How much difference would altitude training make to non-elites?

Our calorimetry goes down when we are glycogen devpleted, but efficiency goes up . People who habitually undereat have chronically lowered calorimetry.

If calorimetry is reduced, then V02 max is reduced and this partly helps explain variable V02 max test results.

Yes the stopwatch is the most reliable guide to performance if the conditions are right. Ideally we want optimal calorimetry and optimal efficiency and optimal endurance and optimal focus.

But how do we get optimal power and efficiency?

That's where the smart training and nutrition come in.

not Luv2run wrote:

Our calorimetry goes down when we are glycogen devpleted, but efficiency goes up . People who habitually undereat have chronically lowered calorimetry.

If calorimetry is reduced, then V02 max is reduced and this partly helps explain variable V02 max test results.

Yes the stopwatch is the most reliable guide to performance if the conditions are right. Ideally we want optimal calorimetry and optimal efficiency and optimal endurance and optimal focus.

But how do we get optimal power and efficiency?

That's where the smart training and nutrition come in.

I have absolutely no idea what to make of any of these statements.

Recall are in a thread about "how much difference would altitude training make to non-elites", not about calorimetry, glycogen depletion, efficiency, undereating, VO2max, focus, power, endurance, or nutrition.

I referenced a 1997 study where three groups experienced signficantly different levels of improvement, stagnation, and regression, primarily as a function of the controlled variable of altitude:

- The sea-level group first improved at sea-level, then regressed to their initial performance level

- The hi-hi group first improved at sea-level, stagnated at high altitude (while blood values changed significantly), then improved some more after altitude training on return to sea-level

- The hi-lo group consistently improved throughout all phases of the study

How do I interpret these different results in terms of calorimetry, glycogen depletion, efficiency, undereating, VO2max, focus, power, endurance, or nutrition?

Your post leaves me wondering what, if any, is the connection to this thread:

What is the link between calorimetry and altitude?

What is the significance of glycogen depletion in a 5K time trial?

What is the link between efficiency and altitude?

Both altitude groups improved (albeit with different magnitudes), while increasing VO2max -- it's not clear that efficiency improved for either of the altitude groups.

Were any of these participants undereating?

Did any of the participants have, or lack, focus compared to other participants in other groups?

What is the link to power and altitude?

Did the different groups have different nutrition?

Based on this study, isn't a session of hi-lo training smart?

If a anyone believes a higher hematocrit delivers more ATP, then this has to be explained in calorimetry. But since Luv2run other wilfully ignorant people refuse to recognize this, then all they are doing is endorsing bad science.

Aerobic metabolism yields far more ATP per glucose than the anaerobic pathway. More hemoglobin means more O2 in the muscles (within reason of course and with side effects/ risks if artificially too high). I think you can combine these two.

1, I am trying to point out that knowledge of calorimetry is essential for anyone studying metabolism and oxygen uptake.

2,I explained why these factors are relevant to the debate. You cant just make blanket statements about training efficacy without explaining fitness or performance improvements with relevance to metabolism, biomechanics and neuroscience. Reductive explanations and simplistic models are just plain bad science.

3, The authors had a vested interest in promoting an alternative to EPO hysteria. That was then, this is now. You can make similar claims about many other types of training, but the hematocrit hysteria has a certain mystique that appeals to people wanting to believe they can enhance oxygen uptake. Hi lo has training has the advantage of changes in air humidity and temperature which are important considerations for athletes. It's not just about oxygen availability.

4, Dont overthink what you read in some study.

Just how many papers do you think have been published making claims like this?

5, its best to stick to discussing oxygen uptake at altitude which is of course greatly reduced. Changes in metabolism at altitude is something for another thread, because things like weight loss and weight gain are sensitive subjects.

6, We should be discussing howmuch glycogen availabity pre race is important? Undefueling leads to a loss in peak power.

7, Good question. Does altitude training help improve efficiency. But does heat training? Does high mileage training? Does high intensity training? Does eating your last meal an hour earlier? Does our pre training mood affect efficiency? What about the shoes, the running surface? Etc etc.

8, idont know I wasnt there. And even if I was, do you think they would have told me?

9, Good question. Let's ask the sherpa.

10, See 8

11, it's worth a try. My main concern with your questions is that you dont understand some very basic principles and have a habit of asking the same questions over and over trying to make me agree with you.

To repeat my earlier point; measured maximal oxygen uptake is partly dependent on calorimetry so some measurements may actually be sub maximal. If a subsequent measurement is higher, that is normal and not supra maximal. So beware of fantastic claims which 99.9? Of people are fooled by.

Calorimetry is about measuring changes in heat flow. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorimetry

I have no idea what you think that it means, but whatever it is, you are wrong. What are you talking about?

I know what calorimetry is. Its relevance to running and oxygen delivery is what I am trying to explain.

Why isn't that obvious?

Your problem is that I ask questions because I don't understand? Do you mainly expect questions only from people that already have a deep understanding of basic principles?

I read all of your responses and they all seem to be isolated theories in a vacuum.

The point of my questions was to get you to apply your theories to these real world observations.

Where can I find in your responses concrete explanations as to why the "hi-lo" group outperformed the "hi-hi" group, and both "hi" groups outperformed the sea-level control? They were similar groups (3 groups of 13, composed of 9 men and 4 women), with group membership chosen at random, so it's hard to believe one group had better nutrition or psychology or calorimetry or efficiency.

I'm not trying to get you to agree to anything. I'm not arguing oxygen uptake or any other physiology/fizzyology/fuzzyology, but giving you facts about how the performances (time trials measured with a stopwatch) of three similar groups responded to different exposures of altitude, and I've given you several opportunities to eliminate this air gap between your theories and these measured improvements.

These answers are not my theories. They are scientific facts demonstrated over more than 200 years. Why dont you actually look up Calorimetry?

It was taught to me, it was taught

.....it was taught to Jack Daniel's. Maybe Luv2run never learned about it? All these self appointed experts making fantastic claims about oxygen uptake who have no basic understanding of calorimetry are delusional.

Why do you think Jack Daniels says:

"Altitude training is just another form of training"?

Because he studied hard for many years and discussed these ideas with many colleagues to come up with answers that are reliable. If it works for you and you get fitter and faster, that's good. But don't assume its because you have 'improved' your oxygen delivery.

Calorimetry is a solid and reliable Theory, Oxygen economy too. The first is more than 200 years old, the second almost 100. I respect good Science. These are not my theories. How could you possibly think they are?

Please do some research into where these fantastic claims of supposed supramaximal oxygen delivery come from? And then do some research about improving oxygen economy and biomechanical efficiency and how our emotional state affects our performance. Then we might have a discussion worthy of publication. But it might be better to seek out sources of those researchers who have already been there and done it?

cubie wrote:

If a anyone believes a higher hematocrit delivers more ATP, then this has to be explained in calorimetry. But since Luv2run other wilfully ignorant people refuse to recognize this, then all they are doing is endorsing bad science.

Aerobic metabolism yields far more ATP per glucose than the anaerobic pathway. More hemoglobin means more O2 in the muscles (within reason of course and with side effects/ risks if artificially too high). I think you can combine these two.

This is what some researchers will tell you. But they don't understand that oxygen uptake by the muscles is directly related to calorimetry. And claims of supposed efficacy of blood boosting taking oxygen delivery beyond your normal limit are unscientific.

Its important to realize that popular ideas in science journals can become big money spinners. This in turn generates more funding for more

rekrunner wrote:

Your problem is that I ask questions because I don't understand? Do you mainly expect questions only from people that already have a deep understanding of basic principles?

I read all of your responses and they all seem to be isolated theories in a vacuum.

The point of my questions was to get you to apply your theories to these real world observations.

But you have been asking me the same questions for 15 years and I have been giving you the same answers. Do you not think that the problem might be you and not me? It seems like an attention seeking thing with you and Luv2run and a few others. You can drink your coffee and flap your fingers on the keyboard in countless thousands of posts, but you are really involved in a healthy dialogue.

Meanwhile some of us are actually trying to explain some important points.

Why dont you email Tom Schwartz and ask him to explain why oxygen economy is mostly a biomechanical issue, because running is a skill of neuromuscular coordination?

Why don't you email Jack Daniels and ask him to explain the relationship between calorimetry and oxygen uptake? Or you could just read some of his research? You have had more than 15 years to do these things but you were too busy here weren't you?

Do we agree that anemia is bad for running performance?

I did not say the theories were *yours*. I said "your responses".

I did not make any "fantastic claims about oxygen uptake" or assume it was "improved" "oxygen delivery". I accepted your responses about calorimetry, glycogen depletion, efficiency, undereating, VO2max, focus, power, endurance, and nutrition.

If it is up to me to do further research, I have already done it.

I stopped asking you questions 10 years ago because you kept giving me the same answers. It seemed like playing whack-a-mole.

I've read what Tom Schwartz and Jack Daniels have to say.

The question here is not "oxygen economy" or "calorimetry" or "oxygen uptake", but how much altitude makes a difference for non-elites.

Jack Daniels answered the question before I did. If you don't remember or respect his opinion, then what chance do I have?

I know whack-a-mole is your favourite game and you never get many strikes. Maybe get-a-life would be more fun?

My opinion. Altitude only helps those who were born and raised there. It only helps them with running faster at altitude and not really any faster at sea level.

Hayduke wrote:

My opinion. Altitude only helps those who were born and raised there. It only helps them with running faster at altitude and not really any faster at sea level.

Why do endurance athletes even bother with training camps at high altitude? Just because it’s accepted as a thing to do to be as good as you can without going deeper?

Answer: altitude definitely helps. The two best distance runners ever, Kenenisa Bekele and Eliud Kipchoge both live and train at altitude. Case closed.

not Luv2run wrote:

Jack Daniels answered the question before I did. If you don't remember or respect his opinion, then what chance do I have?

I know whack-a-mole is your favourite game and you never get many strikes. Maybe get-a-life would be more fun?

Jack Daniels has said many things over the years. I have read many things he said, and I hope I remember much of what I read. I read he also had success with live high, train high altitude training, and even better success with alternating altitude training with sea level racing. This is similar to what Stray-Gundersen and Levine observed. I do respect his opinion.

In my real life, a more favorite game of mine is bowling, where I do get strikes, but not as many as I would like. A less favorite game is baseball, where sadly I got more strikes, as a batter, than I would have liked, and less strikes, as a pitcher, than my teammates would have liked.