Altitude Training Approaches

This is a comparison of the various approaches to altitude training, their pros and cons.

Contents

1 Live High, Train High

By moving to altitude, you are exposed to lower oxygen all the time. While this approach can have a good effect on altitude acclimatization, it makes training much harder. Therefore the benefit of altitude on increased red blood cell count are offset by the reduced ability to train hard. There is also evidence that LHTH reduces muscle mass.

2 Live High, Train Low

Sleeping at altitude produces the increase in red blood cells, and training at low altitude provides optimum training benefits. This effect can be achieved by literally living at a high altitude and traveling to a lower level to train. However, this approach is also possible by using a hypoxia generator to reduce the level of O₂ in a tent. The downside to an altitude tent is that the quality of sleep can be degraded even more than living at altitude and the equipment is expensive.

3 Intermittent Hypoxic Exposure

IHE uses lower O₂ concentrations than LHTH or LHTL, but for shorter periods. Typical regimes are 5 min hypoxia + 5 min normal air, repeated 6 times. See Intermittent Hypoxic Exposure and The Science of Intermittent Hypoxic Exposure.

4 Intermittent Hypoxic Training

IHT uses O₂ similar to IHE, but unlike IHE exercise is undertaken while exposed to the low O₂ concentrations. This tends to significantly compromise training quality.

5 Summary

Type	Pros	Cons
LHTH	Easy if you live at altitude	Reduced training benefits, loss of muscle mass
LHTL	No detraining unlike LHTH, no extra time taken like IHT	Requires travel or altitude tent
IHE	No sleep issues like LHTL, No detraining unlike LHTH, equipment cheap	Takes time (~1 hour/day) where activity is limited
IHT	No sleep issues like LHTL	Detraining as with LHTH, equipment varies and requires a treadmill for runners

6 Altitude Training for Sea Level Performance

An excellent meta-analysis (review of scientific studies) looked at how altitude training has been shown to improve sea level performance. The meta-analysis showed that:

• For sub-elite athletes
  • IHE was very likely to improve performance
  • Natural LHTL was likely to improve performance (living at altitude rather than an altitude tent)
  • Artificial LHTL could possibly improve performance
• For elite athletes only natural LHTL was likely to improve performance (living at altitude rather than an altitude tent)

It should be noted that one of the most important conclusions of the meta-analysis is the lack of good quality studies. For instance, there were only two IHE studies for elite athletes, and one of these was flawed by providing far too low a level of hypoxia for most of the study.

7 See Also

• The Science of Altitude Training
• Comparison of Altitude Training Systems
• Book Review - Altitude Training and Athletic Performance
• Intermittent Hypoxic Exposure and The Science of Intermittent Hypoxic Exposure
• AltoLab