About 45 minutes from me is a state park at 5000-6000 feet. Its far enough away that I couldn't go there on a work day (maybe I could make it in the height of summer!). Would I see any benefit from running there once a week, probably my long run? Or would the altitude beat me up and make it worse than running at sea level?
Running at 5000 feet once a week - any benefit?
Training Advice/Discussion
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
No. However, if you like the place and it's scenic it might be worth it. It will be more for you than anything physiologically beneficial.
Live at 400 feet wrote:Would I see any benefit from running there once a week, probably my long run? -
No. Altitude benefits come from living there or spending the majority of your day there for at least a few weeks. Doing workouts at altitude might help you if you're training for a race at altitude but not so much in general.
-
A long run would be slightly beneficial, less oxygen, you won’t acclimate, but it will make it a harder effort.
-
A workout, particularly if it is a hilly course, repeat hills, and/or hard work certainly won't hurt you and may even have some gains. But it will not provide substantial benefits in what most people view as altitude training.
-
In my opinion it would be a harder, more beneficial workout if you don’t overdo it.
-
If you are going to be racing at that elevation then yes. Mainly from you being accustomed to what it feels like and pacing.
-
altitude for a few hours each week won't do much.
you can get an altitude tent and use it 4 weeks out from competition, when you're starting to back off the mileage,
or train low and live high, which gets the quality, while maxing out the red blood cell adaption = up -
No, the only benefit is if it motivates you to run further on that day than otherwise elsewhere. It'll just make you more tired than usual, if anything, though you can adapt to that.
-
You're going to spend 1.5 hours in a car to run at elevation for almost no benefit when you could use that time to be actually running.....
-
longjack wrote:
altitude for a few hours each week won't do much.
you can get an altitude tent and use it 4 weeks out from competition, when you're starting to back off the mileage,
or train low and live high, which gets the quality, while maxing out the red blood cell adaption = up
I disagree. The tent does not give you the sensations and understanding of what it feels like to run at even moderate elevation. Heck I am leery of the efficacy of altitude tents--which mainly have been looked at for improving sea level performance. -
Altitude tents are pretty much useless. You need to live at altitude to reap the benefits. It's not just running at altitude, it's being at altitude 24/7.
Luv2Run wrote:
longjack wrote:
altitude for a few hours each week won't do much.
you can get an altitude tent and use it 4 weeks out from competition, when you're starting to back off the mileage,
or train low and live high, which gets the quality, while maxing out the red blood cell adaption = up
I disagree. The tent does not give you the sensations and understanding of what it feels like to run at even moderate elevation. Heck I am leery of the efficacy of altitude tents--which mainly have been looked at for improving sea level performance. -
Truth Bomber wrote:
You're going to spend 1.5 hours in a car to run at elevation for almost no benefit when you could use that time to be actually running.....
Exactly. I've seen many people do this sort of thing, and I believe that it is almost always a waste of time. If you have a real job, and you're doing serious training, then time is a scarce resource. In general, you should be trying to cut down on the temporal overhead associated with running, not adding to it.
The main difference between doing a session at 400 feet and doing that same session at 5,000 feet is that, at the higher altitude, you'll reach the same lactate levels at a slower pace. It can be debated whether doing that once a week provides a net benefit or a net detriment, but any physiological benefit is extremely slight. If it costs ninety minutes of driving, I'd rather get in an extra thirty minutes of running at the lower altitude and pocket the saved hour for other things. -
Avocado's Number wrote:
Truth Bomber wrote:
You're going to spend 1.5 hours in a car to run at elevation for almost no benefit when you could use that time to be actually running.....
Exactly. I've seen many people do this sort of thing, and I believe that it is almost always a waste of time. If you have a real job, and you're doing serious training, then time is a scarce resource. In general, you should be trying to cut down on the temporal overhead associated with running, not adding to it.
The main difference between doing a session at 400 feet and doing that same session at 5,000 feet is that, at the higher altitude, you'll reach the same lactate levels at a slower pace. It can be debated whether doing that once a week provides a net benefit or a net detriment, but any physiological benefit is extremely slight. If it costs ninety minutes of driving, I'd rather get in an extra thirty minutes of running at the lower altitude and pocket the saved hour for other things.
He's talking about 1 run during the weekend so an 1.5 hours isn't going to make any difference. It won't help his training, but if it's a nice place to run it would be worth the trip. We would occasionally drive up to Auburn to get away from the monotony of the American River bike trails in Sacramento. -
Avocado's Number wrote:
[quote]Truth Bomber wrote:
If it costs ninety minutes of driving, I'd rather get in an extra thirty minutes of running at the lower altitude and pocket the saved hour for other things.
I still have to drive somewhere to run and that takes 30 minutes. I'd have an extra half hour in my day if I didnt go to this place. I usually run between work (opposite direction of the 5000 ft place) and home or go to a 3 mile (1 way)lake trail to do 2 laps (sometimes a bit more) out and back (adding a third lap for a long run would be boring and still be a bit short). If I had a great place to run under 15 mins away, the hour of time I'd be saving might be worth something, but I don't.
It sounds like it won't make a physiological difference either way, so I'll just go to the 5000 ft state park every now and then to mix it up. -
Avocado's Number wrote:
Truth Bomber wrote:
You're going to spend 1.5 hours in a car to run at elevation for almost no benefit when you could use that time to be actually running.....
Exactly. I've seen many people do this sort of thing, and I believe that it is almost always a waste of time. If you have a real job, and you're doing serious training, then time is a scarce resource. In general, you should be trying to cut down on the temporal overhead associated with running, not adding to it.
Temporal overhead. I like. Concinnity. -
Thank you!
:) -
Nope. No benefit.
-
I live at 900 feet and can drive just 30 minutes to run at 4000 feet. It's good only to escape the heat in summer and avoid or delay spring allergies as the season is delayed a couple weeks. No help with the altitude, as others said, need to be their weeks.
It is fun to play with the info on this website to learn more about altitude: altitude.org -
Camp there on weekends and you'll get a benefit.
I've lived at 5000-7000 feet much of my life but XC ski at 8500' to 9500' once or twice a week over the winter. And do experience some acclimation after a few weeks of doing that.
