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

I'm with Stache on this one. If it was predominantly an artificial altitude enhanced resurgence then we wouldn't be seeing these great HS'ers emerging out of the woodwork. Unless it is SLA’s implication that they are sleeping in simulated altitude houses as well.

Hyperbole much?

Both approaches work. High mileage plus low mileage quality work. How else do you think kids actually develop their talent. This approach can be continued for indefinitely. But the obsession with mileage that many have here is not healthy, it's just one aspect of many that are important in the big picture.

jjjjjj wrote:

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

It does "imply" it at least. He is asked about the use of technology such as artificial altitude houses. His answer to this question is somewhat evasive. He doesn't directly say that he doesn't use that technology, but instead states that "agrees about altitude, to be at high altitude as much as possible" and that " it is a good avenue to take the next step aerobically. " And finally that "So that is the extent of the technology that I or anyone else in our group uses."

"be at altitude as much as possible" ? What does that mean exactly. Is being in a hypoxic house "being at altitude" ? Some (like Alberto) would say, "yes." He gives this answer when specifically asked about artificial altitude, so his answer is vague. Is he only talking about the real thing, or the artificial variety. I wonder if he was intentionally vague, so as to not to put the spotlight on this issue. He simply says, evasively, considering the context of the question asked: he believes in being "at altitude" as much as possible.

This vagueness is why I asked my first question.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

I'm with Stache on this one. If it was predominantly an artificial altitude enhanced resurgence then we wouldn't be seeing these great HS'ers emerging out of the woodwork. Unless it is SLA’s implication that they are sleeping in simulated altitude houses as well.

I wasn't clear in my initial post. The recent USA success in distance running definitely is NOT predominantly due to use of artificial altitude stimulators. I agree with you and Stache. However, what I really wanted to know was:

If Solinsky's group is using it too (as is Salazar's), could this explain some of the extra brilliance we've seen in recent years? Having great HS kids doesn't mean we will have lots of sub 13 guys (we've had many great HS'rs in the past that didn't pan out to nearly that level). I was just wondering if the 12:55/56's (from guys who didn't necessarily scream out that they had that kind of talent) we've seen has anything to do with this technology, and also help to explain the mind-boggling 2:15 by Paula. For USA men, has this been the icing on the cake that has "bought" an extra 4-7 seconds here and there on what would have been already great performances?

Sir you are actually the Queen of letsrun hyperbole.

And for the umpteeth time, Paula didn't use an altitude tent.

I thought Paula Radcliffe trained somewhere in the French Alps that was at substantial altitude.

Font Romeu, 6000ft. She has an apartment there.

hyperbole wrote:

Sir you are actually the Queen of letsrun hyperbole.

And for the umpteeth time, Paula didn't use an altitude tent.

What's umpteeth? Do you even know what hyperbole means? Perhaps all Lance is suggesting is that perfomance improvements have been somewhat hyperbolic in recent years, which can be likely be attributed to harder training/higher mileage, stints at elevation, and, perhaps (shudder), the use of an altitude house/tent to live like a sherpa while training fast at sea level... And potentially it is the latter capable of turning a 13:05 guy into a 12:55 guy. Not an unreasonable opinion and certainly worthy of inquiry.

performance... easy to pick on a guy who goes out of his way to use a word like hyperbole or was an English major and generally very fastidious.

hyperbole wrote:

And for the umpteeth time, Paula didn't use an altitude tent.

You know how to use the "google", right?

In the article, it is clear that Paula has been using the tents for years and is a staunch defender of them.

For the umpteenth time, it appears, whoever you are, you are wrong.

I can't prove it. But the altitude excuse is a ruse for PEDS.

'And don't forget, Paula's 2:15, maybe the most amazing modern non-african distance running performance of all time, was run by one of the earliest users of artificial altitude'

Not sure on Solinsky but PR lives at altitude a lot of the time so doesn't need artificial altitude but I assume you have checked and she uses the tent

UK's Farah trains with the Kenyan's at altitude and also went sub 13 the first Brit to do so and before anyone adds the 1ast Somalian too!

When I was fishing as a kid they had a saying 'never sit behind a bad fisherman' Well the American's are not bad and have made great strides over the past 2 years but they are not as good as the EA's. But maybe cost is resticting things but again plenty of high altitude places in the states

I don't buy into the live high train low thing either - the supposed speed lost training thing at altitude isa bit of a red herring in my opinion. Western runners do not lack speed but aerobic capacity when compared to EA's

Not trying to know you knock your post which is very good and well written

Wes Duncan (look him up he knows his running and is a close friend of a double Oympic champ) said to me if you take an EA away from altitude for too long you have a normal runner

Welcome back SirLancelot by the way. Charging in on his trust steed!

I know this has been discussed before, but I still struggle with the notion that an altitude tent is any worse than living at altitude if all it does is simulate the high altitude conditions. It doesn't even allow you to train at altitude.

And yes, I get that EPO does the same thing.

CANT Prove It wrote:

I can't prove it. But the altitude excuse is a ruse for PEDS.

THIS...like creatine for bodybuilders.

Or Salazar claiming he only talked to Balco about ZMA.

"So I sent him some urine," Salazar says. "That was the only time I did anything with them, other than buying some ZMA..."

Stache, you're wrong.

The best current US distance runners (Lagat and Flanagan) have set multiple US records running only moderate mileage. What is actually happening is that faster 1500 runners are now more often tackling the longer track events. Teg, Solinsky, Lagat, Jager and Rupp could all make the US list at 800m if they chose to. It is now ordinary for runners with <50 400m speed to race longer distances. We also have a much larger pool of athletes in country with 300 million plus citizens versus just a few decades ago when the country was about half the current population.

As for those summer mileage goals for HS runners, it is important to remember that aside from the boys 10000m record, none of the HS records at any of the regularly raced distances are held by runners doing 100 miles/week. There is more than one way to push your limits. One of them is to pick up the pace.

To be at altitude as much as possible can be read most naturally as to mean that they try to travel to a high or medium altitude camp as much as they can. Maybe they use the tent, but Solinsky in the interview is just saying that the only things they do other than running are core exercises and travelling to medium/high altitude camps.

I also recalled that Ritz set no American records while living at altitude for a period of something like six or eight years in Boulder, CO. So, something else happened in Oregon and St. Moritz.

The article doesn't say anything about altitude houses, or tents, or igloos.

http://www.roadsmillslaps.com/RML/blog/Entries/2010/12/2_Chris_Solinksy.html