Did Solinsky state that he regularly uses artificial altitude? If so, does this explain much of the US "resurgence"

So Ethiopians live at 10,000 feet, Kenyans live at 10,000 feet, Americans on average live at 1,000 feet or below and our best athletes start moving to 10,000 feet to train and suddenly its wrong?

I'm going to call 100 road race organizes and I'm going to kindly ask them to stop giving rewards to foreign competitors.

What I don't understand wrote:

So Ethiopians live at 10,000 feet, Kenyans live at 10,000 feet, Americans on average live at 1,000 feet or below and our best athletes start moving to 10,000 feet to train and suddenly its wrong?

I'm going to call 100 road race organizes and I'm going to kindly ask them to stop giving rewards to foreign competitors.

A disjointed and kneejerk response which did not answer any of my questions.

But thanks anyway for your attention to my thread. Come back soon when you have thought about what I actually asked.

Low dose SARMS, and "aggressive" HRT.

What I don't understand wrote:

So Ethiopians live at 10,000 feet, Kenyans live at 10,000 feet, Americans on average live at 1,000 feet or below and our best athletes start moving to 10,000 feet to train and suddenly its wrong?

I'm going to call 100 road race organizes and I'm going to kindly ask them to stop giving rewards to foreign competitors.

Where, in the original post does it say that this is "wrong"?

As far as I can tell, the original post simply states a hypothesis that artificial (as well as natural in at least one case) altitude training may be playing a huge part of the resurgence in American distance running.

Where exactly did you find some notion of right or wrong posted?

Thanks.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

All of these people are apparently artificial altitude users. How much of an impact did this almost banned technology have on these performances? Before someone jumps on me, OF COURSE I AM NOT SAYING THAT THESE HYPOXIC HOUSES/TENTS HAVE SINGLEHANDEDLY CREATED THESE GREAT US PERFORMANCES. No, but one must wonder how much of an impact they have had.

Totally agree. Ritz doesn't go sub-13:00 without the benefit of the inorganic, simulated leaving in "Nepal." The same is probably true of the others. Their performances are at least a bit dubious.

I think the judicious use of altitude has contributed to the resurgence of US distance running. Boulder, Flagstaff, Lake Tahoe, Mammoth Lakes, staying in Switzerland while in Europe, etc. I say judicious, because most of the places listed above have lower altitude areas (under 3000 feet) within short distances to allow for easy acclimation and easy access to live-high/train-low scenarios.

The return of some kind of elite club system has also contributed. Many have mentioned the NYAC and Boston track club and Florida Track Club of old, as well as the groups that started using Boulder back in the day as these wonderful collections of great runners who all pushed each other. Somehow we got away from that model, but are now coming back to it - in a more professional manner, but still.

However, I think the biggest contributor to the resurgence in US distance running is people getting out of the 1990s mindset of less is more. The runners are putting in the miles, the time, the years and years of training starting as teenagers. My high school coaches used to talk about summer running goals back in the 70s and early 80s. Guys would try to hit 1000 miles over the summer. Others tried to hit 750 or 500. In the 90s we high schoolers thought that was INSANE! But look at the results. Today, kids aren't afraid to put in the miles any more. More and more kids are coming up through high school and regularly running 70 mpw. I'm not advocating that everyone out there should be going 100 mpw, but we should be trying to find some limits. I was damn proud of myself in 1993 when I hit 50 miles in one week - my highest week ever in HS. Thinking back, I was not tired. I was not fatigued. I had really accomplished not much of anything. But that number seemed so huge to me back then. That mindset seems to be gone for the most part. Years upon years of that kind of training are going to add up - they already are adding up - to produce great performances.

Sagarin wrote:

Totally agree. Ritz doesn't go sub-13:00 without the benefit of the inorganic, simulated leaving in "Nepal." The same is probably true of the others. Their performances are at least a bit dubious.

(I know we've basically agreed in the past on the artificial altitude issue. And since we have not "fought" in awhile on politics, let's, for once, agree to agree on a topic. Maybe if this board banned political discussions we'd be more often on the same page. )

All good points by the Stache. And I definitely DO NOT think that artificial altitude alone has created the US resurgence in distance running. Many of the reasons you give also explain it. However, has the use of this technology by elites taken us from having several low 13/13 flat performers, to several guys in the 12:55/56 range?

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

(I know we've basically agreed in the past on the artificial altitude issue. And since we have not "fought" in awhile on politics, let's, for once, agree to agree on a topic. Maybe if this board banned political discussions we'd be more often on the same page. )

I don't opine to "agree" with anyone. Perhaps if you infused your politics with more economic literacy, we'd be on the same page there. I was a bleeding-heart liberal once too (who doesn't start off that way?), long before I took an advanced degree in economics/finance and worked in the private sector where I was accountable for allocating capital productively... long before any civic-minded responsibilities showed me that the best and brightest do not work in government.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

All good points by the Stache. And I definitely DO NOT think that artificial altitude alone has created the US resurgence in distance running. Many of the reasons you give also explain it. However, has the use of this technology by elites taken us from having several low 13/13 flat performers, to several guys in the 12:55/56 range?

The answer is yes. But hard, high mileage hasn't hurt. Frankly, one can live in Summerhaven, Arizona up near Mt. Lemmon around 9000' and then drop to Tucson in good weather in about 40 minutes to train at 1500' +/-, which really is roughly the same thing. But 9000' ain't 12,000' either.

it's the shoes man!

here you go...pretty good price, too:

http://cgi.ebay.com/HIGHER-PEAK-MAG-7-ALTITUDE-TENT-ALTITUDE-TRAINING-/150528199945?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item230c2e0d09

Did someone say resurgence in regards to US runners on this post? What resurgence? Where do US runners rank in the world top 10 of the 1500 thru the marathon--and please--don't include the foreigners who have recently become US citizens as "proof" of this so called resurgence. The US distance runners are also rans on the world scene and will always be so.

note that Ritz did a lot of 'natural' altitude training (St. Moritz and elsewhere) prior to running 12:56. And Paula trained in Albuquerque in the winters. I don't know about Solinsky.

The Bill Rodgers method: train hard and consistently, race A LOT.... AND, do it all at high altitude (as he says in that recent podcast on what differentiates the Africans from his generation).

That was in 2008, from Flagstaff, and described it as their first altitude training.

And the article neither states, nor implies that they do artificial altitude training (e.g. the tent/house).

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

All good points by the Stache. And I definitely DO NOT think that artificial altitude alone has created the US resurgence in distance running. Many of the reasons you give also explain it. However, has the use of this technology by elites taken us from having several low 13/13 flat performers, to several guys in the 12:55/56 range?

No, the use of this technology blah blah blah hasn't made the difference.

It's just another form of training. Runners will get faster and faster because they can.

jjjjjj wrote:

And the article neither states, nor implies that they do artificial altitude training (e.g. the tent/house).

No question that training like "marathoners" at high, natural elevation gave these guys a massive bump. However, I know Ritz and Rupp live in the altitude house, which can simulate 12,000', while training intensely at sea level. Honestly don't know about Solinsky, though I wouldn't doubt these guys spent some time in the "tent."

Altitude stimulates production of VEGF and EPO, so it confers advantages, though the lack of ability of working on efficiency at a higher threshold achieved at sea level makes the adaptation to faster racing difficult. Best case scenario, one lives at altitude while training at sea level. Hard to do without artificial living.

On the other hand, Kennedy popped a sub-13 primarily as a sea-level runner, assuming he wasn't hitting the EPO, which I personally don't think he was. But anything's possible.

I just don't think Ritz, with a best of 13:16 after years of hard training, much of it at altitude, improves 20 seconds without the house.