How much difference would altitude training make to non-elites?

Can't remember what the study was called, but I remember reading a very interesting study regarding the german national team who prior to the World Cup in 2014 facilitated a village in Brazil, which was significantly in a higher altitude/ above water, than in Germany. Therefor they were able to adapt to the enviroment way faster. In the end the won the World Cup.

Every percentage counts

not Luv2run wrote:

I know what calorimetry is. Its relevance to running and oxygen delivery is what I am trying to explain.

Why isn't that obvious?

Because you write garbage like "People who habitually undereat have chronically lowered calorimetry."

Calorimetry, as I said, is a measurement technique, not a characteristic of people. Has the word acquired some wacky meaning in running physiology circles?

This is half off topic, but there is evidence that heat training can achieve comparable hightened hemo than altitude training. It means for a top cycling athlete to train super-easy for instance 5x50min very easy cycling, but in 40 degrees heat. The body will be forced to use a relatively large volume of the blood to remove heat to the skin and thus the blood volume for the muscles is effectively reduced. In 4-6 weeks the body will respond by producing more red blood cells and thus increase the total concentration.

Compared to altitude training it is far easier to have a heated room or a designed heat-suit and a spinning bike for 4 hours a week than having to travel and live in altitudes.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341554804_Five_weeks_of_heat_training_increases_hemoglobin_mass_in_elite_cyclists?_sg%5B0%5D=iwTn81B6pNUKMyFsG5SaIFhSpXQEuhU5X0Lo2iagsqwDmU0fCAsJsMCNjkt8oT7ZGhGWJzi5duMXLoRKvsTphD9_7uXLOd8d1E8oXvSx.eyn1bE2MsgTGuuAPUPbSQpgHAFTo2Eday9LfbvoUS2yf1FSlMXnjZDO8QLqeTXEjuThZcXT6mmCpos283hmZYg

This study showed a 4% increase in the mass of red blood cells, but the other performance markers where not equally heightened, but showed some improvement compared to the control group. Still the cycling community have embraced heat training.

Peope also have more anectotical experience that training and competing in the heat has made their fitness increase after the events, which can show the same effect.

Should I install a bike in my bathroom, put on a lot of clothes, turn the heat full on and cycle while watching TV? Maybe, maybe not...

Just because research is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's correct or accurate. The peer review process does lend itself to weeding out a lot of the chaff, but how many papers do you see with an n=16?

I know for a fact that Jack Daniels has done a lot of ad-hoc studies he's never published, some of which made it into the 2nd edition of his book. Are you saying you would completely dismiss his results out of hand because it wasn't looked at by a panel of other sports physiologists?

The attitude you're presenting really drives home the old saying, "Science progresses one death at a time."

Peer review is not perfect. But I will take it over anonymous posters who throw out terms that they apparently have little idea what it means.

The paper I referenced gave one possible answer to the OPs question. Heck, you can choose to ignore the causes of the increase in performance. You can choose to ignore that both groups who trained at altitude did better than the group that trained at sea level.

As for Jack, I wish he would publish the work he has done. It would add to the body of knowledge. Heck, I'd be okay with him putting the complete data on his site and let it be crowdsource "peer reviewed".

babushka_lady wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

Please share your peer-reviewed papers on these topics. I am open to learning.

Just because research is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's correct or accurate. The peer review process does lend itself to weeding out a lot of the chaff, but how many papers do you see with an n=16?

I know for a fact that Jack Daniels has done a lot of ad-hoc studies he's never published, some of which made it into the 2nd edition of his book. Are you saying you would completely dismiss his results out of hand because it wasn't looked at by a panel of other sports physiologists?

The attitude you're presenting really drives home the old saying, "Science progresses one death at a time."

Jack's legacy will be his accuracy. Whatever one thinks about his training ideas, at least he had an understanding of calorimetry, which made him doubtful of other researchers, fantastic claims.

Alan55 wrote:

not Luv2run wrote:

I know what calorimetry is. Its relevance to running and oxygen delivery is what I am trying to explain.

Why isn't that obvious?

Because you write garbage like "People who habitually undereat have chronically lowered calorimetry."

Calorimetry, as I said, is a measurement technique, not a characteristic of people. Has the word acquired some wacky meaning in running physiology circles?

Yes.

Luv2Run wrote:

Peer review is not perfect. But I will take it over anonymous posters who throw out terms that they apparently have little idea what it means.

The paper I referenced gave one possible answer to the OPs question. Heck, you can choose to ignore the causes of the increase in performance. You can choose to ignore that both groups who trained at altitude did better than the group that trained at sea level.

As for Jack, I wish he would publish the work he has done. It would add to the body of knowledge. Heck, I'd be okay with him putting the complete data on his site and let it be crowdsource "peer reviewed".

I understand the need to challenge the random anon letsrun poster, as most operate under the rule, "the plural of anecdote is data".

Your initial response was probably exactly what the OP was looking for. What I was critiquing was the stance of 'peer review or gtfo'.

I think it's safe to say that running physiology research has, in general, lagged training methods. in absence of being able to test elite runners in double blind studies, coaches often have to rely on hunches and correlations to try to improve their training methods.

For example: Mike Smith has seen a lot of success at NAU at 7,000ft, with kids who are living high and training high. in terms of training, it doesn't appear that he is deviating much from Jack Daniel's running formula. Of course, there are nuances here and there and he does pump the mileage as high as they can handle. Could he be on to something when he says he thinks vVO2max work is over prescribed? Or, are the gains he sees above and beyond any other program due to the mental coaching he does with each athlete?

There's no research, there's no control, there's no way to tell for certain. As a coach, you'd have to handicap a little based upon what you do know, scientifically.

I'm not saying you don't realize any of this or that anonymous posters are giving this sort of insight. Just that your statement leaves out a fair bit of nuance. Then again, probably not worth the time to try and explain such nuance on letsrun.

Luv2Run wrote:

Peer review is not perfect. But I will take it over anonymous posters who throw out terms that they apparently have little idea what it means.

The paper I referenced gave one possible answer to the OPs question. Heck, you can choose to ignore the causes of the increase in performance. You can choose to ignore that both groups who trained at altitude did better than the group that trained at sea level.

As for Jack, I wish he would publish the work he has done. It would add to the body of knowledge. Heck, I'd be okay with him putting the complete data on his site and let it be crowdsource "peer reviewed".

Academic dogma is what's wrong with the sport. You keep spamming the boards with countless references to 'Performance Enhancing Drugs' and you have no idea how offensive this is to those who actually know what calorimetry is and how it relates to bioenergetics.

Anti doping just endorses doping. All based on pseudoscience.

not Luv2run wrote:

Jack's legacy will be his accuracy. Whatever one thinks about his training ideas, at least he had an understanding of calorimetry, which made him doubtful of other researchers, fantastic claims.

dude, I might just be speaking for myself, but wtf you are talking about. People aren't going to understand you if you just say "calorimetry" over and over again. Fvking lay out what you mean piece by piece - interaction by interaction.

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point tbh.

Hello AQ,

Not everyone responds to altitude in a way that results in faster times. Not all altitude is equal.

A good % (not all) of 10K runners can get a small - moderate boost in performance with PROPER training to capitalize on the altitude. That improvement can be offset by sea level runners who train better and compete well. Sorry to not be too helpful - it’s not as simple as moving to altitude.

not Luv2run wrote:

Jack's legacy will be his accuracy. Whatever one thinks about his training ideas, at least he had an understanding of calorimetry, which made him doubtful of other researchers, fantastic claims.

16 years ago, in a thread called "JTupper and High-Low Protocol" Jack wrote:

(3) We had success with several weeks at altitude (living and training there)

(4) We had more success when we spent a few weeks at AL then a week at SL then back to AL and back to SL, etc. Ryun flew down to SL after 3 weeks at A:L and broke the WR in mile the same 24 hour period. Did the same thing a week or two later in the 1500 WR race (with a 61 first 400 and 2:49 last 1200). We had 6 subjects in that year's study (live and train high, spend a week at SL and repeat) and those 6 set 14 PRs back at SL ....

Like Stray-Gundersen and Levine, Jack also observed "success" with "high-high" training and even "more success" with "high-low" training (although alternating with a different pattern).

Calorimetry and glycogen depletion, and nutrition and psychology and biomechanical efficiency, etc. are noble and important topics but why are they relevant here in a thread about "altitude training" making a "difference"?

What is the relation and role of calorimetry to Jack's observed differences in "success" from the different altitude training?

You said "I know what calorimetry is. Its relevance to running and oxygen delivery is what I am trying to explain."

Why are you trying to explain that? You know what calorimetry is but do you know what the subject of this thread is? It looks like you are trying to explain the wrong thing.

In a thread about differences caused by altitude training, assuming all these other things are relevant to the thread, it seems like you should be trying to explain the relevance of all of these things to the differences caused by altitude training.

Seems to me that when you use "calorimetry", you are simply talking about power, or power output, which would be measured in Watts. Unfortunately, it cannot be measured during running, as it can in cycling and rowing.

If "calorimetry" is just a misnomer for "power", then it would be good for your credibility to use the correct term. If you are happy being LRCs top bro scientists, then carry on with "calorimetry".

When was JD working with Ryun? When he was doing his early studies into altitude training. When did he say "Altitude training is just another form of training"? Here on letsrun just a few years ago, after 40 years of study.

I agree with your last paragraph. I want to discuss metabolic ups and downs that we all experience. See the two posters above writing about heat training.

I can just repeat the same points over and over with you asking the same questions over and over, parsed in a different way. At some point, it gets tedious.

Alan55 wrote:

Seems to me that when you use "calorimetry", you are simply talking about power, or power output, which would be measured in Watts. Unfortunately, it cannot be measured during running, as it can in cycling and rowing.

If "calorimetry" is just a misnomer for "power", then it would be good for your credibility to use the correct term. If you are happy being LRCs top bro scientists, then carry on with "calorimetry".

It's important to ask where the power is coming from? Calorimetry studies show us variability in metabolic rate. Power output is dependant more than just metabolism though isn't it?

not Luv2run wrote:

When was JD working with Ryun? When he was doing his early studies into altitude training. When did he say "Altitude training is just another form of training"? Here on letsrun just a few years ago, after 40 years of study.

I agree with your last paragraph. I want to discuss metabolic ups and downs that we all experience. See the two posters above writing about heat training.

I can just repeat the same points over and over with you asking the same questions over and over, parsed in a different way. At some point, it gets tedious.

Jack Daniels wrote these things in 2003.

Don't repeat the same points, but try to link every point you make to the topic of this thread.

I don't want to read your ideas about metabolic ups and downs, unless you can link them to altitude training and performance.

Not one of your posts in this altitude training thread talks about the influence of altitude training on performance.

This is not my failure to research, but your failure to stay on topic.

If you could illustrate your points by showing how they can explain the different outcomes of the sea-level group, the hi-lo group, and the hi-hi group, observed by Stray-Gundersen and Levine, and similar observations of success from altitude from Jack Daniels, then maybe I and many others could understand the relevance of your points that much better.

Otherwise, we have posters (see babushka_lady post above), who post "I don't even know what you're arguing at this point tbh." Or worse.

The problem is your failure to comprehend because you are looking for pat answers. Improvement in performance is multi faceted.

My biggest bugbear is that we are supposed to believe that injecting EPO for six weeks gives a magical increase in oxygen uptake and performance beyond our natural capacity, beyond human limits.

In the 90s altitude training was touted as being a similar kind of metabolic booster i.e. more calories used per minute. Now is that fact or belief? Actual oran

actual or anecdotal? Dont other forms of training do the same thing

not Luv2run wrote:

The problem is your failure to comprehend because you are looking for pat answers. Improvement in performance is multi faceted.

My biggest bugbear is that we are supposed to believe that injecting EPO for six weeks gives a magical increase in oxygen uptake and performance beyond our natural capacity, beyond human limits.

In the 90s altitude training was touted as being a similar kind of metabolic booster i.e. more calories used per minute. Now is that fact or belief? Actual oran

... actual or anecdotal? Dont other forms of training do the same thing

You told me Jack Daniels answered my questions, but now there are no pat answers?

You told me calorimetry is 200 year old science and oxygen economy is 100 years old.

I guess altitude training lags far behind, maybe only 50 years old.

Surely there must be some answers by now.

I'm with you. Let's forget oxygen uptake. Let's forget any claims of performance beyond human limits. Let's forget about metabolic booster. These are all red-herrings. Let's also forget multi-faceted performance improvements, because we are only interested here about altitude versus no altitude.

Let's only talk about altitude training and only talk about the consequences of that.

We saw in a 1997 study that short term improvement from atltitude training was fact.

In the same time frame with similarly composed groups, hi-lo training was better than hi-hi training, which was better than sea-level training.

We saw remarkably similar conclusions in anecdotes in a 2003 letsrun post from Jack Daniels.

Discus.