"The general effect [of altitude training] is no effect" Tim Noakes

ttc wrote:

It's been shown a very high % of the world's best distance runners come from altitude.

(edit here)

malmo wrote:

Correlation does not equal causation. 99% of all people living AT ALTITUDE are not very good runners.

The key link here is that 90% of Kenya's distance runners come from a tribe that represents only 10% of their population -- The Kalenjin.

Where did the Kalenjin come from? They are Nilotic Tribes that migrated from what is now Sudan and Ethiopia. Hmmmmmm.

Let's just complicate matters more by throwing in why Bolivans aren't world class distance runners.

Renato Canova also wrote that he would prefer to take his Kenyan runners to sea level, but the psychological role of being in their home villages outweighs what he sees as a greater benefit: greater recovery at sea level.

Jack Daniels has posted on this message board stating that while he believes in altitude training, he has not scientific evidence that it is better than the capillary gains and recovery experienced at sea level.

speaking with pro mountain bikers who train above 8,500ft in the mountains above Boulder, I was told they felt the advantage of training at altitude was they could race better at altitude, but at sea level, it was an equal playing field.

Yes, but... In Kenya, they have the Kalenjin Tribe and, here in the U.S., we have the William & Mary Tribe, which also enjoys prominence as a distance running culture. And yet... AND YET... Williamsburg, VA is at sea level. Discuss.

Someone, perhaps Noakes himself, is looking for attention. He takes age old concepts that are well known and then uses bad science to debate them, never really telling us anything new.

Witness his article on hydration in a recent issue of running times.

The live high train low model has been around for at least 30-40 years. All he is saying here is live high train high doesn't work, live high train low does. Gee, thanks for clearing that up for us doc. I predict he will come out with an article soon which will talk about carbo loading for the marathon and perhaps a little further down the road something on caffeine use for endurance athletes.

ttc wrote:

It's been shown a very high % of the world's best distance runners come from altitude. So the question should be posed to the author: Why? Just a coincidence? Would the author argue that those Africans would still be dominating, if from sea level? There are benefits to both altitude & sea level. But it seems proven growing up in altitude and then incorporating some sea level, is better than the other way around.

It became fashionable for US distance runners to move to high altitudes to train prior to the 1968 Olympics. Many of the athletes who had gone to altitude were running very well in the next year or two and the idea caught on that their time spent at high altitude was the reason.

In preparation for the the 1972 Olympics then, some guys went to high altitude again for a stretch of time. Bacheler, Shorter, and Galloway spent a while in Vail doing upwards of 150 a week and all of them made the 1972 Team reinforcing the idea that altitude training gave you an edge. That set off a migration to high altitude that's continued to today and it may be that you do get an edge.

On the other hand, no one from the Oregon Track Club went to high altitude in preparation for the 1972 Games and they put a comparable number of runners onto the Team as the Florida Track Club did. A few years later, the Greater Boston Track Club was the best marathoning club in the country and they were living and training in Boston and its suburbs. Guys like Beardsley and Meyer were moving to Boston, not Flagstaff or Boulder.

So you had some guys making the pilgrimage to altitude and others making the pilgrimage to sea level and each group ran exceptionally well, or more accurately, some of its members ran exceptionally well. Maybe it's the pilgrimage itself that gives the edge. Someone willing to uproot their lives and relocate to a strange location hundreds or thousands of miles from home must be very motivated and very motivated people usually perform better than those with lesser motivation.

As to the current best runners, yes, they largely live at high altitude and while that may be a key for them, you cannot rule out the possibility that some other factor leads to the success of this group which also HAPPENS to have been born at high altitudes. Nor can you rule out the idea that any advantage conveyed to runners by altitude is only conveyed to those who were born at altitude to people whose ancestors also lived there.

For about 4 months out of the year I can train harder in Colorado than I can here due to the heat and humidity (I'm in the southeastern US).

moshimoshi wrote:

When he says some people get worse, I didn't believe it, however...

"The main limitation of Live High + Train High altitude training is that many athletes find themselves unable to produce the level of training intensity (running velocity for example) and oxygen flux necessary to bring about or preserve the physiological changes that have a positive impact on performance. It is not uncommon to hear athletes remark that they seem to lose "speed" or "turnover" as a result of LH+TH altitude training, which ultimately has a negative impact on their sea-level performance. In short - training high may increase the blood's ability to transport oxygen to where it is needed, but the ability of the body to keep exercising at altitude can be limited as tiredness increases."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/world_olympic_dreams/9432880.stm

ray wrote:

The live high train low model has been around for at least 30-40 years.

I'm curious about your sources?

There is huge difference between someone who is born at altitude and has lived there their whole life and someone who is born at sea level. If you are born at sea level and go run up in the mountains for six months, you are not going get the advantage that people who are born at altitude have. That is the point that Noakes is making. Lydiard did not believe in altitude training for athletes born at sea level either and his runners never had problems winning olympic gold medals.

sub3over40 wrote:

If you are born at sea level and go run up in the mountains for six months, you are not going get the advantage that people who are born at altitude have. That is the point that Noakes is making.

Noakes never made that point.

dj_run wrote:

Let's just complicate matters more by throwing in why Bolivans aren't world class distance runners.

Apart from genetic and cultural differences the fact that the Bolivian Altiplano is at a much higher altitude might also be a factor here.

If you know what you are doing at altitude, you should improve. If you know what you are doing at sea level, you should improve. It's just important to know what you're doing.

This just shows how pointless 'science' and scientific studies are on things as personal as endurance training.

If someone goes to altitude - comes back and runs worse - how can you possibly ascertain from that information only that altitude training made you worse?

There are myriad other factors involved - not least what training did you do?

Was altitude bad or did you train ineffectively whilst at altitude?

VoR wrote:

This is a very simplified scenario, of course.

VoR bringing the math, with well-thought and reasonable comments from most of the gallery. For a moment I forgot I was reading LR.

Are there any actual studies on the positive or negative affects or is it just speculation either way?

What about race performance at altitude? Lets say one runs a marathon at 6000' and one at sea level. All things being equal, would one be faster than the other?

Actually there are studies that show that heat & humidity (a poor man's altitude) produce benificial results once you get into fall racing season.

Answer this - why don't Colorado & Utah runners (born & bred) dominate the U.S. racing scene? The Kenyan thing may be more about their physiology, rather than altitude.

Keringet wrote:

This just shows how pointless 'science' and scientific studies are on things as personal as endurance training.

There is nothing wrong with science or scientific studies.

What's wrong are the black and white conclusions that some scientists come to, and even worse, the wild misinterpretations that are drawn by the uneducated masses.

The entire world as a sample size, you admit the best come from altitude. But then you say maybe it's for another reason- which btw, you have no idea what that reason is.