Mileage vs. altitude - which results in greater improvements?

def altitude guy

Mileage guy. 40-55MPW is a pretty big difference. If the increase is 80-95MPW, then I'd go with the altitude guy.

I read somewhere that altitude = 20%-25% increase in mileage for most people. This means that 40MPW at altitude is worth 48-50MPW at sea level, in terms of aerobic benefits. It falls short of the 55MPW that the sea level guy does.

So, the sea level mileage guy wins.

There is no answer to this question.

Mileage, there's no substitute.

I'd say you just identified your research project for grad school.

twice a runner wrote:

There is no answer to this question.

There isn't a definite answer, but most of the time, the altitude guy would win. Altitude improves VO2 max by 5%. Does increasing mileage have the same effect? Of course, but you'll need to increase it from 40 to 70MPW, not from 40 to 55 MPW.

The only exception to this rule is if the race is a sprint. The sea level guy will win, since VO2 max isn't much of a factor.

pictures?

skinny nerd wrote:

There isn't a definite answer, but most of the time, the altitude guy would win. Altitude improves VO2 max by 5%. Does increasing mileage have the same effect? Of course, but you'll need to increase it from 40 to 70MPW, not from 40 to 55 MPW.

The only exception to this rule is if the race is a sprint. The sea level guy will win, since VO2 max isn't much of a factor.

No one has ever won a race because their VO2 max was "5% higher", let alone because it was higher period.

Who will win a runner who increases his mileage by 15% for two months but gets shi7 bombed drinking PBR the night before a race or the runner who does everything the same except for he switches his shoe laces, assuming that the price of tea in china is inversely related to R Kelly's street rep.

800m or less? I don't get it. If this were so why isnt there a greater NCAA conversion for the 800m? I highly doubt 6000ft is enough to hurt foot speed, unless it is intentionally neglected.

Go sit in the corner . . wrote:

Who will win a runner who increases his mileage by 15% for two months but gets shi7 bombed drinking PBR the night before a race or the runner who does everything the same except for he switches his shoe laces, assuming that the price of tea in china is inversely related to R Kelly's street rep.

800m or less? I don't get it. If this were so why isnt there a greater NCAA conversion for the 800m? I highly doubt 6000ft is enough to hurt foot speed, unless it is intentionally neglected.

Apparently a post from someone who has never lived at 6000 feet.

No one has ever won a race because their VO2 max was "5% higher", let alone because it was higher period.

All other things being equal (running economy, speed, etc), the person with the higher VO2 max wins.

skinny nerd wrote:

There isn't a definite answer, but most of the time, the altitude guy would win. Altitude improves VO2 max by 5%. Does increasing mileage have the same effect? Of course, but you'll need to increase it from 40 to 70MPW, not from 40 to 55 MPW.

The sea level guy wins. VO2 max is not the only indicator of running performance.

Funny, I "was" this experiment.

One summer I took part in an altitude study run by Dr. Ben Levine, who has published a lot of papers on altitude training (the "live high, train low" method, etc.). I was a 800m runner in college, but our "races" in the camp were 3k. We also did VO2 max treadmill tests.

I spent the summer running right around 40mpw, and did lots of drinking and chewing red man tobacco. I dropped my time, and my 3k PR (which had been set the previous winter right after XC was done), by roughly 25 seconds.

No way I would have run that fast if I had run an extra 15 miles per week.

altitude.

high mileage = no no

mileage.

altitude = no no

If the runner who trains at altitude maintains his 40mpw, he'd either be putting in more time on his feet to cover the same distance, or training at a higher % of VO2max to cover the 40 miles in the same amount of time that he would at sea level.

both

Your teammates are correct. I have trained runners both at altitude and sea level The added 15 miles is not enough to beat the altitude. That being said it doesn't really matter. Mileage ultimately will do more for you than just altitude. If that runner kept increases his/her mileage up to 75-80 he would over take the altitude runner, and then really reach another level when they hit over 100 miles per week.