Does empirical evidence truly shows it helps?
Does empirical evidence truly shows it helps?
Ok
When pretty much every elite long distance runner does something for beneift it probably works
http://m.livescience.com/32750-why-do-athletes-train-at-high-altitudes.html
Simple explanation. Although one experienced coach I've talked to says it's essential to take certain vitamins at a high altitude or you don't get the full effects
Why do you have doubts? I definitely notice the difference from 9,000+ to sea level
If one were training to race in Mexico City, Mexico altitude training is definitely necessary. If humidity and temperature equal, I find training at altitude means I run slower at altitude. There have been numerous collegiate athletes whom were born at altitude, went to college near sea level and seemed to do fine. I believe the risk for injury increases for non-sea level individuals to train & live about 6000+ft.
ironside wrote:
If one were training to race in Mexico City, Mexico altitude training is definitely necessary. If humidity and temperature equal, I find training at altitude means I run slower at altitude. There have been numerous collegiate athletes whom were born at altitude, went to college near sea level and seemed to do fine. I believe the risk for injury increases for non-sea level individuals to train & live about 6000+ft.
Humidity and temperature cannot be equal. That's like comparing a horse with a TV.
At high altitude, the atmospheric pressure is lower.
Thus, the oxygen pressure on blood vessels is lower.
The oxygen will have difficulties to penetrate the blood vessels.
So your body will learn to penetrate the blood vessels without the help of atmospheric pressure.
When you return to sea level, your body won't have to do the effort to help the blood vessel penetration.
The reason why for some people altitude training doesn't work is that in combination with high humidity, the partial pressure of the oxygen increases and the oxygen will penetrate the blood vessels easier.
The maximum advantage a runner can take from training at altitude is to train at
There is a body of scientific evidence that says training at altitude is beneficial to racing at sea level, and there is an equally large body of evidence that says training at altitude is only beneficial to racing at altitude. I'm more in the "It probably helps sea level at least a little, assuming that aerobic factors like A-V O2 difference or Cardiac Output are a limiting factor in your running." But if you're an aerobic monster already and you're trying to improve your pace at lactic threshold, less oxygen intake is probably unhelpful and/or detrimental.
The only thing that everyone with a background in the subject agrees on is that those "altitude masks" you see crazy people wear are ridiculous.
jtupper wrote:
Here's all you need to know about altitude training from none other than Jack Daniels:
jtupper RE: How many US greats trained at altitude? 4/1/2003 1:20AM - in reply to Frank Rizzo Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Having a great talent train at altitude doesn't prove anything about altitude training except that it (probably) didn't produce a negative reaction. Once it is the "in" thing to do then everyone with good talent wants to make sure they aren't overlooking some little thing so they hop on the band wagon. Some improve, some don't. Typically you don't hear about the ones who try altitude training and fail, because who cares. So, those who get better (for whatever reason) are accepted as having benefitted by altitude. So a guy who leaves a hot, humid, stressful life at sea level goes to a cool, dry, relaxing altitude site for awhile and gets better --must be the altitude, right? How many American women are beating Joan Benoit Samuelson's US marathon record (set many moons ago)-- maybe we aught to all start living in "oceanside" tents.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=105694&thread=1040551) I look at altitude training as a type of training. Similar to deciding to increase your mileage -- for some gong up to a considerably greater mileage is a positive experience, others may encounter trouble. Some benefit from including more fast stuff in their usual program, some benefit from altitude. You typically hear about the runners who do something new and make a significant breakthrough, but seldom hear about those who do the same "new" thing and don't benefit.
(2) I've seen runners follow different altitude programs and improve, or not.
(3) We had success with several weeks at altitude (living and training there)
(4) We had more success when we spent a few weeks at AL then a week at SL then back to AL and back to SL, etc. Ryun flew down to SL after 3 weeks at A:L and broke the WR in mile the same 24 hour period. Did the same thing a week or two later in the 1500 WR race (with a 61 first 400 and 2:49 last 1200). We had 6 subjects in that year's study (live and train high, spend a week at SL and repeat) and those 6 set 14 PRs back at SL (some in rarely-raced distances, but positive experiences none the less)
(5) We had a group of elite swimmers, who were all tested at SL then half trained 4 weeks at AL while the other half did similar training at SL. In post-training tests the AL group increased VO2max 5.6% and the SL group improved VO2max 6% -- both improved in that sense during their training camp. In SL races, the AL group swam 11 PRs and the SL group swam 4 PRs. Is that significant?
(6) As a result of many altitude studies I have taken part in, the most certain comment I can make is that if you train properly you won't be hurt with some time at altitude. Is that a chicken way of saying it will make you better? However, I have seen some not get better, but was it the altitude or the individual's attitude about being there, or being away from a more comfortable environment?
(7) Regarding live high, train low, on a daily basis (as opposed to living and training high and then going low for awhile, which is what I prefer), the two methods hav enot been compared. I know that we had similar improvements (if not more) with the live and train high model compred to what others have had with the daily up and down regimen.
(8) I tend to not put much stock in the loss-of speed and power thing for those who live and train high. I think training can be adjusted to prevent that, or time at altitude can be put into the overall program at a time when speed is not the issue
(9) If live high and train low is better than just being there and training, I am a little worried as to how much faster the East Africans will get when they start doing that. I may be missinformed, but I don't think they do -- don't they just live and train at altitude then come down for some time?
(10) Being in a comfortable environment is important, and for some that may work well, not gong to AL for others, the change may be a relaxation in itself. As is the best measure of who is the best 1500 runner the one who wins the race, so is the benefit of altitude associated with the runner who performs better as a result of using it (not always whose VO2max or blood chemistries show the greatest change)
Chad Johnson, Oregon Project:
MR: How do running for Hanson's and the Oregon Project compare?
CJ: I feel like they're somewhat similar. When I was at the Hanson's we did a lot of mileage and a lot of strength work, tempo runs and long repeats. Here, now that I'm training for the marathon, I've been doing a lot of the same things — a lot miles, a lot of long tempo runs, 15 by 1k, nine times a mile, stuff like that — real strength work. Like at the Hanson's, here we have a bunch of guys who are really fit and all have the same type of goal.
MR: Do you think too much attention is paid to the altitude rooms, underwater treadmill and all that, and not enough to the hard training you guys do the and good coaching the project provides?
CJ: Yeah, sometimes I get frustrated with that. Right now, I'm training harder than I ever have in my life and sometimes people think we're running well because of all the extra things we have here — the altitude, the treadmills or whatever. Those have always been thought of as something extra we can do. We never want to interrupt our normal training; anything we do is on top of our training.
http://www.mensracing.com/athletes/interviews/chadjohnson03.htmlZika Palmer, Founder of Zap Fitness
She has a B.S. in Biology from Emory University as well as an M.S. in Exercise Science from Appalachian State University "The Oregon facility is the ultimate facility, they don't sacrifice anything there," Palmer said. "I kind of believe there are no secrets or shortcuts. It just comes down to hard work and dedication. Either you are going to be a superstar or you're not. You don't really need any special gadgets."
http://www.zapfitness.com/AP%20April%20Article.htmVin Lannana, Head Coach, Stanford University
Distance runners in the USA are poorly prepared for the rigors of international competition.
Harder work will produce greater success. Our problems now stem from lack of work, not lack of science.
jtupper wrote:
My primary concern is that we don't just conclude that without altitude training you don't have a chance of reaching the top. I must admit I have seen every possible result of altitude (probalby not every one, but many of them). I've had subjects spend 2 weeks there and have a complete career change -- from an also-ran to winning the 10k at Penn Relays; from a conference champ to Pan American Champ and the Olympics. I watched Jim Ryun fly to SL after 4 weeks at altitude and break the world mile record (the day he flew down). I had another conference champ spend 5 weeks at altitude, not improve his altitude time for 3 miles by more than 5 seconds, then went to SL for 2 weeks, came back to AL and improved that altitude time by 34 seconds. I've had swimmers train 4 weeks at altitude, improve SL VO2max by 5.6% and their counterpart swimmers (who spent the same 4 weeks training at SL) improve VO2max 6%. I had 5 subjects run 14 SL PBs after 6 weeks at altitude (living and training at 7500 or above). I've seen subjects crass and burn at AL (usually from over work because of so much free time). I believe it can be a positive experience and I would use it myself, but I am not certain it can make you any better than could otherwise be achieved, with good training and comfortable surroundings at SL.
George Ilie wrote:
The reason why for some people altitude training doesn't work is that in combination with high humidity, the partial pressure of the oxygen increases and the oxygen will penetrate the blood vessels easier.
PO2 decreases as humidity goes up.
Altitude vs Attitude? wrote:
George Ilie wrote:The reason why for some people altitude training doesn't work is that in combination with high humidity, the partial pressure of the oxygen increases and the oxygen will penetrate the blood vessels easier.
PO2 decreases as humidity goes up.
At higher temperature, PO2 increases if the humidity is high.
At low temperature, PO2 decreases if the humidity is high, indeed.
details wrote:
When pretty much every elite long distance runner does something for beneift it probably works
The IAAF doesn't sanction dopers, so you can't blindly assume altitude training works. On top of that, "altitude training" is the best way to dope and never test positive.
http://sciencenordic.com/altitude-training-little-more-placeboI think there's a NIST meta-study that says basically the same thing.
Everyone, thank you for your detailed responses. I was born near sea level, NJ. I lived most of my life in the flat Midwest. I trained 4 1/2 months in CO at 5000 to 8000ft., 2014. I trained in NM, 5000 to 7000 ft. late 2014 through Feb. 2015. In Midwest, did my 10 to 15 mile runs, 7 something a mile. In NM & CO I did same runs 7:45 to 9 per mile. Except for interval works of 500m and shorter all my interval workouts were slower at altitude. I can't see how that is better? I improved my 5K & 10K times from age 49 (2013) to 50 (2014) 11% Everything was not constant. I weight trained vigorously while in Midwest. I have not done that in 20 months. I have been overwhelmed with injuries now, but I am 51. Injuries could be a coincidental indicator. I may have improved 11% also because I was fresher in 2014 compared to 2013 because I stopped lifting weights x5 days per wk. My 10K best, 2014, 38:59. I am naturally best in the 800-3000 metres range. Thanks again!
For some it will, one still needs to train smartly when at elevation.
The ideal is really to live high (and I would argue for many that means higher than 6000 ft) and train low.
Also, make sure that your iron status is very good or the most obvious benefit of red blood cell oxygen carrying capacity will not be optimized. If there is not enough iron to populate the new RBCs then you reduce the gains.
Also, the timing of returning to SL for peak performance varies a bit from person to person and depends a lot on the distance to be raced.
I suggest getting a copy of Randall L. Wilber's book on altitude training. It really needs an updated edition since we have learned so much since it was published, but I know of nothing that is wrong per se. (Dr. Wilber is incredibly busy and the money from the book is not as great as one might think).
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday