close
About altitude training and the regulation of performance limits

Since I am working and investigating biestmilch (colostrum) – for me the most complex therapeutic and performance “enhancing” as well as recovery “improving” substance – I am looking much closer at common sense concepts in exercise science and exercise physiology. Understanding biestmilch means to understand the body as an organic machine of well coordinated regulatory processes. There is not one single relation in our body that is a point to point or a cause-effect relation. Each molecule, each entity in our body is multi-functional and part of a system that is based and organized following the principle of redundancy to secure our lives in case of failures that may occur every day.

Currently high racing season is lying ahead of many athletes. Especially elite athletes disappear for training into the higher regions of our Alps to train at altitudes between 1500m and 2000m. Altitude training is postulated to improve performance at sea level. Since the Olympics in Mexiko 1968 this story haunts athletes all over the world and lets them climb up mountains. Analyzing the subjects shows that evidence is scarce proving a positive effect of altitude training. On the contrary, when athletes from sea level first go up to altitude, their performance suffers badly.

The most vivid illustration of this was the 1968 Olympics (the year of Bob Beamon’s mammoth long jump record, thanks in part to the thin air in Mexico City), when Ron Clarke of Australia collapsed and nearly died from altitude sickness sustained during the grueling 10,000 m race final. It was reported that he suffered permanent heart damage from this event.

Why is altitude training assumed to be efficient?

The concept behind altitude training is that the muscles are not provided with enough oxygen due to the lower oxygen pressure in the air. The heart is not pumping enough blood to the periphery to satisfy demands. The conclusions drawn by this thought model are that lactate is accumulating due to anaerobic conditions that occur much earlier than at sea level. The athlete experiences a drop in performance and well-being. This situation is interpreted as the stimulus that kicks in erythropoietin production, more red blood cells are thus produced and as a consequence the muscles’ supply with oxygen improves. Your body adapts over time and these adaptations ensure more oxygen delivery to the muscles.

Who wouldn't love to be able to fly instead of working so damn hard ;-)
Who wouldn’t love to be able to fly instead of working so damn hard 😉

 

Does this explanatory model really correspond with physiology?

This is a slightly controversial question to answer, because the science and the anecdotes don’t agree. The athletes swear by altitude training, the science has often failed to find an effect when studies are done in a controlled way. If one goes through the studies results are not convincing. This may be as well due to the study design, looking at the wrong variables, missing out variables or choosing statistical approaches that are not suitable to answer the question. While the studies are not conclusive until today, this does not necessarily mean that there is no effect of altitude training.

In high altitude high intensity running sessions are more limited by oxygen. What happens is that an athlete at altitude gets benefits from the increase in EPO (erythropietin) and red blood cell mass, but they are actually disadvantaged when it comes to doing the higher intensity training sessions. They simply cannot train hard enough at altitude, and that may offset any benefits they could have derived the other way.

This is the reason for the development of the “live high, train low” theory. The evidence suggests that this live-high and train-low theory does work, though the effects are relatively small. There is also an interesting phenomenon of “responders” and “non-responders”, with some people showing improvements of about a minute over a 5km time-trial after a 4-week training period, while others show no improvement, or even get slower. So the jury is still out, scientifically at least. But the fact that so many athletes swear by it is a sign that there is something there, even if it is just a placebo effect.

All the data are not conclusive until now, that’s to quite obvious. Altitude training works for some for others it does not, and we don’t know why. The scientific assumption why altitude training works is that oxygen supply to the muscle improves. But then why are the observations that marathon runners, who don’t reach Vo2 max seem to profit? The evidence suggests that athletes are running at about 70 to 80% of the VO2 max, which means they are not actually at that limit. 10 or 15k runners are, they race at about 90% to 100% of VO2max. But there profit from altitude training is minimal, if there is one at all.

Obviously we miss out on something. Regulation of performance levels is so much more difficult than only looking at oxygen. There is body composition as whole, there is the genetic outfit of the individual, there are so many more parameters to consider like nutrition, sleep, weather conditions (heat, humidity), external stress factors etc.

In the end the athlete is left to his/her own devices. It is his or her very own experiences and beliefs (sorry to express it that vague) that may tip the scales in favor or against this training method. Perhaps it helps if you say good bye to all the simple explanations, consult the different explanatory model, that range from the catastrophe model (the muscle stops working due to lactate accumulation) to the central governor model (exercise ends in the brain). Both of which are extremes that don’t quite hit the reality of physiology, but they may all help you to get to know your very own situation and draw the respective conclusions for your training approach.

In the end what makes tip the scales is your confidence in your training schedule, and your ability to assess your body’s condition.

Source of reference: The Science of Sport Blog, by Ross Rucker and Jonathan Dugan

 

Susann

Susann

Susann is the biest prototype and head of the team. She is Austrian, has studied medicine, meaning she is a medical doctor and the Biesters' alpha wolf. Susann continuously produces new ideas, is strong in making concepts and is practically always ON FIRE. Without her BIESTMILCH wouldn't be where and what it is today, and anyway - not possible.

Dedicated to Chris “MACCA”s McCormack’s loyal fans

How I became biesty

1 Comment

Leave a Response