OK, let's play tag. I'll find one that supports my point of view, you find one that supports your position.
The topic: Sleeping & training at high altitude for three weeks will have a training benefit to athletes competing at sea level five months in the future.
I'll go first.
http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/altitude.html
Furthermore, while adaptation to high altitude makes you better at high altitude it hasn't proved useful for making you faster at sea level. There is a lot of mysticism that surrounds the belief of enhanced sea-level performance after altitude training, but the current scientific evidence is lacking. The reason is that some of the adaptive responses at high altitude are actually a hindrance at lower altitude. As more research is done then perhaps a training regimen that shows definitive improvement will emerge.
Well after the build up, that was disappointingly average. If you say you are going to provide a "study", how about you actually provide a study as opposed to a website. Although based on this website that's filled entirely with uncited information, I am starting to understand your own inability to cite information, or perhaps its a reluctance to cite it rather, based on its lack of credibility. Either way, definitely puts in to question exactly the level of education you have received.
But, if this website is the best you can do, this is what I'll comment on.
In no way does this website address
the topic you yourself raised. To begin with, it doesn't have a follow-up timeframe as you do, so we cannot be sure when the advantages or lack thereof are supposedly occurring. Secondly it states "
it hasn't proved useful for making you faster at sea level", when speed is not the training benefit sought. Thirdly, it quite clearly states that scientific evidence is lacking... Which is very different to scientific evidence is available and has proved it to be ineffective in particular outcome measures.
Then reading on, when your website goes on to discuss the sleep high train low philosophy you purport. I was of the assumption this was going to be good given your strong stance. Yet the strongest (uncited and unqualified) assertion it can make is that "some more recent evidence to suggest that a 'train-low, sleep high' approach
may confer some advantages" ... "a creative approach and one which
might yield excellent results". Of course it cite the supposed evidence, nor does it talk of what the supposed advantages and results are, but that they might happen.
Now for you to say "Train low, sleep high. Any fitness staff worth their salt should know this" and put in to question a directive of some of this country's sports science gurus, I would hope you had something stronger than this website.
Now if we take in to consideration the fact that we have only sent 10 players over, we clearly have not committed to the benefits of altitude training and are testing the waters. It would indicate to me that, due to a lack of compelling evidence in the area, we will do our own experiment and move forward from there. Seems like nothing but a sensible approach.
Now, the Morwell Secondary College Yr8Bs are out of shape, and won't improve on their 2-7 record from last year with their trainee PE teacher wasting so much time on internet forums.