Difference Between 3,000ft Altitude & Sea Level

Okay, technically *any* elevation makes a difference. But the effect of altitude is exponential, rather than linear, and practically speaking most people would notice no difference at all between 3,000ft and sea level.

In fact, quite a few people notice little or no effect even at a mile in elevation.

So close to the right answer, but you blew it with the last sentence.

No noticeable effect on performance at 3000 ft. Predictable and quantifiable effect in races over 800m at 5000 ft ++

Hardly noticeable physiologically.

at 3000ft, the ppO2 is 90% that of sea level, however the SO2 and efficiency of hemoglobin is 98% that of sea level. Ironically, after 3500ft S02 efficiency starts to fall off a cliff.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4666443/

I live in the midwest (elevation 500ish feet) and regularly visit my in-laws in the southwest at an elevation of 3,200 feet. We go out there about twice a year.

Each time I arrive, my first couple of runs are noticeably tougher. My breathing is just a little bit more labored, and my HR is just a little bit higher. But for the second half of the trip I feel like I have pretty much adapted. I'm sure a true adaptation would take longer than a week, but my breathing and HR are completely back to normal.

As far as any kind of training boost, I would say little to none.

Now many years ago I lived at 7,000 feet, and that was a noticeable adjustment after I had been gone for a while. Likewise, going back to sea level for a couple of weeks left me feeling like an aerobic superman.

All I know is that a 10k absolutely destroyed me once at 3600 ft. I've also tried doing workouts at that elevation that are way harder & slower than what I'm used to at sea level.

when i run in the alps at 1800m - 2700m it kills me for 7-10 days. and i am superman for about two weeks at sea level after. i dont think 3000ft makes much difference since the valley at 800m always feels normal.

Depends some on how good you are. A beginner may lose a couple seconds per mile of racing at 3500 feet, but an elite runner may lose less than 1 second per mile at 3500 Alt.

lease wrote:

Okay, technically *any* elevation makes a difference. But the effect of altitude is exponential, rather than linear, and practically speaking most people would notice no difference at all between 3,000ft and sea level.

In fact, quite a few people notice little or no effect even at a mile in elevation.

agree...

but will add it depends on the individual. altitude impacts some worse than others.

( altitude time conversion tables are based on averages.)

d_atchison10 wrote:

I know that running above 5,000 feet is very different from running at sea level, but what about 3,000 feet? Would you notice a difference from running at sea level? What about if you are racing at 3,000 feet? What is the minimum elevation required before you notice a difference when racing/running?

My father-in-law lives in a village at 3300 ft, and I’ve found it a bit more strenuous running there than at close to sea level (I live at 500 ft). The terrain is very hilly so that might have something to do with it, but my hilly runs at lower elevations don’t feel anywhere near as difficult. I’ve been fine hiking above 4000m, but that’s obviously different.