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

Haven't read the whole thread but I have read (can't remember where) that when Shorter was living and training in Boulder that he would drive his car up to the top of Pike's Peak and take a nap in it in the middle of the day. Can anybody confirm that? Deatils? Like if he did it every day/length of time stayed?

Is there a stack of scientific literature that confirming that rhEPO or CERA unequivocably improve distance running performance? If not then why on earth are rhEPO and CERA on the banned list of performance-enhancing substances? As someone pointed out, whether something is banned in a sport is more to do with cultural acceptances as opposed to whether it actually does give an "unfair advantage."

The full paragraph that you're quoting from was the following:

"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."

After I posted that paragraph, I realized that someone might, as you perhaps did, read the sentence "Breathing gasses with lower oxygen concentrations . . . " as a reference to breathing gasses with any lower oxygen concentrations whatsoever, rather than breathing gasses with the lower oxygen concentrations typically found at 12,000 to 13,000 feet altitude, as I had stated two sentences earlier. As I indicated in that same paragraph, the evidence of increased EPO production or increased red blood cell mass in moving from sea level to moderate (6,000 to 7,000 feet) altitude is equivocal at best. With that clarification, I don't know whether you still object to anything that I said.

I was curious about your pseudonym, "secret cheater," which perhaps suggests that you use an altitude tent yourself. I want to be very clear that I don't regard the use of altitude tents as cheating in the absence of a rule that prohibits their use. I feel the same way about many types of alleged performance-enhancing practices, from carbohydrate loading to caffeine loading to autologous blood-doping to the use of anabolic steroids. Although the rules governing prohibited performance-enhancing practices were very nebulous forty or fifty years ago (which was why there were serious discussions back then about whether running long distances in training to "burn off flesh" violated the rules of fair play governing Olympic marathoners), the rules have evolved over time from general prohibitions on "unfair" practices to a collection of rather specific bans, with the unstated implication that practices not specifically banned are generally permitted. I think that's a good thing. But it remains an open question as to whether the use of altitude tents should be added to the list of banned practices. The debates on the subject have generally been very primitive and unenlightening to anyone who tries to think carefully about these matters.

My own views about the subject are mixed, but I am definitely less impressed by performances that have been achieved with the assistance of altitude tents than I am by otherwise identical performances achieved without their assistance, and I am concerned about seeing the sport of distance running move further toward a dependence on technological advantages. I happened to be watching the movie "Endurance" over the weekend, and was once again struck by what a wonderful sport this is, where a dirt-poor farmer's son from Ethiopia can compete head-to-head with almost unimaginably wealthy and technologically-advantaged people from places like the United States. Although scientific and technological knowledge cannot be unlearned and expunged from this sport, I would like to see the sport retain its fundamental simplicity and universality.

Too bad its not, now that more wealthy nations in the future are going to be investing in the use of altitude tents. This also brings up another point. The wealthy financially secured athletes are going to have more access to the use of altitude tents over the ones that aren't. Is this where we want the sport to go?

First, I have serious doubts that altitude tents are really effective.

Second, if you ban them, what's to stop someone with extensive resources from using private aircraft from gaining the achieving the same circumstances in a high/low environment?

Sagarin wrote:

Does anyone know if Mottram ever used an altitude tent?

on the runs wrote:

No, that's not Nic's sort of thing.

Sonia O'Sullivan certainly used a tent for a time, not sure when. Once she had a child it wasn't very practical.

I've not used a tent but know a couple of people that have. Didn't make any discernable difference to their running and wasn't exactly a boost to their social life, so they got rid of them.

then altitude training should be banned too.

my imput wrote:

The wealthy financially secured athletes are going to have more access to the use of altitude tents over the ones that aren't. Is this where we want the sport to go?

It is immensely more practical and affordable for runners who live at sea level (which would be the vast majority of runners) to purchase an altitude tent than, as is done by the elite few, travel to and from an altitude site numerous times in the year.

Maybe a tent costs $3000-$8000, but it can be used for many years. One trip to altitude (never mind whether you have to quit your job, withdraw from school, or kiss babies good bye) could cost $2000-5000 depending on where you go, how long you stay, and cost of accomdations.

Personally, I don't think a tent does much more than give you a handful of seconds over a 5k. If you're world class, 5 seconds mean a lot. If you're a 15:00 5k runner, why bother?

The question is, is an altitude tent that creates synthetic air and simulates much higher altitudes than those feasible to train at in Colorado or Ethiopia worth the difference between, say, a 13:03 and a 12:56? We just can't know the answer to that question.

Sagarin wrote:

The question is, is an altitude tent that creates synthetic air and simulates much higher altitudes than those feasible to train at in Colorado or Ethiopia worth the difference between, say, a 13:03 and a 12:56? We just can't know the answer to that question.

OK.

But the distance running dominance that the high altitude countries have enjoyed has, in my opinion at least, really hurt the sport on the whole. Americans haven't given up, but I think a lot of the rest of the world has. They just have come to the conclusion that the Ethiopians and Kenyans (and transplanted Ethiopians and Kenyans) shall rule the roost ever more, and participation rates in events like world cross country are way down.

Altitude effects have been a huge part of this. Does anyone doubt that much (not all) of the running success that Ethiopians and Kenyans have enjoyed is not due to the effects of living and training at altitude? If sea level athletes cannot avail themselves of some of the same benefit, then this advantaged group of altitude athletes

have by virtue of geographical placement a protected advantage blocking all sea level competitors.

Yes, absolutely I doubt it. Where did Abdi and Meb grow up for the most part ? In the US. They are still #1 & 2 on the US 10k list. Paul Tergat did not train at altitude, he said it was too hard. Other east african stars did not grow up or train at altitude. I do agree that generations of ancestors growing up in the east african environment (including altitude for some) led to genetic selection that created better runners, but you can't change that by training or sleeping at altitude.

"Protected" ?!??! That is absurd. Anyone can move to and live and train at altitude and lots of europeans have done so! Who is stopping you?? Protected. And moving and living there hasn't caught them up to the east africans.

I love how you put it in the terms of "protected.....advantaged group of athletes"...like once again, poor whitey is getting an unfair break, and it would only be fair to allow any and all ideas that would allow them to even the playing field. If by "advantaged", you mean "more talented", then I agree. But it seems like you are putting it in the terms of the: 'those africans have been given a protected unfair advantage for years, so yeah, goddamit, its about time we americans and europeans were allowed the same advantages and same treatment they get. Such an unfair edge they've been given is the ONLY reason they beat us. ' lol Move to altitude and live there if it such a huge advantage! As I said, many have done so and it hasn't closed the gap.

Live high train lo is a bigger advantage than just living and training at altitude, so it looks like technology (altitude tents) trumps old-school running in poverty. So who has the advantage?

Why do you say that you doubt the benefits of living at altitude has anything to do with the success of Abdi or Meb and then immediately follow it by saying that generations of living at altitude are part of the reason for their success? Also, they were born and lived at altitude while they grew up which probably also helped a bit along with their ancestry.

Altitude benefits are the entire basis of what you call the superior talent of the East Africans. I've always believed that, rather than the notion that they resort to drugs or train smarter. They don't need drugs to beat sea level athletes - they have the benefits of generations of altitude adaptation as their edge. If sea level athletes can duplicate some altitude benefits it will help to close the gap. That's not a bad thing, in my opinion. It will raise the level of interest in the sport.

By the way, I would not support any notion of drugging athletes to level the field. I don't see the tent in that way, but if you do, I can understand where you're coming from, although I wouldn't agree with you.

dean moriarty wrote:

How can you be cheating if it isn't against the rules?

cheating is just like pornography. you know it when you see it.

three make one wrote:

Altitude benefits are the entire basis of what you call the superior talent of the East Africans.

Couldn't you at least preface that statement by warning that it's not a statement of fact, but merely the opinion of someone who knows very little about the subject?

Although many of the best distance runners in the world are members of tribes that are largely clustered in relatively high altitude areas in East Africa, there is little reason to believe that their overwhelming superiority in distance running is based primarily -- much less exclusively, as you claim -- on "altitude benefits." If you take a group of untrained Nandi schoolchildren and put them on a training program at sea level, they will thrash a similar cohort of untrained northern European schoolchildren. (It's been done.) There's every reason to believe that they are, as a group, genetically superior distance runners, just as there's every reason to believe that persons of western and central African origins are, as a group, genetically superior sprinters.

A number of sea-level runners from East African tribes have done very well in distance running. Douglas Wakiihuri, the first Kenyan world champion and Olympic medalist in the marathon, was born and raised in Mombassa, at sea level, and trained as an adult in Japan. He probably spent less time at high altitude than many rich Americans and Europeans who ski in Aspen and St. Moritz during their winter vacations. During the 1980s, the best marathoning country in the world was Djibouti, a tiny East African country whose inhabitants almost all live at sea level. As others have pointed out, a number of top runners in the U.S. (and elsewhere) are sea-level athletes from East African tribes.

In any event, the origins of East African superiority in distance running shed little light on the issue of whether competitive runners should be permitted to manipulate their EPO levels and red blood cell volume with the use of equipment that enables them to breathe certain mixtures of gases for eight to twelve hours a day.

So you take the position that altitude benefits have little to do with the athletes from Kenya and Ethiopia, but should a sea level athlete sleep in an altitude tent for 8 hours a night it results in inordinate gains and needs to be banned? Doesn't that seem somewhat illogical?

I'm saying that altitude has benefits: the high altitude athletes have been enjoying them for years, sea level athletes have not. But I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to share in the benefits by using a tent.

three make one wrote:

But I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to share in the benefits by using a tent.

why not by using a syringe?

What he said...

(very good post avocado)

three make one wrote:

Why do you say that you doubt the benefits of living at altitude has anything to do with the success of Abdi or Meb and then immediately follow it by saying that generations of living at altitude are part of the reason for their success? Also, they were born and lived at altitude while they grew up which probably also helped a bit along with their ancestry..

OK, firstly I am not saying that growing up altitude has NOTHING to do with their success. I just doubted your statement that it has EVERYthing to do with their success. And I proved by pointing out that many east africans who did not live at altitude, or train at altitude, or went to other countries and lived and trained at sea level still performed better than just about any non-africans ever.

Also, I said that generations that have grown up at altitude may have led to a selection of individuals who could process and use oxygen more efficiently, and this could lead to an advantage. So these genes could be more prevalent in certain groups of east africa, but then these people might move around and end up living and producing offspring at sea level, or moving to other countries. So.... one can still have these advantageous genes without having been born or lived at altitude themselves. So I am saying it is more the long history of their environment (altitude, equator, a culture where running places ='s survival, and more) spurring selection of certain genes that could be advantageous for distance running that has led to their success rather than their CURRENT environment (the fact they live at train at altitude right now, though that can help). Put another way: you can take the east african out of east africa (Meb, Abdi, Lagat, Kipeter, Mo Farah,), but you can't take the east africa out of the east african (the genes remain, even if the environment changes).

three make one wrote:

So you take the position that altitude benefits have little to do with the athletes from Kenya and Ethiopia, but should a sea level athlete sleep in an altitude tent for 8 hours a night it results in inordinate gains and needs to be banned? Doesn't that seem somewhat illogical?

I see your point there, but (speaking for myself), i never said there were no advantages from living and training at altitude. However, there are certain disadvantages from training at altitude (like I said, Tergat said it was too hard on his body and he stopped). One gets around that with the live hi train lo concept. This makes an altitude tent better than living in the mountains. Plus if you want a little training at altitude too, Nike I am sure has altitude rooms with a treadmill in there.

I can think of one semi-valid argument in defense of altitude tents (not all the garbage about "it is no different than training at altitude, or running on a treadmill, or lifting weights," etc), and that is: it is an artificial environment, and of course we allow other artificial environments like air conditioned rooms for recovery in hot environments, and heated rooms with a treadmill to prepare for a hot weather race, etc. So on one level, it is somewhat similar to those things (heating and cooling one's environment), however no other artificial environments appears to have such a direct and drastic effect on one's endurance ability as proponents of altitude tents believe the tents do.