Bill Rodgers asks: Should races have 'altitude born and non-altitude born' divisions?

rpmcmurphy wrote:

No one even mentioning many of the other factors that play a large part in the development and success of the Ethiopians and Kenyans. Lifestyle - they are walking or running everywhere throughout childhood and adolescence. The amount of miles they log back and forth from elementary, middle school, and high school is hugely significant. Various estimates of 700 to 2000+ miles per year(at altitude no less) just going back and forth to school. Few cars, bikes etc. run or walk are the main options. The poverty level and motivation to escape that environment is one of the main training factors over the past 25+ years as prize monies or collegiate scholarships have become increasingly more available. Simplicity of lifestyle - no xbox, tv etc. Basic but solid diet with out many of the vices that the average American or European diet includes.

Really? I have never heard this before. I doubt anyone else has either.

It certainly doesn't hurt to be born at altitude, but it's more important to be exposed to altitude for long stints during training. And not "altitude tents", but real altitude.

See if the following table I put together makes sense. I have trouble pasting tables on LetsRun.

The first column on the left is the altitude.

The next column is how much power an individual can express when adapted to that altitude vs. sea level.

The third column is how much power an individual can express when not adapted to that altitude vs. sea level output.

The fourth column is the power of non-adapted at that altitude vs. adapted at that altitude.

The fifth column is the resulting speed differential.

The sixth column gives an idea of a 2:05 when living/training at sea-level vs. being adapted to the alternate altitude.

Altitude Acclimated To Altitude v. Sea Level Non-Acclimated To Altitude v. Sea Level Power of Non-Adapted v. Adapted Speed Differential 2:05 Sea-Level Equivalent

0 99.90% 100.00% n/a n/a 2:05:00

1000 99.20% 98.60% 99.63% 0.23% 2:04:43

2000 98.30% 97.00% 99.21% 0.49% 2:04:23

3000 97.20% 95.20% 98.80% 0.74% 2:04:04

4000 95.90% 93.20% 98.40% 0.99% 2:03:46

5000 94.40% 91.10% 98.07% 1.19% 2:03:30

6000 92.70% 88.90% 97.80% 1.36% 2:03:18

7000 90.70% 86.50% 97.60% 1.48% 2:03:09

8000 88.60% 84.20% 97.52% 1.53% 2:03:05

9000 86.30% 81.90% 97.55% 1.51% 2:03:07

10000 83.70% 79.30% 97.59% 1.49% 2:03:08

11000 80.90% 77.00% 97.89% 1.30% 2:03:22

12000 78.00% 74.70% 98.24% 1.09% 2:03:38

What about invitro before the child is born? Where did the mother live for nine months?

And we all called Sev "Sev". Not "Coach Sev" as there was only one "coach" And that was 'Coach" (Bill Squires).

Reavis wrote:

TR: Interesting suggestion to separate sea-level born from altitude-born. I recall Sev (coach Bob Sevene) telling me years ago how bodybuilding distinguishes between drug-free and drug-enhanced competitions using polygraph and urinalysis testing. I have gone over the IAAF lists from the last three years and the all-time list for the marathon.

In 2014 top sea-level born was Kohei Matsumura of Japan at #86 with 2:08:09

In 2013, Kazuhiro Maeda of Japan at # 62 with 2:08:00

In 2012, Henryk Szost of Poland at # 70 with 2:07:39

I'd be interested to know what criteria Reavis used to assign these tags.

-What's the high/low threshold?

-Is it literally just altitude at birth?

If a kid is born in the back seat of a car on Independence Pass (~12,000 ft), is he instantly granted some otherwise unattainable gift? Does it stay with him if he spends the rest of his life near sea level?

Rogers makes a great point man—it's not fair that people born in Mexico City and Nepal enjoy such a huge advantage over the rest of us.

Another American making excuses.

While we're at it, how about divisions based on whether you were born in an inner city, suburbs, or a rural setting? How about divisions based on the coach you had in High School or College (or as a junior, if you didn't have a school team)? If you had a coach whose athletes have won championships, you'd be in a different division than if your coach only produced mediocre results.

Aside from East Africans people born at altitude haven't performed better in distance running than others. The Mexicans had a little fling at it but are gone now and there are a lot of people born at high altitude who are no better than their low altitude competitors so I don't think there's justification for separate divisions.

But if you tried creating separate divisions it would end up a much messier business than it seems. How high can I be born while still being allowed to compete in the non-altitude division? If I'm born in Alamosa but my parents move to Jersey City when I'm six months old do I still have to race in the high altitude division? If I'm born in Jersey City but my parents move to Alamosa when I'm six months old do I get to compete with the low altitude people? What if those moves happen when I'm six years old rather than six months?

I assume we're talking about doing this at International competitions or at really major road races. It would be a logistical nightmare for even a big time local road race. So the New York Marathon has a winner in the high altitude division, probably an East African, and a probably a westerner, likely an American, winning the low altitude division maybe 2-3 minutes later. Does anyone really get excited about having an American "winner" under those circumstances? Do we want to give that winner the same prize money as the faster high altitude winner? Do we want to give the same prize money to the high altitude winner who has really beaten only handful of people in "his" race, or in the unlikely but certainly possible event that the low altitude winner runs faster than the high altitude one?

BR spent very little time at altitude and it was rare that the guys training in Colorado could beat him so I can only think he's aiming this idea at Africans and we already have races where only Americans can win money..

Shalane Flanagan was born in Colorado, and lived there until she was 5 or 6.

But she also chose her parents really well.

There are 140 million people living at an elevation above 2,500 metres. How many from outside Kenya and Ethiopia have run sub 2:10?

Skuj wrote:

It's not "genetics" either, Rojo, but we will beat that on ad nauseum.

Yeah genes have nothing to do with it. Then why isn't there a single woman the NFL?

Why does Ethiopia suck at the 100 meters? Jamaica at the 10,000 meters?

What does Kenya suck at soccer?

Bill Rodgers is 67 years old, and use to eat a crappy diet. At some point you

would expect some damage to neural functioning with the lack of nutrients.

Finnish scientists concluded that being born at altitude does not have the same benefits as been born at sea level and training at altitude. The body is an amazing thang.

Bill Rodgers may have been referring to the passage in "The Sports Gene" book that cites a study that claims that being born at altitude may be more important than training at altitude. Essentially, when your lungs and cardiovascular system are being formed in the womb and early childhood, you develop the capability for better handling the lower level of O2 in the atmosphere. I've been meaning to track down the reference, but have not.

Scott

rojo wrote:

Skuj wrote:

It's not "genetics" either, Rojo, but we will beat that on ad nauseum.

Yeah genes have nothing to do with it. Then why isn't there a single woman the NFL?

Why does Ethiopia suck at the 100 meters? Jamaica at the 10,000 meters?

What does Kenya suck at soccer?

Seriously??? Most Kenyans (not Kalenjin) came from West Africa so you can't blame anything on genetics.

Their soccer is pretty good for a small, poor country. Their national team has sucked because of horrible management, which has gotten them banned by FIFA a couple times.

I give less than 10 years before they have some decent sprinters. They've already produced a javelin thrower and an NFL player.

nyloco wrote:

Bill Rodgers may have been referring to the passage in "The Sports Gene" book that cites a study that claims that being born at altitude may be more important than training at altitude. Essentially, when your lungs and cardiovascular system are being formed in the womb and early childhood, you develop the capability for better handling the lower level of O2 in the atmosphere. I've been meaning to track down the reference, but have not.

Scott

Scott, a relevant passage is on page 215: "Preferable to moving to altitude is being born there. Altitude natives who are born and go through childhood at elevation tend to have proportionally larger lungs than sea-level natives, and large lungs have surface areas that permit more oxygen to pass from the lungs into the blood. This cannot be the result of altitude ancestry that has altered genes over generations, because it occurs not only in natives of the Himalayas, but also among American children who do not have altitude ancestry but who grow up high in the Rockies. Once childhood is gone, through, so too is the chance for this adaptation. It is not genetic, but neither is it alterable after adolescence."

On pages 213-215, Epstein suggests it's good to be at altitude with ancestors not fully adapted to altitude, because your hemoglobin levels will increase, but not too much, if you're an altitude responder. He adds that the "sweet spot" for achieving this hemoglobin level is 6,000-9,000 feet above sea level, and "the ridges of the Rift Valley in Ethiopia and Kenya are plumb in that sweet spot" (p. 215).

Gary - I was referring to the current thread and the discussion thus far on it. Of course all of my points have been known and discussed for years but for some reason no one replying on the thread had bothered to bring any of it into the mix. That was all i was trying to add. There are too many factors involved than simply altitude. Got to look at all the factors that's all i am saying and no one seems to be acknowledging.

Ryan Hall was born at an elevation of 185 feet and moved to 6,752 feet as a

child.

I thought the article was boring. It's only labeled "interesting" because we know who BR and the other guy are. If a 4-hour marathoner suggested that maybe we should have altitude and non-altitude divisions, nobody would feel the need to debate it.

I think the idea itself is a non-starter. Even if separate divisions were to be brought about (which they won't), nobody would be interested. Fans who follow the sport will want to know who WON the race. They'd be about as interested in the non-altitude-born winner as they are in the wheelchair winner or the masters winner; i.e., not very interested at all.

Besides, if someone wants to know who won the non-altitude division, they can already do that. It's not so difficult. Generally, you look for the top white guy, or maybe a Moroccan or Spaniard. It's not that exciting. Should we retroactively award Nick Arciniaga (or Jeffrey Eggleston - I forget who finished in front) the non-altitude Boston crown from 2014?