5,800ft, does that altitude make a difference?

Yes, ask anyone in Boulder.

yep, colorado springs is 6,035ft downtown

and 7,000ft at the airforce academy

You must live there for it to be beneficial. Just training at elevation does very little as you will loose those increased red blood cells very quickly when you return to sea level.

blood cells live 90-100 days, on average. If you come down from altitude at the end of August and run your last XC race at the end of November, is this not within that time period? Of course, many of the blood cells one were to create over the course of a summer at altitude will have died by then, but I would still venture to guess 70-100 miles/week at altitude (~5500 ft) is greater preparation than the same mileage at sea level. Many, many, variables go into this, so it can be debated. A conversation with an elite 5k runner (as in, top ten at Edmonton) involved discussing the studied effects. His information showed that work put in at altitude is ~30% more beneficial than at sea level (that is, 60 miles/week at altitude equivelant to 80 at sea level). This relationship probably does not extend to the same degree at higher mileage (that is, 100 miles/week at altitude can probably not be equated to 130 miles at sea level). Just trying to throw in a little info to be nawed upon

Are you sure about the 30MPW=40MPW altitude ratio?

the ratio I gave (60:80) was the example that this elite runner gave me. multiplying 60 by .30 equals 18, therefore 60 miles/week at altitude (2100-2500 meters) is believed to be about 78 miles/week at sea level (I said 80 to give an approximate). We did not discuss comparitive intensity, number of runs, etc. It was a very general discussion as I too wondered about the advertised effects of altitude training. When you ask if I am sure about the 30mpw=40mpw, I will say that I am not sure because that is not the mileage window he told me. I claim ignorance but believe that at low mileage, the ratio may not be the same (just as I said it would probably not be the same at a high mileage of 100 mpw). To say I am sure would be silly, as I didn't do the experiment and I wasn't a subject. I am just throwing out information that suggests altitude can make a difference. There are VERY FEW elite, distance runners today that do not train at altitude, at least for part of the year. The runner whom I spoke to travels back and forth for several weeks at both altitude and sea level, all depending on what phase of training he is in.

THIS 5,800ft is in VA out of all places, Mount Rogers National Park, highest point in VA, I figure maybe go spend a week max there, probably not stay there, just train there and sleep at sea level. Once I get over silly injuries that is!! Thank you for all the help on this, as I found out I have a colorado in VA

Don't bother if you're only going for a week. (unless you just want to go for some cool trail runs) It'll take you at least a month to get altitude acclimated to the point where those benefits will carry over at all at sea level.

I was curious at what elevation point does it even matter? What i mean, is I live at about 3,000 feet, and train around 2,500-5,000 feet, and am curious if that even helps in the least bit? That is where I train at during the summer before I head back to school at a lower elevation. Not that it matters, as I will train here no matter what, but I was just wondering if I am getting a benifit of any significance to those who train at sea level? Thanks for any input.

Pete

asicsman wrote:

THIS 5,800ft is in VA out of all places, Mount Rogers National Park, highest point in VA, I figure maybe go spend a week max there, probably not stay there, just train there and sleep at sea level.

If possible, you should do it the other way around - sleep at 5800 ft and train at sea level. You will get more benefits that way.

Pony, I'd have to agree with you in that there is a lot more to it. There are a lot of factors when considering to do a block of altitude training. I haven't seen much evidence that supports that running at altitude is the key to altitude training. Most studies seem to favor the live high/train low philosophy. There's mention of it in Daniel's work as well David Martin and Peter Coe's "Better Training for Distance Runners" From personal experience, I have found that there are certain drawbacks to training at altitude, especially when you are doing more specific event training at the end/peak part of your season. They seem to be almost equally balanced out by the benefits, though.

On a side note, a lot of these observations I learned about myself (a sea-level born athlete) do not necesarily apply to my american born team mates who were born at any appreciable altitude.

Here are the issues (as I see it) of doing a block of altitude training.

1. If you don't have the time to do more than a 4-6 block,it is probably not worth your time and money. By the time you adapt to the altitude you have to leave. You are compromising more than you are gaining.

2. It's probably better to go early, or in a base period. It takes a little bit to learn the nuances of training at altitude. Better to make a mistake in NOV/DEC than in JUN/JUL, if you are following a traditional US season.

3. It takes longer to recover at altitude. Not only in workouts (if trying to replicate a sea-level workout, you will either have to run slower or take more rest), but also on a day to day basis. For instance, if you are doing 5 hard efforts every two weeks, you may only be able to do four.

On another side note: I lived and trained four 4 1/2 years at over 7200 feet. I will concur that running 60 miles at sea level is the equivalent to a lot more at sea level. How much more, I can't quantify. Also, I ran pretty close at sea level, as I did with the conversions I got for running at altitude. Altitude conversions seem to be tailored for the sea-level born athlete racing at altitude. They are not totally accurate/give an unfair advantage for those born at altitude.

Asicsman, are you from around Mt. Rogers? or just another part of Virginia?? I live in a city right beside Mt. Rogers and the training up here seems to help when we race in Charlotte, and Greensboro at lower elevations.

I live at altitude and I can really nitce it when I run anywhere else in particularly in Oceanside,Ca wheres is like 53 ft above sea level. It sux racing though at low alittudes cus im ussually never ready for that and the mix of humidty i gert in texas.

Then why does Marius (13:09) keep going to altitude to run.

He says that his LT training at altitude is a few seconds

slower. Anyone have a physiological explanation?

Best results seem to come from living and doing very easy running at 7,000-9,000 ft., going to 3,000-5,000 ft. for "threshold" training, and going as close to sea level as possible (definitely under 3,000 ft.) for any faster/hard training (except short, alactic strides, which can be done at any alitutde).

There's a bunch of physiocrap behind all this. Living at h-a increases erythropoietin hormone for most people (but not for everyone), which in turn causes more red cells to be produced. Doing easy running at h-a promotes vascular development (blood vessels) faster than doing easy running at l-a does. As far as going to moderate altitudes for threshold training, it seems to increase lactate buffering ability even though the PACE will be a tiny bit slower than it would be at sea level. Running fast workouts (above the lactate threshold) at l-a preserves the sea level VO2max (VO2max can actually decrease after prolonged periods at h-a) and ensures that the athlete achieves the fastest possible pace for any given effort level. This is important when the threshold is exceeded, since neuromuscular coordination and feedback are developed/preserved at the faster speeds.

The perfect explanation. Any tweaks?

Yes, I am from Richlands, VA give or take an hour to get there, I didnt realize it was that high of an elevation, although I live in KY now, I am going to make some stints up there when I get over some injuries, I hear there are some decent trails there in that area!

Nick Whited

I'm from Galax, Va. I run up around there about two to three times a week. Yeah, the trails are great. Just have to watch your footing hear and there. The weather is perfect up there right now. It's like around 75* and a little breeze. So I'm up there right now trying to get a few "hill runs" in.

In other words what would be optimal time to stay at altitude per say for a race as short as a mile? Would stints of 3-4 days once a month do anything at all?