Benefits of training at moderate altitude versus sea level training in amateur runners

Abstract

After more than 25 years of research of altitude training (AT) there is no consensus regarding either the training programme at altitude or the effects of AT on performance at sea level. Based on a review of the research work on AT, we investigated combined base training and interval training at moderate altitude and compared immediate and delayed effects on sea level performance with those following similar sea level training (SLT). The altitude group (AG, 10 male amateur runners) trained at 2315 m (natural altitude) and the sea level group (SLG, 12 male amateur runners) at 187 m. Both groups performed 7 days of base training (running on a trail) lasting between 60 and 90 min a day and 5 days of interval training (speed and hill runs) for between 10 and 45 min a day. Incremental exercise tests were performed 1 week before (t1), 3 days after (t2) and 16 days after (t3) the 12-day main training period. Within AG, exercise performance improved from t1 to t2 by 8% (P < 0.05) and from t2 to t3 by 8% (P < 0.05). Maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) increased from t2 to t3 by 10% (P < 0.05). Within SLG exercise performance increased from t2 to t3 by 8% (P < 0.05). At t3, relative and absolute VO2max in AG were significantly higher in comparison with SLG (P = 0.005 and P = 0.046 respectively). The improved performance 3 days after AT may be explained in part by an increased oxygen uptake at submaximal exercise intensities without a change in VO2max. Further enhancement in performance 2 weeks after AT, however, seems to have been due to the clearly enhanced VO2max. Progressive cardiovascular adjustments might have contributed primarily to the time-dependent improvements observed after AT, possibly by an enhanced stroke volume overcompensating the reduced heart rates during submaximal exercise. In conclusion, our findings would suggest that training at a moderate natural altitude improves performance at sea level more than SLT. Combining base and interval training with regulation of intensity by training at constant heart rates during acclimatization at altitude would seem to be a successful training regimen for amateur runners. Most beneficial effects became apparent during the subsequent SLT around 2 weeks after return from altitude. Therefore, we are convinced that AT should be reconsidered as a potent tool for enhancing aerobic capacity, at least in non-elite athletes.

Training-induced increases in sea-level performance are enhanced by acute intermittent hypobaric hypoxia

“…It was concluded that several metabolic adaptations to extended exposure to high altitude are similar to those following endurance training at sea-level (Burtscher et al 1996).…”

“…The altitude of 2500 m was chosen because earlier studies demonstrated that the most signi®cant adaptations occur within a range of 2000±2500 m (Holewijn and Meeuwsen 1996). In addition, a review of many recent research studies suggests that the appropriate training altitude ranges between 2000 m and 3000 m (Burtscher et al 1996). It must be stressed that the opinion``the higher the better'' is compromised because the subjects suer severe side-eects.…”

“…However, the published scienti®c data on performance increases at sea-level after extended training at altitude are contradictory. While a number of studies have reported an improvement in sea-level work performance and maximal oxygen uptake ( _ V O 2 max ) following exposure to high altitude (Terrados et al 1990;Burtscher et al 1996), others have observed no change (Levine and Stray-Gundersen 1992;Emonson et al 1997). This dissimilarity could be due to methodological problems (e.g., small sample sizes, no control group, inappropriate training load, unsuitable testing mode or timing of retest) or subject characteristic dierences within or between studies (e.g., gender, age, conditioning level).…”

The effect of intermittent training in hypobaric hypoxia on sea-level exercise: a cross-over study in humans

“…In addition, a review of many recent research studies suggests that the most appropriate training altitudes range between 2,000 m and 4,000 m (Holewijn and Meeuwsen 1996). Even the concept of living low and training high with varying altitudes could be beneficial (Kayser 1994;Burtscher et al 1996;Holewijn and Meeuwsen 1996;Meeuwsen et al 2001;Vallier et al 1996).…”

Effects of a 12-day “live high, train low” camp on reticulocyte production and haemoglobin mass in elite female road cyclists

“…Increasing red cell mass is recognised as a potent means of improving athletic performance (Buick et al 1980;Celsing et al 1987;Jones and Pedoe 1989), and world-class athletes, seeking even the smallest physiological advantage over competitors, spend several weeks at moderate altitude (»2000±3000 m) in an attempt to stimulate red blood cell production and thus improve endurance performance. Whether these relatively brief periods of living at moderate altitude increase red blood cell production in highly trained individuals has yet to be established conclusively, despite more than 25 years of investigation (Burtscher et al 1996). In spite of this equivocal evidence, it has been proposed that athletes who live at moderate altitude, but train near sea level, would experience sucient hypoxic stimulus to ensure an increase in red blood cell production ± the``live high, train low'' principle (Levine et al 1991).…”