I am looking ahead to IM MOO 2004, my first IM, on Sept 12. I am quitting my job on Aug 1 (long story) so I’ll have almost 6 uninterrupted weeks to focus on the race. My uncle has offered to let me stay with him in Boulder CO during this time. (I currently live in DC). I’d obviously love to spend some time in Boulder and might even consider it or thereabouts as a possible place to relocate. I haven’t got a concrete training plan for that time, but I assume that per Byrn/Friel guidelines my weeks (working back from race week) will be: race week, peak week 2, peak week 1, recovery week, build 2, build 1… I have never trained at altitude before (I think Boulder is approx 2300m), although I did live for a year in Quito Ecuador (2700m). I plan to be in Madison for all of race week so my question is whether it would be a good idea to spend any or all of the build, recovery and peak weeks in Boulder. My initial thought is that perhaps it might not be a good idea to go to Boulder for the build weeks, but might be ok or even great to go for recovery week and 2 peak weeks before race week. Any thoughts greatly appreciated…
Do it, if done right you will be flying on race day 
It is possible to have an altitude training camp during your build period, just read up on altitude training around the Net, there are plenty of sources around. Or contact a knowledgeble coach on the subject.
Paulo
My experience with altitude (mountaineering) is that as long as you maintain your exposure up until the time of the event, you will benefit. However, as the amount of time you are away from altitude increases, the benefits diminish. That’s why people have to re-acclimate.
I grew up altitude 2000 meters and now I live a sea level. I notice diminished capacity after about a week at sea level.
re:I grew up altitude 2000 meters and now I live a sea level. I notice diminished capacity after about a week at sea level
I personally doubt that 1 week at sea level has an effect on your exercise capacity. The half life of erythrocytes is much longer than that.
just to clarify, i have now lived at sea level for the past 10 years. when i go home for say two weeks, i adapt easily to altitude. however, upon returning to sea level, it fades pretty quickly.
Awesome opportunity. I would use it if I were you. How long do you plan on living there? Plan your training so that your first week is a recovery week or kind of lower volume. This gives you time to adjust. From the research articles I’ve read, there’s an approximate 2000m minimum zone above which the reduced oxygen pressure aids the formation of additional red blood cells. It is the reduced pressure of oxygen that stimulates the formation of ertythrocytes. Therefore recovery weeks would be well spent at altitude as well. As long as you have ideal training conditions, I would train there for 3-4 weeks. Be aware of any nutritional changes that might occur. Although 2300m is not that high, it could influence your hunger. Be sure to consume sufficient calories after your training sessions. Go back to sea level a week prior to your event. There’s no way that this has any affect on the red blood cells since their life span is much longer. Theoretically, the increased gravitational force at sea level woud promote an increase in plasma volume, so that would be benefitial also. But this is more theoretical because G force doesn’t change much between those two altitudes.
Also be sure to consume sufficient B Vitamin Complex and Iron.
good luck,
daniel
are you saying that upon returning to sea level you loose your improved exercise capacity from the adaptation to the reduced O2 availability at altitude? And this within a very short time period?
If so, then I have a question for you: why do you think that altitude training has been shown to have a positive effect on the performance in aerobic/endurance events?
I live and train in La Paz, Bolivia, about 12,500 feet. At this altitude it takes about 6 weeks for the body to acclimate; that is for your hematocrit numbers to increase to the point where you can workout effectively. The problem that I’ve encountered with altitude training is that during workouts you easily become anaerobic and it is difficult to build/maintain ME. So there is a trade off to be considered here.
I question the benefits of only a single week of altitude training. What benefits are gained will certainly be lost within a week of living at sea level. I estimate that “crit’ numbers return to normal values at abut the same rate as they increase. For example, after living at 12,000 feet for three months I returned to sea level for three weeks and did not workout once until the end of the three-week period. I decided to go for a slow 10K run. At the end of the run I realized that I PR-ed my 10K time by almost 2 full minutes.
Half-life of red cells is only part of the story. Total blood volume is another part. Muscle and Mitochondrial activity is still another part.
With high altitude training, you’re essentially concerned with total oxygen carrying capacity, which is a function of Hemoglobin, cardiac output, and FIO2 (we’ll assume FIO2 is 21%) and pressure (we’ll assume it is sea level). (Hbgm% * 1.36 (some say 1.34, others say 1.39) * saturation of Hb with Oxygen) + 0.3 * PaO2 = Oxygen Content. Content times blood flow equals Oxygen carrying capacity. So, you either want to increase Hb, cardiac output, or both, in order to theoretically deliver more oxygen to the tissues. But, it gets more complicated than that.
You have to get this blood flow through the pre-capillary sphincters to the capillaries supplying muscle tissue (an autonomic as well as local tissue function), across the capillary membrane into the interstitial spaces, into the muscle cell, and then into the mitochondria, then the mitochondria have to use this oxygen efficiently to produce energy required for muscle function. If you have a dysfunction in any of these functions, more blood flow and/or more Hb carrying more oxygen doesn’t do you any good. In fact, as the Hb gets too high, the increased viscosity actually SLOWS blood flow through the capillaries, limiting the benefits of higher Oxygen carrying capacity that more Hb theoretically would provide.
But, let’s say you stimulated erythropoesis and have more red blood cells after being at altitude for a period of time (some sources say this takes almost a YEAR to do maximally, how much you can do this in a few weeks? I don’t know). If you hang on to fluid when you descend, this can raise total blood volume, bringing your Hct back down towards where it was originally. If you have enough proteins in your bloodstream to assist you in keeping the extra fluid intravascular, you could have an ability to pump more blood per minute, due to Starling’s law of the heart (basically states that the more blood flow that you provide the heart, stretching it slightly, the more blood the heart pumps out per beat…this is true, to a point). So, maybe you will have a higher cardiac output, potentially a good thing…it depends upon what your cardiac output was previously, and how much you can benefit from the Starling’s law effect.
However, if you don’t have these extra proteins, you will either get tissue edema or will dump the fluid via your kidneys…in either case, your Hb may be higher than when you began. If this increase in Hb is due to edema, your tissues will be somewhat harder to oxygenate due to the diffusion distances the edema causes in the interstitial spaces. Edema isn’t a good thing.
Or, lets say you have more red blood cells, you don’t have edema, but you don’t have enough extra proteins in your blood and you pee this extra volume out, raising your Hb. Maybe in this instance you do have an increased oxygen carrying capacity per 100 ml of blood. Maybe this will benefit you at the mitochondria level. But, you have to get this blood through the pre-capillary sphincters in at least as high a rate as the thinner blood has been moving. If you can, in this case, it could be a good thing…as long as you have been able to keep up a workload that maintained muscle function and mitochondrial function at high levels while you were at altitude. That’s another piece to the puzzle that some people miss. You can’t just have a higher Hb and higher cardiac output and majically have increased exercise tolerance…those muscles and mitochondrial functions have to be trained, too, and decreasing your exercise levels at altitude that many people experience can perhaps “detrain” the muscles and mitochondrial functions that you worked so hard to achieve with high work loads at sea level…workloads that you aren’t able to continue at high altitude because the partial pressure of Oxygen is lower.
Anyway, it’s more complicated than visiting your Uncle in Colorado for a few weeks, return to sea level, and have a PR. Done “right”, there may be some benefits. Done “right”, there may be no benefits. Done “right”, there may even be decreased performance. It all just depends upon what your body does with the “right” high altitude training.
Enjoy the trip for other reasons, train as hard as you can, and hope for the best! Sounds like a good deal to me.
As Friel points out the benefits of altitude are from living there not visiting.
Some acclimatization responses occur immediately while others may take years. The ventilatory response associated with altitude training begin immediately upon climbing to altitude from sea level and continue over several days at altitude. Hyperventilation changes the blood acid base balance (with a respiratory alkalosis) which in turn stimulates the kidneys to excrete bicarbonate to compensate. This renal compensatory response takes about a week.
The sympathetic nervous system is activated almost immediately with an increase in both sympathetic nerve activity and an increase in blood epinephrine levels - resulting in an increase in heart rate and cardiac output to maintain tissue oxygen delivery at near sea level values. By two to three weeks, blood flow returns toward sea level values as oxygenation improves as a result of the other compensatory mechanisms.
The hematocrit level increases within 24 to 48 hours because of a reduction in plasma volume, not an increase in red cell mass. Erythropoietin levels increase within hours, peak at about 48 hours, and remain elevated for 1 to 2 weeks. The red cell mass increases slowly and may take several years to reach levels equal to natives living permanently at these altitudes.
The vast majority of these metabolic changes are complete by 3 to 4 weeks at altitude, but the structural changes (capillary density, mitochondrial number) take weeks to months to complete.
The increase in 2,3 DPG to unload oxygen could be of benefit for an athlete. However, I am not sure how long the increase in 2,3 DPG production by the RBCs last after going from high altitude to sea level.
Wei
Besides the benefits to high altitude training, you may have a great jump start with regard to new places to ride and run, new races to check out, new people to challenge you. A lot of great athletes live in Boulder for a reason.
thanks zaquicarbo,
I was just questioning brianyaf’s statement that within a very short period of time, e.g. a week, the benefits of altitude are lost. I just don’t see how someone can loose the increased O2 carrying capacity within that time.
Anyway, nicely written. I agree that hematocrit increases not only because of increase in RBC but also because of a reduction in plasma volume. Yes, this increases the fluid resistance, but plasma volume will extend upon return to sea level. Plasma volume can change very rapidly and therefore I don’t think that this would be an issue.
About the mitochondrial activity and capillary density. The reduced partial pressure of O2 decreases the work intensity you can sustain, but it’s not like he would go there on vacation and do nothing. He would still use those structures, although at a lower rate. He is still training and even if not, the dissapearance of mitochondriae and capillaries would require more time.
daniel
Thanks to all for such great reponses. A ton of info to digest in a very interesting physiology topic. For those interested you may want to check out Dr Coggan’s response and sub-thread related thereto over on gordoworld. I think he summarized a large part of the potential problem from a physiological POV when he said that, even assuming 4-6 weeks or longer of live-hi/train-hi/race-lo can be beneficial (cf. live-hi/train-lo/race-lo or some other combination), moving to high altitude training 4-6 weeks out from IM Moo might have net negative effects, due largely to the decrease in training intensity caused by hi altitude.
The physiological question is very interesting, and by all acounts it seems the jury is out. Probably the main benefit from such a short period of altitude training would be psychological. But my decision, I think, will turn upon more mundane matters of logistics and convenience. Im not sure I want to do two major road trips (DC-Boulder and Boulder-Madison) 2 to 6 weeks out from race day with all my worldly possessions in tow (although this is not much - basically a P3 and a speedo) when I should be focusing on training. Also, although Boulder is tri-heaven, there will be non-physiological adjustment costs as I have to find new training routes, pool access etc. So even though I will be turning down 6 weeks of rent-free summer fun in Boulder (noooooooooooooooo!) I think I will now look for lodging in Madison for Aug 1-Sept 15. Madison is also a very cool town, a good friend from college lives there, and I will be able to train out on the actual race course. If that doesn’t pan out, Boulder is not too shabby of a second choice!
Thanks again,
JTS (actually my name is Andrew - the more I slowtwitch the more I feel I know you peeps and should use my real name. But back when I signed up my handle came from Huxley’s BNW, one of my favorite books, that I was re-reading at the time. The savage would, I think, dig tris.)