"The general effect [of altitude training] is no effect" Tim Noakes

Noakes is an idiot.

* "The general result [of altitude training] is no effect"

So god is better than altitude. Makes sense.

When he says some people get worse, I didn't believe it, however...

"The main limitation of Live High + Train High altitude training is that many athletes find themselves unable to produce the level of training intensity (running velocity for example) and oxygen flux necessary to bring about or preserve the physiological changes that have a positive impact on performance. It is not uncommon to hear athletes remark that they seem to lose "speed" or "turnover" as a result of LH+TH altitude training, which ultimately has a negative impact on their sea-level performance. In short - training high may increase the blood's ability to transport oxygen to where it is needed, but the ability of the body to keep exercising at altitude can be limited as tiredness increases."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/world_olympic_dreams/9432880.stm

It's been shown a very high % of the world's best distance runners come from altitude. So the question should be posed to the author: Why? Just a coincidence? Would the author argue that those Africans would still be dominating, if from sea level? There are benefits to both altitude & sea level. But it seems proven growing up in altitude and then incorporating some sea level, is better than the other way around.

ttc wrote:

It's been shown a very high % of the world's best distance runners come from altitude. So the question should be posed to the author: Why? Just a coincidence?

What he said is "some people benefit and some get worse, and the general result is no effect".

If you pick the best runners from an area which is at altitude they're obviously more likely to belong to the group of people who benefit. (If the altitude made them worse they probably wouldn't have been able to get noticed in the first place.) So for those people altitude training is definitely worth it.

If, on the other hand, you pick some random runner who's never lived at altitude you can't say if altitude training would benefit that person. It might, but it could also have no effect or make him slower. The only way of finding out is probably to try it.

What Noaakes is saying is that on average altitude training doesn't have any effect. But that should be of no concern to you if you happen to be one of the people for whom it does work.

I *know* what the author said. I'm drawing *further* questions from his content, and you're just redundantly replying with his cliff notes version. I also said most of the world's best come from altitude- not what you said. And that demands a clear reason by the author. If you stick with your original post, then don't bother replying. Hire a tutor first.

ttc wrote:

I also said most of the world's best come from altitude- not what you said. And that demands a clear reason by the author.

It does not, as nothing he said is incompatible with that.

But imagine the simplified scenario where one third of all people benefit from training at altitude, one third get slower and one third is not affected (and all other factors are ignored). Then you'd expect a disproportionate number of the best runners in the world to come from populations living at altitude, as only in those would the people with the potential to benefit from altitude actually be able to realise it. Whereas most of the lowland people who would also benefit never get the opportunity to discover that fact.

It's also quite easy to imagine that in populations which have been living at altitude for many generations evolutionary pressure might have increased he proportion of people who benefit from training at that height. I don't know if that idea has been tested scientifically, but even if it was found not to be true you'd still expect altitude populations to be over represented in the elite.

Why wouldn't the low land people discover it? Also, under that scenario, 33% of the altitude ppl would max their abilities & 33% of the low landers would max their's. BUT the reality is, most of the best are from altitude. And don't even try saying that alone doesn't matter and is incomplete. Don't even try saying that the super high disproportion among a **WORLD'S** sample size doesn't matter. EVERY statistician would laugh at your claim that a WORLD'S population isn't enough for you. You show me ANYWHERE that says that's too small a sample size. You show me ANYWHERE that altitude people overall are privy to better distance running, with 0% due to the altitude. If you can't, then your post is fiction.

ttc wrote:

Why wouldn't the low land people discover it?

Because the vast majority of people never live and train at altitude for any sigificant amount of time. Of the lowlanders probably only those who had already shown exceptional ability at sea level would ever even be inclined to try it - and of those only a third would (in this scenario) benefit.

Also, under that scenario, 33% of the altitude ppl would max their abilities & 33% of the low landers would max their's.

No, that's not quite how it would work.

Imagine we've got two populations of 100,000 people. In both distance running ability (best 5k time with optimal training, say) is randomly distributed, but with the same average.

If we now were to pick the ten best 5k runners from the combined population we'd expect to have roughly the same number from each.

Now change this scenario so that one of the groups have lived their whole lives at altitude. This will have made one third of them significantly faster than they would otherwise have been. Let's say 10%. For on third it will have made no difference. And one third will be 10% slower.

So the average 5k PB stays the same, but the distribution is different. And if you now were to pick the ten best from the combined high- and low-land groups you'd expect the highlanders to dominate quite clearly.

This is a very simplified scenario, of course.

Actually "this author" discusses these topics in more detail than most care to know, in his "Lore of Running".Noakes approach towards a lot of these topics is to explore what the literature says, so he acts as kind of a messenger, helping to put these studies in context and perspective.What studies say is that "live high, train high" doesn't work, mainly for the reason explained above -- it's hard to train at high speeds.Studies also says that "live high, train low" has been shown to work.Noakes also mentions that many studies don't control for placebo effect. The athletes usually know if they are training at high or low altitudes, and this can affect the results.Regarding your high altitude question, there are also many groups of high altitude populations who do not become the world's best.In the same book, Noakes extensively explores the question of East African dominance. He even includes a study that proposes a "cattle rustling" theory for the success of certain Kenyan tribes.

ttc wrote:

It's been shown a very high % of the world's best distance runners come from altitude. So the question should be posed to the author: Why? Just a coincidence? Would the author argue that those Africans would still be dominating, if from sea level? There are benefits to both altitude & sea level. But it seems proven growing up in altitude and then incorporating some sea level, is better than the other way around.

Joan Benoit Samuelson and Bill Rodgers both grew-up and trained their whole career at sea level and are two of the best marathoners ever, and each dominated the world scene for several years.

From a training aspect, altitude is a great tool to have in your tool box, but it is just a tool, it isn't a "must have".

Growing up at altitude also appears to be helpful, but it isn't a must have to be an elite distance runner.

ttc wrote:

I *know* what the author said. I'm drawing *further* questions from his content, and you're just redundantly replying with his cliff notes version. I also said most of the world's best come from altitude- not what you said. And that demands a clear reason by the author. If you stick with your original post, then don't bother replying. Hire a tutor first.

Note the quote is about 'live high train high' the optimum is 'live high train low' which allows the athlete to train more effectively.

rekrunner wrote:

Actually "this author" discusses these topics in more detail than most care to know, in his "Lore of Running".

...

In the same book, Noakes extensively explores the question of East African dominance. He even includes a study that proposes a "cattle rustling" theory for the success of certain Kenyan tribes.

I think Noakes is trying to get people to see a bigger picture. It's a tough gig he has taken on. The societal trend is to dumb down everything so he has to battle against the effects of this. Personally i find him to be the next stage of understanding, where mind and body are not treated as separate things.

Noakes is an idiot.

'some people benefit and some get worse'

The ones that get worse don't usually win much.

ttc wrote:

Why wouldn't the low land people discover it? Also, under that scenario, 33% of the altitude ppl would max their abilities & 33% of the low landers would max their's. BUT the reality is, most of the best are from altitude. And don't even try saying that alone doesn't matter and is incomplete. Don't even try saying that the super high disproportion among a **WORLD'S** sample size doesn't matter. EVERY statistician would laugh at your claim that a WORLD'S population isn't enough for you. You show me ANYWHERE that says that's too small a sample size. You show me ANYWHERE that altitude people overall are privy to better distance running, with 0% due to the altitude. If you can't, then your post is fiction.

He didn't say living at altitude for thousands of years won't evolve a culture genetically. The normal American runner can't go train at altitude and change his genetics in a few months.

Noakes is right. You'll find the idiot by looking in the mirror.

Jack Daniels agrees with Noakes:

jtupper

RE: How many US greats trained at altitude? 3/31/2003 10:20PM - in reply to Frank Rizzo Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Having a great talent train at altitude doesn't prove anything about altitude training except that it (probably) didn't produce a negative reaction. Once it is the "in" thing to do then everyone with good talent wants to make sure they aren't overlooking some little thing so they hop on the band wagon. Some improve, some don't. Typically you don't hear about the ones who try altitude training and fail, because who cares. So, those who get better (for whatever reason) are accepted as having benefitted by altitude. So a guy who leaves a hot, humid, stressful life at sea level goes to a cool, dry, relaxing altitude site for awhile and gets better --must be the altitude, right? How many American women are beating Joan Benoit Samuelson's US marathon record (set many moons ago)-- maybe we aught to all start living in "oceanside" tents.

jtupper

RE: Altitude Tents 3/28/2003 10:38AM -

Whatever the current great runner is doing is what will be in vogue. We just need to convince the next great runner to eat peanut butter and sawdust sandwiches and sit back and watch the sales of peanut butter skyrocket, not to mention the supply of presto logs. Altitude can be great, but one of the really great parts about it is being there to enjoy the cooler, less humid, less hectic weather and lifestyle (particularly in the summer when most sea level places get hot and not so great). Spend some money on some time at altitude then decide what will work for you

Correlation does not equal causation. 99% of all people living in the world are not very good runners.

The key link here is that 90% of Kenya's distance runners come from a tribe that represents only 10% of their population -- The Kalenjin.

Where did the Kalenjin come from? They are Nilotic Tribes that migrated from what is now Sudan and Ethiopia. Hmmmmmm.

ttc wrote:

Why wouldn't the low land people discover it?

"Low land" people cannot become Kalenjin. Nor can the Kikuyu, Luhya, Luo, or Kamba.