5k race at altitude vs. sea level

FatSlowOldGuy wrote:

I remember at Tahoe there was this thing about could anyone break 30 mins for 10000m. No one ever did as far as I know. That track is under 7000 ft. And some 27 min tried and failed.

I figure, very roughly, not much more than one minute slow-down for 10K when converting from sea level to about 6,000 ft. (i.e., CS altitude), which seems to be pretty similar to what those tables indicate, but I really don't get too concerned about conversions, and I'm probably more conservative than most in awarding bonus points for high-altitude performances. I generally just regard a 30-minute 10K at 6,000 ft. as no more and no less than a 30-minute 10K at 6,000 ft. Aside from marathons, I'm pretty sure that I haven't competed in any races below 5,000 ft. or so since I moved to 6,000 ft. over twenty years ago, so I don't have much personal experience for comparing my sea-level and high-altitude performances.

FatSlowOldGuy wrote:

Do you really beleive those tables? I value your opinion because 13.16 at 10000 feet seems insane.

I agree that 13:16 at 10,000 ft. seems insane. A 22-second adjustment for 5K at 10,000 ft. seems very conservative.

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

"At shorter distances and higher speeds, altitude effects will be diminished or offset by (1) the greater percentage of energy from anaerobic rather than aerobic metabolism and (2) decreased air resistance. At 1500 meters, the most famous example was at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City, where Kip Keino ran his PR despite very high altitude."

======

It seemed to slow Jim Ryun down a bit though!

FatSlowOldGuy wrote:

Yes 2000ft would definately affect you. As soon as you go above sea level you see a decline. I'd be interested to know the highest above sea level that a world record of 3000m or up has been set. Off the top of my head I'm thinking track's that are famous for WR are all very close to 0. e.g. Oslo.

Reiti 405 m (1,329 ft)

7:20.67 World Record September 1 1996 Rieti

The figures you quoted earlier are completely wrong. They do not tally with other figures from Jack Daniels, so there must be some miscalculation somewhere.

At 2000ft (Edmonton) a 13 minute 5000m man will slow down by maybe 6-8 seconds and maybe 15-20 seconds for a 27 minute 10000m runner in a 10000m race. So Brendan Foster could have run slightly faster at sea level than he did in the Commonwealth Games 1000Om in 1978, a fact which he mentioned during his World Championship commentary in Edmonton a few years ago.

At 4500 ft more than double those figures. It all depends on air pressure though, which varies by a few percent from day to day.

As soon as you ascend there is less oxygen available, approxiamately one per cent less for each 100m of ascent.

For slower runners, taking longer to finish a race, then the negative effects on distance times are greater.

Also the worst time to run is days 2 and 3 after ascent. That is why you wouldn't notice any change running up Kinder Scout to 2000ft, because blood chemistry and plasma shift only begin to occur after several hours and continue for a day or two.

And by the way it's Font Romeu not Font Romeo guys. Most non French speakers prounounce it Romeau which is wrong also.

SP wrote:

Thanks wellnow and others. I am familiar with the runworks calculator but if you look down at the bottom, it says the predicted time is if one is fully acclimated. Being here only a few days and knowing that 2-3 day window is the time NOT to race, I wondered how this compared to sea level. This was not a planned race, I am on a work trip.

Oh yeah, and before I get blasted for a 20 min 5k...I am a 43 yr old female.

A follow up question, I return to sea level this Friday and plan to run a 3k Saturday and 5k Sunday….any thing good or bad that will affect my performance after being at (semi) altitude of 4500 ft for 10days?

You're welcome. You ran your race during the time when you would likely feel your worst, so don't worry about the time, no matter how much slower it was than normal.

Yes you have re-acclimate to sea level, but the changes are unpredicable, so just run hard and see how you feel. In the meantime, take advantage of the fact that you can do short distances at a slightly faster pace because there is less air resistance at 4500ft. Maybe 10x 400m or some 200's or 300's before you leave. These will help prevent you from losing your speed and hopefully help sharpen you for the races this weekend.

wellnow wrote:

At 2000ft (Edmonton) a 13 minute 5000m man will slow down by maybe 6-8 seconds and maybe 15-20 seconds for a 27 minute 10000m runner in a 10000m race.

I think the various figures that are getting tossed around in this discussion are being stated with more specificity and certitude than it is warranted.

The top finishers in the 5000 meters at the 2001 World Athletics Championships in Edmonton were very close to their lifetime PRs -- rather unusual in a championship 5000 these days, when paced time trials under near-ideal conditions tend to produce significant PRs for the top competitors. The most altitude of Edmonton may have had a net negative effect on the longer distances.

It bears repeating that, regardless of the altitude, the net negative effect -- if any -- will generally be more pronounced in the longer distances, because (1) aerobic metabolism is a greater percentage of the source of energy during the race and (2) the lower air resistance at higher altitudes is less of a factor as distances increase and speeds decrease.

Sea level makes no differece, its all a mine set, and your mind isn't set to run a 5k if your trying to church non factors such as altitude

Avocados Number wrote:

The most altitude of Edmonton may have had a net negative effect on the longer distances.

Sorry about that sentence. I meant to say, "The modest altitude of Edmonton may have had a net negative effect on the performances in the longer distances."

ukathleticscoach wrote:

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

"At shorter distances and higher speeds, altitude effects will be diminished or offset by (1) the greater percentage of energy from anaerobic rather than aerobic metabolism and (2) decreased air resistance. At 1500 meters, the most famous example was at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City, where Kip Keino ran his PR despite very high altitude."

======

It seemed to slow Jim Ryun down a bit though!

I'm honestly not sure if you're understanding anything that I'm saying.

The very high altitude of Mexico City may well have had a net negative effect on Ryun's time at 1500 meters, because its severely negative effect on his aerobic capacity (presumably a greater negative effect than that on the aerobic capacity of Keino, who may also have benefited by a greater relative economy at higher altitudes) outweighed the positive effect of decreased air resistance. (The effect on Ryun's capacity for anaerobic metabolism, which would have produced something close to 40% of his energy demands for a 1500-meter run, would have been nil.) That doesn't mean that an altitude of 2000 feet, although producing a slight decrease in aerobic capacity when compared with sea-level capacity, would have a net negative effect on performance at 1500 meters, although it would begin to have a net negative effect at some point along the distance continuum. That point would vary from runner to runner.

'Also the worst time to run is days 2 and 3 after ascent. That is why you wouldn't notice any change running up Kinder Scout to 2000ft, because blood chemistry and plasma shift only begin to occur after several hours and continue for a day or two'

==========================

ok I can understand how changes might happen after a couple of days. That doesn't expain why the reduction in oxygen level you mentioned would not affect me whist running. You know when you are really fit (a long time ago!) you notice small differences. Especially this would be noticed on the climb to the top. I'm convinced I could have equalled my 5km pb if there was a track on the plateau as I did my best running up there

Furthermore here is the result of the Edmonton World Champs 5,000m (2,196ft):

1 Richard Limo 13:00.77

His pb is 12.56.72. Now you could take that to mean the 2,000ft elevation slowed him by 4 seconds. Or the more likely explanation that it made no difference to him whatsoever. Championship finals are not normally the place to set a pr and this is probably one of the closest difference you will see between pr and championship winning time

Uk coach you are tool who probably never has run at altitude. I do agree that there is little or no difference at 2000 feet. But things start happening at 3500 to 4000.

4500 is not "high altitude" by any means, but it is enough to affect performance.

Per the original poster, you might expect a 2 to 2.5% (maybe 20 to 30 sec, as was said early on in this discussion) decrease for an altitude trained runner, somewhat more if you'd only been there for a few days.

So if you go from sea level to altitude and run time of 20:00 for 5K, you could expect to run 19:20 (+/- 10 sec) at sea level under similar conditions.

If you are going to insult somebody at least get it right!

Several people have said that altitude affects performance at lower altitudes. I was responding to their comments.

Thanks. I had not raced in awhile due to a hammy ski injury, so just did not know where I was for sure on my fitness. Pre injury, yeah, I was hitting about 19:20's so this is all good information. I will look for a track tomorrow and do some short speedwork. Thank you. ONON