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

And Noakes wrote the template for 21st Century exercise physiology, not only in giving us some intelligent biochemistry to think about, but also pointing out that we also have a central nervous system, which controls all movement.

If the question is whether going to train at medium altitude (5-8k above sea level) is going to make me faster and the answer is that it does, what do I care about whether it is really the altitude or the climate or the lower stress? We're interested in effects, not pseudo-causal explanations.

ttc wrote:

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.

The best Kenyan runners grew up running barefoot; therefore, barefoot running makes you faster.

The best Kenyan runners drink a lot of tea; therefore, drinking tea makes you faster.

The best Kenyan runners run eat ugali; therefore, eating ugali makes you faster.

The best Kenyan runners are black; therefore, being black makes you faster.

See a pattern here?

actually Noakes is telling the truth.

codger wrote:

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

Which ones?

codger wrote:

Hot and bothered wrote:

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).

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.

I agree that you tend to feel better and run faster in the fall. But that's not what I was saying. I've been in Colorado in the summer and I can do tempos and long intervals at a decent pace (if not quite as fast as I could at sea level during the fall/winter). With southeastern summers though (air temps of 80 and dewpoints of 70+) it's just not possible. Having a few months of easy paced running and strides in the summer is not necessarily a bad thing if your main racing season is the fall. I was just pointing out that if your schedule dictates that you need to train hard during those months Colorado may very well be a lot better than Florida.

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.

A coincidence. The only good runners from altitude are East Africans and that is spurious. People from the Andes aren't particularly good runners. Conformation and economy is the entirity of the East African population mean data that make them more likely to be suited for running. They don't test particularly great in endurance on apparati that negates running economy. They have a physical build ideal for running so they waste less energy. Nothing unique about the cardiovascular system. A ferrari engine on a ferrari chasis instead of a ferrari engine on a volkswagon chasis.

Ideal build for running?

Runners come in all shapes and sizes

Can no one cite any studies pointing to evidence either way?

Of course they can.

"Four-week LHTL did not increase VO(2)max, irrespective of treatment (LHTL: 1.5%; placebo: 2.0%). Hb(mass) was slightly increased (4.6%) in 5 (of 10) LHTL subjects but this was not accompanied by a concurrent increase in VO(2)max. In the subjects demonstrating an increase in Hb(mass), isovolumic haemodilution elicited a 5.8% decrease in VO(2)max. Cycling efficiency was altered neither with time nor by LHTL. Neither maximal capacity of oxidative phosphorylation nor mitochondrial efficiency was modified by time or LHTL. The present results suggest that LHTL has no positive effect on VO(2)max in endurance-trained athletes because (i) muscle maximal oxidative capacity is not improved following LHTL and (ii) erythrocyte volume expansion after LHTL, if any, is too small to alter O(2) transport."

LHTL = live high, train low

Well the World Cup is over 3 or 4 weeks. And my understanding of altitude training is that you have to time it. So this is much easier for a single match or race than for a tournament over weeks.

To clear things up here, being at high altitude makes the chemical BPG bind less oxygen, and more oxygen is released to the tissues. Your body gets used to that, so coming from that to sea level, if it's within a short period of time, your body is still used to releasing more oxygen, and it will do this even though it doesn't need to, with more O2 at sea level. Obviously more Oxygen in the muscles helps running. That is a rough overview of why altitude is beneficial. I assume that is why Mo and Galen sleep in altitude tents, I don't know if you need to train at altitude or just live there to get the best results, but to say altitude has no effect on running is wrong and not based on any scientific evidence.

Train hard, win easy- Altitude+good training+good food+cultural expectation+economic factors=good perfomance

There is not a silver bullet people

kanny wrote:

He published the first edition of his "Lore of Running" 27 years ago! He's been talking about this for a while.

ray wrote:

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.

That's my point. This and the recent article on hydration are at least 27 years old. And to the person asking about the live high train low concept being "old". When I was working with Dr David Martin in the early 90's on developing marathoners for USATF he was strongly pushing the idea. I had mentioned to him at the time that it was a concept that was being used by Dr Dick Telford at the AIS in the early 80's with athletes training and living at Falls Creek in Victoria and going down to sea level for their track workouts.

My whole point is there is nothing new here and I am not blaming Dr Noakes. I'm not even sure he's involved in all this recent publicity of work he did 27 years ago or if he's trying to revive sales on his 3 decades old material.

ttc wrote:

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.

I could offer many other possible reasons, I believe another poster listed several, but there is no way to prove that any of them is responsible for why Africans are running so well now. Arguing for any of these factors is simply arguing for the one or ones that you like. Altitude is just another of the possible factors.

But if altitude is the deciding factor, it's the deciding factor in a pretty small sample size. You're essentially citing athletes from two countries that occupy the same part of the world. But over the century or so in which long distance racing has assumed its current form almost none of the top athletes came from high altitude. Many American high school distance runners were born in the Rockies and Sierras. If altitude is why the current best runners on earth are the best, shouldn't the states in the Rockies and Sierras be over represented on US high school distance running lists?

Someone, maybe malmo, pointed out that the overwhelming majority of people who live at high altitudes are NOT good distance runners. A logical response to that would be that Colombians, Nepalese, Tibetans, and so on come from different sorts of cultures than East Africans do and that's why they don't run as fast. So if the cultural factors are the difference between the running performances of Ethiopians and Ecuadorians, how can someone say Africans are the best because they live at altitude?

Not Steve wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22790809?dopt=Abstract

"Four-week LHTL did not increase VO(2)max, irrespective of treatment (LHTL: 1.5%; placebo: 2.0%). Hb(mass) was slightly increased (4.6%) in 5 (of 10) LHTL subjects but this was not accompanied by a concurrent increase in VO(2)max. In the subjects demonstrating an increase in Hb(mass), isovolumic haemodilution elicited a 5.8% decrease in VO(2)max. Cycling efficiency was altered neither with time nor by LHTL. Neither maximal capacity of oxidative phosphorylation nor mitochondrial efficiency was modified by time or LHTL. The present results suggest that LHTL has no positive effect on VO(2)max in endurance-trained athletes because (i) muscle maximal oxidative capacity is not improved following LHTL and (ii) erythrocyte volume expansion after LHTL, if any, is too small to alter O(2) transport."

LHTL = live high, train low

------------------------------------------------------------------

Wisdom from an elite african athlete training at alititude years ago.

I , we do not train at altitude for some scientific boost , we train here because it is harder , we cannot add more miles we are at the max , I cannot run faster miles , I can experience a harder effort , I feel more pain and this prepares me for my racing.

If Doctor Noakes was paid by FIFA to study soccer players training at altitude and he found no benefit to their limited exposure than he had to report the evidence/or lack of evidence he found.

Soccer players are not distance runners, more like sprinters. Some are excellent athletes, but they don't train for a single day or a single event like a marathoner who may spend six months in Flagstaff before coming down to sea level, your results may vary depending on how experienced and disciplined you are. Some athletes with more questionable training regimens that are always looking for the latest gimmick or shortcut may try altitude and fail, but it may work for someone else who is more patient.

I believe in altitude and have seen it work for countless distance runners. Plus, it psychs out your competition when they know you've been training at altitude.

Where is he discouraging it?

The most interesting part of the quote is this:

“At the elite level of marathon running, he said, psychology probably plays a more crucial role than physiology.”

Absolutely agree.