The effects of altitude training are mediated primarily by acclimatization, rather than by hypoxic exercise

Benjamin D. Levine, James Stray-Gundersen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

For training at altitude to be effective, it must provide some advantage above and beyond similar training at sea level. This advantage could be provided by: 1) acclimatization to altitude which improves oxygen transport and/or utilization; 2) hypoxic exercise which "intensifies" the training stimulus; or 3) some combination of both. Controlled studies of "typical" altitude training, involving both altitude acclimatization and hypoxic exercise have never been shown to improve sea level performance. This failure has been attributed to reduced training loads at altitude. One approach developed by Levine and Stray-Gundersen, called "living high - training low" has been shown to improve sea level performance over events lasting 8-20 minutes. This strategy combines altitude acclimatization (2,500m) with low altitude training to get the optimal effect. The opposite strategy, "living low - training high" is proposed by Dr. Hoppeler in this debate. In defense of the primacy of the altitude acclimatization effect, data will be presented to support the following: 1). Living high-training low clearly improves performance in athletes of all abilities; 2). The mechanism of this improvement is primarily an increase in erythropoietin leading to increased red cell mass, VO2max, and running performance; 3). Rather than intensifying the training stimulus, training at altitude leads to the opposite effect - reduced speeds, reduced power output, reduced oxygen flux - and, following the principal of symmorphosis, is not likely to provide any advantage for a well trained athlete; 4). At the moderate altitudes used by most athletes, resting oxygen delivery to skeletal muscle is well preserved, arguing against any detrimental effect on "protein synthesis"; 5). It is possible however, that at significantly higher altitudes, acclimatization leads to appetite suppression, inhibition of protein synthesis, muscle wasting, excessive ventilatory work, and metabolic compensation that is NOT advantageous for a competitive athlete.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)75-88
Number of pages14
JournalAdvances in Experimental Medicine and Biology
Volume502
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Acclimatization
Sea level
Exercise
Oxygen
Muscle
Athletes
Erythropoietin
Proteins
Oceans and Seas
Cells
Fluxes
Erythrocyte Volume
Aptitude
Muscle Proteins
Appetite
Running
Skeletal Muscle

Keywords

  • Erythropoietin
  • Intermittent hypoxia
  • Red cell mass

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)

Cite this

@article{b62e418133824c0cb6d3fbd11978fcd6,
title = "The effects of altitude training are mediated primarily by acclimatization, rather than by hypoxic exercise",
abstract = "For training at altitude to be effective, it must provide some advantage above and beyond similar training at sea level. This advantage could be provided by: 1) acclimatization to altitude which improves oxygen transport and/or utilization; 2) hypoxic exercise which {"}intensifies{"} the training stimulus; or 3) some combination of both. Controlled studies of {"}typical{"} altitude training, involving both altitude acclimatization and hypoxic exercise have never been shown to improve sea level performance. This failure has been attributed to reduced training loads at altitude. One approach developed by Levine and Stray-Gundersen, called {"}living high - training low{"} has been shown to improve sea level performance over events lasting 8-20 minutes. This strategy combines altitude acclimatization (2,500m) with low altitude training to get the optimal effect. The opposite strategy, {"}living low - training high{"} is proposed by Dr. Hoppeler in this debate. In defense of the primacy of the altitude acclimatization effect, data will be presented to support the following: 1). Living high-training low clearly improves performance in athletes of all abilities; 2). The mechanism of this improvement is primarily an increase in erythropoietin leading to increased red cell mass, VO2max, and running performance; 3). Rather than intensifying the training stimulus, training at altitude leads to the opposite effect - reduced speeds, reduced power output, reduced oxygen flux - and, following the principal of symmorphosis, is not likely to provide any advantage for a well trained athlete; 4). At the moderate altitudes used by most athletes, resting oxygen delivery to skeletal muscle is well preserved, arguing against any detrimental effect on {"}protein synthesis{"}; 5). It is possible however, that at significantly higher altitudes, acclimatization leads to appetite suppression, inhibition of protein synthesis, muscle wasting, excessive ventilatory work, and metabolic compensation that is NOT advantageous for a competitive athlete.",
keywords = "Erythropoietin, Intermittent hypoxia, Red cell mass",
author = "Levine, {Benjamin D.} and James Stray-Gundersen",
year = "2001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "502",
pages = "75--88",
journal = "Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology",
issn = "0065-2598",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effects of altitude training are mediated primarily by acclimatization, rather than by hypoxic exercise

AU - Levine, Benjamin D.

AU - Stray-Gundersen, James

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - For training at altitude to be effective, it must provide some advantage above and beyond similar training at sea level. This advantage could be provided by: 1) acclimatization to altitude which improves oxygen transport and/or utilization; 2) hypoxic exercise which "intensifies" the training stimulus; or 3) some combination of both. Controlled studies of "typical" altitude training, involving both altitude acclimatization and hypoxic exercise have never been shown to improve sea level performance. This failure has been attributed to reduced training loads at altitude. One approach developed by Levine and Stray-Gundersen, called "living high - training low" has been shown to improve sea level performance over events lasting 8-20 minutes. This strategy combines altitude acclimatization (2,500m) with low altitude training to get the optimal effect. The opposite strategy, "living low - training high" is proposed by Dr. Hoppeler in this debate. In defense of the primacy of the altitude acclimatization effect, data will be presented to support the following: 1). Living high-training low clearly improves performance in athletes of all abilities; 2). The mechanism of this improvement is primarily an increase in erythropoietin leading to increased red cell mass, VO2max, and running performance; 3). Rather than intensifying the training stimulus, training at altitude leads to the opposite effect - reduced speeds, reduced power output, reduced oxygen flux - and, following the principal of symmorphosis, is not likely to provide any advantage for a well trained athlete; 4). At the moderate altitudes used by most athletes, resting oxygen delivery to skeletal muscle is well preserved, arguing against any detrimental effect on "protein synthesis"; 5). It is possible however, that at significantly higher altitudes, acclimatization leads to appetite suppression, inhibition of protein synthesis, muscle wasting, excessive ventilatory work, and metabolic compensation that is NOT advantageous for a competitive athlete.

AB - For training at altitude to be effective, it must provide some advantage above and beyond similar training at sea level. This advantage could be provided by: 1) acclimatization to altitude which improves oxygen transport and/or utilization; 2) hypoxic exercise which "intensifies" the training stimulus; or 3) some combination of both. Controlled studies of "typical" altitude training, involving both altitude acclimatization and hypoxic exercise have never been shown to improve sea level performance. This failure has been attributed to reduced training loads at altitude. One approach developed by Levine and Stray-Gundersen, called "living high - training low" has been shown to improve sea level performance over events lasting 8-20 minutes. This strategy combines altitude acclimatization (2,500m) with low altitude training to get the optimal effect. The opposite strategy, "living low - training high" is proposed by Dr. Hoppeler in this debate. In defense of the primacy of the altitude acclimatization effect, data will be presented to support the following: 1). Living high-training low clearly improves performance in athletes of all abilities; 2). The mechanism of this improvement is primarily an increase in erythropoietin leading to increased red cell mass, VO2max, and running performance; 3). Rather than intensifying the training stimulus, training at altitude leads to the opposite effect - reduced speeds, reduced power output, reduced oxygen flux - and, following the principal of symmorphosis, is not likely to provide any advantage for a well trained athlete; 4). At the moderate altitudes used by most athletes, resting oxygen delivery to skeletal muscle is well preserved, arguing against any detrimental effect on "protein synthesis"; 5). It is possible however, that at significantly higher altitudes, acclimatization leads to appetite suppression, inhibition of protein synthesis, muscle wasting, excessive ventilatory work, and metabolic compensation that is NOT advantageous for a competitive athlete.

KW - Erythropoietin

KW - Intermittent hypoxia

KW - Red cell mass

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035574512&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035574512&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11950157

AN - SCOPUS:0035574512

VL - 502

SP - 75

EP - 88

JO - Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

JF - Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

SN - 0065-2598

ER -