Did Solinsky state that he regularly uses artificial altitude? If so, does this explain much of the US "resurgence"

Sagarin wrote:

hyperbole wrote:

If you took EPO, how much would it improve your performance? A few seconds in a 5000m race probably, and how much of that would be a psychological boost?

Speaking of hyperbole, why don't you ask Eddy Hellybuck and Cathal Lombard (sp?) how much they think EPO was worth?

ha ha, good point. And sure, there is likely some psychological boost too (placebo effect), but on the other hand, there are well documented studies proving the benefits of EPO on endurance. And Eddy actually thought the EPO was doing him no good, until suddenly he realized how strong he was at the end of some races, ie, he wasn't believing in it, until he suddenly he didn't get tired when pushing it into a whole 'nother level. And that is very similar to how Solinsky discusses his new found strength at the end of races after "spending as much time 'at altitude' as possible."

Now whether he means artificial or real altitude is hard to tell, and that is why I started this thread. He was asked DIRECTLY about technology and artificial altitude, not about training at real high altitude in the mountains, yet he gave an answer about "being at and believing in altitude." It was definitely vague, and to me a bit evasive (maybe not on purpose). It was strange to me that he did not directly answer the question and say either:

a) we don't use the technology you asked me about (hypoxic houses/tents), we don't think it is necessary, or,

b) yes, we do use that technology (artificial altitude), but don't use other things like cryosaunas (which he was also asked about) or alter-G's.

No instead he says, "yes, we do believe in altitude, and that is the extent of the technology we believe in." That is NOT a straightforward answer to the question about use of hypoxic tents.

skiptoo wrote:

The last 2 summers Solinsky has spent time at altitude in St. Moritz. Obviously he thinks there is value in being at altitude, but there isn't anything in the interview or his past to indicate that he uses a tent like the Salazar athletes do (btw you forgot to put Yoder-Begley on your list). Actually Solinsky appears to be saying, politely, that he doesn't think much of Salazar's fine-tuned approach to training. And I don't know why he would be evasive about this issue. All of the Salazar athletes have been open about their use of tents.

You could absolutely be correct, and that is what I was trying to get to the bottom of. But re-read my last post. I think his answer was not direct. Maybe he didn't mean to be vague, but it is indeed vague. When asked about specific technology, he says he believes in "trying to be at high altitude as much as possible." Wouldn't living in an altitude house constitute "being at high altitude" according to those who defend its use and claim it is no different than living in the mountains?

But I agree that maybe he was not intentionally vague, and just happened to not be particularly direct with his answer.

Sagarin wrote:

I believe his 8:11 and 13:16 were not too dissimilar in terms of conversion, though various tables say differently. Agree on the inability to train consistently, which, of course, is where the alter-G comes in, but I think he already had access to it. I fully expected Ritz to put in a 13:05ish type performance, but never the 12:56. I'm simply saying I, for one, greet it with a modicum of skepticism that it was aided and abetted by technology that not all distance runners around the globe have access to.

Everyone must remember, when Ritz ran his 13:16 it was at Nationals, in humid Indianapolis, n ot some rabbited time trail in Europe. He also did this during marathon training.

I guarantee he was good for 13:05 or better if he had focused on track that year. He ran 8:11/7:36 after all!

Only Solinsky can settle your question. In the interview he was not asked "Do you use an altitude tent?" I think he is just being diplomatic on this topic, I'm guessing because he doesn't want to come off as bashing the training methods of others in the Nike camp.

Sagarin, if the sleep high/train low model were really so key, then Ethiopian and Kenyan runners wouldn't necessarily dominate, because they primarily just sleep high and train high.

jjjjjj wrote:

Sagarin, if the sleep high/train low model were really so key, then Ethiopian and Kenyan runners wouldn't necessarily dominate, because they primarily just sleep high and train high.

True, and I think this is where genetic privilege comes in, however politically inconvenient, where it concerns the Africans. However, I also think being born at high altitude confers phenotypic privilege as well. My point is that to compete at that level, by and large, we need to live high/train low.

Sagarin wrote:

jjjjjj wrote:

Sagarin, if the sleep high/train low model were really so key, then Ethiopian and Kenyan runners wouldn't necessarily dominate, because they primarily just sleep high and train high.

True, and I think this is where genetic privilege comes in, however politically inconvenient, where it concerns the Africans. However, I also think being born at high altitude confers phenotypic privilege as well. My point is that to compete at that level, by and large, we need to live high/train low.

This is a good point. As has been discussed before on these boards (and for which, for some reason, I received a lot of flak for bringing up at times) studies have shown that Ethiopian highlanders are able to have fully oxygenated blood at 12,000 feet, something no other group of people show, even other highland dwellers. In short, one needs to think of a possible major East African advantage being...

A) not about TRAINING at altitude (not that that doesn't help), and...

B) not even about being BORN at altitude.

No, it might be more about having ancestors who have lived in the highlands for aeons, with resulting genetic selection for being able survive and thrive in this unusual and harsh (oxygen deprivation) environment. The end result is they might be born with a genetic make-up that enables them to efficiently utilize oxygen, whether they are born there or not. And this might explain why so many east africans move at an early age to another country, and then do most of their training at sea level, but still excel.

You can take the east african out of east africa, but you can't take "the east africa" (ie, the environment that was likely the impetus for the gene selection that survived in his ancestors/parents ) out of the east african.

jjjjjj wrote:

Sagarin, if the sleep high/train low model were really so key, then Ethiopian and Kenyan runners wouldn't necessarily dominate, because they primarily just sleep high and train high.

See my post. A superior athlete can undertake an inferior training/recovery protocol and still beat the inferior athlete who uses the superior training/recovery protocol, correct? Yes, therefore the East Africans (if on the average they are more talented than runners from other nations) could still dominate even if train high/live high was inferior to train low/live high.

As I suggested, being born, training at, and living at altitude might help the east africans, but it might not be the key to their success.

I wouldn't bother asking them how much they thought EPO was worth. They have their own obsessions, it's a shame they were misdirected. They were both runners of great ability who didn't need to take that stuff.

I could have made this comment to Eddy himself, but I won't, I would much rather talk to you than him.

I don't doubt that Paula has slept in an altitude tent for a few nights, she no doubt wanted to know what all the fuss was about, but she soon decided that she was not going to use this as part of her preparation for her marathons.

But really I think the whole subject is rather daft. I have to condemn her for wearing that silly necklace, that stupid strip on her nose and those ridiculous socks.

Anyway back to Solinsky. What does he need to do to improve his 10000m time by 30 seconds?

I'll give you clue it doesn't involve extra oxygen uptake.

Oh good, one of these people who knows better than all of modern science what works and what doesn't. It's really great that you've proven that EPO use confers no advantage to the user, and even more amazing that you've done this without the benefit of any knowledge on the subject! Way to go!

Well you think that a woman running 2.42 for a marathon is amazing or was it awesome? or was it incredible?

Renato Canova:

We had long experiences about training in altitude, using several combinations :

a) Living in altitude and training in altitude

b) Living in altitude and training at sea level

c) Living at sea level and training in altitude

d) Living in one altitude and training in different altitudes (for example, living at 2000m, training sometimes at 2500, sometimes at 1500)

We didn't have very important results using the formula b).

Therefore, since sleeping and also living in the simulated high altitude conditions, but training at sea level, is exactly the same experience,personally I think this solution completely useless, because what can help the athletes in running faster is their TRAINING IN ALTITUDE, using the lack of Oxygen for increasing the Aerobic Power, that doesn't increase training at sea level.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2896255&page=1