Why don't people train at the highest altitude?

you asked "why not?" i would assume most coaches and a lot of runners know the value. but a training camp at altitude costs money like a vacation. you may be younger where parents or schools pay for things. you get other end of this you're self-funded and it's cost-benefit. many probably can't handle the cost or don't do anything to need the benefit. the sort of person who might do this would be a pro -- who could justify and perhaps afford/risk it -- a collegian -- maybe their school pays for it -- or a gentleman runner paying their own way. the last one, no one is paying for it and the benefit is limited in time and dollar value. personally i found a tournament and training trip during a summer at altitude great benefit back at college but i also paid for it. like that tournament,airfare, hotel, etc., that was a couple of weeks of 40 hour work weeks.

even a college team who might see benefits in it has to factor in dozens of kids' plane tickets, hotels, etc. that's a lot of money to train and that comes out of a meet budget that's likely not increased to cover the trip. and at the expense of some other meets.

- Leadville is under snow for 7 months a year.

- It is hard to recover or even sleep well at that altitude.

- There aren’t that many towns that high or higher. Or even flattish terrain to run on.

- Running at race speeds is very hard if possible at all. You are way better off living high and training low. The exception is if you are planning to have a key race at that altitude.

and then as some said, if you're talking 12k feet instead of a mile up, short term, you'd probably be dealing with altitude-sick runners and less overall benefit. there is a sweet spot and you've gone past it. you want high enough you get the blood benefit but low enough the O2 levels aren't killing the workouts.

it's kind of like when folks on here argue for running in humidity. my experience daytime humid summer workouts in the south are a waste for 99.99% of people as the workout suffers so bad relative to what it could/should be that whatever benefit you think you're getting doesn't happen. it's being able to workout at a full enough clip the adverse factor nets out useful as opposed to just a parachute deploying behind you.

The ideal situation seems to be LIVING at a higher elevation, but training at a lower one (or simulating the lower altitude). When one trains at higher altitudes you cannot train as "hard" or really as fast so there are downsides.

Even with living at altitude, there is a point (and it varies) where sleep disturbances can create a net loss in performance/fitness. Also, there is a point where people don't get an increase in red cell mass (as one measure) so there is no need to go higher. There are also differences in altitudes where one gets a EPO boost. Some get it at 6000ft/1800m others have to go higher.

Having moved from sea level to moderate altitude (6200ish feet) and having run at Leadville and Breckenridge, the running there (even after living more than 2 decades at 6200 feet) is a chore. Leg turnover is compromised. Note: these were short ventures of a few days.

This study was cut short due to staff layoffs at the USOC back around 1999-2000, The study had athletes in Chula Vista, CA (outside San Diego) which is less than 100 feet above sea level sleeping in altitude tents at around 10,000 feet and then training at sea level. The intent was to look at such an extreme case (along with testing the efficacy and safety of altitude tents). But alas, it was not completed.

If you can find the funding for the study, I can find the people to do the study.

Speaking of Everest. Last year I saw Killian Jornet training there when he was preparing for Everest. He must have stayed in Namche or Khumjung. He was running every day at that point according to a lady in a teahouse. He posted only one very long run on Strava up to Camp 2.

We did a pretty long hike and after 10+ days over 14000 feet we were glad to go down.

Anyway go to Nepal if you get the chance. It's also not that expensive as most people think.

In 2014 I wanted to see what it was like to train at a really high altitude. I had saved some money, and rented a duplex in Leadville from June to September (at the time it only cost $600 a month for a furnished 2-bedroom). I had been injured and so had spent a couple of months prior just cross-training and doing light weight lifting at sea-level. Here are some of the things I experienced:

In the first 3 weeks of living there, I lost 15 lbs., running about 50 miles per week, swimming 2-3 times per week followed by a sauna session, and lifting 3-4 days. Granted I went in a bit overweight from the injury, so the first few lbs were a given, but it was definitely too drastic a weight change in too short of a time. I was eating a lot, but I think I just didn't understand the metabolic demands of training and recovering in such an oxygen deficit. I spent much of the first month extremely fatigued.

After my energy levels came back up, I increased my running volume to about 70 miles per week and kept swimming and lifting. I did strides after every easy run. I found it extremely difficult to have multiple quality workouts per week with a long run. For reference, at the time I was a 4:00 1500m runner, and had trouble running 6:00 mile pace for repeat Ks at 9,000ft. I dropped down to nearby Buena Vista (8000ft) or Salida (7000ft) for some quality sessions in order to run them a bit quicker, but it was the fact that I wasn't recovering between sessions that made it so hard.

I spent most of the time just trying to get in easy running, driving to lower elevation when I could. I diligently supplemented Iron with Vitamin C. Even after I was able to train more consistently, every 2 weeks or so I would have a day of such fatigue that I could hardly get out of bed, and would sleep and eat all day, and be mostly fine again the next day. I was typically sleeping 9-10 hrs per night and a 1 hour nap each day.

In September, it started to snow some days. There had also been snow on the ground in spots when I arrived in June. I realized this would not be good a long term training plan for the distances I wanted to run (1500-10k). On top of the weather, my energy was so low from training there seemed to be no way to find a real job and still train hard (most jobs in the area at the time were manual labor or food service).

When I returned to sea-level my speed and threshold work were really lacking for a few months, but aerobically I was stronger than I had ever been before, and had a much higher capacity for training volume, including strength training. After a good Fall of cross-country and road racing, I set PBs in every event from 1500m to 10 miles (granted, my personal bests in most of those events weren't that good in the first place). It's hard to determine if my improvements were from my aerobic improvements at altitude or because I had a really consistent year that was naturally periodized.

I think I know more about training and about myself as an athlete now, and I would definitely do it again if I could. I would just make a few adjustments:

Eat way more red meat to help blood and energy levels.

Take easy days even easier.

Put more rest days between sessions, and not try to do a long run every Sunday.

Come down from altitude for about 1 week every month to recover at 5000-6000ft.

More quality strides or occasional 150m-200m reps for a neuromuscular stimulus.

I can see why people don't train at such a high altitude year round, or even in preparation for a major championship. There are a lot of variables and it can be really easy to mess up. Also, I was born and raised at 5000ft. and it still took a toll on my body to be that high.

Trust me when I say we have the data. Might not be in a published paper. I was an athlete on a national team that did all sorts of first ever altitude protocols, including high/low. I've got ten years worth of personal data, and because we were a team doing highly novel things, we got to see the rest of the team's data, as we were really all project collaborators.

What would you like to know? Some comments on this thread are on point: Riding a fine line on recovery, check. Risk of injury was less in my sport, but training yourself into an abyss was a regular thing. Going higher producing greater aerobic adaptations, check. Other energy systems being compromised with altitude, check. Neuromuscular adaptations of race speeds being limited, check.

My event specialty was the equivalent of middle distance running. We devised all kinds of training protocols to answer the anaerobic power and speed needs that altitude limits. Cycling with periodization that included sea level bouts, yep. Supplemental O2 on lab trainers, yep. Controlled atmosphere efforts in a hyperbaric chamber, yep....even simulating below sea level atmosphere. We had training as high as 12,000' and as low as -1000'. Living ranges from 9000' to 0'. Would always come down to low altitude living/training

We did it clean in a very dirty era, and were able to compete strongly, including several world championship medals. Personal side: I grew up at sea level, testing at 68 VO2 mL/(kg·min) on entry into program and pulled an 85 four years later. Altitude periods averaged 3-4 weeks three to four times a year.

Very interesting perspective, thank you.

Sleeping and skiing in places like Breck/Vail are very hard.

I lose my appetite even up there and have to force myself to eat. Operating in general is difficult. Believe those are only 8500ish ft.

Interesting that oldies sleep with oxygen, had not heard that.

Ask Lance...

Altitude tents don’t really count since you aren’t getting the partial pressure which is thought to be a good chunk off the stress that causes adaptation.

I have let to see an altitude tent study that suggests they help endurance performance at sea level.

And for real fun there is some evidence that supplemental oxygen might help. Maybe we should be doing some training on a treadmill with some o2 masks…

Vail is "only" 8,235 ft high

Breckenridge is 9.594ft, which makes a huge difference.

Breck used to be a lot cheaper than Vail but that has changed as well. They also get a lot more rain in Summer since it sits right at the Continental Devide.
In Winter it gets freakin' cold.

All of these are spot on...."training into the abyss" is all too accurate of a description, overtraining at altitude definitely feels different from overtraining at sea level.

Having lived for extended periods at 9000', 7500', and 6000' (as well as sea level) I can firmly attest that the differences in recovery at each of those 1500' increments is a lot bigger than anyone who hasn't experienced prolonged periods at altitude might think. 7500' was probably my sweet spot as far as eliciting sea level performance, which the anecdotal evidence from professional training groups seems to support as well.

Yeah those wind gusts are pretty unforgiving up there! 😆

I just cruised around Leadville on Google Street View. Is it as dumpy as it looks?

Yes.

Leadville is a really small town. Not many places to run there compared to say Boulder. Others have already discussed climate and physiological adaptation. The population is 2600ish. Many would have difficulty living in towns 10x that size. If you need more in life than a grocery store and a couple coffee shops, leadville is going to be rough.