Altitude and Intensity

Because I'm currently residing at an elevation that is known to kill brain cells, and because I have so few to begin with, I thought I'd write down a few more of my lamebrain thoughts on the matter of altitude, specifically the whole live high/train low philosophy…

Though it's a pretty substantiated one a philosophy it all it really is, especially when it comes to true endurance performance (and not simply physiological acclimation). Remember, not all changes in physiology---even when positive---result in improved performance. For example, after all those surgeries, I'm an extremely good-looking guy, as my outward composition clearly proves in the photo above. But does all this good-lookingness make me a faster athlete? Of course not! Still, to me, it's a worthwhile trade.

Anyway, the key point here, besides shedding some light on my devastatingly handsome (albeit yak-like) appearance, is that positive changes don't always bring about positive results. In the case of altitude, there needs to be further research to show a direct link between altitude and athletic performance. While I believe there's benefit to be had by living at altitude (as it relates to race performances) it has yet to be "proven". (Please disregard the throngs of Olympians and World Champions living and training at altitude, this is NOT proof!)

Proof, of course, it tough to find in sports. Proof of drug use, proof of training methodology, and proof of what brought an athlete to the top (or to the bottom) are all hard to, well, prove. And while I tend to think that proof is as simple as looking at the final race results (i.e., the bottom line is the finish line), there will always be something else to prove long after the fact.

But back to the live high/train low thing and its relationship to us endurance types. One of the key points always mentioned in the live high/train low studies is the intensity of exercise, in particular, the "fact" that an athlete is unable to train as "intensely" up high as he or she would be able to at a lower elevation. This is controversial at best and I'll get to that shortly. First, a primer on "intensity".

Not only is "intensity" a relative term (for example, one can train intensely long or, and this is perhaps a better example, one man's intensity may be another man's yawn) but it is also vital to understand that, no matter how high or low we live or train, we, as triathletes, are ENDURANCE athletes. Our training must therefore be geared toward training our endurance, not our short-term capacity. Training intensely, despite all its merit to scientists, is secondary to building a motor (and chassis) that can last. Training intensely can help with this, of course, but first comes basic endurance (i.e., the ability to endure). Long and strong baby!

Okay, with that in mind, we'll move on. If it is believed that there is benefit to living high, there must certainly be some benefit to training high. Logic tells us this, since the same effects of living high occur when training high since both involve being high. The altitude doesn't suddenly change its tune because you're sleeping or training; its effect is the same. But let's say for a minute that there's NO benefit whatsoever to training high (a silly notion for a number of reasons but let's just imagine for a second that there could indeed be no benefit to training high, as is essentially suggested by these "studies").

Would training at altitude therefore be a detriment?

Again, the answer for the endurance athlete is no. N-O, no. If, however, you're an athlete who's more or less required to train intensely due to the nature of your goal event (e.g., a middle-distance runner or perhaps even a sprint-distance triathlete) then perhaps training up high would decrease your capacity. (We certainly know it can decrease your capacity to recover quickly, but that's not what we're talking about right now.) This is because these athletes are not only required to work at higher percentages of their maximal heart rate (a maximal heart rate definitely qualifies as intense) but also produce high work rates---not just high heart rates---while doing so. Because of the cruel nature of altitude and the physiological cost of simply being up high, the body cannot also work hard enough to deal with yet another stress, that being the effort involved in generating high power outputs or fast paces. You see, altitude allows you to think you're working intensely, and to be sure you are, but you're not producing the same results at that intensity.

Intensity, besides being a relative term and hard to define, is pretty easy to understand. If you're training intensely, you will know. (One sure sign is that you won't cope for long without having to ease back…) And you can do this anywhere, whether you're at sea level or sucking air atop Mount Everest. If you're still not sure about this just book a flight to Kathmandu and start walking east-northeast. As you ascend you'll understand what intensity really is, when taking a single step is an ordeal in and of itself. And yet the scientists say it isn't so. Perhaps they too have starved their brains of much-needed oxygen.

In a future blog I hope to touch on why altitude training might be bad for the endurance athlete. Whether I actually get to it or not depends on my inherent laziness and my endless---and often unsuccessful---quest for free wireless. Off the top of my head, all I can come up with is sunburn and delayed recovery. Oh, and those damn yak attacks. Just look what those damn animals did to me!

PS: If you're looking to perform better at altitude, here's a little secret I'll let you in on. Take Viagra. I kid not. Basically, it'll vasodilate the blood vessels in your lungs. This in turn allows for greater oxygen saturation of the blood, which generally decreases a bit when at altitude. Try telling your doctor that.