have a time info ) you can still see, that your SmO2 as well as HR barely reached a flat section. So what we know is HR up O2 most likely will go down.
On the other hand in you second graph , where you were in front you have a stable HR with 2 small bumps. The small bumps show an increase in HR, so a drop in SmO2.
But the flat stable HR shows a steady increase in SmO2 meaning , that delivery of O2 was more than utilization and the HR or wattage you pushed there was below a metabolic balanced situation. Some would name this below MAX LASS or below http://FTP..
Now important is that we understand , that to create a decent metabolic respond like a balance or out of balance ,you need some time as some physiological system react slower than others. The accepted time length we discuss today is somewhere between 5 – 8 min. . This is one of the reason why step test today with 3 +- min length are more and more in scrutiny about the ability to give some feedback on physiological responses.
Feldmann Juerg, many thanks for your reply. Learning a lot rapidly! Also finding useful data out there from clinical studies and experiences with Moxy. Have also found I can see BSX as a cadence meter in Trainer Road software for turbo sessions.
Mark L . Thanks for your feedback and I am happy if I can contribute once in a while some ideas to a great technology , which is now well underway form going form some crazy coaches to a more mainstream application. It will take some time and many o open minds to move forward and have the courage to ask critical questions not just on what NIRS can do , weakness and strength but as well what does it offer us for new information, where the great classical ideas may have failed in the past. I lie to share here some studies we did a few years back and what you se is a snapshot of a cyclists starting a load. On the bottom axis you have time in seconds and you can figure out what the cadence of this world class athlete was in this case.
Yellow is tHb and thin and thick of the same colour is the different depth we where following oxygenation and as such tHb.
So you can see, there is a shit in tHb ( some would call it blood volume or blood flow ) and in short words it means. The blood is going where it is needed. So you can nicely see, where it is going after a few seconds.
Second you can see the pattern of his pedal stroke as well. Now there are two type of cyclists and or better two types of pedal strokes.
An efficient one and a less efficient one. When we look at SmO2, and in this picture we look at tHb difference ( purple) as well as blue HHb ( deoxygenated Hb/ Mb and O2Hb ./Mb ( red ) we have two options.
a) efficient pedal action : tHb will drop during the down stroke ( 12.00 to 6.00) and will go up during the up stroke ( 6.00 – 12.00 )
b) less efficient pedal action or very hard load. down stroke tHb will go up and up stroke tHb will go down.
So what we use NIRS is for physiological bike fitting in combination with other ideas.
As you can see the combination of SmO2 and tHb can give a lot of feedbacks,
Now this is a very small insight view and many other ideas.,
Optimal handle thickness in moto cross ,or any sport where we hold on something
Optimal respiratory activities and influence of respiration in the bioavailability of O2 ( O2 Diss curve ). and much more.
So once you start to have fun on all of this you can see, how SmO2 is a great feedback paired with tHB on a live steady option and the question will be a hard one. For what do we really use intensity zonings form a test, when we have a live feedback as we go. What would you do . Stick to your 2 weeks ago tested and established zoning or adjust your current workout based on physiological feedback you see in front of you.?
Big questions many more to come and sometimes hard to allow our brains to open for some new possibilities ?
Snapshot later in same ride as I did a turn on front of group. Sub threshold pace. My MHR is 180 (thoroughly tested) and reflects my age (58).
Damn it, I received the invoice from Fedex for the import duties. Of course, based on the full price and not on the discounted price. And how should they know, the discounted price isn’t mentioned anywhere. The value of the item is what I have paid, not something else.
I called Fedex today because I do not know if I have to deal with Fedex or with our customs agency. After that experience I decided that I will just pay. Not worth the hassle.
I’m so annoyed, I payed $ 75 + shipping. That’s the value of the item that should go on the invoice. Not $ 369 + shipping.
Did you not receive this email we sent out? I can’t verify who you are from “Stefan” to help you in this anonymous comment thread, nor do I see any associated contact in our help system in regards to this.
It has come to our attention that a handful of our international upgrade customers have been incorrectly charged a value added tax for their upgrade unit. You should not have been charged this tax.
Your product was purposefully marked as a warranty and repair package with original retail pricing, to prevent tax from having been assessed. We used multiple shipping authority references to inform the way we did this. Per their guidance, all markings on the appropriate paperwork were to facilitate a tax-free warranty replacement and should have been adhered to by the customs agent.
If you did get charged this tax, we recommend you speak with your local FedEx customs agent and present them the commercial invoice included in your shipping pouch. If they insist on additional information, please reach-out to our Customer Support Team (email@example.com). We will provide any necessary documentation to further demonstrate this is a warranty package, and not a new product purchase.
Like you, we are extremely frustrated by this, and are here to support your efforts in getting a tax refund from the parties responsible.
I try all steps for connecting but not. My power its SRM and TACX NEO SMART heart rate belt Garmin/ Help
Does the app connect to the bsx? Make sure you tap it a few times so the light turns green first. Also you need to make sure you move the bsx device near the SRM and the Garmin Transmitter. It’s the BSX that connects to those devices even though you are seeing the connecting on your phone.
Thanks, Jake! Also, we just finished updating the connection FAQ walk-through (couple hours ago), to have a lot more info. We’re still adding to it, but this should help as well:
link to support.bsxinsight.com
Adam, (and Vladimir) It also pairs with Trainer Road and probably other Mac and PC indoor training applications. Not sure you have highlighted this on your site but sorry if I have missed it. pairs as cadence though not SmO2. Golden Cheetah seem to be working on an SmO2 channel for Moxy so perhaps that might support BSX as well. I expect SmO2 will find its way into Trainer Road and other software training programs as demand from BSX users increases.
I got hit with a big tax bill from FedEx as well today. This was despite the fact that BSX had helpfully included a note when shopping that this was a replacement. i will contact fedex with copies of all documents by post and see where that gets me!
Actually, your right. I should dispute it by letter, too. I had called Fedex today and I think the only purpose of their hotline is to decourage complainers by incompetence.
Unfortunately the invoice that came with my package just notes “warranty” hand written. Next to “sold” crossed out. Looks as if I had changed it later. This will definitely bounce back and require more iterations of letter communication. Wow … writing letters.
Markl, in which country are you?
Hand written “warranty”, next to computer typed “sold” crossed out.
(Yes I read the Email. “present them with this?”, what a joke.)
And like Stefan said, I payed for total of $1XX not $4XX.
This is very unprofessional.
I wish they check DUTIES AND TAX form to Bill Sender not to the recipient.
Not worth the hassle, decided to pay anyway.
(It easy to email and write we are frustrated, but it’s customer who has to spend
their time and dig more money for the mistake of whom who wrote the invoices)
Again, very unprofessional.
I’m in exactly the same boat – except mine didn’t even contain the hand-written note. I received it yesterday. Everything still sealed. Opened every pouch and envelope (all still closed and sealed). NOTHING stating warrentee.
So I got poked – I’m so down the hole now it isn’t even funny – add to that an exchange rate that has gone to pieces and all of a sudden being charged everything ON TOP OF and having BSX simply pointing fingers at THEIR supplier leaves a bad taste.
They told me…in so many words that Fedex were pulling a fast one.
The more I look at it, BSX didn’t do their job right and their customers ended up paying the price again.
With ethics like these – I’m really beginning to wonder how secure, safe and private my data is really going to be in the long run when a company displays ethics such as these in other areas of their business.
Let’s look at the 2 issues you’re reporting on, especially as it relates to “ethics”:
1) (INTL SHIPPING/FEDEX) If our “ethics” led us to lie about the value of the item and make it $1, like so many do, we probably wouldn’t have had any problem cases of officials using the wrong paper.
2) (PRODUCTION/SUPPLIER) If our “ethics” led us to cut corners, risking gen2 quality, to ramp production faster, we probably wouldn’t have fallen behind the big demand that dwarfed expectations. We are grateful and stressed!
-We’re shipping hundreds more this week and many hundreds next week, at which point we hope to be caught up, and have higher production capacity/speed, going forward.
-We shipped the intl orders correctly, as referenced by many officials, and proven by the hundreds who had no issue.
-You said your pouch was “sealed”, it was a zip-lock type pouch, that could be opened and closed hundreds of times. There was no tape, or anything obstructing the pouch, if you received it with tape over it, it sure as heck wasn’t done here, as it left with a signed warranty doc, like all of them did.
-On that specific huge intl batch, I personally worked very late hours, with the rest of the team, matching each order with a signed invoice, and after verifying they ALL had one, folding and putting them in the pouches. We then hauled them all to Fedex because it was too late for a pick up. We had so many, Fedex refused to scan and accept them at the facility ad said to just leave them for the driver. So, the founders sat at FedEx to watch over them for over an hour, waiting on the late-night pickup driver to come, and verified he scanned them ALL before stepping away. We did everything we could from start to finish to get orders out.
Now, generally speaking…
Of course we’re not perfect, but the trolling & flaming by some to try and cloud how hard we’re working and progressing, is clearly backed by another intent and association. Looking back to fight it will only slow our forward progress, so we won’t. We will continue to do everything we can to:
-Produce and ship faster
-Respond faster, and create more how-to’s
-Develop additional features and refinement, including plans for a coming firmware update.
Also, forgot to add… of the many hundreds, around 25 intl orders had the issue with officials applying a tax/duty/fee. Of those, over half have been resolved. Wayne spend hours on the phone with FedEx today, escalating it up the chain, to get the remaining fixed that are being stubborn.
My final notes on this:
1) Officials use an ELECTRONIC document that is automatically generated (called an ASN or Advance Shipping Notice) to preclear everything – a hand written notice won’t cut it because customs will not manually open up and inspect every zip lock pocket unless there is some other anomaly – something which wasn’t aparent from anything on their electronic documentation.
2) If you hadn’t cut corners on the Gen 1 you wouldn’t have had this issue in the first place.
3) Pointing out the positives and something that one company competing in a space is doing right vs what another company is getting wrong based on my own experience (that I can back up with facts) isn’t a hidden agenda, trolling or flaming, it’s called being aware as a consumer and pointing out poor service (which will hopefully help you improve).
4) Over the last 3 weeks I have also spent HOURS of MY time following up via e-mail with both BSX and Fedex (keeping in mind that BSX is FEDEX’s client and I am yours, I shouldn’t have to do this at all) to try and resolve an issue created by BSX and/or their down stream fulfillment partner.
5) I’m very glad that Wayne is still addressing everything and look forward to receiving my VAT refund in the next couple of days.
6) On the positive side I used the Gen 2 for the first time yesterday morning. It connected to my phone (Samsung Note 3), my HRM (Garmin Run), trainer (Wahoo Kickr) without any issues and I was able to complete a simple ride without any problems. The workout synced well afterwards via the phone (can’t get the PC app to recognise the device for a sync if I place it in the cradle).
Also, have a look at the association/dissasociation button and notice on the web-site.
According to what you said previously:
“You can now use the device with multiple people, on different free accounts, profiles and apps. It no longer requires pairing to a single account, you just open up the app and connect to the BSXinsight, do an activity, and sync it on your computer, to whatever account you want that activity tied to.”
So the statement (on the web) is incorrect.
Adam, wondering whether you considered creating a special Upgrade-version package, maybe leave some items like USB cable and dock out, add a note that it’s an upgrade-only version that requires a valid gen1 account, put that in a simplified package and price that officially at the 80USD? Wouldn’t that have been (at least in hindsight) not that much more work than correcting export papers by hand and legally avoided all issues with wrongfully applied tax?
> […] of the many hundreds, around 25 intl orders had the issue with officials applying a tax/duty/fee.
Is that the number of received complaints (with a potentially higher dark number) or did you actually check with FedEx??? Had to pay some tax, wasn’t able to find out from the accompanying papers whether the tax was correct or not, didn’t really care as it wasn’t that much…
@Etienne Yes, the website still has some info in the support/faq that needs updated ASAP. I meant that with my “how to’s” comment. It’s probably what I’ll be working on over Thanksgiving weekend.
There is one thing with using multiple accounts though, I found. If you do an assessment, you need to sync that assessment with the same account that you were logged into on the phone. It may fail at syncing, if not, to ensure peoples’ assessments aren’t getting accidentally added to another’s account, as well as privacy.
Also, I was wrong about the full history syncing, I thought it synced all daily activities to any account, but it will sync all activities since it was last synced. So make sure, before you hand over your device to a friend to sync your activities to your account, because if your friend syncs your activities, they now own those activities on their dashboard.
It’s just where it is now, if we find better options to add in, like select what you want to sync, or have the ability to re-sync, ect. We’ll continue to identify and implement features people want, as we’re able.
I appreciate the suggestions. We’re working on keeping it from happening. Just to note, the issue with marking the INTL item lower value, besides it being illegal, is insurance. If something happened to that truck, carrying $XXX,XXX.XX worth of our INTL orders, $80 coverage each, to replace them… I don’t even want to think about that!
There were probably some more that didn’t mention the fees. The 25 are what were reported to us with an issue. A few were easily able to call FedEx and reference the invoice and clear it up, the others, we’ve had to work also, as the shipper, to hit them from both sides and get it done.
Since the upgrades go through the ordering process, that helps us streamline the process a bit. However, our shipping system doesn’t have the settings to add RMA details and warranty. So, it has to be done by hand (which we verified is perfectly acceptable, before doing).
Every part of the process is being looked at, from the software used, to every action taken, to learn from it and make it better.
On a side note, you mention leaving out the dock, which reminded me to explain why we wanted the dock and sleeve, as well as the gen1 BSXinsight. The pins are small and have to be lined up perfectly. Even if it’s charging, it may not be lined up well enough to transfer data. There were a few gen1 devices that were reporting issues, that turned out to be seating problems. With the gen2, we not only refined the building process, to be more precise/tighter tolerance, but each gen 2 device was tested with the dock it was sent out with, to eliminate any chances. With the sleeve, we added the light-blocking layer, which over-all helps, but is crucial for daily, and outside for activities. We didn’t want to risk people thinking “oh, my other sleeve will be fine” and the data be skewed by external light. When a decimal value is significant, and SmO2 is so new, we need to keep it extremely accurate.
Adam, thanks for responding here, I think it really helps building trust in BSX. 😉
Interesting … being concerned about insurance would mean that you are really loosing money on the gen 2 update units??? 😮 Was thinking that the 80USD was meant to cover your production expenses… so that would indeed be amazing. 🙂
Concerning legality … just marking down international shipments might be a suspect means of tax avoidance (although country dependent pricing isn’t too uncommon), don’t quite understand how setting a low price for all upgrade units from the beginning and not just international ones would be illegal and not just a business decision … but I’m no lawyer.
Concerning dock … well yes, my gen 1 unit kept popping out of the dock … though that might not have been a contact point issue …
UK Stephan. no objection to paying VAT on my imports as long as it is calculated fairly and the intermediary does not rip me off with a handling fee in addition to the money that got as shipping charge.
Sorry, thought this was a thread to discuss BSX: the device, the service and the physiology. Any way, really pleased that someone from BSX has read the thread and offered advice on F…..X. And equally pleased to read all the discussion about what the data might mean.
Can anyone that actually owns the Gen2 device tell me if the connectivity issues have been worked out? I would be using it with a Tacx Vortex smart (Power+cadence) and a Wahoo Tickr HRM. I’m about to pull the trigger, but the lack of really positive reviews has me thinking twice…
No problem with connection between HR and Power meter here.
Pairs with both my Garmin HRM straps, a MIO and TickrX. Pairs with my Stages, iPhone 5, iPad 3 and Trainer Road on my Mac. The connectivity issue of Gen 1 appears to have been solved in Gen 2.
(I have not yet managed to pair yet to Golden Cheetah but that is more likely an issue with the software on my Mac).
The Tacx Vortex should work fine with the BSXinsight, provided it’s broadcasting in ANT+ (which it says it does). If connecting it to a Garmin device that has firmware with cadence priority, it hasn’t been tested to see if it has priority on the cadence field like Vector and Stages do.
The power levels won’t be automatic, like the Wahoo KICKR, so each 3 minute step, you’ll need to turn up the power. But that’s typically expected, our KICKR feature is a bonus.
Has anyone used it with TACX Neo? How can I make it to change automatically power every three minutes.
It won’t control the NEO at this point. Right now it’s only controlling the Wahoo KICKR, and not via ANT+ FE-C.
Hopefully BSX simply switches over to using ANT+ FE-C, since that’ll solve everything in one shot. It’d control the KICKR/SNAP (since they just released a beta update enabling it), as well as all Tacx trainers, all BKOOL trainers, and all Elite trainers.
Faero – you might want to check with BSX directly about the Tacx trainer. I don’t think that is supported.
Just ordered. Does anyone know how long it takes to be delivered? In their page said 10 days but after you pay it says few weeks!!!!
Sorry for the conflicting info, George. We definitely need to better sync our messaging to be consistent, and it’s my fault. The BSXinsight Gen2 has a very high demand, and we’ve been working hard to increase production and supply to meet demand, while, of course, accepting no potential sacrifice in quality.
We’re attempting to be conservative in estimates, as well as everything we talk about. We are still filling orders that we have inventory for, and more supply (made in Texas) is on the way. I will double check, but I believe our current ETD is 10-14 days, so that’s how the 10 days and a few weeks inconsistent message came from. I’ll make sure we take care of it.
So does anyone else but me feel like we have been totally hosed by the BSX company? First we get a device that is supposed to be upgradeable and then they tell us oh no we were wrong apparently our computer people weren’t able to do what we said so we are getting new people do develop a Gen 2 device. And for an extra 79.99 we will let you purchase one that’ll work like the original one was supposed to! Then you send in your money and they say they will be shipping Nov 2nd. Well after 3 weeks I still don’t have my device and have not heard one word from anyone in their company. When I emailed them and demanded that they send me my new unit like I was promised there reply was we will refund me my 79.99 for the Gen 2 unit difference and send the Gen 1 piece of crap back. This is by far the worst customer service I have ever seen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I really don’t see how this company is going to stay in business.
Their CS is the absolute worst ever. For starters they should have given out upgrade codes AND mailed out the return mailers when they FIRST announced the upgrade program. What kind of incompetent buffoon waits till 2 weeks before the ship date to first start doing that? Then to make it even worse, make you wait another 3+ days to get the code after that email. To be honest, these aren’t even rookie mistakes.
Not that the Gen 1 is worth anything, but why do they even need to inconvenience people to send it back? What a waste of time and effort. They should just disable the devices and tell people to flush them down the toilet.
Adam, the incompetent buffoon here- and, now my wife has confirmation…
I’ll try and help, by addressing your concerns. I’m sorry if it looks like I lighten it too much, I understand your points:
Concern 1: [The sub-rookie mistake of starting the upgrade process only 2 weeks from shipping]
-Dev was working extreme hours (like sleep at your desk extreme) during beta to try and prep for a date that seemed nearly impossible. We didn’t want to set even higher expectations of that date until we confirmed we could 100% pull it off with a polished product.
-The 2 weeks notice didn’t really change the wait vs. announcing it earlier. What happened is, massive order volume came, dwarfing our predictions, resulting in INTL orders alone, nearly wiping out inventory that we thought would cover everyone.
Concern 2: [Why inconvenience people to send back the gen1 vs deactivating & flushing down the toilet with last night’s takeout and the mint you found in your couch cushion(SCORE!)?]
-If this is truly impt to you, you should read up on when MSoft remotely deactivated a bunch of XBoxes, that ended up on Ebay with a lot of ripped off people mad at MSoft. I think it was 2009-ish.
-Imagine the drain on custom support as people call in saying they bought a gen2 from someone who said they were an authorized partner and it doesn’t work, when in reality it’s a deactivated gen1…
Concern 3: [Customer service is the absolute worst ever]
-I only really have a comment here, that’s my opinion. I think we have the most committed, awesome, focused team, from the inside-out. This awesome team was completely overwhelmed by the extreme response to the launch and upgrade. Hiring additional support, while investing in production scaling, and selling TONS of devices under our cost? Yeah, so, everyone was trying to help process orders and questions, all the way to the founders.
We’ve come a long way, but we’re not going to pretend we’re perfect, here’s what we’re looking at:
-Production is increasing, and we hope to get close to caught up by the end of next week.
-Dev is working hard on a firmware update to add more awesome features and refinement to gen2.
-We (I) see how communication can be much better, and I’m working towards that.
-We need to make our how-to’s and info better, be more clear on using the BSXinsight.
Also, @Glen, I appreciate you discussing this with us and your patience and understanding!
It was available for pre-order approximately 2 weeks before the upgrade offer went live. You could have sent out the upgrade codes on that date and automatically generated a shipping label once an order that used one of those codes was placed.
Better yet, you could have done what the vast majority of hardware companies do with an RMA. Send out the replacement and have the old one returned in the packaging that was sent out. The added benefit would have been that folks wouldn’t be without a device for an extended period of time.
Why did the process annoy me? Because 1 – I asked on the date the pre-orders became available if I could place my upgrade order and was told, don’t worry yours will still ship on Nov 2. 2 – Not only did my order not ship on Nov 2 but it didn’t ship for approximately 2 more weeks.
All this could have been avoided. Accidents happen, but this was no accident and my advice and recommendation was dismissed as uneccessary and I was the one that suffered.
During the duration, no one was answering live chat and answering for the fiasco.
Thanks, Steve. We are listening, and I get it. It doesn’t really matter how valid the reasoning seems, to us, behind each decision made. What it comes down to, is nobody should have had to wait as long as they did, or have been waiting, to get their gen2. Especially since the email we had going out, initially, talked about Nov 2nd and 48 hrs.
We should have recognized the order volume wasn’t sustainable with our production earlier and quickly fixed it and communicated it better. We should have left an away message on live chat saying something like “Our whole 10 person company is currently working on processing and packing orders” rather than just leave it looking dead and unresponsive.
I can keep throwing out things that we’ve run into, and reasons for this and that, but the customer experience, during the ordering, waiting, and communication during, hasn’t been, and isn’t where it should be. We’re going to catch up with the orders, and we’re going to focus on being better.
Can the data be exported to Excel, etc?
Yes, once you dock and sync the BSXinsight, you can open up the activity, scroll to the bottom and download 1 sec sample file.
Not really significant, but the last time I checked, there seemed to be a few seconds synchronization difference between SmO2 and the other logged data (power, heart rate) when compared between realtime ANT+ logging (using WASP) and the exported file. Any thoughts which one is “more correct”?
The data file should be extremely accurate, as it’s recording to itself in decimal value, without any rounding, delay, or smoothing.
The ANT+ broadcast is @ 1Hz and the values are rounded to a %, for display. While still accurate, the decimal-value file is technically more so, especially when you consider many devices add their own delay, smoothing, and sampling. The phone app is going to be very accurate as well. The BSXinsight sends muscle oxygen data to the phone via BLE, faster than ANT+. But it’s also given in % rounding. The graphs on your app and dashboard are currently more for reference at a higher view, using 15 second samples.
Of course, this is “currently”, things will change as needs are identified and more functionality/features are added.
Could we have here a sample file with some exported data?
Sure, here’s part of my recent commute I just grabbed from my dashboard. I cut a chuck out of it to try and shorten it a bit. You can see how responsive the numbers are to effort, down to the decimal value.
oops, maybe this one will be better
thanks for the nice feedback and data collection.. One of the many challenges we have with integrating NIRS information into the grassroots user is the practical application and what to do with this. So the key for new companies going in this direction is, that on the one side we have with NIRS an established and since many years used bio feedback , which is in many sports an integrated part of individual intensity verification and muscular quality control of planned contraction forms
The leader in the wireless application and integration was Artinis with the great portamon system. Disadvantage , if we can name it that way was the price so it was not really an affordable tool for single athletes but it was a great and is still a great tool for centers and bigger groups. who like to integrate this into an overall physiological assessment.
Than a few years back Fortiori brought their NIRS on the market for a now very affordable price and now with the Gen 2 we have a nice new player , so athletes and people can look at all options and have a choice depending on their goal setting.
The next step is that any NIRS producing company has to help to inform and integrate the data’s we can collect and see live with any NIRS device, to the wider group of users.. The endurance world has in some sports some great advantages , that they can very objective assess their physical performance. BUT there are many other activities out there, where the ability to objectively assess physical performance IS NON or very poorly available. Example :
Figure skating, wrestling, sport climbing, cross-country skiing to name just some very different activities from the world of sport.. Now despite and thanks to the inability to measure objective performance , this sport have it much easier to integrate NIRS into their training ideas and use the feedback as a physiological feedback.
On the other side wattage based sports like cycling will see a big confusion, when they start using NIRS feedback and wattage to find some common ground.
Adams print and numbers are a great example, that yes we collect something but how does it relate on what he actually did besides using energy ( SmO2 trend and pushing wattage.
The regular critical NIRS reader will immediately see what I mean when I show Adams numbers again with some small short highlighted sections.
First of all thanks for the many emails I get form NIRS users of all different brands and products. I will try to answer as many as I can but many as well have the same direction of question.
Interpretation of their ideas and test and or assessments.
Than the big interesting topic for many is how to apply and how to train with physiological feedback options.
The availability of now affordable wireless NIRS tools will make this direction now very attractive and interesting and will fundamentally change the way we set up individual training programs.
I was hooping we coudl engage on thsi site here int more in dpeth NIRS discussion but it seems it is mroe techno question site than a discussion forum.
So for all teh interesting questions you will find different forums, where different peopekl discuss sinec some years the integration of any NIRS equipment into the practical world.
When we started to use NIRS 10 plus years back with combination of classical ideas like VO2 and lactate and cardiac hemodynamic , we immediately had some great interesting critical questions and we can now address this to a wider population base. NIRS is today an integrate part for many open minded coaches since a few years and we are happy to share information and ideas to help new users to not have to go through all the starter “pain”
. To show some fun directions . Here a 5/1/5 assessment sent to us , where MOXY and BSX where integrate in the assessment and it shows NIRS works as both use the same light wave length.
More in this direction is discussed and will be discussed on a NIRS forum.
Well, describe me as a Gen 1 Kickstarter supporter that after having all of the connection issues with that unit, bit the bullet and purchased the Gen 2 under the upgrade program. Unfortunately, I remain underwhelmed, because after following all of the directions for initial syncing, etc. and starting the running test with all of my devices connected (BSX pod and iOS app, Garmin Fenix 3 and Garmin HRM), I completed a 30 minute run only to receive the dreaded message that there was “some type of error”, and I’d need to connect the pod to my computer and contact BSX support to see if help can be provided. All I can say is… Ugh.
This is just a completely unacceptable User Experience. Obviously there are those here that seem to be getting acceptable data from their Gen 2 units… wish I could join the group. Sharing this story in case others are just simple athletes that were looking for a system to provide them helpful training information, and were wondering if it’s worth the price of admission. Anecdotal to be sure, but at this point, I can’t say I’m happy with my investment.
Sorry results didn’t meet expectations.
I don’t see you having contacted us in regards to this, but I do see a test you just ran. Luckily you came here to post/vent, so I could take a look 😉
The issue was with the number of stages. Like with any LT testing, incl blood, accuracy can drop if too few, or too many stages are run. So, if the system identifies this, it won’t give the results, due to potential accuracy issues. I’m not the expert on decoding test failures, but I *think*, from looking at your graph, you started at too early/easy of a stage for your fitness level.
I had it force a result, which you can see in your dashboard, but it may not be your true #, as you might have needed a couple more stages.
I can see the question very different and you will be for sure able to shed some light into my NIRS point. This has nothing to do with any competition but I lie to add some discussions here on NIRS use and feedbacks no matter what equipment we use. For the general reader in short. NIRS gives us some feedback on metabolic trends and in these question on the O2 situation. In super simple terms and Adam can add his point. When we see SmO2 increasing , than we can assume ( not always true) that we deliver more O2 at this time to the tested muscle than we may need or use.
When SmO2 is flat than we can assume ) not always true ) , that we are in a balanced situation between delivery of O2 and utilization of O2. This can be the case for example where some people would call the intensity MAX Lass , others lactate steady state and other s FTP when looking in cycling.Again a usual there are exceptions to all of that as NIRS ahs it s limitation.
When SmO2 is dropping, than we assume we utilize more O2 than we at that point delivery to the tested muscle. Now that means , that for example in cycling we can have an increase in SmO2 in the calf and a drop in SmO2 in the vastus lateralis at the same time.. This makes using a single muscle for a full information somewhat limited. Nevertheless the trend may bee working.
So why would the numbers of steps influence the trends in SmO2 . True if the steps are very short so we do not have a chance to integrate for example the delivery systems optimal. Time lag of Cardiac out put optimisation or the same for VE , we may have a different slope of SmO2 but still there will be a slope more or less.
If we need certain step numbers and step length than we end up what is heavily discussed this days. It is ., Does the test protocol, crates a physiological reaction. instead a physiological reactions will create a feedback on the situation of metabolic demand. So in simple questions and this is the same questions e asked in the 19*o . if we do a step test with 2 or 3 or 4 min step length , we do it on different inclines different surfaces and so on.
if what we look with NIRS iss a physiological respond, than we will have different physiological reactions. So if the results are different, than what protocol tells us the real number, or is the real number the actual live feedback information we see. Here for the “older ” generation the famous summary form the father of 4 mmol lactate, as he did a critical review of his own work. G. Mader. You can see 4 nice comparison, how the tests protocol will design the lactate dynamic .. Which protocol reflects the perfect dynamic if there is such a thing. ? look at the year. Now if we replace the lactate feedback and do the same ideas with NIRS we will have the exact same discussion and questions. I hope readers can see, that this is NOT a critic on any equipment but a critical look on how people try to implement NIRS ideas no matter what equipment we or they use.
Thanks Adam for the prompt reply. It was moments after posting here I posted through support.
I do appreciate your response but I’m not sure it completely answers my concern around trying to see if I can use BSX consistency going forward. Couple of follow ups:
– You mention that the issue had to do with the number of stages (exactly 10, I believe, for a 31 minute test). I started with the same parameters that I used many months ago with the two successfully completed assessments I was able to do with the Gen 1 device, so I’m a bit surprised to here that I may have done too many stages. Is there an appropriate range of stages? And I assume the system doesn’t report this beforehand? I thought that the parameters provided by BSX was to go at least 20+ minutes, but maybe I missed something.
Hey Charles. One thing for sure, I would be extremely annoyed. A 30 minute test, starting at the same stage you successfully did it multiple times before, resulting in an error, is a waste.
Let me ask the experts who know the errors and look at this data all day what exactly happened so I don’t give you any bad info. I was trying to look for any pace changes to explain an odd trend towards the end, but I don’t see any foot pod data. The # of stages issue was one of the error descriptions I went off of.
Can you elaborate on where you are going with this?
1 – I suspect that I can skew the results by doing extra phases beyond LT2. But if I’m not completely sure of what my LT2 is, how do I know if I’m going too far?
2 – The purpose of testing is you might have a pretty big range of where you think your LT2 is, if the exact number of phases can affect the test results, does this mean you need to do iterative tests? (test 1 time, enter results as FTP to set phases for next test, test again, repeat until LT2 stops changing)
Realistically it needs to work correctly no matter how many phases you do, so long as you go past LT2 for 1 phase.
Am I missing something?
Thanks again for the feedback. Still a bit confused, as I just received a response from Wayne L. in regards to my initial support ticket, and he didn’t mention anything about doing too many stages. It was a bit frustrating; he just mentioned that he saw my completed Endurance Test from 11/29, but then mentions that sometimes athletes are in bad cellular areas that prevents the ability to send test data. Then asks me to check my signal strength. I don’t know, I was at my gym and have full Verizon LTE bars when there, so that seemed a bit surprising too. Here’s his response:
“Thank you for reaching out to us for further assistance. I am happy to help you. I can see that you were able to complete your Endurance Test on 11/29. I have seen that when the athlete such as yourself is completing their test they have weak cellular or wifi signal that does not allow for them to send their test data to the server upon completion. Can you check your signal strength in the area you complete your test in?
Please let me know if you have any other questions I can assist you with.”
I emailed him back saying I’m pretty sure I didn’t have an issue with signal strength, and also mentioned that when I got back to my computer to doc my device, it uploaded the data, but didn’t show anything to me. Some follow up questions sent to him (and you if you know?):
– When I get this error message on the app, and I’m directed to doc the unit, does Support have to work some magic first, before the assessment is shared with the customer?
– So, wifi/LTE strength needs to be “solid” upon completion of the test, or otherwise I’ll get the error message?
– Lastly, is there any information/direction BSX can provide on this potential issue of doing “too many phases”?
Again, I’m hoping to “figure this out” and look forward to Wayne’s response, and want to join the group of users that seem to be having no problems. As you say, doing all out efforts suck; it’s the hope for some quantifiable (and reliable) data that has me excited about making my BSX investment pay off, and I want to be setup for a fully successful test next go-around.
I hadn’t talked to Wayne about having forced your results, which cleared the errors and gave you a “completed”. We’re not supposed to force it, so it wasn’t expected.
Your assessments (this one and previous ones) have some interesting features. Since you don’t use a heart rate monitor (in the tests I looked at) it takes away a datapoint, for not only us to reference if there’s an issue to help you with, but for test success and accuracy. The system references heart rate during your activity and when calculating results. With gen2, a foot pod also helps for us as a reference.
It’s definitely not required, though. To get somewhere with this, it would probably be easiest and most efficient to have a quick call so we can walk through what we’re seeing and what you’re doing. Getting the engineers to join and post, or go back and forth as a middle man would be difficult. I’ll email you.
Is there any estimate on when customer service is responding again to questions?
Most of us are working over the holiday weekend, currently, to ensure we catch up with the back orders this week, as well as tickets and questions. Things that require the engineers/dev get involved can take longer, since they’re balancing that, tweaks, new features, and looking too build the team out with more people.
Got my v2 upgrade (I was an original KS backer) in the mail yesterday, and it was quite simple to set up and get going. I took it for a workout today on the bike, and it synced just fine with my PM and HRM. I’m waiting for bad weather to redo an assessment test (in San Diego that can be a bit of a wait…:-).
The assessment test results I can understand easily (FTP, suggested zones), but the results from workouts seem less useful “out of the box.” I wonder if this sea of data should just be boiled down to a display on a bike (or running watch) that tells you whether you’re on “cruise control,” “good for an hour,” or “hey, buddy, you trying to hit a PR?”. Reading my power meter is a good approximation of this, but a measurement that is SMO2-based would more accurately reflect your body’s capabilities that day…
Finally, eye-balling the data from today’s ride… it would seem possible for a post-ride analysis tool to tell me a lot about my condition that day. Given HRM, watts, and even outside temp, couldn’t one come up with a good model about how these factors affect my CV system and muscles?
p.s. I’ve had nothing but fast turnaround and excellent results contacting BSX support.
I’m not sure how useful analyzing the daily data will be without Thb (or perhaps even with Thb). I’ve done a bunch of the same workouts (on a trainer using the exact same Erg profile) and have had pretty big variances in what I saw. So for example one day my SmO2 was at 45% during 20 minute intervals and another day it was 33-35% and another day it was 49-53%. Power, HR and Perceived exertion were all pretty much the same. Placement was about as consistent as I can get without screwing it into my leg 🙂
About the only thing I can make heads or tails of from the data is, SmO2 will go up during the warmup, and will fall and stabilize during 20 minute intervals. It recovers rather quickly between intervals.
Well, I just did my first lactate threshold test and Daily training with my new Gen2 device, and I can only say the experience has been awesome (I did not own the Gen1 device). Not a single problem connecting or sync’ing, no drop-outs, etc. The only thing mildly depressing is the realization that I’ve been training in the wrong zones for years.
Thanks for the feedback, Fearo! Now you can work on making your assessment dashboard look like stair steps as you progress!
Hi, how you ‘wake up’ gen2 in order to connect with you phone? I must place it on the crandle and remove it in order to wake divice so that iphone finds it. Also my garmin 1000 anf fenix cannot find device even when is connected with the phone. Please help.
Per their FAQs, just tap on it. Worked for me…
If the BSXinsight is charged and has no LED color showing, it’s either in an activity, or in “sleep” mode. To wake it from sleep mode, just tap it with your fingernail a few times like you’d tap your finger on a desk. It should light up green.
For connecting it, currently, you need to have an activity started for it to be broadcasting and seen by your other devices. I did a write-up in our support section, with pics, with connecting to a Garmin 810 and 920XT. The 1000 and Fenix should be very similar. Just scroll down a bit:
link to support.bsxinsight.com
It works like a charm!
I started using my BSXinsight. Where can I find more information on how to find my Smo2 trainning numbers? Such as what is my recovery number, how hard can I go duration etc? I google search it but I can find only for moxy.
There isn’t really such a thing as a fixed (even on an individual basis) SmO2 training number (for Moxy or Insight). It is a big paradigm shift from the (some would argue) outdated “Zone” based systems such as VO2 Max or Lactate thresholds.
SmO2 when combined with the total blood volume in the muscle can give you a lot of information of showing what is going on in real time. What it means and what you will need to do on the day can now be determined independently and more reliably than simply “do this exercise at predetermined level or in Zone X”.
If you’ve ever had a hard session and you feel like your legs are fried but your cardiovascular system seems fine or vice versa then you will have a hint of what I mean. The numbers displayed can change from day to day and exercise to exercise and from person to person. You test today and get “a number”…tomorrow and the day after you think this number is the one you should use but it isn’t.
Practical example – I did a bike test with the Insight yesterday morning, I was scheduled for a longish run with some intervals in Z3/4 today. Although my legs were feeling perfectly fine, looking at a combination of my HR, SmO2 and tHb I figured that I would probably have wasted my time with the intervals and rather just opted for a long slow run keeping everything very easy and not stressing either my heart or my lungs. Previously my legs would have felt fine and I would have attempted the session as planned – either blowing up during the intervals or completing them but not gaining anything except the false idea that I had accomplished something. This way I managed to get the distance on my legs but also gave the rest of my body time to catch up and recover.
Hope this helped.
Etienne. very nice short and clear summary on exercise physiology paradigm shift which happened about 15 years ago in the research community and now surfaces thanks to people like you in the mainstream.
Performance is a very new direction in the evolution in physiology and it still reacts based on Walter Cannons and Hans Selyes ideas on fight and flight and G.A.S Ideas Many classical educated people still smile when looking at the CG by T. Noakes but have some major problems to refute it and may be taken somewhat more serious and the control of survival is very much centrally controlled. As such NIRS is the tool of choice for the moment to see, when the CG has to make choices on who needs O2 for survival and who not.
Vasodilatation and vasoconstriction will be an initial guide far before O2 as they are closely linked.
. So using tHb and SmO2 with if you have additional bio marker like HR and RF as some easy ways, you can nicely see in your ” warm Up” like you did , that some of the physiological system you loaded yesterday knowingly or unknowingly may not be recover sufficient to make a decent additional overload. The key is not to watch the load but watch the unloading like in a TIP. This than gives you after a few minutes in the warm up a fast easy feedback on what ” zoning” or much better what physiological system needs still recovery.
The progress is made with a recovery plan and NOT with a training /loading plan.
Stimulation of physiological systems is not based don physical load so not as harder as better. You can do a utilization stimulation meaning practice the ability to use more O2 in a either very high intensity as in classical ideas or in a very low intensity based on NIRS feedbacks. The high intensity has the disadvantage that yo not only stimulate utilization but as well overload many other physiological systems. Where in a physiological zoning you can target one specific system without using the rest as a compensation. Summary. For new NIRS user it is a major shift in how you look at the data’s. There is no such thing immediately of a SmO2 level for load or recovery. You can get some individual trends over time.
There is no such thing like using your FTP % or your LT zoning and believe you can use SmO2 feedback. NIRS is a daily updated physiological feedback. live and there is no use for a magical % or a magical artificially produced base line. You are you today , yesterday and tomorrow . If you have problem with this physiological ideas you are much better on using a calculator and a formula and go with this. You will make progress in most cases no mater what ideas you use as long you have a decent idea of load and recovery mixture. But this is a completely different discussion all together. The only thing we know is how little we know.
BSX users, what is your experience with the AeT estimate?
My estimate is always very high. 90 to 95% of the FTP estimate. Where are yours?
Now if BSX correlates it with 1mmol above baseline, then it may be higher. But if it is correlated with 0.4 mmol above baseline than it should be at the end of zone 2 and not in zone 4.
We have received my BSX insight and I am very excited, such a good product.
On Saturday I will be doing my first FTP Cycling test with BSX and have a couple of questions on how to get the best results.
My trainer is the Tacx Neo, which unfortunately still does not have the capability of communicating directly with the BSX. So my question is on how to best get the my output power to be correct based on the steps BSX has set out for the test. Shall I make a power based workout on Taxc Neo, or shall I manually alter the resistance of the trainer to get the desired watts? My experience on power based workouts is that if you drop your cadence for a few seconds the trainer ‘locks-up’ (especially on high watts) potentially making the result inaccurate. Again, if I alter the resistance manually it might be very difficult to have a steady accurate power output in such small increments on ~30W.
In your experience what is the best way forward?
It depends pretty much on what piece of software you will be using to create the power based workout. I don’t have much experience with the Tacx software, but software like PerfPro and Peripedal generally have a ramp/reduction that will keep it from completely locking up. On PerfPro you can set this too.
It also depends on what you mean by “manual”. Do you mean doing increments manually – i.e. setting the wattage with arrows or a controller, or do you mean by using the gears? Gears will be very hard as you say, because you will constantly have to manipulate cadence and gearing to get to the correct wattage. If you use a piece of software to set the wattage then you can simply set your FTP to a round number (such as 200w) and then work in increments of this number. I’m not sure if it is always the case – the support guys from BSX will be best to ask, but I think their test protocoll generally does ramps in 20w increments. So if you set your threshold at 200 and then set the increments in 10% increases it should have you covered.
I think Ray has already mentioned it, but it would be great if BSX just went ahead and implemented ANT+ FE-C.
thanks for your reply. Everyday I hate more that I purchased Tacx Neo instead of Wahoo Kickr….. Noone supports completely Tacx Neo (except zwift) it even though 2-3 months have passed from it’s release. On that note BSX also does not support it…
Hope Tacx will resolve this issue (in the next 5 years….) Anyone that was using Bushido and i-magic will understand what I’m saying…
I am thinking to use TrainerRoad and make a plan with resistance but my focus would be on keeping the correct power and not just focusing on the FTP test.
Any suggestion from anyone that did an FTP test and how they did it?
When will BSXInsight release FE-C support?
Don’t second guess yourself. The Kickr is only accurate if you use a real PM to control the resistance on it. To date the Neo seems to be a LOT more accurate.
Doesn’t the Neo broadcast ANT+ Power? If so that is all you need. Trust me, if you use the Neo you are getting a far more accurate test than having the BSX control a Kickr. Most Kickrs read 20-40 watts too high and drift. Kind of defeats the purpose of using it for an LT test.
George, fear not, I use a Tacx Vortex with my BSX insight, and after a lot of digging myself, I’ve found a perfect solution to control these trainers during workouts. Best of all, it’s free. What you’ll need is a laptop with and ANT+ dongle and a program called Veloreality.
This is a program that’s mostly known for providing realistic ridealong Video workouts (paid), but what few people know is that it has a great little “workout” feature with Open ANT FE-C control, AND most importantly, the ability to ride in ERGO mode.
This makes it super simple, just create a workout beforehand, with 20w increase every 3 minutes, or you could do it on the fly while riding, like I do. The program lets you increase/decrease the wattage “on the fly” with your left and right keyboard arrows. This is done as a %FTP (you provide your FTP in the porgrams settings) and can be altered from something like 10%FTP to 200%FTP. So if you set your FTP at 200 watts for example (even if that’s not correct), the program will let you go from 20watts to 400 watts on the fly with your keyboard in 2-3w increments per stroke (with FTP 200). Obviously if you hold down the arrow, you can go up about 20 watts in 2 seconds. The software is also very responsive, smooth and best of all, you’re riding in ERGO mode.. Just pick a gear and go!
The only thing slightly confusing is that the VR software’s Power riding is between 1 and 4watts lower than BSX Insights riding (not consistent), but I doubt you’re worried about that (I certainly am not), and this is probably just a setting on my part that’s not 100% correct (Wheel circumference maybe).
Hope this helps.
Thanks! I will try it tommorow. Really helpfull answer.
Hey everyone… in response to FE-C support.
The only trainer we currently control is the Wahoo KICKR (and Snap). This is done by the phone, using Bluetooth 4.0.
Keep in mind, the actually BSXinsight device doesn’t do any of the controlling, it reads, transmits, and records tissue data, and also records foot pod, power, and heart rate from ANT+ devices connected to it (depending on version).
Controlling the KICKR comes from the phone/tablet that our app is built for (Android IOS) because BLE is so well supported by these devices. FE-C isn’t something IOS can do, so we don’t currently have plans to add it to our app
Of course, we will try to support the needs of our users wherever possible. If it were to be high-demand and we found a way that made sense, we would give it a priority. At this point, there are many other great things being focused on and developed for a firmware update instead.
The next step for easy assessment testing might be all of these training platforms and virtual software options to add the assessment protocol to do the simple 3 minute step-up stages, since this is part of their core functionality.
I did an LT test last night while being very fatigued (what’s an LT test without an excuse?). I put BSXinsight devices in multiple locations so our data geniuses are being properly fed…
With the device on my left calf (assessment) and left quad (daily workout), I had the calf connected to the KICKR, and the quad connected to my P1 Power Pedals. I then downloaded the raw files and manually did 15 second averages of the data (so it wasn’t overwhelming to graph). This isn’t to be confused with out 15 sec sample graphing we’re currently doing in our app and dashboard, this is an average of 15, 1 second samples.
There’s no intent behind this other than to share it. I didn’t feel it looked good or bad, but since I did it, it’s now Saturday and I have the time, so I’ll share. I noted the differences between the KICKR and P1 pedals average and last 10 min average. I often ride with both calf and quad and it’s typically very similar trends, with the quad having more extreme ranges.
Adam, thanks for sharing.
Which muscle of the quads was this? My understanding is that they behave quite differently, at least in my case.
Would you be able to do LT test in left and right calf simultaneously and share the data and the computed LTs? Data from one subject only would of course not be definitive, but it would still be interesting and possibly trust-building to see that computed LTs are similar even if the raw data is not.
thanks so much for sharing your data’s on here. Allow me to give it some thoughts as I am for the moment flooded with emails and data’s from BSX users.
.1. One common question I receive is.
Where is my LT based on your ( meaning mine) ideas. So answers is, that I am not a user of ideas on LT, so I can not comment on this topic. If it is somewhere on a Breakpoint in connection with some other information’s, than the question has to be answered by BSX.
What I can answer,( or at least try to answer) as I work with different NIRS devices since many years is, that we have a problem to find a real break point when using different muscles, as the limitation of a NIRS is( as with SEMG ) that we have the feedback of one single muscles where we fix a NIRS device.
Adam shows nicely , that SmO2 reactions are different in different muscles and often even in the same muscle, if compared left and right and even in the same muscle when you change location.
Than we have problems, as we may change during step test or hard workout, the intermuscular coordination. Meaning, that at a certain intensity I may use VL more than in an other intensity. Same can be true in a calf muscle activity, where we may use the calf different at different RPM’s and as well in different intensity. We have on here a great example from Ruud who had a MOXY on a VL and a BSX on a calf and than pushed different intensities. I made a short comment on there and got some great feedbacks after this thoughts.
So in Adams nice datasets , you can see that it will bee hard pushed to find a BP and for sure a BP on the same intensity in VL and Calf.
2. Second most common question is concerning ” zoning” Similar answer here I do not know how different groups find or justify zoning based on a tests.
Adam gives some great feedback here as well
“I did an LT test last night while being very fatigued (what’s an LT test without an excuse?). ”
LT test being very fatigued versus LT tests or any test, whether it is a FTP or a VO2 max or what ever we use for testing is , as Adam makes a great point , show very different end result in performance if recovered or fatigued
So if we test a person in a very nice recovered situation, as we do not like to “fail ” a test, we produce an optimal performance with a intensity scale if we use % or any ideas , which may or may not be equal to the preparation you may have day in and day out, when you go for a workout.
So a 80 % intensity from a perfect LT test will give you a performance, which may be on a late day , very fatigued really not 80 % load you found in the test , but may be 100 % load on this day.
So what do we do now with the “Zoning” ?
Here is the fundamental change in case people like to shift to bio marker feedbacks, versus performance feedbacks.
We do not use calculated zonings or zonings found in a test. We use biomarkers and as such NIRS as a live feedback to see, whether we actually are in the physiological intensity we planed to workout today.
I like to make a respiratory workout to improve utilization of O2 so I work in an intensity, where I have control of SmO2 and see , that when I not use the respiration for deoxygenating I have an intensity , where I deliver more O22 than needed so I can re-oxygenate to be ready for the next load. The duration of the deoxygenation is given by your bodies ability to do this and the feedback is SmO2 changes.
The rest time before I repeat this load is again given by SmO2 and in this case as well tHb so no actual time but feedback from your systems.
Training zonings may be replaced with training goals and the goal is reached, when you see the physiological goal you have set today is live in front of you. This may be in a calculated wattage intensity or not. The wattage can give you a feedback when you compare the performance from today and yesterday about the ” overload ” situation your body may be in due to not enough recovery or great recovery. Same physiological feedback by different performance intensity. I like to show you one of many case studies we do with different NIRS devices. This one was sent to us from Holland. A great use of a MOXY NIRS and a BSX NIRS BSX on calf and MOXY on VL.
It was on the Vastus Lateralis, like in these horrible pics (but you get the idea):
link to support.bsxinsight.com
I’ll definitely do some more L vs R comparisons for you, this coming week.
Okay Takura, here you go. I didn’t pretty it up, edit anything (except to make it 1 pic), or do retakes. I got into the office from my 21 mile bike commute and got on the trainer saying whatever happens, I’ll post it.
Right leg = older beta unit that’s been beat on hard with many many miles. It ran with the current app and firmware that’s out now. Notice, Zone 7 reads incorrectly, as it’s supposed to be only 1 watt over the top of zone 6. (I think it’s time to retire it)
Left leg = consumer production unit with firmware and phone app version that’s about to be released. Notice zone 7 is fixed, there’s a share option and a few other things.
Adam. Takura great discussion. I have a question in this direction as well. I got an email with BSX csv files one from left and on from right calf for NIRS interpretation. Thanks to BSX we have daily a number of this requests but in many cases we have some problems to give a decent answer and have more questions than answers. So here we go..
Now I got two LT results back from BSX from a customer in California, showing two different LT wattage values due to 2 very different SmO2 graphs.., done on he same test with 2 BSX ne on the left and one on the right side like Adams numbers show.
Now the classical lactate curve is the same for both calf’s as lactate is a systemic feedback of some metabolic reactions. The individual calf graphs of SmO2 where very different and the BP was at different locations by different wattage levels.
. What we know is that the Lactate curve is the same for both calf’s but the SmO2 is very different. So the question go,t and I can not answer it, is. Which LT shall he use now for his workout zonings , the left or the right LT result ?
: I do not have any answer for this question at all. So need some help from the BSX experts like Adam.
I think what you are really asking is how reliable is the test if you can get 2 different results using 2 devices on 2 different calves when if you were to measure Lactate itself, it would not vary because of location. Certainly both can’t be correct. Perhaps neither are correct.
How big was the difference between the 2 tests. If we are talking 5 watts it’s no big deal, if we are talking 10+ then we need some answers.
Care to post the files just so Adam can look up the actual tests on their servers before he comments?
Thanks, John. The biggest difference I’ve ever had between 2 calves, doing a test at the same time is 8 watts. Anyone is welcome to come into our office and do a test with both legs, or watch me. I did another one today and ironically, today was the day I saw the 8 watt difference. My results were 268 and 260, however, the 260 result device had an alpha firmware on it to test.
I’m trying to do LT tests every day this week, in addition to a 40+ mi commute hahah. So, they’re definitely not optimal results, due to fatigue, but still great data as we test.
I’m on here because I’m a cyclist and I love this stuff. It’s hard to call it work. I’m not here to engage trolls or those here with other motives. It would only drag the few remaining into a mud pit.
Thanks for feedback and yes will check with origin of the data’s whether it is okay to post their data’s on here. If not we have some more of the same results and some other interesting questions. One question I hope Adam can answer is the option to use a VL SmO2 BSX info with their protocol and have the LT information from this data’s. To keep a positive discussion going here a left right VL SmO2 result but not as a BSX test protocol but more as an assessment as a TIP (5/1/5 ) idea. The interesting question we always get is, which is the ” stronger ” leg ?
Adam nice data’s and yes that is the way to go . Daily LT assessments have some very great feedbacks to offer.
Interesting is , when you have a chance as well not just take the NIRS feedbacks, but as well the actual lactate values.
Will show you a picture , very well know what happens , in cases like daily assessment or at least often can happen. The LT will shift to the right despite a drop in performance. Now interesting will be to have BSX results or any NIRS results parallel to the right shift of lactate curves to see, how the Graph of SmO2 shifts., This than opens a whole new discussion on connection between NIRS feedback from a local area and a systematic metabolic reaction picture from lactate.
Now my initial point in this discussion is a very common one in NIRS research. It is the question of symmetrical muscle work or ability.
In cycling there are some very famous and well documented cases. where the left and right leg had very different metabolic reactions due to some different reason.
But not just in cycling. There are major differences in symmetry in many people and here a great study to show this interesting case.. So in case this research is accepted , that the question comes up, as we discuss on here on which side do we use the NIRS the LT feedback for zoning.
I was hoping , after so much technical discussion on here how to run a great equipment ,we could engage with motivated people like, Takura, and Adam and many more on some more actual factual NIRS discussion independent to any specific equipment. ???
Here one of the many studies
Oxygen Saturation in Right and Left Vastus Lateralis During Split Squat Exercise in Speed Skaters.
Edlbeck, B P; Dorman, J C; Malek, D M; Snyder, A C
Many athletes use resistance training to enhance muscular strength and endurance, with resistance determined as a percentage of a repetition maximum. However, the stress placed on the muscles is rarely determined. During a split squat exercise, it is essential to distribute weight equally in both legs to insure equal development. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) allows for non-invasive examination of muscle oxygenation during exercise. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the right and left leg muscle oxygen usage during a typical split squat exercise workout to assess whether proper muscle emphasis could be determined. We hypothesized that muscle oxygen usage would be tractable by NIRS during resistance training exercise and that with elite athletes muscle oxygen usage would be similar in both legs during the split squat exercise. METHODS: Six (5 male and 1 female) National and International caliber speed skaters (aged 24 +/- 6 yrs) were monitored while performing a split squat training session. The procedure consisted of three sets of fifteen repetitions. A set consisted of fifteen repetitions with both the left and right legs forward. After each leg and between sets the athletes had a one minute rest period. The exercise protocol used was similar to the athletes’ regular workout. Percent oxygen saturation (StO2) of the right and left vastus lateralis muscles was measured continuously throughout the individual’s exercise. RESULTS: The results showed a large variation between subjects. Resting StO2 ranged from 96-53%, while the exercising StO2 ranged from 68-0%. With the left leg forward there was a large difference between subjects on which leg the emphasis was placed. Two placed greater emphasis on the left leg, three on the right leg and one subject put equal emphasis on both. When the right leg was forward, all subjects but one placed the emphasis on that right leg; the one placed greater emphasis on the left leg. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that StO2 should be able to be used as an indicator of leg preference during the performance of a split squat training session. However, further research is needed on the usage of StO2 to monitor muscle utilization during resistance exercise. PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of muscle oxygenation to determine muscle usage during exercises such as the split squat has the potential to assist coaches and athletes to correctly critique and modify activity during a training session to maximize adaptations, especially at the elite level.
(C) 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
And here the pic of an old classical lactate question. Right shift due to ?? and what will happened with the traces of a NIRS assessment in this case. ?
Here for NIRS users some additional information on left right question. We use NIRS in combination with SEMG and power in rehabilitation of some specific sport injuries very common in sports like skiing and soccer and ice hockey. The famous ACL operation.
Over the last 30 years there where different techniques used and therapist on this forum may recall the now 2 common the use of, . the patellar tendon by Glancey or the more common hamstrings graft used here in north America. Now traditionally in this rehab we used cybex to see, whether we reached a more or less symmetrical strength development in the different angles. in different speed.
The history now shows us , that using power alone was good but not optimal. So we use now physiological feedback additionally to simple physical feedback.
Result is a very different approach in training with a much higher focus on functional motions and symmetric physiological applications. Nirs is a great tool in this goal setting as it tells us, whether we reached not only a power symmetrical situation but as well how we will react metabolically in a short term load or in a longer term situation.
So there are many studies done looking at the power difference in healthy people compared with post ops ACL rehabs. We use this often in court cases and benefits for long or short term disability.
So the great number of 5 – 8 % we see from Adam shows that he is pretty good and just slightly or in the % of an average difference in so called healthy people. If we test athletes like soccer player , short track speed skaters , tennis players and there one or double hand back hand techniques , than the % of asymmetric power supply on a bike, it is much higher.
When we add a not optimal rehabbed injury from an ankle injury or a ITB problem to a patellar problem to ACL rehab than the % is much higher and as such the traces we collect from right or left leg, no mater whether we take a hamstrings , quadriceps or calf f muscle is sometimes very big.
So no wonder we discuss here the question , whether this could influence SmO2 traces and therefore Break points and analyzing for potential LT information. and in case we will find and it is very common , a difference , which LT result would make sense to use for rehab on a bike or for training in specific. Att a great study done by
Interlimb asymmetry in persons with and without an anterior cruciate ligament deficiency during stationary cycling1☆
Michael A. Hunt , MSc David J. Sanderson , PhD Hélène Moffet , PT, PhD J.Timothy Inglis , PT, PhD
And here a Tab. from their study on ” healthy versus ACL
Adam, thanks for the both leg measurements and for showing the results here. Given the difference in SmO2 values between legs, the difficulty of accurately estimating SmO2 and the task of calculating a whole-body index (like LT) from a local measurement (like SmO2), I have to say that 4W (8W max) difference seems surprisingly small to me (and within what the power meter could be wrong anyway). Good job!
No doubt that both leg measurements on consecutive days in a similarly fatigued condition are even more beautiful as a dataset and might, I imagine, give hints to e.g. separate effects of individual left-right differences from random-noise-type inaccuracies (or possible bias between individual BSX units) … kudos for attempting that. 😉
Might you have gained any insights that you might be able to share, about, e.g.,
– whether it does matter which leg to measure? (In case it matters, which one should one choose?)
– what the accuracy (or precision) of the LT estimation is? Say, if my LT has gained/decreased by 5W, should I consider that to be random noise or a significant change?
Takura, I’m actually sitting back down from watching over another test that was run on both calves. The guy said he hasn’t exercised in a very long time and when I asked him to guess his LT, he said 100W? He used flat pedals and his cadence was all over the place, from 50 to 90 randomly. Both his calves resulted in exactly 129W LT results. I’ll try and get the graphs, but they’re in the dev system, so no guarantee.
I’m about to do another assessment myself, 3rd day in a row.
To answer your question, It shouldn’t matter which leg, in regards to a favorite leg, or a stronger one, unless it’s a very extreme power difference, due to injury, where one calf doesn’t engage much, or has physical damage to it. I suppose there could be an issue with profiling characteristics, but that’s not something I’ve seen. You would have consistent issues with 1 leg having errors or being inconsistent, and we’d have to look at the data from our side to try and confirm.
Hey Takura, Here’s the 129W result for both legs from this morning. The tester had no experience doing this and doesn’t train or do any fitness activities.
I did another one today as well and had an 8W spread again, 272W and 280W. I’ll see if I have time to graph out mine from today also. I’ve backed way off my commute intensity and was on a more efficient bike, to explain why mine went up, even though I’ve tested 3 days in a row and bike commute 40mi/day hahah
Great results and it shows the individual reactions of every individual person. This result of not a cyclist shows a very symmetrical reaction from the LT numbers, where Adam has a s lightly asymmetric reaction and some may be even more off.
In this great case study here what is super interesting is that one leg actually ends up with a higher SmO2 than at the start, where as the other drops the start SmO2. Some may be surprised about that, but not very uncommon as again we look at one single muscle reaction.
So there is this ongoing fight between vasoconstriction and vasodilatation to create an optimal metabolic reaction for the specific demand we produce.
In this case SmO2 may make little or no sense for many. An increase in SmO2 % as that is what we see does not mean we have more O2 in the working muscle we assess. we in fact may use O2 there but we can not see that on a % number like SmO2.
Beautiful results and it shows that one of the writer here, I think it was Stefan , had once a result where SmO2 was higher at the end of a test. If people are interesting we can look at closer at this.
The other great feedback Adam gives is, that his LT changed in three days. Very normal and it can go in 2 directions.LT if we believe in this can change during a workout.
This is why we prefer not to use a test result and a calculator to find zones but use NIRS daily as we adjust and than have live feedback to knwo in what physiological zoning we are.
That’s where NIRS will conflict very hard with current cycling ideas of using a FTP and y than % and than believe every day this wattage is the same physiological load. Just a different physiological idea than a mathematical zoning based on a magical number.
Adam thanks again for sharing your case studies here, that’s I believe strongly is the way to help to introduce NIRS to a bigger group of people .
Another interesting point.
a) 129 is the change classically to “anaerobic|” despite the fact that we have still a lot of O2 in the tested area.
b) in fact on calf muscle actually ends up with a higher SmO2 % than at the start.
c) meaning that we have one common lactate curve .( systemic)
So we have an increase in lactate and an increase in SmO2 on one side , and on the other side we have an increase in lactate an a drop in SmO2
This opens the question on how much lactate did the calf muscle contributed to the overall systemic reading of the lactate and even the question, did only one side contributed and the other may have even recycled . NIRS opens many interesting questions. and it is fascinating to see, that despite this different SmO2 local reactions the ability is the same when we look at wattage output at LT.
Thanks John. I hope BSX will enable Ant+ FE-C in the near future
When I connect my sensors (HR and power meter) it says that I have connected a KICKR. My power meter is stages and my HR is Tickr (trainer is Neo). Why does it says Kicr and will affect my results or assesment?
How old is your Stages? See, if you turn on the way-back machine you’ll discover that much of the Stages power protocol firmware came from Wahoo (Wahoo helped). My guess is that somewhere in there is an identifier that BSX is keying off of, which in turn was accidentally left as KICKR.
Just a swag…
Woah! Well, the current Stages have dual mode, ANT+ and BLE. While of course this shouldn’t happen, it appears to be connecting via BLE, as it’s showing the blue KICKR. If it were to connect to a KICKR as ANT+, it would show “Wahoo Fitness”, which is what makes me think it’s actually connecting to the BLE side.
Go to daily workout and see if it’s reading the power. I honestly don’t know if it will, the only PM we’re supposed to currently work with via BLE, is KICKR.
It shouldn’t hurt your assessment, but holding your power steady with a regular power meter is much harder than using a trainer that adjusts power to your cadence to keep it even.
If it’s not showing your power on the app for a daily workout through BLE, I’d recommend using the Stages app to disable BLE (I believe it lets you), or if you’re using another BLE device to connect, do it first. Since it’s Bluetooth 4.0, it should make it unavailable for another connection and force ANT+.
Our next firmware update should take care of any remaining connection labels showing incorrectly (though it’s rare) because we’re actually reading and recording the device’s details to learn/debug.
Some more info: When we connect to the Wahoo KICKR for an assessment, the BSXinsight connects to is via ANT+, and the phone app connects via BLE, to control it. The power readings come via ANT+, NOT BLE.
So, with your app showing KICKR, it still may be connecting your BSXinsight to the ANT+ side. The app will attempt to control the power, since it thinks it’s a KICKR, but it shouldn’t be a problem. Again, you can just disable BLE (if you don’t need it) in the Stages app (I believe you can) if you don’t want it to show that, until our firmware update.
I get the same thing using a brand new Nov 2015 Quarq. It still works just fine, it’s just that the app thinks every power meter is a Kickr. Kind of insulting that anything could mistake a Quarq for a Kickr 🙂
Yours is also connecting via BLE and showing as the blue “KICKR”? While it won’t hurt the assessment, it kinda makes using names pointless, like calling everyone “Bob” no matter their name! The app isn’t supposed to connect to anything other than the KICKR, since it’s the only one we control, currently.
The firmware update is being reviewed now and looks like it may be released very soon, but that’s provided it passes QA/QC. This will either immediately take care of it, or give us the data we need to easily fix the naming.
My stages is 2 months old ( second generation).
Hmm…in that case – no idea. Without breaking out an analyzer (not in the right country right now), hard to know why it’s being mis-identified (and whose fault it is).
Just sent my THIRD request on BSX site to get some help with FedEx here in Norway, who didn’t accept my request for tax refund.
I had to pay them approximately 129$, so I’m very satisfied with BSX who doesn’t even respond anymore..
Deep frustration here in Germany, too. I’ve just received the negative decision from Fedex today. They say, according to the shipping papers they did everything correct. I have to pay immediately. I may try with customs directly.
And now it gets weired: they also sent me a copy of the commerical invoice. The same as I have found in the pouch. However, their copy does not show the handwritten “warranty” next to the crossed out “sold”.
BSX, you really messed up big time here. Thanks.
in addition to my previous posting: what really bothers me is that it looks like if I had crossed out “sold” myself later. As if was trying to cheat.
I believe the remaining few that Fedex isn’t wanting to work with will be contacted by tomorrow to be resolved.
Please add me to the list of people that have an unresolved query regarding the taxes on the Gen 2 replacment.
Would make a nice little Christmas bonus if I can get the tax money back that I paid to get the replacement delivered.
Hey Etienne, if you didn’t get a message from me, email me at my username .com
Will he get the same answer I got from you – at the 2nd email – that I have to fend for myself using the pice of paper/invoice where it seems I’ve written myself “warranty”?
You’re idea of customer service is so strange, Adam, we have to use somebody else’s website to complain because you don’t have a forum for your users and getting answers is an exercise in frustration?
Honestly, I’d like you to succeed, at least I might recover some of my investment in the 2 generations of BSX devices, but your customer service could learn a thing or two from Stryd and RunScribe.
No, we first ask the customer to explain the issue to try and get it resolved, because it has seemed to be very quick and easy in some cases. When they can’t, Wayne has been jumping in. Many were fixed, but there are some dragging it out. It’s not like they’re refusing, it’s more that they admit themselves the process is a nightmare that can take 6-12 months.
I’ve been listening to Wayne fight for each case, demanding it get taken care of faster, for hours and hours, day after day. No, nothing was done incorrectly, no matter what some reps may say, however, it could have been done better and potentially prevented this. While it’s < .5% of shipped gen2 units, it's significant, due to the volume we're doing, and of course to each person it's happened to, that % means nothing.
Where are we at now? It's not unreasonable for those having the extra VAT fees to complain. Having bought through us, we felt responsible for ensuring it gets fixed. As Wayne was at his desk late Friday night, working with FedEx, with so much else to do, I personally reached my limit with it. This VAT crap is ridiculous and it's going to end, even if it costs ME… and by "end" I mean by TOMORROW. If you haven't heard from me in the past 24hrs, you know my email.
Well, I sent one mail to BSX with a request for additional info about the tax-refund here in Norway. Instead they refunded the original purchase sum. That approximately equals the VAT amount. They used half a day to respond to my mail. That’s what I call great customer service!
Also in previous ocasions they’ve responded quickly to my inquiries. So my experience with these guys is nothing else but positive.
The same here now. As alluded to above I tried first myself with Fedex. Failed. Contacted BSX yesterday. Today I got refunded ……. by BSX.
True to their words, today I got the FedEx surcharge refunded by BSX!
That is good to hear that they took care of those issues.
In hindsight it was rather silly of them to ever list the full retail price on the documents. I’ve done numerous warranty/service requests for various products and they never put original full retail price on the documents. It’s not what the customer paid, nor is it required by law or expected.
Adam need your help. I got three BSX clients sending me independent some data. One is from the USA , one is from Germany and one from here from Canada , so a great spread of international users for NIRS ideas. Here what got. They fixed the BSX on the VL, as they had some research done, including most likely here, that for cycling the preferred muscle for NIRS investigation is VL. Now there is not a lot I can do as it was a 3min step tests as suggested from BSX. e are not really able to get a lot of feedback based n this type of assessments form SmO2.
S BSX is far ore advanced in this.
Question and |I am sure the three gentlemen’s are on here as well. Can they sent the VL step test data in the same way as when they did it with the sleeve and calf muscle and can get a LT intensity back or not.
Thanks in advance for helping out on this.
Thanks so much for all the very positive feedback sent to me on my email. Yes the issue is top inform and show to a wider public the advantages and disadvantages NIRS can offer us in any activity , whether it is an endurance sport or rehabilitation of cardiac or more orthopedics like ACL and so on. So no agenda or anything just sharing ideas and mistakes but as well benefits we developed with this technology over the last 10 plus years. As so often, this is nothing new NIRS equipment are here since a long time and the leading company for wireless NIRS is Artinis with their Portamon.
NIRS allowed us to understand more live feedback and what happens and fortunately or unfortunately threw a lot of critical questions towards traditional ideas like VO2 max or LT ideas.
NIRS can show the different reason why we reach something some people like to name threshold.
We can find a intensity, where we see what the limitation is.
We can name it what ever we learned in the classical ideas. LT or VT or cardiac threshold or muscular threshold.
Depending on the limiter it will show up with NIRS.
It is a live feedback on where we start to create some metabolic limitation. It changes as we go so it can but not has to change from day to day.
This is why looking for ” threshold ” in a test or assessment makes limited sense, as this found threshold may be different tomorrow. That’s why we use nIRS as a daily feedback whit different combinations of bio markers. The positive mails I got ,suggested to me to keep our open mind and sharing but this here may be the wrong place as point to point discussions seems not to be too much appreciated here.
So thanks to all who gave me feedback and I will keep positing on different forums what we find and where we still have many questions.
I like to thank DC rainmaker for the opportunity he gave me here to express my ideas so public. Merry Christmas to all and a nice new year.
Hey Guys, here’s the final results of my left vs right calf LT testing.
There were zero retakes, zero failures, and the numbers are 100% from me, and not changed from the actual results in any way (other than my horrible photo editing, trying to get them all there in one pic).
Friday 12/4 – I had an, extremely inefficient bike on the trainer (it actually had an unpowered motor I had to also turn when I pedaled lol).
11 stages 100W, 140, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300, 320
Monday 12/7 – Again, I had the beast bike
9 stages 100W, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300
Tuesday 12/8 – Another beast bike test
9 stages 100W, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300
Wednesday 12/9 – This time, I put a much more efficient Sirrus commuter bike on, lifting my LT a bit even though I was a bit more fatigued.
7 stages 120W, 200, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300
Thursday 12/10 – Wed night and Thurs I didn’t bike commute, so I was a bit more fresh, LT jumped again
8 stages 120W, 200, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300, 320
Friday 12/11 – I bike commuted again, and LT shows it
7 stages 120W, 200, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300
The left vs. right were pretty consistent. All tests were done without proper rest. I don’t even know my rested LT it’s been so long, 1.5 yrs ago was the last one I did rested, which was mid-300’s, that was with a blood test.
Thanks for the tests and publishing the data. So it seems to be a combination of a small bias between left and right leg (the right often giving higher LT) and some day to day variation which could totally be the real variation in your condition (although it doesn’t completely exclude the possibility that it may be some random inaccuracy between measurements)?