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

At the top of page 2 of the above thread, Renato explains why he does not believe that live high/train low works.

Hooked X wrote:

Joan Benoit Samuelson and Bill Rodgers both grew-up and trained their whole career at sea level and are two of the best marathoners ever, and each dominated the world scene for several years.

From a training aspect, altitude is a great tool to have in your tool box, but it is just a tool, it isn't a "must have".

Growing up at altitude also appears to be helpful, but it isn't a must have to be an elite distance runner.

For the record I have heard Bill say, on multiple occassions, that altitude is THE major determining factor that has prevented Americans from dominating in the sport since his time.

I think the effect of living at altitude is entirely dependent on the individual. I coach distance runners at altitude, and some of the athletes don't run any faster at sea-level than they do at altitude. Personally, I myself benefited greatly from living at altitude. I found myself many times racing much faster at sea-level than my training indicated. I recived the same race results with 55-mile weeks at altitude as I did with 75 miles a week at sea-level. It was nice for me, but not everyone gets the same effect.

DO you mean the Italian coach who justifies bullshit so he can hide the fact his athletes all take EPO?

SlowFatMaster wrote:

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

At the top of page 2 of the above thread, Renato explains why he does not believe that live high/train low works.

homan wrote:

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He was stating that more miles cause the reverse effect , they were running as fast as they could in workouts. Running more miles or faster miles does not always mean better performances. Knowing the mileage formula that gets you to the optimal result is the key. Staying with that formula and adding a greater level of resistance ( altitude ) is smart and efficient training.

Not Buying It wrote:

DO you mean the Italian coach who justifies bullshit so he can hide the fact his athletes all take EPO?

LOL.

Any person in the sport in a position of power who tells you that EPO doesn't work for Africans, EPO doesn't work for elite athletes, drugs are no longer prevalent, the group of athletes I deal with wouldn't even take an aspirin, blah blah blah--you know they are involved in getting their athletes drugs, representing doped athletes, covering for doped athletes, blah blah blah.

hmmm. What altitude are you at?

There's obviously a point where the thin air would impact training more then benefit it. And clearly the benefit of 'altitude' training at sea level compared to training at sea level is zero.

Perhaps somewhere in between there's an optimum?

I am kind of a fan of Noakes, but I think he is of missing the point when it comes to altitude.

No distance runner (800m and up) without some altitude training (or artificial simulation of such) has been in contention for a world record in recent years.

Sure you can be a great racer and runner, but you will never be in contention for a world record without altitude training unless you take PEDs.

ooooOOOOOOh! Wrong time of the month?

ttc wrote:

I *know* what the author said. I'm drawing *further* questions from his content, and you're just redundantly replying with his cliff notes version. I also said most of the world's best come from altitude- not what you said. And that demands a clear reason by the author. If you stick with your original post, then don't bother replying. Hire a tutor first.

Tim Noakes is willing to question everything- his latest book "Waterlogged" dispells many myths pertaining to dehydration, electrolytes, etc. All he is doing is interpreting what legitimate research is telling us- there are responders and non-responders to altitude training. We need more like him.

Still no studies or scientific evidence posted.

All throughout the thread people refer to "research" and "studies," but no one posts references to the specific ones.

If it's so important to you, post it yourself.

Also, I posted a study.

Where's the beer? wrote:

Still no studies or scientific evidence posted.

All throughout the thread people refer to "research" and "studies," but no one posts references to the specific ones.

There was already one study posted, perhaps you missed it?

People should really learn how to use pubmed.

Here are some results

I think this is the one posted earlier:

Keep in mind that there is a well known bias away from publishing results which show "no results" across all research fields, so "altitude training doesn't work" studies are likely going to be under represented, but you can still find them.

Reading the research gives the impression that the situation is quite complicated, and certainly there appears to be many that do NOT receive benefits from altitude training, which is itself a blanket term for a lot of different training modalities.

Given the current state of research, Noakes is not stating anything outlandish here.

You don't NEED sea level training either. Do I really need to give examples? Just pointing it out. Matter of fact if sea level lovers look at their "members" and compare it to the altitude "members" size, I would honestly be a bit jealous. Which I think is the reason behind the head scratching need to bash on altitude and promote the other with silly reasoning.

Go to a university library or buy this review article:

www.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/22797528

they cover, with references to previous studies, what Noakes is alluding to.

Personally, followed live high train lower, and do speed work, with good success - for a while. However, many things were different in my life at the same time. Teasing out the significance is what these reviewers are looking for in better designed studies. The practicalities of getting what they suggest may not be that easy though.

Its not about formulas wrote:

.....Staying with that formula and adding a greater level of resistance ( altitude ) is smart and efficient training.

BINGO!!....we have a winner.

yesstiles wrote:

I think the effect of living at altitude is entirely dependent on the individual ... Personally, I myself benefited greatly from living at altitude. I found myself many times racing much faster at sea-level than my training indicated. I recived the same race results with 55-mile weeks at altitude as I did with 75 miles a week at sea-level. It was nice for me, but not everyone gets the same effect.

That's my experience too. After living in the Houston area and running marathons for years, I moved to Colorado. After living here for 3 years, with the same training I did in Houston, I ran a sea-level marathon and cut 9 minutes off my "normal" marathon time. Other factors played a part, but I think I got at least 5 minutes from the elevation difference. I'm female, 5'2" and ~100 lbs. Maybe those factors also affect respiratory capacity/oxygen transport?

Ralphie! wrote:

I am kind of a fan of Noakes, but I think he is of missing the point when it comes to altitude.

No distance runner (800m and up) without some altitude training (or artificial simulation of such) has been in contention for a world record in recent years.

This is true. But it doesn't prove that it's necessary to train at altitude. It proves that people have come to believe that you need to train at altitude and therefore runners who have shown enough potential to get a contract which allows them to live where ever they want believe they should decide to live at altitude. They may be correct but their presence there doesn't prove that they are.

Just read through the thread, and, ttc is getting owned.