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

malmo wrote:

Noakes is right. Jack Daniels agrees with Noakes:

jtupper

How many American women are beating Joan Benoit Samuelson's US marathon record (set many moons ago)-- maybe we aught to all start living in "oceanside" tents.

That was then. This is now.

The people that beat Joanie and Bill's AR's were people who ran at altitude. Kastor and Hall at Mammoth.

Take it back to the early 1960's when Buddy Edelen ran in the cold and rain of Great Britain and set the world record.

Would anyone think they had to train in that kind of environment (like Jim Peters did) to run a PR or set an American or World record?

Just one study cited. Not much scientific evidence either way.

At next year's USTFCCCA, I look forward to the following panel discussion:

Tim Noakes: In general, altitude training doesn't work.

Renato Canova: Kenyans don't take EPO because it doesn't work for them (because their hemocrit is already affected by altitude?).

The sample size is a bit small, but consider the distance medals won by people training at altitude in recent years:

Meb and Deena: 2 medals, both at Mammoth Lakes

Uceny: DL winner, at Mammoth Lakes

Jenny Simpson: WC gold, Boulder/Colorado Springs

Rowbury and Flanagan: 2 medals, trained part of the year at San Luis Potosi with Team Cook

Rupp (among others): Altitude tent

Lagat: lives in Tucson but spends part of the time in Flagstaff

Given the very high percentage of US mid/long distance medals won by these few people, I tend to think that the result is highly significant. I image people like Robert Chapman would find this discussion rather humorous.

'psychology probably plays a more crucial role than physiology'

Could Seb Coe win the 2012 Olympics

I know that is oversimplifying but the concept that all elites are the same physically is incorrect

Its like M Johnson and his psychology of winning. He was miles better than the competion that's why he won so much

Someone PAID them to go live at altitude. They were already America's finest BEFORE they were PAID to go live at altitude.

How many native born Coloradans on that list?

Ryan Hall is the only altitude RAISED athlete on that list.....now explain CHAD Hall.

Thank you.

Its not about formulas wrote:

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.

Pretty cool quote...but I don't understand it. How can it be possible to not run more miles or faster miles. This can always be done.

Flanagan was born in Boulder and lived there until she was 7.

Anybody who knows anything about anatomy and training knows altitude training is the biggest scam in the history of the world. It doesn't matter where you train if you are naturally talented and a hard worker. All altitude does is make you think you are faster. Then you run a 1 second PR for your race but since most altitude believers aren't very intelligent then they praise the altitude.

It's all in your head. If you think you are fast, and you've been working out great then you will run well. There's no magic formula to running (except maybe performance enhancing drugs).

I could also mention the Gouchers. Kara is from New York but went to college at Coloradc, as did Jenny, as did Mary Slaney.

Colorado might not be the best example to look at, as high-low has been shown superior to high-high, and high-low is difficult to use in Colorado, as it is much harder to get away from the altitude than it is in California or Flagstaff.

But the correlation is very strong.

For coaches, the question is not really about being born and raised at altitude, as few athletes are. The is whether periods of living at altitude as with Deena Kastor pays dividends. Most distance coaches these days are convinced that it does.

Physio wrote:

[quote]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.

Of course nowadays, most top distance runners train at altitude for a good part of the season - and this has been going on for a longtime. Almost all the Americans (including the 800m guys) had some training time at altitude. Rupp and Farah spent a good part of the winter in Albuquerque, and a good part of the spring in Utah. Lagat spent time in the spring in Albuquerque. OTC spent time in Flagstaff, Cook's group at altitude in Mexico.

I've coached at altitude and believe me it works. But it won't give the athlete everything. You have to train differently at altitude (like some shorter stuff to keep the feet moving) and lower pace on tempo and LD runs. Also altitude training shouldn't be at a time of year when the intensity is high.

Don't just look at who grew up at altitude, but look at who uses it.

same old wrote:

Ideal build for running?

Runners come in all shapes and sizes

No, they don't. There may be outliers, but clearly there is a very narrow set of physionomic qualities at the top of the pyramid. Lower down, you can offset some weaknesses with other strengths. The idea is population means. There are some pretty damn great female runners, but males are better than females, for example.

Look at the Olympic 10k final and see how much difference you see. An outlier or two, perhaps, but not a terribly strange outlier. One tribe of Kenyans has more people that have the most commonly ideal physical conformation for running (and bad one for, say, bodybuilding).

fgfg wrote:

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.

generations grew up at altitude

Most people at the front of a race can speak Swahili but learning to speak Swahili won't make you a better runner.

That isn't how natural selection works. That is Lemarckism.

Probably a better benefit of altitude is that people living at altitude (at least in the US) tend to have decent trails and such to run without the biomechanical training monotony of constant crowned pavement.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

altitude training is the biggest scam in the history of the world.

You don't get out much, do you?

I just looked over my dissertation data and found some interesting stuff relative to altitude training on sea-level data. I guess I will have to get that out in a publication. I think training at altitude is great, but one must consider the reasons why it may be good. If a runner wants nice weather, nice training facilities and venues, nice food, housing and medical attention when needed, and a enjoyable social atmosphere, would you perform better having all those things at sea level or none of them at altitude? Or maybe all of them at altitude? Many runners who go to altitude are not in peak fitness when they arrive and therefore they have room for improvement, so is it the altitude that does it if they do improve? People talk about Bolivia being too high to compare. How about Peru? I coached a year in Peru and they have any altitude you may want, from the area by Lake Titicaca at over 12,000 to Arequipa at 8000 and some lower. Quito in Ecuador is at 8000 and has great weather year round as it is on the equator. By the way, the equator is also near the East African runners; maybe it is being near the equator that counts and not the altitude. If live high/train low is the way to go, please don't tell the East Africans, or they will get even better than they already are just living and training high. So much about this topic and I wish there was time to discuss it fully. Live it up doing what you feel good doing.

Correlation does not equal causation.

The fact that athletes subscribe to superstitious beliefs has been well-known -- especially within the running community.

With Deena Kastor you are attributing the the superstitious belief that altitude is responsible for her success, when in reality it is the cumulative effect of years of training, her will, and her discipline.

Superstition beliefs are hard to break. Had Deena remained at low altitude, you'd be lamenting how good she would've run had she trained at altitude.

Tim Noakes and Jack Daniels disagree.

Slaney, btw, other than her short stint at Colorado, did not train at altitude.

jack tupper D wrote:

I just looked over my dissertation data and found some interesting stuff relative to altitude training on sea-level data. I guess I will have to get that out in a publication. I think training at altitude is great, but one must consider the reasons why it may be good. If a runner wants nice weather, nice training facilities and venues, nice food, housing and medical attention when needed, and a enjoyable social atmosphere, would you perform better having all those things at sea level or none of them at altitude? Or maybe all of them at altitude? Many runners who go to altitude are not in peak fitness when they arrive and therefore they have room for improvement, so is it the altitude that does it if they do improve?

JD has probably identified the reason most precisely. When you choose to move to some far-off location to train, your focus and commitment is probably going to be at a higher level. The low humidity and year round dry weather will probably reinforce the rightness of your decision. Camaraderie of others around you that have made the same commitment will likely reinforce, as well.

The same elements were at work when people were moving to Boston, Eugene, Gainesville and eventually DC. Only the weather was crap in those places.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

Anybody who knows anything about anatomy and training knows altitude training is the biggest scam in the history of the world. It doesn't matter where you train if you are naturally talented and a hard worker. All altitude does is make you think you are faster. Then you run a 1 second PR for your race but since most altitude believers aren't very intelligent then they praise the altitude.

It's all in your head. If you think you are fast, and you've been working out great then you will run well. There's no magic formula to running (except maybe performance enhancing drugs).

It increases your red blood cells Einstein. Everyone knows that.

Most of the best come from altitude. The stats back me up. What backs you up?