Effective altitude training

this is how you do it wrote:

777 wrote:

From my notes on Wilber's book:

One recent study asserts that athletes can be divided into "responders" and "non-responders" based on their blood EPO levels (% of sea level baseline: responders had a blood EPO increase of ~156% after 30h and nonresponders increased only ~137% of SL base) and total red cell volume (ml/kg) (total red cell volume increased in responders significantly (~3.0 ml/kg) and remained unchanged in nonresponders). The "responders" should improve greatly from altitude training.

wellnow wrote:

Why would the responders improve greatly, and the nonresponder not? Again, your trying to prove a hypothesis, based on one variable. That's not smart.

Again, and the book explain this, is likely has to do with prior iron status.

**************************************************

No, you're still missing the point. You and the PhD are trying to prove a hypothesis about increased RBCs being the ideal and the performance improver.

If Iron status is where it should be, RBC mass will be where it should be. Improvement come from better speed endurance. The blood boost hypothesis is pure dogma.

SaImon wrote:

biggus dickus wrote:

I really don't know but a few data points that may be relevant. I thought I read the half life of RBC was 90 days, and more like 60 days for runners.....so should be a linear regression after returning from altitude...a guess....a few weeks????

But wouldn't your body just chill out with the RBC production when you go to sea level with an excess? In that case, say you have 6/5 of the normal amount when you leave altitude. After 10 days and no production (because your environment does not call for it), you would have 5/5, or the normal sea level concentration.

***************************************

Yes that is more or less what happens, although the increase in RBCs is actually quite small initially not 6/5 but more like 103/100

wellnow wrote:

No, you're still missing the point. You and the PhD are trying to prove a hypothesis about increased RBCs being the ideal and the performance improver.

The hypothesis has been thoroughly tested and thoroughly supported.

Improvement come from better speed endurance. The blood boost hypothesis is pure dogma.

No need to rehash your neuromsucular opinion, which is trumped by a blood boost hypothesis that is scientifically and objectively supported. If high altitude/erythropoeisis had no significant improvement edge, then the main OTC should be moved to sea level and EPO should be legalized.

Obviously I do need to reinforce the importance of neuromuscular coordintation to you, since you seem to be in denial of the fact that the biggest improvement come from improved running skill, i.e. the ability to hold your pace for longer.

The bottom line is: you are trying to prove a hypothesis and ignoring conflicting data.

The blood boost from altitude training hypothesis is absolutely NOT proven and will never be so, since it is false.

wellnow wrote:

Obviously I do need to reinforce the importance of neuromuscular coordintation to you, since you seem to be in denial of the fact that the biggest improvement come from improved running skill, i.e. the ability to hold your pace for longer.

The bottom line is: you are trying to prove a hypothesis and ignoring conflicting data.

The blood boost from altitude training hypothesis is absolutely NOT proven and will never be so, since it is false.

Lets get this straight. No one is going to deny the specificity principle, but you argue using opinion which undermines any argument you have. I certainly haven't ignored the conflicting data, as I already pointed out the faults and reasoning for it, which the book also thoroughly discusses.

Can you accept (does the book accept) that a blood boost from altitude training is not necessary for performance improvement if the iron status remains optimal?

this is how you do it wrote:

At least 4 weeks at >6900ft.. Load up on iron for the month before you go and while you're there (daily, 1-2 tsps). Easy days easy, short intervals (100m-400m) and downhills help maintain turnover, +5-10 sec per mile for mile repeats, do longer threshold stuff based on heart rate NOT pace. Hydrate very well, lots of meat, sleep as much as you can, cover your skin/heat train, and wear a hat.

Why >6900ft?

The top guys are running 1000m repeats at the same pace they do at sea level, and a longer recovery but with 20-25% less oxygen, so presumably they get to be very efficient at running 60 second laps during sea level races?

Take it from a guy that has raced with Hemoglogin values of 14.3 and 16.3, 16.3 is MUCH MO BETTER....technical enough for you?

wellnow wrote:

No, you're still missing the point. You and the PhD are trying to prove a hypothesis about increased RBCs being the ideal and the performance improver.

If Iron status is where it should be, RBC mass will be where it should be. Improvement come from better speed endurance. The blood boost hypothesis is pure dogma.

Well dogma or not, it's the mainstream opinion in ex phys. If gains in RBCs don't affect performance, why does EPO work so well? That's basically what altitude does (as documented by Stray-Gundersen)--it causes a spike in blood EPO levels, which stimulates RBC production and enhances performance via increased oxygen-carrying capabilities.

I have two questions for you, then:

1) If RBC increases don't account for improved performance, why does EPO work?

2) What is the physiological adaption from live-high-train-low training that DOES increase race performance? It is fairly clear that live-high-train-low WORKS. So if not RBCs, then what?

wellnow wrote:

Can you accept (does the book accept) that a blood boost from altitude training is not necessary for performance improvement if the iron status remains optimal?

The blood boost isn't the only performance enhancing factor from altitude training, but the book contends that those who "respond" the most are getting significant hematological changes = erythropoeisis. The book also goes into detail about rhEPO studies.

Why >6900ft?

From the "Million Dollar" Questions in the back of the book:

"It appears that the optimal elevation at which to live is somewhere between 2100m (6890 ft.) and 2500m (8200 ft.). In general, locations below 2100m may not be high enough to stimulate an increase in red blood cell production, whereas living above 2500m may lead to training and recovery problems (Ri-Li et al., 2002; Witkowski et al. 2001)."

Dont ask wrote:

Take it from a guy that has raced with Hemoglogin values of 14.3 and 16.3, 16.3 is MUCH MO BETTER....technical enough for you?

Your natural level is the best level. So you also had a natural hematocrit of 49%? I don't believe you.

Does EPO work? Does boosting hematocrit by a massive percentage give a one per cent improvement in performance?

I don't know, and I'm not interested in how some athletes think they can beat the system. I'm absolutley sure that World Records will keep coming down with or without drugs.

How does altitude training work? Who knows? Nobody does it's all pure speculation.

Does a change of stimulus lead to harder training? That is Paula Radcliffe's view. She doesn't believe in the blood boost dogma.

It is absolutely true to say that many ex phys guys believe in the unproven blood boost hypothesis even though many studies show no increase in V02 max after altitude training.

In the words of Jack Daniels "altitude training is just another form of training".

Erythropoeisis will be stimulated at much lower than 2000m

It is almost inevitable, but this effect won't last. This issue is very complicated and can't be simplified with a few pages of advice, because there are changes in reticulocyte, erythrocyte and phagocyte numbers, which are somewhat unpredictable. And even if you developed a good timing strategy for optimizing those cell counts, it would require changes in training and probably ideally a short stay at moderate altitude ending a week or so before the race.

This is all way too much for coaches and athletes to calculate. The best bet is to follow a strategy proven to work for the individual, as is true with all types of training.

wellnow wrote:

Does EPO work? Does boosting hematocrit by a massive percentage give a one per cent improvement in performance?

I don't know, and I'm not interested in how some athletes think they can beat the system. I'm absolutley sure that World Records will keep coming down with or without drugs.

How does altitude training work? Who knows? Nobody does it's all pure speculation.

Does a change of stimulus lead to harder training? That is Paula Radcliffe's view. She doesn't believe in the blood boost dogma.

It is absolutely true to say that many ex phys guys believe in the unproven blood boost hypothesis even though many studies show no increase in V02 max after altitude training.

In the words of Jack Daniels "altitude training is just another form of training".

....Erythropoeisis will be stimulated at much lower than 2000m

Bud, everything you posted above is garbage. You really need to get the 240 page book cause you're shooting blanks. I don't know how many times I have to hash it that a problem with many of these studies is they aren't controlling for iron status, of course iron/ferritin being highly critical for inducing erythropoeisis. As pointed out, some people may not get the EPO response at <2100m. With Paula going to Albuquerque (1525m) and Font Romeau (1850m), it's very likely she's not going high enough.

You're spouting dogma from a book. You don't know enough about the subject. I have been looking into the blood boost hypothesis for 20 years. Iron status is only one aspect. You have to consider the reticulocyte/erythrocyte/phagocyte counts. It's not black and white, there are many variables.

Do you really think that Paula Radcliffe doesn't get her iron status checked? You are fastasizing about a purely dogmatic hypothesis sold to you by the altitude training industry.

wellnow wrote:

You're spouting dogma from a book. You don't know enough about the subject. I have been looking into the blood boost hypothesis for 20 years. Iron status is only one aspect. You have to consider the reticulocyte/erythrocyte/phagocyte counts. It's not black and white, there are many variables.

Do you really think that Paula Radcliffe doesn't get her iron status checked? You are fastasizing about a purely dogmatic hypothesis sold to you by the altitude training industry.

Dogma is opinion. Peer-reviewed research following the scientific method isn't dogma. 20 years of researching a well-supported hypothesis, yet you don't know the link between iron status and reticulocytes/erythrocytes? Who are you trying to kid, bud? With Paula, the problem isn't iron-- it's not going high enough.

You need to read more than just one book. Different people respond in different ways.

And who are you to tell Paula Radcliffe how to train? This just shows how obsessed you are with the dogma.

Paul Tergat also prefers to train at 6000ft and no higher.

Last summer I spent almost 4 months at about 6700' running an average of 66 miles a week for the whole time I was there. I felt fast when I went back down to 3700' for the cross season. When my team went to the Rocky Mountain Shootout in Boulder, a month and a half later, I raced better than all my teammates who didn't spend the summer at altitude. I think it helped me in all my races but when we got to Boulder everyone else was gasping and I felt normal.

Just one story doesn't prove anything, but it seems to work for me. I spent my summer up there this year as well and so far the season is going pretty good.

Repeated altitude visits can apparently improve the ability to adapt on each visit. Keep doing what works for you. Everyone adapts differently. Some people never adapt to altitude, and some thrive on altitude training. How much of this is down to genetics, diet, mindset, previous experience of altitude etc, is the subject of ongoing debate and research.