The High Altitude Myth

[Ben the Gooner]

I've got a better idea.

Let's play a game called "The people who are paid to know what they're doing know what they're doing, and we should trust them".

 

[yaco55]

Still maintain they could have gone to Falls Creek - Leading athletes including the Africans use the facility.

We need Steve Monaghetti to join this thread.

 

[Chambo]

Can I just mention...Altitude training really helped Collingwood in the 2011 GF and the Kangas at the end of 2012!

It doesn't bother me either way but if the club/players believe in their methods then we should too!
Pre-season 2013-14 will determine whether they think it is worth it by ditching it or taking the whole list!

There are some good videos on the GC Suns website about the Arizona camp they are on now...5 hour climb up the Grand Canyon looks tough! These sorts of trips are valuable for team building/bonding...hence Hawthorn's trips to Kokoda.

 

[blackcat]

Yeah, I'm talking about the overall fitness. The number of RBCs is a means to boost that, but hopefully the decline in RBCs at sea level would leave the player ahead of where they would be without it.

indeed.

Nic Bideau said, they cant get to 100% training immediately across the AZ timezone because of the jetlag. Same goes on return.

Plus difficulty hitting peak effort at altitude.

And Nic trains his wife Sonia OSullivan. Would take his word over anyone at AFL, even Buttifant.

Had Mottram for a while as coach, not just commercial manager.

 

[blackcat]

The inability to work as hard at altitude negates any gain in red blood cells that may occur. You simply cannot train properly/as hard at altitude as you can at sea level. That is why (if anything) the club should be investing in oxygen tents. Train to your maximum at sea level, then increase the red blood cells overnight.

Train low, sleep high. Any fitness staff worth their salt should know this.

I am beginning to realize why we fell away so badly last year.

good post. There is an easier way to ^RBC# cue Aker. And the O2 tents, they have been mystique'd also. Cyclists use them as "cover", for nefarious means.

 

[eth-dog]

Still maintain they could have gone to Falls Creek - Leading athletes including the Africans use the facility.

We need Steve Monaghetti to join this thread.

It's altitude isn't high enough. And no, they don't. You need to be 2.5 km or higher altitude

 

[Towno78]

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.

 

[blackcat]

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.

cycling and the Armstrong horde were doing the sleep high, train low in the last decade. They were on the cutting edge ten years back

 

[NAB777]

Snip

You know that some guru's are being disappointed lately..?

Go on, you can do it.. find the studies...

 

[Towno78]

cycling and the Armstrong horde were doing the sleep high, train low in the last decade. They were on the cutting edge ten years back

Mate, I don't know the answer either way and I don't know the research. As I said, all that was provided in this thread to support the OPs objection to high altitude training, was uncited trash that didn't even actually support what he was saying, so that was all I had to comment on.
If you have some useful links for me to read on the topic, I'd love to see them, so that I could build an informed opinion.
BTW Cycling and the Armstrong horde's methods probably aren't the most useful model.

 

[Towno78]

You know that some guru's are being disappointed lately..?

Go on, you can do it.. find the studies...

Lol, that's the best you can do. You haven't provided anything that supports your argument yet.
For the record, I'm not for or against either approach or other approaches, I'm against people criticising the club without due reason, not to mention people claiming to be experts without due credibility.

 

[NAB777]

Mate, I don't know the answer either way and I don't know the research. As I said, all that was provided in this thread to support the OPs objection to high altitude training, was uncited trash that didn't even actually support what he was saying, so that was all I had to comment on.
If you have some useful links for me to read on the topic, I'd love to see them, so that I could build an informed opinion.
BTW Cycling and the Armstrong horde's methods probably aren't the most useful model.

OK.

- I think our club is wasting their time & money, and is in fact costing the players who went valuable training time
- This latest move, when added onto the performance of the fitness staff this year (albeit at the instruction of the coaches) leads me to question whether we are heading in the right direction in the fitness area
- There are no studies that can support our decision to fly overseas for three weeks of altitude training
- Conventional wisdom has suggested 'train low, sleep high' to be the give the best altitude training 'results'.
- As Blackcat said - cycling has been doing this for years... and you could chose no better sport than cycling when it comes to looking for any edges in oxygen delivery (regardless of whether it's legal or illegal), which is the whole purpose Essendon's trip to Colorado.
- Recent studies have shown that even the 'train low, sleep high' method may not lead to real performance gains.

Here are a couple of bits of reading for you.

In conclusion, 4 wk of LHTL, using 16 h/day of normobaric hypoxia, did not improve endurance performance or any of the measured, associated physiological variables.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22033534?dopt=Abstract

Regardless of altitude training modality, swimming performances were substantially slower 1 day (Classic 1.4 ± 1.3% and LHTL 1.6 ± 1.6%; mean ± 90% confidence limits) and 7 days (0.9 ± 1.0% and 1.9 ± 1.1%) after altitude compared to Race Control. In both groups, performances 14 and 28 days after altitude were not different from pre-altitude. The season-long comparison indicated that no clear advantage was obtained by swimmers who completed altitude training
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22234397

PS... PE teacher? No thanks

 

[NAB777]

Double post....

PS - I have been following & involved with the club for long time.. sometimes criticism is necessary...but not mindless abuse

I have backed the fitness staff this year (read my posts), but this latest move has me concerned.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Double post....

PS - I have been following & involved with the club for long time.. sometimes criticism is necessary...but not mindless abuse

I have backed the fitness staff this year (read my posts), but this latest move has me concerned.

I get being skeptical, and I certainly don't have enough of an informed opinion to make judgement, but what I can't get past is why so many highly paid sports science professionals including two of the most highly rated in the league (Steve Saunders of North and David Buttifant of Collingwood) across probably 8-10 clubs are doing it. These clubs, especially North who don't have 2c to rub together, aren't pissing away tens of thousands of dollars just for a placebo effect. There has to be something there.

 

[Towno78]

OK.

- I think our club is wasting their time & money, and is in fact costing the players who went valuable training time
- This latest move, when added onto the performance of the fitness staff this year (albeit at the instruction of the coaches) leads me to question whether we are heading in the right direction in the fitness area
- There are no studies that can support our decision to fly overseas for three weeks of altitude training
- Conventional wisdom has suggested 'train low, sleep high' to be the give the best altitude training 'results'.
- As Blackcat said - cycling has been doing this for years... and you could chose no better sport than cycling when it comes to looking for any edges in oxygen delivery (regardless of whether it's legal or illegal), which is the whole purpose Essendon's trip to Colorado.
- Recent studies have shown that even the 'train low, sleep high' method may not lead to real performance gains.

Here are a couple of bits of reading for you.

In conclusion, 4 wk of LHTL, using 16 h/day of normobaric hypoxia, did not improve endurance performance or any of the measured, associated physiological variables.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22033534?dopt=Abstract

Regardless of altitude training modality, swimming performances were substantially slower 1 day (Classic 1.4 ± 1.3% and LHTL 1.6 ± 1.6%; mean ± 90% confidence limits) and 7 days (0.9 ± 1.0% and 1.9 ± 1.1%) after altitude compared to Race Control. In both groups, performances 14 and 28 days after altitude were not different from pre-altitude. The season-long comparison indicated that no clear advantage was obtained by swimmers who completed altitude training
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22234397

PS... PE teacher? No thanks

This is better, much appreciated.

- Really this latest move is a test case. They have a LOT of data on the performances of their senior players, it would surely provide more specific info for our players and sport than results from any study.
- My comments re cyclists was really that the benefits of altitude training for athletes who are blood doping can't really be correlated to athletes who are not. If those who aren't/weren't cheating are doing it, I agree cycling is a good sport to model.
- The studies were interesting to read. Doesn't seem to be the support for the TLSH you were originally suggesting. I'm not sure swimming performance over 100m and 200m is a great means for comparison, but the cycling one is certainly more comparable. Interesting to see the measured increase in Hb, as I had often wondered this, as only 4% and that it was the same for the classic altitude training as it was for TLSH. A 4% increase would barely be maintained for 2 weeks, but the fact that it was the same for both groups certainly suggests sleeping in oxygen tents would be far a more cost effective way to increase Hb, and could be maintained for longer periods.

 

[Tas]

Indeed.


Not in question.
The question is, whether a few weeks at altitude, a month before a week off from serious training, some 4 months from serious competition has any effect at all. The Pies bloke can wank on about it all he wants - for all their resources, they've won 1 flag, Cats (train on dunes) have 3, Sydney (no altitude training) have 2.
If there is a significant, sustained advantage there, I can't see it.

I don't think it is necessary to win a flag, but that wasn't the question.

Outside of the physical benefits that exist, there are psychological benefits when it comes to this kind of training. We demand our players buy into it and part of it is they put some money from their own pocket towards the trip because they have to buy into the desire to improve themselves and get the most out of themselves. It is not just a road trip to the top of a mountain, you are in a professional environment where there are elite sportsman from all over the world, the best of their given sports.

I think to get away from everything else and just have that focus (3 weeks for us) totally on your development is something important, especially for young kids who usually find there are a lot of distractions around during the off-season.

 

[Doss]

Still maintain they could have gone to Falls Creek - Leading athletes including the Africans use the facility.

We need Steve Monaghetti to join this thread.

They may well use Falls Creek, but I very much doubt it is for the specific brief of 'high altitude' training. It is simply not high enough (>2500 metres ASL), nowhere in Australia is.

It would be more related to the ready scope for the various physical features (mountain peaks, plateaus, lakes, fast flowing rivers) of the landscape on the Bogong High Plains for physical and fitness training.

 

[yaco55]

Checked the Falls Creek Elite Training Facility on the web - Runs programs for triathletes,athletes, cyclists,rowers, skiiers, professional sports teams like GFC and the Melbourne Rebels. The centre is open from November to March.

I believe that Geelong sent a group of young players to Falls Creek in 2011.

 

[Slattery_20]

I don't think it is necessary to win a flag, but that wasn't the question.

Outside of the physical benefits that exist, there are psychological benefits when it comes to this kind of training. We demand our players buy into it and part of it is they put some money from their own pocket towards the trip because they have to buy into the desire to improve themselves and get the most out of themselves. It is not just a road trip to the top of a mountain, you are in a professional environment where there are elite sportsman from all over the world, the best of their given sports.

I should've been pedantic and said 'measurable' benefits.
I'd really like to see some good, hard numbers on it, linking the altitude training with other fitness data taken in season - if not on-field results.

 

[Tas]

I should've been pedantic and said 'measurable' benefits.
I'd really like to see some good, hard numbers on it, linking the altitude training with other fitness data taken in season - if not on-field results.

The problem with altitude training and simulated altitude training is there is a competitive advantage in terms of the quantifiable benefit, any hard numbers clubs generate wont make it to the public. NFL has been doing it for decades and there is still not a lot of information out there.

The data Essendon collects they wont share or make it public either I would imagine.

 

[NAB777]

I vaguely remembered this thread when I read this article tonight.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

AFL clubs and players have officially given up on altitude training

AFL clubs and players have officially given up on expensive altitude training camps less than a decade after they swept the league.
North Melbourne was the last club to have a link to altitude training when a group of six players – including Cameron Zurhaar and Paul Ahern and Melbourne’s Braydon Preuss – last year paid their own way to train in the mountainous terrain in Utah.

But the chord has been cut entirely this pre-season with the Kangaroos’ full squad set to stay at home as the club starts an exciting new chapter under Rhyce Shaw.

Former Collingwood fitness chief and Hockey Australia high performance boss Bill Davoren said altitude training could work well for certain athletes, such as swimmers and cyclists, who were training for targeted short-term events.

But he said a single altitude camp delivered minimal benefit for a large group of footballers across the course of a six-month season.

“In footy, it had its lifespan, but as time went by it was an expensive exercise which delivered short-term results,” Davoren said.

“Did it have an effect in July, August and September beyond blokes saying ‘We trained really hard’?

“You can run them up Anderson St (Botanical Gardens) and train really hard and get as much out of that.

“I just don’t think it (costly altitude camps) is a footy piece.”

The Roos’ players’ move means footy’s altitude experiment is finally dead only six years after eight clubs went on overseas trips in search of a fitness edge.

Collingwood was the pioneer of the altitude missions, with former coach Michael Malthouse and ex-fitness boss David Buttifant adamant the physiological and team bonding benefits played a part in their dominant reign in 2010-11.

Malthouse has repeatedly defended the type of training, saying “It is very, very good for you. It is proven,” Malthouse said.

Essendon, St Kilda and Western Bulldogs (Colorado), Carlton and Gold Coast (Arizona) and North Melbourne (Utah) all followed suit. Some camps cost upwards of $500,000 for the whole squad to spend a fortnight away.

The Magpies even invested in an altitude room at their Olympic Park headquarters, but that has gone by the wayside.

The introduction of a soft cap on football department spending has contributed significantly towards killing off altitude training in the AFL.
It means clubs are investing the hundreds of thousands of dollars those camps cost into other areas, such as its facilities, staff and domestic training camps.

Melbourne is heading to Maroochydore under new fitness chief Darren Burgess this pre-season, while Western Bulldogs are travelling to Cape Schank in mid-December and Mooloolaba in late January.

Collingwood won’t return to Southport where it has been in recent years for a week-long training and leadership camp.

Davoren said the benefits of a single altitude training camp were not long-lasting.

“Physiologically, yes, they get a bump,” Davoren said.

“But if you go in November – December, the bump would come in January.

“And the adaptations – the physiological changes – they’re only sustainable for a couple of weeks.

“So, they will lift their fitness in the short term and there are benefits with that – but there are also a lot of challenges also taking a large group to altitude.

“There is an opportunity to over train at altitude and get it wrong and not everyone responds the same way.

“Some people adapt really well to it, some people get no benefit and some people, it actually regresses them.

“So, when I was in triathlon, we were very targeted with it. Only some kids would go.”

 

[blackcat]

I vaguely remembered this thread when I read this article tonight.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

AFL clubs and players have officially given up on altitude training

AFL clubs and players have officially given up on expensive altitude training camps less than a decade after they swept the league.
North Melbourne was the last club to have a link to altitude training when a group of six players – including Cameron Zurhaar and Paul Ahern and Melbourne’s Braydon Preuss – last year paid their own way to train in the mountainous terrain in Utah.

But the chord has been cut entirely this pre-season with the Kangaroos’ full squad set to stay at home as the club starts an exciting new chapter under Rhyce Shaw.

Former Collingwood fitness chief and Hockey Australia high performance boss Bill Davoren said altitude training could work well for certain athletes, such as swimmers and cyclists, who were training for targeted short-term events.

But he said a single altitude camp delivered minimal benefit for a large group of footballers across the course of a six-month season.

“In footy, it had its lifespan, but as time went by it was an expensive exercise which delivered short-term results,” Davoren said.

“Did it have an effect in July, August and September beyond blokes saying ‘We trained really hard’?

“You can run them up Anderson St (Botanical Gardens) and train really hard and get as much out of that.

“I just don’t think it (costly altitude camps) is a footy piece.”

The Roos’ players’ move means footy’s altitude experiment is finally dead only six years after eight clubs went on overseas trips in search of a fitness edge.

Collingwood was the pioneer of the altitude missions, with former coach Michael Malthouse and ex-fitness boss David Buttifant adamant the physiological and team bonding benefits played a part in their dominant reign in 2010-11.

Malthouse has repeatedly defended the type of training, saying “It is very, very good for you. It is proven,” Malthouse said.

Essendon, St Kilda and Western Bulldogs (Colorado), Carlton and Gold Coast (Arizona) and North Melbourne (Utah) all followed suit. Some camps cost upwards of $500,000 for the whole squad to spend a fortnight away.

The Magpies even invested in an altitude room at their Olympic Park headquarters, but that has gone by the wayside.

The introduction of a soft cap on football department spending has contributed significantly towards killing off altitude training in the AFL.
It means clubs are investing the hundreds of thousands of dollars those camps cost into other areas, such as its facilities, staff and domestic training camps.

Melbourne is heading to Maroochydore under new fitness chief Darren Burgess this pre-season, while Western Bulldogs are travelling to Cape Schank in mid-December and Mooloolaba in late January.

Collingwood won’t return to Southport where it has been in recent years for a week-long training and leadership camp.

Davoren said the benefits of a single altitude training camp were not long-lasting.

“Physiologically, yes, they get a bump,” Davoren said.

“But if you go in November – December, the bump would come in January.

“And the adaptations – the physiological changes – they’re only sustainable for a couple of weeks.

“So, they will lift their fitness in the short term and there are benefits with that – but there are also a lot of challenges also taking a large group to altitude.

“There is an opportunity to over train at altitude and get it wrong and not everyone responds the same way.

“Some people adapt really well to it, some people get no benefit and some people, it actually regresses them.

“So, when I was in triathlon, we were very targeted with it. Only some kids would go.”

the AIS researcher on anti-doping Robin Parisotto was on record I think, and Nic Bideau (ex journo ex Cathy Freeman fiance and manager, and currently same roles in place as Sonia OSullivan's husband and parent to their children)

they said, coulda been Ashenden too, that any climate conditioning or biological response of hematocrit, not only temporary, but it would be circumscribed by the circadian rhythm and jet-lag effects.

 

[rumply]

Zacha runs his own altitude camps last I heard.

 

[eth-dog]

I think it works for stuff like cycling (along with all the doping there)

 

[tandino]

I've got a better idea.

Let's play a game called "The people who are paid to know what they're doing know what they're doing, and we should trust them".

They were innocent times.