It isn't. It enables wr's to be set at sea level - as they have been after altitude-training - because of the boost in endurance.
Without some parallel universe where the same person trains at altitude, or doesn’t, the effects are unknown. There have been many great runners that trained only at sea level. Did Shorter have an advantage over Rodgers because he trained at altitude? None of the great 1500m/milers from the ‘70s and ‘80s, like Ovett, Coe, Cram, Scott and Walker did altitude training. Would German Fernandez, Ritz and the NP brothers been even faster in HS had they lived at altitude?
It's useless for 90% of hobbyjoggers who go up to altitude for like a week or two expecting huge benefits from a few threshold sessions without having time to adjust fully.
Does a hobbyjogger who just happens to live in Denver benefit from that when he goes to CIM?
Altitude is overrated. It's great if you want to do races in altitude but it gets you limited results for sea level races.
I am sure there can be a benefit for world class athletes with their whole medical team if they train for the Olympics or something like that. But for the normal athlete it's more about changing the scenery for a different training session.
A lot of distance runners train at altitude because it's the thing to do. So obviously a lot of good distance runners train at altitude, but they became fast wherever they grew up, often in sea level areas. There are a lot of fast people who still train at sea level. If the fast people at altitude started training at sea level they would not suddenly run slow. As the slight edge philosophy goes, everything either helps you or hurts you. Being at altitude doesn't hurt, but it does not help as much as people seem to think. Any real noticeable improvement is much more likely to come from differences in training.
Colorado and Utah consistently hit above their weight at the high school level. College as well, although there is some selection bias-recruiting/tradition going on there.
I currently live high (>6000') race low, doing a half dozen races a year at sea level, and half lived half of my life at altitude. There are some advantages, but it is not a guarantee, you still have to train well.
Nevertheless, the idea to move to elevation for the summer and expect to have any benefit 2-3 months later after moving back to sea level is indeed mostly a false hope. However, you can retain benefits for several weeks. I found about 10 days to be ideal, but don't get a chance to do that much. Usually arrive a couple days ahead, race fast and furious, and return right away.
It isn't. It enables wr's to be set at sea level - as they have been after altitude-training - because of the boost in endurance.
Without some parallel universe where the same person trains at altitude, or doesn’t, the effects are unknown. There have been many great runners that trained only at sea level. Did Shorter have an advantage over Rodgers because he trained at altitude? None of the great 1500m/milers from the ‘70s and ‘80s, like Ovett, Coe, Cram, Scott and Walker did altitude training. Would German Fernandez, Ritz and the NP brothers been even faster in HS had they lived at altitude?
There’s no proof of a “boost in endurance”.
None of the people you mentioned have times anywhere close to altitude trained or natives. Also, it seems during the Coe years the Africans were not a factor (political instability?) so all the people they were beating also were not training at altitude.
According to rekrunner, nothing beats training at altitude. Not even the very best doping. Of course, most altitude-trained athletes don't agree with him as they also dope.
I wish you wouldn't try to speak on my behalf. Your ability to recount my statements accurately are questionable at best. It's also not true that "most altitude-trained athletes ... also dope".
No one needs my opinion, but to answer the OP:
As there seems to be great public interest in increasing EPO and RBC, altitude training is a way to do it naturally, and WADA-legally. "hi-lo" training seems to be the best approach for athletes planning to train at altitude for a short period, living at high altitude, while training at lower altitude (to allow for higher intensity training).
In the world of scientific research on amateurs, both altitude training and blood doping show similar gains of 3-5% after weeks of exposure to altitude, that lasts at least 3 weeks. Assuming the OP is an amateur, this might be most relevant. But all the caveats about projecting these short term amateur results onto elite performance similarly apply to both doping and altitude. How this compares to sea-level training in the long term is also not addressed by short term studies.
If athletes usually want to race within like a few weeks of coming down from altitude, and there's a such thing as "waiting too long" does that just make altitude training useless after a couple weeks? How long do the benefits last?
Look altitude is a bunch of BS, for real! You only ever go to altitude to train if your race is at altitude. You don't come back down to race at sea level lol! The tons of athletes doing so have no idea it's all nothing to do with red blood cells but rather with less exposure to anthropogenic RFs and EMFs which then cause them to run a tad faster!
The primary adaptation to training at altitude (2000m+) is an increase in red blood cells and therefore an increase in oxygen carrying capacity - which is the limiting factor for endurance performance.
Adaptation takes 3 weeks, and will provide a benefit for 1-2 weeks upon returning to sea level. There is also a suggestion that individuals adapt faster with repeated exposures (ie., going to altitude multiple times per year).
The key is the amount of hours spent at altitude - so one new paradigm is live high train high with trips to even higher (think similar to what mountaineers do going from base camp to camp 1 etc). But as others have noted there are limits to what type of work can be done at elevation, so some do workouts at relatively lower altitudes to do race pace efforts.
Well, altitude training works for many if they do it correct and over longer period. But is there an absolute need of it to reach your max running potential? The answer is no.....
The advantage to train and run at sea level is you can max your exact best training paces needed to run the race results you aim for. But you must always outgo from your present shape to run your best training paces, not any 'guessed goal paces' or ' dream paces' .100% best individual pace control all the way..... that's proper smart effective scientific training . 🇸🇪🧙🏼♂️🇸🇪
INCORRECT! More red blood cell numbers does not inform better high-performance distance ability at sea level according to Renato Canova, right? Rather the volume size of the red blood cell is a actual God-ordained and God-designed NATURAL indicator of so. Also red blood cell numbers per se is meaningless precisely because everything is relative in space and time, meaning it's much more effective to compare hematocrit levels which is the total fraction of red blood cell volume against other blood plasma constituents! It also doesn't make sense to have higher red blood cell numbers when they are all coagulated due to irradiation from anthropogenic RF and EMF, lack size or volume, lack buoyancy and plasticity etc.
So what if you have higher red blood cell numbers when the quality of those red blood cells are complete sh*tty? So you think you gonna be the champion like that lol?
It therefore isn't about the altitude as always. As always, it's always always always always about the degree, extent and level of anthropogenic RF and EMF exposure you get whether at sea level or altitude.
Now the thing is there are much less anthropogenic RF and EMF antennas and facilities at high altitudes because that's just the way it is. Govts dun place loads of terrestrial antennas in rural places nobody lives or inhabits. Waste of money. Some altitude training destinations like Livignio or Sierra Nevada, Font Romeau are truly isolated from modernity hence RURAL! It is the lack of anthropogenic RF and EMF antennas in these rural destinations that prescribe higher quality (over quantity) red blood cell and hematocrit levels!
I wouldn't recommend today St Moritz Switzerland for high performance training because their oval track is right smacked in the direction of multiple power LTE 4G+ and 5G antennas.....it's committing suicide for anybody to go there to train now, not saying about 10 years ago.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
According to rekrunner, nothing beats training at altitude. Not even the very best doping. Of course, most altitude-trained athletes don't agree with him as they also dope.
I wish you wouldn't try to speak on my behalf. Your ability to recount my statements accurately are questionable at best. It's also not true that "most altitude-trained athletes ... also dope".
No one needs my opinion, but to answer the OP:
As there seems to be great public interest in increasing EPO and RBC, altitude training is a way to do it naturally, and WADA-legally. "hi-lo" training seems to be the best approach for athletes planning to train at altitude for a short period, living at high altitude, while training at lower altitude (to allow for higher intensity training).
In the world of scientific research on amateurs, both altitude training and blood doping show similar gains of 3-5% after weeks of exposure to altitude, that lasts at least 3 weeks. Assuming the OP is an amateur, this might be most relevant. But all the caveats about projecting these short term amateur results onto elite performance similarly apply to both doping and altitude. How this compares to sea-level training in the long term is also not addressed by short term studies.
Look here dear rekrunner, you have to read my definitely superior comments above to understand why you got it absolutely wrong about altitude training having a 'beneficial' effect on 'red blood cell'. It's not what you think, you are just under a grand illusion that's all. You always trust me your RF King to weed out the illusions from true causes!
This post was edited 21 seconds after it was posted.
Altitude is overrated. It's great if you want to do races in altitude but it gets you limited results for sea level races.
I am sure there can be a benefit for world class athletes with their whole medical team if they train for the Olympics or something like that. But for the normal athlete it's more about changing the scenery for a different training session.
That's why all those Kenyans, Ethiopians, Ugandans, Northern Arizona folk, Colorado folk, Font Romeu folk etc all tend to suck when they run at sea level because Altitude training has zero benefit.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.