Effective altitude training

biggus dickus wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Read more research. If it contradicts your precious conclusion, you will just have to learn to live with it.

May I suggest more recent research? That was the old conclusion and one which many researchers seemed desperate to prove.

There are many studies that show extremely high (20-21) Hemoglobin level of people that live at extrememly high altitude....and getting normal levels (13-14ish) up to 16 through moderate altitude exposure.

I have no idea what you are reading or smoking but the evidence is vaste and clear to anyone with google and time to read...

**********************************************

Hemoglobin isn't the same as RBC mass, which is the total count of red blood cells.

That's one study with only 8 subjects. There's a whole book on the matter with a comprehensive review of all the research. In particular, the book talks about controlling for iron status prior to high altitude training, which could likely account for the variation in study findings (such as this one).

With regards to RBCs, what you're getting at is longterm inhabitants of high altitude (Ethiopians and Tibetans), who likely have genetic/evolutionary adaptations. Completely different. What we're getting at is intermittent high altitude living/training, which most definitely has an impact on greater EPO production and RBC mass.

There are other studies showing no increase in RBC mass. Search them out why don't you?

Paula Radcliffe talks about how her RBC mass remains the same before and after altitude training, at 4.25 million.

What you have to realize is that Altitude training is an industry. Mythologies about 'aerobic benefits' promote this industry.

Yes erythropoiesis increases markedly in the first two days at altitude, but somwhere along the line, old RBC's are destroyed, when those initial RBC's mature after 5-8 days.

mr wrote:

Right now all you have done is said that's wrong, but have not given any evidence supporting your claim.

Wellnow's statement was interesting, so I checked the wikipedia page. There were two contradictory articles in issue 99 of the Journal of Applied Physiology..

Pro RBC

Anti RBC

The "pro" guys make a very important observation. If increasing red blood cell count or mass is NOT the main mechanism, then surely EPO or blood doping would be ineffective. Wellnow, are you suggesting that people who blood-dope experience suddenly improved running economy?

wellnow wrote:

There are other studies showing no increase in RBC mass. Search them out why don't you?

Paula Radcliffe talks about how her RBC mass remains the same before and after altitude training, at 4.25 million.

What you have to realize is that Altitude training is an industry. Mythologies about 'aerobic benefits' promote this industry.

Yes erythropoiesis increases markedly in the first two days at altitude, but somwhere along the line, old RBC's are destroyed, when those initial RBC's mature after 5-8 days.

No, the book goes over the variations and problems with all the studies. When they control for iron status, it does have a significant impact. The USOC Center is based in Colorado Springs for a reason.

Sorry, but it's you that needs to read more.

Apa Sherpa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apa_Sherpa)

has a Vo2Max of 93.

How long do these effects last? If your RBC count goes down to normal a few weeks after living at altitude, is it really worth all the training difficulties from living there?

SaImon wrote:

How long do these effects last? If your RBC count goes down to normal a few weeks after living at altitude, is it really worth all the training difficulties from living there?

Think of it the same as running high mileage. As soon as you "come down," you still HAVE the fitness indefinitely, but you can't prolong your peak condition indefinitely. It's not like you come down from altitude and POOF your gains are gone forever in 3 weeks.

***

From my notes on Wilber's book:

One recent study asserts that athletes can be divided into "responders" and "non-responders" based on their blood EPO levels (% of sea level baseline: responders had a blood EPO increase of ~156% after 30h and nonresponders increased only ~137% of SL base) and total red cell volume (ml/kg) (total red cell volume increased in responders significantly (~3.0 ml/kg) and remained unchanged in nonresponders). The "responders" should improve greatly from altitude training.

This is ALL interesting to me and I had the same question as Salmon about how long these effects last.

So does that mean, its better to be exposed to altitude in a short period of time versus living there the whole time? What makes the "responders" versus the "non-responders" different from each other? But then how do you explain when a runner comes down to sea level to race and blows their time out of the water? Is there a time period to maximize these gains?

I guess I better buy an altitude training book?

Btw, every time I come down from higher elevation, I feel a little faster in endurance but notice it goes away after a day or two.

I would say it to be dependent on where you are coming from elevation wise and the depth of your training.

forget the watch on your easy days..when I first moved from sea level to CO, I was running 10min/mi for the first month..anything that wasn't flat just killed me..

since I run more 10k/half distance..I focused on some longer tempo runs/cruise intervals and 2-3x/mo shorter/faster repeats with a lot of recovery and strides 2-3x/wk

I'm thinking of adding in a 16*300 type of workout this year to just get the legs turning over on a more regular basis..

the first time I dropped down to sea level, it felt amazing...the hardest part is the feeling of breathing through a straw..I usually feel good after 2-3 days, less if its a drier area..

good luck

this is how you do it wrote:

wellnow wrote:

There are other studies showing no increase in RBC mass. Search them out why don't you?

Paula Radcliffe talks about how her RBC mass remains the same before and after altitude training, at 4.25 million.

What you have to realize is that Altitude training is an industry. Mythologies about 'aerobic benefits' promote this industry.

Yes erythropoiesis increases markedly in the first two days at altitude, but somwhere along the line, old RBC's are destroyed, when those initial RBC's mature after 5-8 days.

No, the book goes over the variations and problems with all the studies. When they control for iron status, it does have a significant impact. The USOC Center is based in Colorado Springs for a reason.

Sorry, but it's you that needs to read more.

*********************************************

Trying to prove a hypothesis is not good science. Consider adaptions other than blood counts. Can you do that? You might then be able to understand why in many subjects there is no need for an increase in hematocrit.

777 wrote:

From my notes on Wilber's book:

One recent study asserts that athletes can be divided into "responders" and "non-responders" based on their blood EPO levels (% of sea level baseline: responders had a blood EPO increase of ~156% after 30h and nonresponders increased only ~137% of SL base) and total red cell volume (ml/kg) (total red cell volume increased in responders significantly (~3.0 ml/kg) and remained unchanged in nonresponders). The "responders" should improve greatly from altitude training.

Why would the responders improve greatly, and the nonresponder not? Again, your trying to prove a hypothesis, based on one variable. That's not smart.

wikipedian wrote:

mr wrote:

Right now all you have done is said that's wrong, but have not given any evidence supporting your claim.

Wellnow's statement was interesting, so I checked the wikipedia page. There were two contradictory articles in issue 99 of the Journal of Applied Physiology..

Pro RBC

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/99/5/2053

Anti RBC

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/99/5/2055

The "pro" guys make a very important observation. If increasing red blood cell count or mass is NOT the main mechanism, then surely EPO or blood doping would be ineffective. Wellnow, are you suggesting that people who blood-dope experience suddenly improved running economy?

Your question doesn't make sense. Improved running economy is the ability to run faster using less oxygen.

Be careful with the poster who said to increase iron levels and take a supplement, that can be sound advice for some people and is not medically sound/responsible for everyone.

If you feel weak while at altitude then go and see a Doctor who can have your blood levels tested for low iron.

A coomon side effect of too much iron is that you will have internal bleeding from high ferrous levels, so be careful.

777 wrote:

From my notes on Wilber's book:

One recent study asserts that athletes can be divided into "responders" and "non-responders" based on their blood EPO levels (% of sea level baseline: responders had a blood EPO increase of ~156% after 30h and nonresponders increased only ~137% of SL base) and total red cell volume (ml/kg) (total red cell volume increased in responders significantly (~3.0 ml/kg) and remained unchanged in nonresponders). The "responders" should improve greatly from altitude training.

wellnow wrote:

Why would the responders improve greatly, and the nonresponder not? Again, your trying to prove a hypothesis, based on one variable. That's not smart.

Again, and the book explain this, is likely has to do with prior iron status.

Going Up wrote:

This is ALL interesting to me and I had the same question as Salmon about how long these effects last.

I really don't know but a few data points that may be relevant. I thought I read the half life of RBC was 90 days, and more like 60 days for runners.....so should be a linear regression after returning from altitude...a guess....a few weeks????

Those are just from my notes, remember, but I think they controlled for iron status. It's a study by Stray-Gundersen; you can look it up if you want.

The idea behind being a "responder" is that the increase in blood EPO (these levels were taken after only 72 hours altitude exposure, IIRC) would do the same thing that artificial EPO does--increase blood cell production.

In the actual study, they looked at a whole group of people, classified them as "responder" or "nonresponder" by looking at EPO and red cell volume, THEN examined the improvements between the groups. There was a very large statistical difference between the two.

biggus dickus wrote:

I really don't know but a few data points that may be relevant. I thought I read the half life of RBC was 90 days, and more like 60 days for runners.....so should be a linear regression after returning from altitude...a guess....a few weeks????

But wouldn't your body just chill out with the RBC production when you go to sea level with an excess? In that case, say you have 6/5 of the normal amount when you leave altitude. After 10 days and no production (because your environment does not call for it), you would have 5/5, or the normal sea level concentration.

Responsible Training wrote:

Be careful with the poster who said to increase iron levels and take a supplement, that can be sound advice for some people and is not medically sound/responsible for everyone.

If you feel weak while at altitude then go and see a Doctor who can have your blood levels tested for low iron.

A coomon side effect of too much iron is that you will have internal bleeding from high ferrous levels, so be careful.

This isn't a problem when you're putting in 120+ mpw at >7,000 ft.. The book recommends supplementing and explains that it likely accounts for the reason why some people don't respond as well as others. The best athletes in the world know this and are getting their ferritin tested regularly.