1. Altitude Training

2. Watch the series of video clips and make notes on altitude training, including:
What it is
Why it has an effect on the body
What the effect is
How long it takes to work
How long it lasts for
The disadvantages
The alternatives / solutions.

3.
Overview of altitude training (3:34)
England U20 Football Altitude training (2:03)
Altitude training summary cartoon (2:20)
CAT hypoxic tent (0:57)
CAT Hypoxic training – Phoenix Suns (3:00)

4. Discuss the suggestion that altitude training always improves performance in endurance events
Explanation of altitude training
A. Over 2000m/8000 feet above sea level
B. Usually for at least 30 days/month/3 phases named –
acclimatisation, primary training, recovery
C. Partial pressure of oxygen is lower/less oxygen available
D. Body produces erythropoietin/EPO/hEPO
E. Alternative methods now available, eg hypoxic tents/altitude
tents/oxygen tents/apartments/train low, live high

5. Improves Performance
F. Increased number/concentration/red blood cells
G. Increased concentration of haemoglobin/ myoglobin/ increased haematocrit
H. Increased capacity to carry oxygen
I. Increased tolerance to lactic acid/buffering/delayed OBLA
J. Benefits last for up to 6 to 8 weeks.

6. Hinders performance
K. Altitude sickness
L. Training at same intensity difficult/detraining may occur/loss of fitness
M. Benefits lost within few days back at sea level/up to few days
N. Psychological problems linked to travel/time away from home

7. Levine and Stray-Gundersen (1997) conducted a study, in America, into this suggestion:
They randomly selected 39 runners, all of whom were club level and had an average pace over a 5000m distance of 80% of the world record, to conduct training for 4 weeks.
There were 3 different conditions involved in this training, these were:
live high, train high;
live high, train low;
live low train low (which acted as the control group).
Before the test began all 39 runners took part in a six week training programme that was conducted at sea level and consisted of two performance tests to act as a baseline measure to compare the end results to. There was also a period of 3 weeks after the test, at sea level, which included 3 further tests to see how long the effects of training lasted after the athlete had conducted training in the 3 different environments.

8. Graph shows: Percentage change in 5000-m time from baseline performance (at 6 weeks) in three training groups. The bar labelled likely range of true change is our estimate of the 95% confidence interval for points other than the baseline.

9. All groups improved their performance times during the 6 week training before the different altitude conditions.
• Live low, train low: During the next 4 weeks performance deteriorated by 2.5%. It was only after the other groups returned to sea level for 3 weeks that time for their 5000m was decreased. This was not as much as before the different conditions and not as much as the other 2 conditions. The researchers believe that this lack of improvement in performance was due to the hot humid conditions this group had to conduct their 4 week training in. This was a change from the first 6 weeks and the last 3 weeks where training was conducted in cool, dry conditions.
• Live high, train high: Their time increased (deteriorated) slightly when they conducted the 4 weeks training at altitude. This increase was not as substantial as the low/low group however it is still clear that there was an increase. When this group returned to sea level for the post 3 weeks training their performance deteriorated (possible due to the different environment) before improving. At the end of the study the high/high group’s time had decreased by 3%.
• Live high, train low: When this group conducted their training at sea level whilst living at altitude they were the only group to decrease their time further. Over this 10 week period the live high/train low groups time decreased by 4%. The post 3 weeks of training cause the performance of this group, similarly to the other 2 groups, to deteriorate before improving further. At the end of the study the group’s time had decreased by 5.5%.