epo/tents/radcliffe, why no press?

synthetic air...no sure if to laugh or cry.

SPORTS

If Doping Is Banned, Should Sleeping in Altitude Tents Be Allowed? In the Arena

Christopher Clarey

International Herald Tribune

 

12/07/2001

International Herald Tribune

21

(Copyright 2001)

 

 

AH, the sacrifices required to be a great endurance athlete. The training that leaves you feeling like your lungs are several sizes too small. The strict diet. The constant travel and utterly uncertain long-term career prospects. The noise from the generator as you try to get some sleep inside the tent in your bedroom.

No, that bizarre last sentence is no editing error. The pursuit of sports excellence marches on. But is it progress when the chase obliges you to forgo your usual bedtime arrangements and zip yourself into damp, relatively cramped sleeping quarters designed to replicate high-altitude conditions in low places?

 

"It's obviously not as comfortable as a double bed," said the British track star Paula Radcliffe.

Altitude training has long been a pre-requisite for the world's elite runners, cross-country skiers and other endurance athletes. Lowlanders have been heading to the Alps or Rockies or Atlas mountains for decades in a successful attempt to increase their red blood cell counts.

But in the past decade, a high-tech shortcut has emerged.

First came the "altitude houses," developed by Finnish scientists in the early 1990s, in which nitrogen was pumped into a structure to create mountain air in mountain-free Finland. Now come the "altitude tents," many manufactured by an American company called Hypoxico and sold for several thousand dollars or more.

Sea-level air contains approximately 21 percent oxygen. The tents, with the generators doing the work, can reduce that by several percentage points, simulating altitudes of 9,000 feet (2,700 meters) or higher.

Shaun Wallace, a former British Olympic cyclist who is a Hypoxico vice president, estimates that 400 or more top athletes are using such tents. Besides Radcliffe, the converts include Lance Armstrong, the three-time Tour de France winner; Ed Moses, the American swimming world-record holder, and Michellie Jones, the Australian triathlete who won a silver medalist in last year's Olympics.

The question is, should anything be done to prevent athletes from sleeping their way to the top?

My initial reaction was: Absolutely. Strike camp. Pull the plugs. If we ban athletes from seeking an artificial edge in a bottle, shouldn't we discourage them from seeking an artificial edge in a tent? I was cheered to hear that the International Olympic Committee plans to launch a study of the "altitude systems" in conjunction with six European universities. It is scheduled to begin shortly after the Winter Olympics end in February.

"We've been a bit concerned to see some international competitions where the athletes' village can be transformed into a tent camp," said Patrick Schamasch, the IOC's medical director. "Our goal is to examine whether these methods are dangerous for the health of the athlete, and if it's against sports ethics and could potentially be considered doping behavior."

-

BRAVO, I said to myself, after hanging up the phone. Well done, I thought, after hearing that the IOC would ban such devices from the Olympic village in Salt Lake City, just as they did at last year's Summer Olympic village in Sydney.

Well said, I thought, after an IOC member, Dick Pound, head of the new world anti-doping agency, called the use of altitude chambers "incredibly tacky" and observed that "it's one thing to live in Machu Picchu and quite another to get into a diving bell to go to bed."

But after speaking with athletes, I soon realized that this is nowhere near as morally straightforward as the argument against doping; soon realized that I do not envy the international sports leaders who will have to make this call.

The argument for the chambers is that they level the playing field, rather than plow it up.

Some athletes have the good fortune to live at high altitude; others have the financial means or flexibility to attend high- altitude camps frequently.

The tents and chambers allow other competitors access to similar training benefits, although real altitude still appears superior to artificial altitude.

"I don't really agree with the IOC investigation into it," said Radcliffe, a silver medalist in the 10,000 meters at 1999 world track and field championships.

"All the altitude tent does is stimulate the body to cope with conditions that can be found naturally. If you say an altitude tent is unfair, you have to ban people living at altitude. The only argument against the tents is cost. Not everybody can afford them. But then you get into the whole argument of whether athletes can wear more expensive shoes than others."

Radcliffe's words carry particular weight. She has been one of the most visible anti-doping campaigners in any sport, wearing red ribbons on her running uniforms to lobby for blood testing. She is now leading a group of athletes who will subject themselves to regular blood examinations whose results will be made public. Her proactive approach is the right approach: the burden is unfortunately now on endurance athletes to prove that they are clean. But Radcliffe feels no burden about having used an altitude tent on occasion, most recently for several days before she won the world cross-country title in March.

"If the IOC is going to fund research into tents, I think they are sidestepping issues a bit," Radcliffe said.

"The main point is that we don't have adequate tests for EPO or human growth hormone, and there is a big risk of gene manipulation coming up. They should spend their ammunition on something that is really doping."

A recent Australian study compared benefits of altitude-house use with EPO-use and found that the altitude-house effect was significantly lower.

But there is still an endurance-enhancing effect and still a potential stigma. Norway, where cross-country skiing is a major sport, has had a particularly animated public debate.

Though the Norwegian team initially planned to train and reside in an "altitude apartment" near the site of the 2002 Olympic cross- country races in Soldier Hollow, those plans were canceled in August, partly because of ethical concerns.

-

DESPITE my respect for Radcliffe, there is indeed something troubling here; something troubling, too, about the fact that Radcliffe, who can afford to train in the Alps, used the tent as a supplementary device, essentially topping off her altitude benefits.

It seems clear that just as athletes shouldn't have to feel obliged to take drugs to have a chance, they shouldn't have to feel obliged to sleep in a plastic bubble (or tent) to have a chance. Is this really what we've come to? But if redrawing the line is tempting, how on earth could the IOC enforce it?

You can't put observers in the bedroom, and considering how difficult it was to distinguish synthetic EPO from real EPO, could there be any hope of determining which athletes were benefiting from real or ersatz altitude? Dream on. If you can still dream with all that generator noise.

The good guys will always be behind the cheaters, but progress has been made... They caught that Olympic Skier who was taking the newest EPO-like drug that was supposed to be undetectable. They also caught Mohammed Mourhit, Yegorava, etc. So, we are making ground on catching those who cheat. Just because the "new drug" can't be tested for yet, doesn't mean that there won't be a test for it in the near future.

kurdt,

The testers will always be behind the "best" cheaters. But it is worth the effort to try to keep up even if we don't catch everyone.

I'm not going to even comment on the "synthetic air" issue.

DougC

Stinkflesh

Bush continued Bubba's initial moratorium. You should sue your public school for being clueless. We are all awaitng intellegent thoughts from you. It is possible, however not likely.

You should sue your school for teaching you to use non-words like "concensus." Fair's fair.

"air" does not really have a precise definition: OED offers the following; "A colorless, odorless, tasteless, gaseous mixture, mainly nitrogen (approximately 78 percent) and oxygen (approximately 21 percent) with lesser amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, neon, helium, and other gases."

Since we know these individual gas percentages alter depending on altitude, a closer (simpler?) definition might be that "if humans can breathe it, it's air."

I can imagine a probe from Mars finding "air" and the general expectation/belief would be that humans could exist within it. Nit-picking about precise percentages of oxygen etc would not matter. If it could be breathed unaided by humans and support life, it would be called "air".

Since the range of possible "gaseous mixtures" that can be called air is extremely wide. How can any one of them possibly be banned?

If that particular mixture exists, or potentially exists, at some height/depth on earth then it is "air",and you cannot legally ban a piece of machinery which replicates it for home use.

"Since we know these individual gas percentages alter depending on altitude, a closer (simpler?) definition might be that "if humans can breathe it, it's air."

I'm sorry but that last tatement is COMPLETELY wrong, the OED you site gives quite a nice definition actually - it makes clear the Oxygen /Nitrogen ratio.

When you go to altitude these percentages of gases stay EXACTLY the same. The atmospheric pressure is less because of the altitude. Because of this for every litre of air that you breath you will be breathing less Oxygen molecules as there are less molecules of gas per litre at high altitude becuase of the reduced pressure.

The ratio of Oxygen/Nitrogen is changed in the hypoxic altitude tent. If you want to simulate an altitude of say about 3000m the machine will pump in more nitrogen to make the ratio about 15% Oxygen to 85% Nitrogen.

You will not find 'air' anywhere in the Earth's atmosphere with this ratio of Oxygen to Nitrogen which is why the gas mixture synthesised by a hypoxic altitude tent is qualitatively quite different from 'air' as we call it.

Marathonman, please comment.

Quoted from:

http://www.hypoxictent.com/hypoxictentframes.html

"The accuracy of Hypoxico's altitude-simulating tent was recently tested in the Exercise Physiology Laboratory at San Diego State University.

   Samples of air from inside the tent were taken at two time-points over an 8-hour period on two separate days within two weeks. Analysis of oxygen by an Applied Electrochemistry oxygen analyzer (Sunnyvale, CA) revealed concentrations of 14.82% and 14.86% O2 on Day 1 and 2, respectively, with essentially no variability overnight. These percentages correspond to the amount of oxygen available to the body at an altitude of 2800 meters (9,000 ft). Thus, the tent is highly accurate in creating a degree of hypoxia for stimulating the acclimatization process.

   A number of studies have demonstrated improved athletic performance by supplementing one's exercising regimen with a "live high and train low" altitude-training protocol. The Hypoxic Tent System provides precisely the low-oxygen environment required to enable the "live high" part involved in these studies. Thus, whether preparing to race at altitude, or wishing to maximize performance potential for competition at sea-level, the tent system produced by Hypoxico Inc. is an excellent way to introduce this "live high, train low" element into a training program."

 Jeanne F. Nichols-Bernhard, Ph.D.    Professor of Exercise Physiology, San Diego State University.

I take it that you refer to my last post - no worries

I'll comment for you, trust me my facts are correct, I check everything before I post it and I've been researching into this area now for two years.

I don't want to sound like a wise guy, I just want to make the points clear to everyone about this because is it is an interesting debate. Also I enjoy reading all the posts because of this.

OK read what is written carefully - this is the sentence with which you are confused:

"These percentages correspond to the amount of oxygen available to the body at an altitude of 2800 meters (9,000 ft)"

The crucial point is that they say 'corresponds to the amount of oxygen available to the body at an altitude of 2800m' .

They do not say 'which represents the composition of air at an altitude of 2800m'

At 2800m the composition of air will still be approx 20% Oxygen, 80% nitrogen. Because the overall atmospheric pressure is less at high altitude however, there will be less molecules of gas per unit volume.

So when you breath in one litre of air at 2800m, there will be less molecules of gas (including oxygen) in that litre than if you breath in 1 litre of air at sea level because the atmospheric pressure is greater at sea level. In this litre of air that you breath in at 2800m there will be less molecules of oxygen . That's the point that they make when they say 'oxygen available to the body'.

To simulate the atmospheric air of an altitude of 2800m at sea level, the machine will pump in more nitrogen to bring the oxygen percentage down to around 14%. This mixture of gases that you breath in the tent will have around the same number of oxygen molecules per unit volume as air at an altitude of 2800m BUT there will be more nitrogen in this gas than in atmospheric air.

This ratio of oxygen and nitrogen has been changed and therefore it cannot be qualitatively described to be the same as air.

Hope this is clear

Marathonman,

Undoubtedly interesting stuff, and I understand your point of view, but it does beg some questions:

1. Your understand that your argument falls flat if the cause of Paula's good form is not the tent. Does anyone know if she attributes her success to it, or if she is even still using it?

2. Since you appear to suggest that this "air mix" stimulates the natural EPO response in the body, why does Paula not have a crazy-high hematocrit? Was this number posted on the recent publication by UK Athletics of her dope-tests? Does anyone know where the exact details of what was published are available?

3. Assuming her hematocrit is within allowable female values (as it must be if they tested her), can you offer some other "effect" that could explain an ergogenic improvement caused by the tent? On the same subject, can you have an EPO effect without a commensurate hematocrit rise?

You seem the logical person to address these questions to, based on your two years of research.

Hemocrit levels or concentration of red blood cells results need to be interpreted with other variables especially plasma volume since we are talking a percentage. Its variables include where you are in the acclimatization process; born, living, or trained at altitude; short and long term acclimatization etc.

For the guy who has his panties in a wad, secretarial skills are not a substitute for intellegent dialogue.

"...secretarial skills are not a substitute for intellegent dialogue"

which is why I'm not asking you, randy.

looking forward to your replies, marathonman

This is a slight twist to the current topic, which I've been quite interested in, as I believe both sides have presented convincing arguments to their views. Anyways, I'm curious as to how effective these tents (simulating living-high and training-low) actually are for improving performance. The general consensus in the scientific community is that altitude training, including living-high and training-low, has never clearly been established to improve sea-level performance in endurance events. Clearly, altitude training and hypobaric tent usage improves oxygen carrying capacity via increased red cell production. Although, improved oxygen carrying capacity doesn't necessarily translate into improved oxygen utilization at the tissue level. However, being an altitude, endurance-trained runner, I believe altitude training in any form, including live-high, train-low or simulated altitude training via hypobaric tents is beneficial to sea-level performance. My question for everyone is do you think the scientific community simply hasn't done the proper studies necessary to find the benefits of altitude training or do you believe they are correct in stating there is no benefit to altitude training?

I couldn't understand all of what you said ,but live high ,train low was proved to improve performance.

And about this issue.

I felt something unclear because I couldn't understand the whole issue.?iBut after I read some more articles ,I was more confused).

So the defference between the altitude air and altitude tent air is only the amount of nitorogen in air ,isn't it?And that difference itself doesn't affect whether it's effective or not and dangerous or not.Am I wrong?

But I don't think it matters here.

How about tent which make air thin.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~gamow/research/bedpr.html

How about huge tanks which is big enough for one people to sleep in and beathe in for 8 hours and coaches or assitants go to altitude everyday?

Does anyone here think the problem change in these situations?

Thickness itself is defference but not the matter in this problem.It doesn't matter here if the air of altitude tents is the 'same' one as high altitude.It doesn't matter whether it is an altitude tent or a huge tank filled with altitude air.

.Whether artificial or not is not problem as long as it isn't defferent from real one (or usually even if it is apparently defferent and more effective than real one) as I said.Whether 'tlow oxygen and thick air' exist in nature or not is not problem

So the air itself doesn't seem to matter,does it?The problem is how .It also doesn't matter if we use it just to sleep in the tent,isn't it(as long as train low ,sleep high is OK)?It just gave same condition as ' train low ,sleep at altitude' in leagal and normal way.(Of course some questions remains here).

But as I say ,no one questioned tent itself(it means most people who first see the altitude tent don't question it ).The Tent itself is nothing abnormal way,not against moral .

But as has been pointed out ,interval life in and out of tent is defferent.But before thinking it, it also make me wonder difficult questions we have to face in the near future if altitude tent is restricted.How about tents whose air include same ratio of oxygen as sea level air ,and athletes use it at altitude,it gives the same condition.In Japan what we call 'door to wherevere' is well known.If we use it,we can go wherever we want to go in no time,so interval life is also possible in this way.Of couse it's an extreme example,think about high speed escarator which some contry may make for athletes.

And what really matter and may be dangerous somehow is interval life,not tents.And it is rational to ban both above two ways ,when we ban altitude tents

And like cycling's case or ski case someone pointed out,we can ban.them in that way.If it is dangerous and in that case we don't have to monitor athlese's houses' air and we don't serch if athletes have tent or not. And in this case suppose natural way like 'train low ,live high' can be also restricted if it is dangerous like EPO or blood doping.They may be not morally wrong itself,and they may not be what we define as doping,but for athletes health and God's sake ,it can be like ski or cycling's case ,restricted to attend the race .Of course ,I don't mean all dangerous training should be banned, I'm talking about this specific case only.

The way to ban or suspend can be considered in many ways.It's not so difficult ,I think.

But I heard sycling's limit is too low and ,1 % of normal people and 20 % of normal highlander are above that(which I can't possibly believe...).

In Sydney ,we couldn't recognise the difference between manmade EPO or normal EPO (Am I wrong?),but no one tested positive ,maybe we can go such way.

for God's sake X

for convinience sake O

Are there any symptoms from inhaling the high nitrogen

gas levels. The bends ( nitrogen narcosis) and laughing

gas intoxication are examples of nitrogen overloads on

the human brain. As well, NO is a significant neuro-

transmitter responsible for the relaxation of brain blood

vessels, and for maintaining penis erection.

For clarification, the Hypoxico system does not pump nitrogen into a tent. It has a ceramic molecular sieve which filters about 5% of the oxygen out of sea-level air. Back on page 2 of this thread I posted a link to a fairly rigorous study of the live high-train low concept at

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/1/102

Medical journal articles that I have read indicate that altitude stimulation of EPO production is about 10% as effective as taking synthetic EPO. That is why altitude trained athletes normally do not have hematocrits up at unsafe levels.

Yeah,of course excessive gas whatever it is is dangerous some or less.How about this tent air?

And so there are several kinds of tents?pump nitrogen,filter oxygen,and make air thin?