Some elite xc skiiers reap benefints from it, but most of the elite team want to stay close to sea level even though the olympics will be at altitude. Do many runners run slower times because they are obsessed with altitude training?
Some elite xc skiiers reap benefints from it, but most of the elite team want to stay close to sea level even though the olympics will be at altitude. Do many runners run slower times because they are obsessed with altitude training?
Yes.
Yes and weather is stupid for 6 months.
More snow in Flagstaff than Chicago.
Shorter lived in Florida before he went to Boulder and Boulder was then Boulder.
Humidity has long been known as "poor man's altitude." The US has an advantage, in that we have a vast area along the Gulf of Mexico that is humid as heck. And Atlanta, and other places, too. Yet, everyone must go to Boulder, and now the fashionable thing to do is run on dirt roads there, as if you can't run on dirt roads anywhere else.
XC skiers also do twice or more the training volume most runners do. That probably has something to do with it if I had to guess.
FiJ wrote:
Some elite xc skiiers reap benefints from it, but most of the elite team want to stay close to sea level even though the olympics will be at altitude. Do many runners run slower times because they are obsessed with altitude training?
Where did you learn this?
you would actually be really interested in some stuff that Dr. Tim Noakes has put out there. It is.... not exactly mainstream as far as exercise physiology goes.
One of his big theories is that availability of oxygen in the skeletal muscle is NOT the limiting factor of endurance performance. His main line of evidence is the relatively low prevalence of myocardial ischemia -> angina -> myocardial infarction/heart attack. His logic is basically that if it were the muscles running out of oxygen that caused a slow down, the heart (as the hardest working muscle) would in theory be impacted first, and more runners would just drop dead when they decided to pick up the pace.
He argues that it is a neurologically controlled limit or GOVERNOR on activation of skeletal muscle fibers that causes the limits of aerobic performance. he says that you should train at lower elevations because that allows you to train at higher INTENSITIES, thus pushing the envelope and gradually increasing your brain's willingness to recruit a higher and higher percentage of total muscle fibers.
FiJ wrote:
Some elite xc skiiers reap benefints from it, but most of the elite team want to stay close to sea level even though the olympics will be at altitude. Do many runners run slower times because they are obsessed with altitude training?
XC skiiers do way more volume than runners. High schoolers will do upwards of 15 hours per week and college age students well over 20 hours. Add in several strength and core sessions per week and they are significantly stronger than the vast majority of elite runners. They don't need prolonged altitude to get fit.
That being said many xc ski trails are somewhat higher up in the mountains (in the west). When xc skiers do go to altitude in the summer it is to get on snow/glaciers to practice technique rather than simply to be at altitude.
If running were lower impact runners could more regularly hit higher volumes and build more aerobic strength.
Interesting. XC skiiers also don't want to train in Florida.
should be studying 102 wrote:
you would actually be really interested in some stuff that Dr. Tim Noakes has put out there. It is.... not exactly mainstream as far as exercise physiology goes.
One of his big theories is that availability of oxygen in the skeletal muscle is NOT the limiting factor of endurance performance. His main line of evidence is the relatively low prevalence of myocardial ischemia -> angina -> myocardial infarction/heart attack. His logic is basically that if it were the muscles running out of oxygen that caused a slow down, the heart (as the hardest working muscle) would in theory be impacted first, and more runners would just drop dead when they decided to pick up the pace.
He argues that it is a neurologically controlled limit or GOVERNOR on activation of skeletal muscle fibers that causes the limits of aerobic performance. he says that you should train at lower elevations because that allows you to train at higher INTENSITIES, thus pushing the envelope and gradually increasing your brain's willingness to recruit a higher and higher percentage of total muscle fibers.
This is interesting, yes. One logic to explain this is true is that we all have experienced, even after very long running feeling totally flat, that we can accelerate at the end. Where did that energy come from? Also he did research on the effect of digesting sugar while running. The reception of sugar taste immediately gave a boost in performance, way too fast for the digestive system to do its work. There are plenty of indications that the mind plays a big part for performance.
Still I think there is plenty of evidence that altitude training works for a lot of athletes.
pinecone wrote:
FiJ wrote:
Some elite xc skiiers reap benefints from it, but most of the elite team want to stay close to sea level even though the olympics will be at altitude. Do many runners run slower times because they are obsessed with altitude training?
XC skiiers do way more volume than runners. High schoolers will do upwards of 15 hours per week and college age students well over 20 hours. Add in several strength and core sessions per week and they are significantly stronger than the vast majority of elite runners. They don't need prolonged altitude to get fit.
That being said many xc ski trails are somewhat higher up in the mountains (in the west). When xc skiers do go to altitude in the summer it is to get on snow/glaciers to practice technique rather than simply to be at altitude.
If running were lower impact runners could more regularly hit higher volumes and build more aerobic strength.
About 800-1000 hours of training a year seems to be the practical limit for elite xc skiers (of course, the question is how you count "training hours").
Going over 1000 may work for some, at least for a year or two, but overtraining is already a big risk at the more usual volumes. What usually happens is a bad season, a lack of race speed, scaling back the training a bit, and then possibly an improvement the year after if the overtraining was not chronic.
Perhaps forgetting about the extra stresses of high altitude training is a way for the Norwegians to push the volume limits - they are kind of good at pushing the boundaries.
arte wrote:
pinecone wrote:
XC skiiers do way more volume than runners. High schoolers will do upwards of 15 hours per week and college age students well over 20 hours. Add in several strength and core sessions per week and they are significantly stronger than the vast majority of elite runners. They don't need prolonged altitude to get fit.
That being said many xc ski trails are somewhat higher up in the mountains (in the west). When xc skiers do go to altitude in the summer it is to get on snow/glaciers to practice technique rather than simply to be at altitude.
If running were lower impact runners could more regularly hit higher volumes and build more aerobic strength.
About 800-1000 hours of training a year seems to be the practical limit for elite xc skiers (of course, the question is how you count "training hours").
Going over 1000 may work for some, at least for a year or two, but overtraining is already a big risk at the more usual volumes. What usually happens is a bad season, a lack of race speed, scaling back the training a bit, and then possibly an improvement the year after if the overtraining was not chronic.
Perhaps forgetting about the extra stresses of high altitude training is a way for the Norwegians to push the volume limits - they are kind of good at pushing the boundaries.
I think this is a huge part of it, the overall much higher volumes and truncated period of sport specific work (not counting roller skis), it's not as practical to allocate time adapting to altitude.
I live at 9k feet and I can definitely notice more cumulative fatigue after multiple hard XC ski/cycling/running sessions as opposed to when at sea-level....being tired/fatigued doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good training stimulus that will elicit the desired adaptations.
Additionally, the speeds of xc skiing are higher that those of running so the reduced atmospheric pressure/air resistance also factors into the training equation like it does in cycling.
Does Kipchoge train at altitude?
arte wrote:
pinecone wrote:
XC skiiers do way more volume than runners. High schoolers will do upwards of 15 hours per week and college age students well over 20 hours. Add in several strength and core sessions per week and they are significantly stronger than the vast majority of elite runners. They don't need prolonged altitude to get fit.
That being said many xc ski trails are somewhat higher up in the mountains (in the west). When xc skiers do go to altitude in the summer it is to get on snow/glaciers to practice technique rather than simply to be at altitude.
If running were lower impact runners could more regularly hit higher volumes and build more aerobic strength.
About 800-1000 hours of training a year seems to be the practical limit for elite xc skiers (of course, the question is how you count "training hours").
Going over 1000 may work for some, at least for a year or two, but overtraining is already a big risk at the more usual volumes. What usually happens is a bad season, a lack of race speed, scaling back the training a bit, and then possibly an improvement the year after if the overtraining was not chronic.
Perhaps forgetting about the extra stresses of high altitude training is a way for the Norwegians to push the volume limits - they are kind of good at pushing the boundaries.
Not sure where you get those numbers from. It is pretty common for college Nordic skiers to train 25+ hours per week. Pro Ironman athletes regularly will put in 30. Pro cyclists also put in that type of volume. Top swimmers like Phelps regularly hit 30 hours a week.
As far as the premise of the op, without further information I would assume they just made it up.
Kvothe wrote:
Interesting. XC skiiers also don't want to train in Florida.
Bill "MF" Koch
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/10/31/sports/story4.htmlCitizen Runner wrote:
Kvothe wrote:
Interesting. XC skiiers also don't want to train in Florida.
Bill "MF" Koch
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/10/31/sports/story4.html
Awesome!
here's a crazy idea wrote:
XC skiers also do twice or more the training volume most runners do. That probably has something to do with it if I had to guess.
My theory has been that distance guys are limited by impact more than intensity. so things like running st altitude or up a hill lets you get more work in without breaking down.
I have always wondered if the real way to train would be massive amounts of alter G work and then just do enough normal running to keep a feel for it. In theory you could get volumes up where the swim bike/guys are. Now it isnt very practicle.
The Norwegian triathletes train 30+ hours per week and use altitude regularly. So I don’t know if you made it up
That said, they do talk a lot about “intensity control” and not overdoing it on workouts or easy days at altitude otherwise you don’t get the benefits.
I find it fascinating that they will check lactate values during many workouts and easy days to make sure they aren’t going too hard, while people like the BTC will hammer workouts as hard as possible. Different things can work I guess
Kvothe wrote:
Interesting. XC skiiers also don't want to train in Florida.
Roller skiing bro
peekay wrote:
The Norwegian triathletes train 30+ hours per week and use altitude regularly. So I don’t know if you made it up
That said, they do talk a lot about “intensity control” and not overdoing it on workouts or easy days at altitude otherwise you don’t get the benefits.
I find it fascinating that they will check lactate values during many workouts and easy days to make sure they aren’t going too hard, while people like the BTC will hammer workouts as hard as possible. Different things can work I guess
^This. back when I trained for xc skiing we had an annual week long glacier training camp. There was a ~5km loop we skied on the glacier and every lap a coach would poke our finger to do a lactate test. If we were too high for 1 lap we had to slow down. If we had continuous high lactate values we were told to stop and go eat more carbs. by the end of the week every finger had multiple prick holes. In addition we all HAD to wear heart rate monitors. easier skies/runs were at or below 65% MHR always. There were times we had to walk up big hills on "easy runs" because our heart rate was too high. This camp took place at 2500m-2700m elevation.
The rest of the summer (and year) the vast majority of training was at less than 1500m, with most athletes running/riding/roller skiing from their house.