The "Live High/Train Low" theory (altitude)

Is it better to live high, train high, or live high/train low?

The idea is the benefit to running training at altitude is (someone correct me if I'm wrong) the ability of the blood to carry oxygen is improved. This benefit continues when the runner returns to sea level to race, and thus performance is improved. However, the lack of oxygen at altitude prevent the runner from completing speed work nearly as challenging as they could at sea level. Live High/Train Low is supposed to capture the advantages of both, by having the runner spend most of their time in high altitude conditions while being able to train harder by running at sea level.

Pretty much correct. The high/low studies were conducted by Dr. Ben Levine and Stray-Gundersen of U of TX Southwestern Medical center (Levine shares an office with Peter Snell). They took people up to Deer Valley/Park City, UT and had them do high intensity stuff down at SLC. The non-elite (16:30-15:30) group improved by 3% with just 4 weeks of this training, that's 16:30 to sub 16 in 4 weeks! Elites in a later study (Olympians) improved 1.1%.

I linked the elite article.

I sure hate to see the day when the East Africans find out that they can be better if they learn to train low rather than just living high and training high -- doesn't seem they have lost much speed by not going down to train. We are doing our runners a disservice leading them to believe that if they don't use altitude training (and a hi-low technique) that they don't have a chance and may as well buy an altitude tent or pack it in. Studies years ago found the same improvemnents among elite runners who lived and trained high. Live and train where you are happy and have friends to share things with. If you want to do some altitude training then save your tent money and spend some time in the mountain air -- 24 hours a day

Buy "Altitude Training and Athletic Performance".

The main thing is that they were born up there, so it is their natural environment. The early studies did not have proper subject sizes, and the athletes being studied (ie, Jim Ryun) said that it was the rest he got that helped him, not the altitude.

The reason for training at sea level is because at altitude you can't go as fast for workouts, therefore your neuromuscular system doesnt get the same level of workout as your cardiorespiratory or as it normally would at sea level.

You're kidding of course. I thought you could run faster at altitude than at sea level -- isn't that why sprinters like Altitude so much? How much speed do you lose at altitude when going on a 20 miler at 7:00 pace as opposed to 6:45 pace at sea level? Why aren't the high altitude South Americans doing so well. Too many unanswered question to just say the East Africans are beter because they grew up at altitude. I hope we aren't just looking for excuses

Yes, sprinters do better at altitude, that's why world records don't count for sprint or jump events at altitude. But aerobic stuff is. High/High altitude training will make you faster, but not as quickly or as much as high/low, because you need to acclimate first, then improve.

It is an excuse, but if you got the time and money I think it is worth the shot.