What altitude starts to make a difference?

Without any knowledge or research (not even a quick Google that would probably yield the answer in less than three minutes of reading), I’m going to chime in with an uninformed opinion. That’s what we’re supposed to do here, right?

I think that ~2,000 ft. elevation does make some difference.

The studies I recall show differences common around 3000feet. The NCAA used to (may still) offer a conversion factor for events run above 3000feet but not below.

I would say it is rare to see a performance decrement at 1500feet. Maybe you should seek medical advice.

When I used to live at 2200' and I'd visit somewhere sea level, I definitely felt a difference. I've heard you race the same up to 3k though, so who knows.

About 6'

Lived at 2900, raced at 5600&7k as well as 600' within a couple months. Definitely a noticeable difference at both from 2900.

Lived at 7k for a couple years. Always better when racing lower. Just couldnt get the quality speedwork in at higher volumes unless traveled downhill a couple hours away which isnt always convenient.

About 3000. I raced a 10K in Billings MT (3123) and felt a slight effect, maybe 15-20 seconds. Have lived and trained at 2000-2200 and no real effect. You definitely feel it at 4000-5000 (despite what some letsrunners will tell you). And at 7000 or higher, running is hard, especially on the hills.

Not sure but my experience has been that in South Lake Tahoe I lose about 15 secs. per mi. That is about 6200ft alt. Used to go up for the D'ecelle Relay the night before to kind of get the jump on the transition. Or when I had the days available 2wks before at our Forest Service cabin. I liked the 2 week thing a lot, but I don't think I actually adapted all that much better, if at all. Night before gets it. Plus pizza and beer with the runners club the night before!

I have heard you get the best effect from 5900 ft and above.

1500? Yep, placebo. I've run several marathons at over 3500 and the altitude did not make a difference.

FiJ wrote:

I have heard you get the best effect from 5900 ft and above.

Maybe that's why them BYU runners do so poorly. They are only working out and living at 4600ft.

stan the corgi wrote:

1500? Yep, placebo. I've run several marathons at over 3500 and the altitude did not make a difference.

It is important to acknowledge that there is a lot of variation between individuals. I have seen lab tests done in San Diego (150 ft?) and then in Colorado Springs (6200 ft) a few days apart and everyone I saw had a decrease in COS but the range of drop was pretty wide. This was across several activities (running, cycling, and rowing) and the drop was between 1 and 12% or thereabouts.

Luv2Run wrote:

The studies I recall show differences common around 3000feet. The NCAA used to (may still) offer a conversion factor for events run above 3000feet but not below.

I would say it is rare to see a performance decrement at 1500feet. Maybe you should seek medical advice.

If OP is similar to me when I was college aged, it isn't a medical problem. Instead it is going home for break and staying up late with friends drinking every night, eating poorly, etc.

getting high wrote:

I go to college at ~50' elevation. I swear that every time I go home over break to my town that's at ~1500' elevation, I breathe harder and my workouts are slower.

Placebo effect?

That's actually a stupid question. If you mean at what altitude does one notice a difference, that's a different story. Every increase in altitude makes a difference , even 1 foot. There is less oxygen at 21 feet than at 20 feet. It has an effect n your body, it's just so insignificant that you just cannot perceive it.

3000 ft seems about right. I live at ~300 ft. Run in the Ozarks at 1500 ft and feel nothing. Do feel it a little in Colorado at 5000 ft. So somewhere in between there.

Spent a summer in Cochabamba (8500 ft) and Copacabana (Lake Titicaca, 12,500 ft). Hardly felt it running in Cochabamba, but never went hard, but did feel it at Lake Titicaca, although it wasn't nearly as bad as I would have thought.

Some other mountain experiences it's hard to know if it was elevation or slope making me struggle, but those runs I talked about above were flat.

Ray Cyst wrote:

getting high wrote:

I go to college at ~50' elevation. I swear that every time I go home over break to my town that's at ~1500' elevation, I breathe harder and my workouts are slower.

Placebo effect?

That's actually a stupid question. If you mean at what altitude does one notice a difference, that's a different story. Every increase in altitude makes a difference , even 1 foot. There is less oxygen at 21 feet than at 20 feet. It has an effect n your body, it's just so insignificant that you just cannot perceive it.

That's why I run in a squat, or I've seen some people use a hose with the intake down on the ground. Over bridges you can really benefit from an extra long hose 👀

FWIW, I once ran a 4:56 mile at Arkansas (1400'). The next week, I ran a 4:47 mile at BU (sea level). I didn't taper for either race.

The following year, I ran a 4:50 at Arkansas, tapered, and ran a 4:43 at BU two weeks later.

I'm a lot more sensitive to altitude than most, though. I remember trying to run at 7000' without any acclimation, and I wheezed myself to a low 6 minute mile.

Luv2Run wrote:

The studies I recall show differences common around 3000feet. The NCAA used to (may still) offer a conversion factor for events run above 3000feet but not below.

The conversion factors assume that you're fully acclimatized. Someone who lives at 3000' may only be 3"/mile slower than his sea level time, but someone who lives at sea level would be a lot slower than 3"/mile if he were to race at 3000'.

Grew up at sea level, worked in a mountain town in college that was at 2k & didn't notice any real difference but the closest track I would run on was a little lower. As an adult I've mostly lived at sea level & had a stretch where I would occasionally travel to a town at 3500 feet for work. Would notice that right away. Tried a 10k race there when I was probably a 34-35 runner & ran 39-flat. I paced it horribly & died more than I should have. Feel like 3k+ & you'll notice a difference on easy runs + workouts if you've never spent any time at altitude. Gonna feel it more at 5k & above & make better gains there but it'll also take longer to adjust. Gotta spend at least 4-6 weeks over 5k to get something out of it since you'll need a couple weeks to adjust & then run slow workouts for a couple weeks after that.

I think you're in your head a bit at 1500 feet. Shouldn't be causing you any real difficulty.

If you want to be exact, chemically the oxygen levels will change some tiny amount with every foot. The real question is where does the body become conscience of it? I would guess every body is different. When I was in college, in the 80's, I lived in a city but went to school in a rural area. I was never aware of bad air quality at home but, like you, when I came home I would feel the effects for the first week. Slight light headedness. Worse if I did a lot of training on main streets. I assume everybody has a different tolerance. But you may be right in the Placebo effect too. Maybe once both of us felt it the first time we just got hyper aware of it & started to look for it. I'd just take it easy the first few days.

getting high wrote:

I go to college at ~50' elevation. I swear that every time I go home over break to my town that's at ~1500' elevation, I breathe harder and my workouts are slower.

Placebo effect?

I think it's a little bit dependent on the individual. I'm in a similar situation to you. I swear I could notice a difference at 1,500 to 2,000 feet. And any time I tried to race at altitude it seemed to affect me more than others.