This “altitude training” is basically sitting in a chair with an oxygen max that reduces the amount of oxygen you breath. They claim this is more efficient than sleeping in a tent. “Training” sessions are 3-4 weeks long for one hour per day, 5 days per week.
Has anyone heard of this?
How long did you go for? What kind of “boost” did you notice?
Check this out:
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2001 Apr;84(4):283-90. Related Articles, Links 
Training-induced increases in sea-level performance are enhanced by acute intermittent hypobaric hypoxia.
Meeuwsen T, Hendriksen IJ, Holewijn M.
Research and Development Department, Netherlands Aeromedical Institute, Soesterberg, The Netherlands.
The goal of this study was to investigate to what extent intermittent exposure to altitude in a hypobaric chamber can improve performance at sea-level. Over a 10-day period, elite male triathletes trained for 2 h each day on a cycle ergometer placed in a hypobaric chamber. Training intensity was 60-70% of the heart rate reserve. Eight subjects trained at a simulated altitude of 2.500 m (hypoxia group), the other eight remained at sea-level (sea-level group). Baseline measurements were done on a cycle ergometer at sea-level, which included an incremental test until exhaustion and a Wingate Anaerobic Test. Nine days after training in hypoxia, significant increases were seen in all important parameters of the maximal aerobic as well as the anaerobic test. A significant increase of 7.0% was seen in the mean maximal oxygen uptake per kilogram body weight (VO2max), and the mean maximal power output per kilogram body weight (Wmax) increased significantly by 7.4%. The mean values of both mean power per kilogram body weight and peak power per kilogram body weight increased significantly by 5.0%, and the time-to-peak decreased significantly by 37.7%. In the sea-level group, no significant changes were seen in the abovementioned parameters of both the maximal aerobic and the maximal anaerobic test at the second post-test. The results of this study indicate that intermittent hypobaric training can improve both the aerobic and the anaerobic energy-supply systems.
PMID: 11374111
They use http://www.go2altitude.com/ , there are locations throughout the world.
I used the same system out of Houston at TriVantage. Its IHT. Similar, but a bit varied from the Tent methodology and technology
i did a 3 week course (5x week, 1x day, 60mins per session, 5mins hypoxic 5mins normoxic) plus a 1 week “top-up”. Its an interesting deal, obviously alluring with the promise of “free” performance improvements, but I reckon most all benefits will be due to the placebo effect. I had inconclusive results in terms of performance, though I felt it assisted in recovery (probably placebo effect aswell).
Bottom line IMO is that for the time-challenged athlete there simply is not enough of a beneifit to justify 5 hours of time/week + travel time (although they are now developing hand-held personal use units). Primary use IMO is as part of the kitchen-sink protocol for elites w/ lots of money and time.
I did the 4 week course. 1 hr / per day / 5 days a week.
The real (not placebo) boost I received was that I reduced my 1/2 marathon time by 4 minutes 11 seconds. There is a lot of research on the net ths proves the benefits and a very few articles that say there is no benefit. All of which means nothing to me. To me the real deal is how it actually effect me. So thumbs up to altimax. It is also important that the pros that use this stuff.
Talk about a placebo testimonial…
smartasscoach: I think your name says it all.
I going to assume that you think you are one of those “I know everything” guys. Regarding who is better prepared to discuss the benefits of Intermittent Hypoxic Training, I also suspect that you have never tried it . . . in spite of the fact that you are so willing to post regarding the topic.
Dude, come back and talk with me once you have tried it.
I don’t need to:
The guys that are probably the biggest authorities in altitude training tested it and said it does not work. Why would I spend my time or my athlete’s time on something that it’s PROVED that it doesn’t work? Oh wait, maybe it works just for you…
You haven’t done your research. There was a discussion of this study on runnersweb. This study did NOT follow the proper training regime that the numerous other studies did that found great results and did not even follow the manufacture’s suggested training. The dude who did the study admit that he did not follow the training. So before you believe what you read . . . I would suggest you actually do some research.
I leave the viewers with one question, why do so many pros use it.?! Because it doesn’t work? NOOOOOOOO! THE PROS USE IT BECAUSE IT WORKS.
On one side Stray-Gundersen and Levine… on the other tri2finish… I’m not sure what to follow now…
I don’t know about the simulated altitude, but I’ve done pleanty of the real stuff. In the old days most of us pros would go to Boulder, Tahoe, or some other mountain resort and train for weeks and months at a time. It definately helped performance when racing at altitude, and at the time I believed it also helped at sea level. I had no real data, just how I felt. Now I know that it works, because I’ve tested my blood many times over the years at sea level, and at altitude. My normal hemotcrit % at sea level is usually around 44-46%. I now live at altitude and have been checked many times over the past years, and it is now between 47.5 and 49.4%. So what does this really mean, it means I have a higher concentration of red blood cells. All the other factors also went up like hemoglobin and EPO production. Does this make me go faster or longer? If not, then why are so many doping to get this same effect in their blood. I don’t know about all these studies youall are citing, but it just makes logical sense to me that if you can carry more oxygen, then it would be a benifit…
According to whom are these guys the “leading” experts?
I bet the research labs at University of Hawaii would have something to say about that (in conjunction with Dr. Joe Vigil)?
TXDude,
While it is very difficult to get into any debate on this subject (because of the lack of researchable online data), rest assured you can see that quite a few people have heard of this. As a huge proponent to CVAC (www.cvacsystems.com), which takes intermittent hypoxic training a few steps further (by also fluctuating air pressure and temperature in conjunction with oxygen levels). Unfortunately, you’ll always hear from those “experts” who claim to know things based on a few studies they have found online. What they don’t provide are also the probably countless opposing studies which haven’t been reproduced online as of yet. I know this, because much of the CVAC technology was based off OLD technology utilized by the eastern block countries 70-80 years ago. It just had to be dusted off the shelves, and the research continued on. Unfortunately, there just aren’t published “tests” by which the pseudo authorities of this site need to justify the existence of a product 
I would suggest going and trying it out if you have some questions. See for yourself. Take a look at some of the top physiology labs in the world, send emails, etc. and see what you can find (although do realize that virtually EVERY lab in the world including U.S. Olympic Training, University Medical Research, etc. has some link to someone and MAY push their own agenda). I’ve seen quite a few skeptics try CVAC, and see HUGE results. Then again, I’ve seen others who don’t believe it has done much for them other than provide quicker recovery, help them sleep better, etc. (which to me, is a benefit…but if it doesn’t result in faster times on race day, it’s not necessarily helping them “race”).
Good luck!
Stray-Gundersen and Levine? Nah, just a couple of idiot names I pulled out of a hat…
Levine & Stray-Gundersen each have done more work on altitude training than everyone else combined. They know more than God would ever hope to know on the subject. If they say IHT (intermittent hypoxic training) & IHE (intermittent hypoxic exposure) aren’t enough to simulate an increase in red blood cell production, then its right. No matter what anyone else says.
The problem is the study they did regarding IHT failed to meet the proper universally accepted method which is why they came it came out wrong. One of those dudes admitted it at a conference regarding altitude training. Period.
Becareful accepting everything someone says just because they are knowledge people. Look at each statement and question all. Blind faith is dangerous.
I suggest that you ask----------- Ivan Basso, Levi Leipheimer, Fabani Cancellera why they choose to do IHT.
Basso, et al. chose IHT because A) their coach told them to, B) they got paid to, or C) both. They didn’t do the research on their own and decide it would be a good idea… The “because the pros” do it is the stupidest argument EVER to do something…
Come, come, now, stupidest arguement ever? not even close
Styrrell
Rappstar,
You haven’t been reading this Forum for a long time, have you? That argument is pretty stupid, but I’ve seen a LOT better (worse) here! 