Purpose To compare and assess differences in the career performance progressions of elite junior and Olympic track and field athletes. Methods Annual best performances from top 8 men and women (e.g. finalists) in track and field events at the 2000 World Junior Championships (junior cohort) and the 2000 Olympic Games (Olympic cohort) were examined. Annual bests of these finalists were tracked each year from select groups: sprints (100 m, 200 m), distance (1500 m, 5000 m), jumps (long jump, high jump), throws (discus, shot put). Age of best lifetime performance, age of final posted performance, and improvement from junior-age best to lifetime best performance were compared between groups. Results Olympic finalists achieved lifetime best performances at later ages than junior finalists [26.0 ± 4.0 years vs. 21.1 ± 3.5 years; age difference 90% CI (3.7-5.2 years), P < 0.001], and this significant age difference between cohorts was found within all four groups. Olympic finalists improved from under-20 best to lifetime best more so than junior finalists [6.1 ± 4.8% vs. 2.5 ± 2.3%; Age difference 90% CI (2.5-4.8%), P < 0.001]. Of 130 junior finalists, 54 did not improve after age 19, while 19 of 128 Olympic finalists posted no improvement after age 19. Conclusion The data suggest that these two populations have different career performance progressions and challenge the notion that achieving elite success as a junior athlete is a prerequisite for the same success at the senior level.

For sea level-based endurance athletes who compete at moderate and high altitudes, many are not logistically able to arrive at altitude weeks before the event to fully acclimatize. For those who can only arrive at altitude the night before competition, we asked if there is a physiological and performance advantage in reducing altitude exposure time to 2 h before competition. On three separate visits, 10 cyclists completed overnight laboratory exposures of: 1) a 14-h exposure to normobaric hypoxia (16.2% O2, simulating 2,500 m; 14H), 2) a 12-h exposure to normoxia, then a 2-h hypoxic exposure (2H), and 3) a 14-h exposure to normoxia (CON). Immediately following each exposure, subjects completed a 20-km cycle ergometry time trial in normoxia (CON) or 16.2% O2 (14H and 2H). Measures of plasma volume changes, sleep quality, ventilatory acclimatization, perceived exertion, oxygen uptake, and 20-km time were collected. No significant differences were observed in performance measures or perceived exertion between hypoxic trials. Plasma volume loss was significantly greater during 14H than 2H and CON. No differences in ventilatory acclimatization or sleep quality were observed between trials. Although some divergent 20-km performance responses were observed between 14H and 2H, they were not explained by the physiological measures completed. The data suggest that endurance athletes who are logistically restricted from arriving at altitude more than the evening before competition would not gain an advantage by delaying their arrival until a few hours before the competition, although unique individual responses may ultimately influence optimal arrival strategy. NEW & NOTEWORTHY For athletes who cannot arrive at altitude multiple days before an endurance competition to properly acclimatize, this study asked if shortening hypoxic exposure time to 2 h before a competition was more advantageous than arrival at altitude the evening before competition. Our data suggest that athletes who cannot arrive at altitude with adequate time for complete acclimatization can choose the short-term arrival strategy that best fits with the logistics of their travel.

No abstract

No abstract