First Paula 2:15, now Ritz 12:56 in a few months of track training?????? BAN ALTITUDE TENTS!!!!

I guess he means recombinant air which just doesn't make any sense. It comes from a misunderstanding of the principles behind recombinant DNA technology. At best it is an analogy claiming that they are creating air which does not exist in nature. But it is just silly.

well played, sir. wrote:

WTF is rAIR? it's been used repeatedly, but wtf does that mean? i'm inclined to give this troll thread 9/10. good work.

I would like to see running studies done on the Alter-G treadmill.

It would have great theraputic use. More "miles" on the cardiovascular system without more "miles" on the legs so to speak. Maybe improved recovery, less micro-trauma, etc.I believe "pool running" while not injured was intended for the same purpose.

I can see this be greatly helpful to runners like Ritz who have been routinely injured as one of the things that makes him a great distance runner (frail lightness) makes him more injury-prone.

Anyone got about $50 to spend on one of these puppies?

Alan

I disagree.;-) When was Paula Radcliff last a 2:19/20 marathoner? About 3-4 years back. I guess the tent sprung a seam.

fair is fair wrote:

Then put an asterik next to all the athletes who train and live at altitude or ban them too. Why should they have the alititude edge and no one else?

It's true that the tent creates a low oxygen environment by increasing nitrogen level of the air, but nitrogen provides no fitness boost and makes up 78% of earth's air anyways.

The responses to the original poster's proposal to ban the use of altitude tents continue to be remarkably bad.

First, as a matter of physiology, there is a HUGE difference between, on the one hand, living and training at an altitude of, for example, 6,000-7,000 feet (typical for many Kenyan and Ethiopian runners) and, on the other hand, spending eight to twelve hours a day breathing gas that (whether by increasing nitrogen, decreasing oxygen, or lowering pressure) simulates oxygen transport conditions typically found at 12,000 to 13,000 feet altitude while continuing to train under conditions in which oxygen is much more readily transported. Laboratory experiments have generally shown very little, if any, increased EPO production or increased red blood cell mass in moving from sea level to moderate (6,000 to 7,000 feet) altitude, although the concentration of red blood cells will typically increase because of a decrease in total blood plasma volume. Breathing gasses with lower oxygen concentrations for eight to twelve hours a day, however, will cause significant increases in endogenous EPO production and red blood cell mass, without a corresponding drop in blood plasma volume and without requiring a reduction in training intensity. The use of so-called "altitude tents" is, physiologically, much more similar to blood-doping by autologous red blood cell reinfusion or exogenous EPO injection than it is to living and training at moderately high altitude.

More importantly, however, the responses to the original poster's proposal to ban altitude tents are generally based on incorrect assumptions about the reasons for banning various practices, which generally have little to do with notions of leveling the playing field among competitors, and much more to do with cultural norms about the nature of sport and the costs of policing the rules. Leveling the playing field is relatively easy; for example, you can add weights to faster runners (as is done in handicapped horse races) or give time bonuses to slower runners (similar to golf handicaps, which give stroke bonuses to inferior performers). You can subdivide competitive fields beyond the usual age and sex divisions to include height, weight, and BMI or ponderal index divisions (as is done to various extents in such competitions as boxing, wrestling, bodybuilding, and the occasional "Clydesdale" running competition). You can even "level the playing field" by permitting everyone to dope up to a certain level (as was effectively done through the use of hematocrit ceilings in tour cycling during the past decade).

Deciding what comports with cultural norms of sport is a rather different undertaking, and depends largely on who gets to call the shots. The use of human windbreaks, for example, has been a banned practice throughout much of the history of competitive running, and that ban might still be enforced if poor East Africans like Kip Keino rather than upper-class British like Roger Bannister had been the primary and most brazen rulebreakers. The use of the powerful performance-enhancing drug found naturally in coffee is now generally permitted in athletic competition, probably because a large percentage of the European and American adult population is addicted or exposed to the drug, while the use of the stimulant found naturally in khat remains banned, despite its widespread use throughout East Africa. The practice of receiving money for performance was largely banned up until about twenty-five years ago (and still is banned in some competitive realms, such as the NCAA); that ban was based largely on the cultural norms of a rather small and affluent segment of the western European sporting community. Someone earlier in this thread parodied the idea of banning altitude tents by comparing their use to such permissible performance-enhancing practices such as running 100-mile weeks, but if you go back into the literature on "doping" bans as recently as the 1960s, you can find serious discussions about banning the practice of running long distances in training in order to "burn off" flesh as a way of achieving "unfair" weight advantages in competitive marathoning.

So what's the bottom line on altitude tents? As I said earlier, the most substantial reason that I have seen for NOT banning them, apart from a background presumption against prohibitions, is that such a ban might be rather difficult to enforce, although not more difficult to enforce than many other bans that have been in place over the years. If they are not banned, my guess is that the main reason will be that the parts of the sporting community that have a vested interest in using them -- especially, collections of athletes, coaches, sponsors, manufacturers, and organizations in wealthy countries -- are highly influential in determining what is permitted and what is banned. But this latest performance by Ritz, which I initially greeted with great enthusiasm, has caused me to look further into this issue, and has made me less enthusiastic about what I would prefer to see as a breakthrough performance by an outstanding and somewhat snakebitten athlete. Based on what I know of physiology, as well as what I have recently found out about who else has been using altitude tents during the past eight to ten years, I am confident that, if I were still competing seriously, I would have long ago invested a few thousand dollars in an altitude tent, and I would probably regard it as an indispensable part of my race preparation. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

alazar wrote:

i don't think he is missing the point. You seem to argue that because epo is more efficient and powerful, it is wrong, but altitude tents take a little effort and time, so it's ok.

This is not what is being argued. Synthetic/exogenous EPO is not wrong just because it is more efficient and powerful. At issue is WHY it's more efficient and powerful. This has already been mentioned, but keeps flying over people's heads: The EPO produced in an altitude tent is endogenous, and it is produced in response to the exact same stimulus (hypoxia) as that found in a natural environment at altitude. The conditions may be artificial, but the training response in either case is caused by hypoxia, so the tent offers no advantage to true altitude, other than the lack of a downhill drive every morning. Injecting EPO, on the other hand, is a hormonal shortcut around the body's response to hypoxia, allowing the doper all the benefits (and then some) of altitude training with NONE OF THE COSTS of reduced oxygen. The doper not only gets a greater increase in aerobic capacity than the altitude trainers, but he can also train harder and recover faster while doing it. Essentially, the EPO you produce whether at altitude or in a tent is "earned" instead of simply injected.

pjb wrote:

Essentially, the EPO you produce whether at altitude or in a tent is "earned" instead of simply injected.

That's silly. The additional EPO that's produced by breathing some combination of gasses other than air is not "earned" except to the extent that one may have to pay for the equipment that mixes the gasses. It's also no different from the additional EPO that might be produced by injecting a substance that stimulates the production of endogenous EPO.

You just lost whatever credibility you had. EPO use is quite different than an altitude tent or training at altitude. That you argue the contrary is evidence that you are out of it. See ya.

altitude tent cheats out! wrote:

Bolt Fan wrote:

Altitude tents have trade offs that EPO doesn't. If you sleep in altitude you necessarily compromise recovery rates because you have forced your body into a hypoxia. EPO on the other hand doesn't need a hypoxic stimulus to trigger red cell blood cell proliferation.

so, because breathing in synthetic air is not quite as efficient as direct epo injections, they are kosher?? I'm not sure about that.

This is because you are a talentless jealous f***ing crybaby.

Avocado -- that was a great post and I had the same secondary reaction upon ruminating about and researching the topic a bit. It certainly, while legal, is a gray area. I'm a big fan of Ritz, but I can't help but raise an eyebrow and wonder what he would have run minus the tent (just using regular stints of living/training at altitude). Would he have cracked 13:00?? I just don't know...

Well, if you are going to go all logic and intelligent on them...they just won't be able to handle it.

Under the Op's logic, we could then ban the "Altitude Cheats" of all types. Those born at high altitude, grown at high altitude, living at high altitude, training at high altitude, using altitude simulation of any type: ALL BANNED.

Kenyans and Ethiopian athletes: NOW BANNED.

summary: whitey = bad, blacky = good

Can someone answer this question - do altitude tents provide the same, greater or less of an advantage than someone living at altitude? If the answer is the same or less, then I don't see any issue at all.

how about do they provide any advantage at all?

So if injecting steroids gives the same benefit as running 100 mile weeks, then there is no issue and one should be allowed to inject steroids or run 100 mile weeks, as one fancies.

It's been fun, but there is just too much negative energy here and too many new assholes who post bullshit and lots of great people who used to post all the time who have left or gone underground. I'm out. Life is too short. I'll be in kona. Hope to see some of you there. Paulo knows how to find me.

You Hillel House guys really take direction well, don't you?

It's not the altitude tents causing these improvements.

If you don't know that, nothing can help you.

you are not alone--there are many of us out here who while initially thrilled at the breakthrough now have very mixed feelings about the whole thing---AT's seem a lot closer to injecting EPO than living at altitude----unfortunately calls into question a lot of what Rupp has done as well----for the first time ever(and i like many go back to grotescheif days), I don't want to come to the board because this whole discussion is so unsettling ----if these aids have such an effect, what is real?----and as much as people want to deny it, if this were a non American the cheating accusations would be even worse--and again i know its not cheating because if AT's are not currently banned etc etc, but come on........even the guys who think differently must acknowledge to themselves that something just doesn't seem right

Is this thread for real