Long distance at sea level

Altitude is not "the" answer.

First, living at altitude and training at SL is the ideal. (Live high, train low)

Second, you hear about a lot of folks using altitude and being successful but you never hear about the large number of people who use altitude and are not either.

Third, the Aussies have looked at the effects of living/training at altitude and found results to be all over the place. Some benefit, some do not.

Fourth, I would say that even for elites altitude should be something that is added when other training has been optimized. Sort of icing on the cake. I suspect that training in a group of similar runners can have as much impact on performance as living at altitude. Maybe a reason altitude works is that often it is done in a group and the group effect is what matters. By group effect I mean you have other runners pushing you especially in harder workouts or keep you accountable so you do not slack off and skip runs. This assumes you do not get in over your head by trying to hang with people a lot faster than you.

If you are really fast enough to qualify for the Trials, then you can do it at sea level. I suspect that the majority of people making the trials who reside at sea level do not use altitude significantly.

However, no one wants to hear about how you did all your training at sea level and thus are a bad ass. Doing speed work at altitude is more challenging. Just run and shut up.

Do you know of any athletes who just train at sea level that are professional at the moment without the live high train low? It seems every fast group is based at altitude. The badass part was meant for myself really not bragging rights

10/10

Neither the Hansons nor Renato Canova believe altitude is necessary for the marathon. Nothing badass about it, it's just normal.

jtupper RE: How many US greats trained at altitude? 4/1/2003 1:20AM -

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.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=105694&thread=104055

1) I look at altitude training as a type of training. Similar to deciding to increase your mileage -- for some gong up to a considerably greater mileage is a positive experience, others may encounter trouble. Some benefit from including more fast stuff in their usual program, some benefit from altitude. You typically hear about the runners who do something new and make a significant breakthrough, but seldom hear about those who do the same "new" thing and don't benefit.

(2) I've seen runners follow different altitude programs and improve, or not.

(3) We had success with several weeks at altitude (living and training there)

(4) We had more success when we spent a few weeks at AL then a week at SL then back to AL and back to SL, etc. Ryun flew down to SL after 3 weeks at A:L and broke the WR in mile the same 24 hour period. Did the same thing a week or two later in the 1500 WR race (with a 61 first 400 and 2:49 last 1200). We had 6 subjects in that year's study (live and train high, spend a week at SL and repeat) and those 6 set 14 PRs back at SL (some in rarely-raced distances, but positive experiences none the less)

(5) We had a group of elite swimmers, who were all tested at SL then half trained 4 weeks at AL while the other half did similar training at SL. In post-training tests the AL group increased VO2max 5.6% and the SL group improved VO2max 6% -- both improved in that sense during their training camp. In SL races, the AL group swam 11 PRs and the SL group swam 4 PRs. Is that significant?

(6) As a result of many altitude studies I have taken part in, the most certain comment I can make is that if you train properly you won't be hurt with some time at altitude. Is that a chicken way of saying it will make you better? However, I have seen some not get better, but was it the altitude or the individual's attitude about being there, or being away from a more comfortable environment?

(7) Regarding live high, train low, on a daily basis (as opposed to living and training high and then going low for awhile, which is what I prefer), the two methods hav enot been compared. I know that we had similar improvements (if not more) with the live and train high model compred to what others have had with the daily up and down regimen

.

(8) I tend to not put much stock in the loss-of speed and power thing for those who live and train high. I think training can be adjusted to prevent that, or time at altitude can be put into the overall program at a time when speed is not the issue

(9) If live high and train low is better than just being there and training, I am a little worried as to how much faster the East Africans will get when they start doing that. I may be missinformed, but I don't think they do -- don't they just live and train at altitude then come down for some time?

(10) Being in a comfortable environment is important, and for some that may work well, not gong to AL for others, the change may be a relaxation in itself. As is the best measure of who is the best 1500 runner the one who wins the race, so is the benefit of altitude associated with the runner who performs better as a result of using it (not always whose VO2max or blood chemistries show the greatest change)