What is better living in altitude and training at altitude vs an altitude tent? And what about elites training in Michigan

Evan Jogger wrote:

Altitude is overrated. As previously noted, live high & train low is the ideal. Can be done with little trouble in a few locations in the US (Flagstaff-Sedona, Park City- SLC, Nederland-Boulder, Cloudcroft-Alamogordo) and altitude tent/room/house at sea level or altitude full time are the next best approximations. Yet Kawauchi, Shitara, JBS, Rodgers, Sell, Clayton, Clarke, and a host of others who have run faster than anyone here never really employed any altitude method. The real benefit of being at altitude (at least in the USA) is the arid climate (low rainfall & humidity) and high proportion of nearby wildlands tends to mean miles of dirt roads and trails. You want to train more if it's far more enjoyable than what you've experienced at sea level.

Lived in MX City for some years 7500-8000ft. Often ran up 13000 feet on long trail runs on weekends. Living down there made me a better high altitude runner/ climber, but my leg speed was zilch when I raced back at sea level. In the pool though I could crank out 100m repeats on end when at sea level. Seems like altitude training can be a big help as long as you can maintain your leg turnover.

born, raised, and have lived much of my life at higher elevations, as well as a fair amount of time at sea level.

From experience, live high train low works. I made a nice jump doing that. Consistently 2% better, and maybe more if I'm having a good day. You can just dig deeper on hilly sections or withstand surges better.

Also had a few years at living higher (6700' to 9000' but not getting down to lower elevations very often)--live high train high. That was okay, but as others have indicated, good strength but no leg turnover.

And finally have lived many years at moderate (+/-5000) with occasional bouts at higher elevations, on weekends/vacations and such. With that you get a slight boost in energy/endurance at sea level but probably

I live at altitude and im faster than everyone here

Altitude is generally overrated. Just look at the best XC teams: Washington, Stanford, Wisconsin, Syracuse, Iona, Portland, NAU, Colorado. Most of those teams are at low altitude. For HS, New York is one the best states for XC runners in the nation. No elevation. New England has the some the best elites/sub-elites in the country. Not at elevation. So maybe if you're looking to get the last 2 percent out of yourself because you've maxed out at everything else (very few if non-at-all fall into this category).

But hey... runners continue to believe that elevation is end all, be-all. It's second nature for runners to overthink EVERYTHING. Want proof of that? Check out Seth James Demoor.

Former Pro Marathoner wrote:

I live at altitude and im faster than everyone here

That's a low bar.

That's the essence of Wetmore's take on it, and you're both right. That's why it seems odd to me that anyone who relocates to Boulder with running reasons in mind doesn't move up to the marathon ASAP. All other things being equal you're going to be at a disadvantage to those based at sea level in the 800-10,000m. Clearly people like Emma and Jenny and the WCAP crew have figured out counter-measures. Downhill strides on a slight downgrade can help with turnover and footspeed.

To train and get the benefits of altitude you need to live at altitude. The tents don't work because you don't live in them 24/7. Most, if not all, of the great Kenyan runners were born and lived at altitude. It's not just the training at altitude it's just the everyday life in thinner air.

Aragon wrote: calculations where less time spent at simulated altitude can autistically be substituted with lower oxygen content/pressure (ie. higher altitude), far from obvious that the substitution can be done

Uh... "autistically"?!

Autism corresponds with obsessive attention to detail in their topics of special interest. No autistic person with long-distance running or altitude adaptations as special interests would make a naïve calculation with no basis.

Perhaps you meant "naïve" or "oversimplifying"?

Live at altitude wrote:

To train and get the benefits of altitude you need to live at altitude. The tents don't work because you don't live in them 24/7. Most, if not all, of the great Kenyan runners were born and lived at altitude. It's not just the training at altitude it's just the everyday life in thinner air.

It actually goes to where you and even where your parents were born. And there is always an array of individual adaptation.

You actually sprint faster at altitude.

If you lose foot speed during a time at altitude, you're neglecting your speed and would have lost it anyway.

altitude is used to manipulate the red blood cell count upward, so as to adapt and provide the body with optimal oxygen levels.

also the body is forced to become more efficient at oxygen uptake when deprived.

in other words, altitude is a blood doping technique, or you can do transfusions or EPO for similar effects.

EPO has other actions as well beyond blood doping effects, which someone else can explain in practice. the cyclists know that on EPO the recovery time goes way down, by half or so.

when you drop the altitude, you can do more and better quality work, and if you spend most of your time at altitude, you keep the blood doping adaptation in tact.

what you want, is a quality one hour workout, say 6 x 1 mile hard, and then spend 45 minutes in a hyperbaric chamber directly after, so your recovery period is reduced, then you spend the other 22 hours in the day at altitude, to keep the blood doping effect going.

the above is all legal. but you see that the goal of training is go mimic PEDs as best you can.

signed, coach satan

Not a College Runner wrote:

You actually sprint faster at altitude.

If you lose foot speed during a time at altitude, you're neglecting your speed and would have lost it anyway.

Thanks for bringing oranges into this apples discussion.

What the best athletes have known for a long time is that altitude and heat training work. It's when you get to a much lower elevation and/or cooler climate that you see the results. I explained this to someone one time and they poo pooed the idea. Lots of people don't get it. The best athletes do. The go to the elevations and heat.

Rodgers was a sea level runner and he was pretty decent.

It would be interesting to know if he had trained at altitude would he have been even faster at the marathon distance.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the book Aerobics by Dr Kenneth Cooper. He is the father of aerobics and is credited, at least in large part, with starting the running revolution. In the book he talks about altitude training. It's not much that he writes but it's powerful. Altitude training works wonders.

dtjj wrote:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the book Aerobics by Dr Kenneth Cooper. He is the father of aerobics and is credited, at least in large part, with starting the running revolution. In the book he talks about altitude training. It's not much that he writes but it's powerful. Altitude training works wonders.

If it did they why do so many endurance athletes use EPO and blood transfusions. ? There must be hundreds of endurance athletes over the last decades busted for O2-vector doping from either testing positive for EPO, ABP-hematological violations, implicated in doping rings, possession of EPO, etc.

"If it did they why do so many endurance athletes use EPO and blood transfusions. ? There must be hundreds of endurance athletes over the last decades busted for O2-vector doping from either testing positive for EPO, ABP-hematological violations, implicated in doping rings, possession of EPO, etc."

My guess is because it's much more effective, easier to do and you don't have to travel as much. Still, I believe there top athletes who do train at high altitudes, have integrity and are winners in all aspects of their lives.

ya, a lot of the guys from the 70's had no clue, as their coaches had no clue,

like pre, like rogers, like dixon, like walker, like foster, etc.

until viren and the africans and the blood europe dopers (africans did not blood dope back in the day) took the times way down.

some of the times those back in the day guys had were embarrassing compared to what they should have been running.

and today, the much lesser talents are running so much faster,

back in the day, the training was so amateur.

peter coe took it to correct levels. implemented obvious things.

with fractional advances since.

basically the talent level today is pretty bad.

and back in the day, the training of much better talent was pretty bad.

in the future, there is little incentive to run track, and that's why the sport has like 2 super stars at any given moment.

or something like that, where as pro sports have like a dozen or more in each sport.

there is your sport right there.

Former Pro Marathoner wrote:

I live at altitude and im faster than everyone here

I’ll take that challenge.