Influence of “living high–training low” on aerobic performance and economy of work in elite athletes

Abstract

This study tested the effects of "living high-training low" (Hi-Lo) on aerobic performance and economy of work in elite athletes. Forty endurance athletes (cross-country skiers, swimmers, runners) performed 13-18 consecutive days of training at 1,200 m altitude, by sleeping at 1,200 m (LL, n = 20) or in hypoxic rooms with 5-6 nights at 2,500 m followed by 8-12 nights at 3,000-3,500 m (HL, n = 20). The athletes were evaluated before (pre-), one (post-1) and 15 days (post-15) after Hi-Lo. Economy was assessed from two sub-maximal tests, one non-specific (cycling) and one specific (running or swimming). From pre- to post-1: V(O2)max increased both in HL (+ 7.8%, P < 0.01) and in LL (+ 3.3%, P < 0.05), peak power output (PPO) tended to increase more (P=0.06) in HL (+ 4.1%, P < 0.01) than in LL (+ 1.9%). At post-15, V(O2)max has returned to pre-values in both groups, PPO increased more (P < 0.05) in HL (+ 8.3%, P < 0.01) than in LL (+ 3.8%), V(O2) and power at respiratory compensation point (RCP) increased more (P < 0.05) in HL (+ 9.5%, P < 0.01 and + 11.2%, P < 0.01) than in LL (+ 3.2 and + 3.3%). Cycling mechanical efficiency (8-5%) and economy during specific locomotion (7-7%) increased (P < 0.05) in both groups. This study shows that, for a similar increase in V(O2)max HL had a greater increase in PPO than LL. The efficiency of Hi-Lo is also evidenced 15 days later by higher V(O2) and power at RCP. This study emphasizes that during the post-altitude period, economy of work greatly increases in both groups.

Live High-Train Low Altitude Training: Responders and Non- Responders

“…These findings are consistent with the results of the Chapman et al study, where individual variability in the response to altitude training was accounted for by maintenance of training intensity and oxygen uptake values [5]. Previous work has also found similar improvements in exercise economy after altitude training based at higher (2500-3500 m) and lower (1200 m) altitudes [22]. We suggest that the higher exercise SpO 2 in responders reflects higher arterial partial pressure of oxygen.…”

“…Low to moderate altitude has previously been shown to produce significant improvements in sea level swim time trial performance (~1.9%) [21]. Indeed, in a recent study proclaiming the use of altitudes between 2000-2500 m the authors also found positive physiological (red cell mass volume ~7%,VO 2 ~2%) and performance (~1%) effects for athletes on immediate return to sea level after living at 1754 m [17]; something that is not uncommon at these low altitudes (1200 m) [22]. Performance improvements of this magnitude would indicate meaningful effects for the very elite triathletes involved in this study [23].…”

Gross cycling efficiency is not altered with and without toe-clips

“…The significant decreases in submaximal _ V O 2 observed by Sutton and colleagues (1988) during their simulated ascent of Mount Everest are consistent with the 10 -20% decreases for altitude natives compared with lowlanders. Several careful investigations in the past 6 years have also found a 3 -5% decrease in submaximal _ V O 2 after a few weeks spent either in natural (Green et al, 2000;MacDonald, Green, Naylor, Otto, & Hughson, 2001;Schmitt et al, 2006) or simulated hypoxia (Gore et al, 2001;Katayama, Matsuo, Ishida, Mori, & Miyamura, 2003;Katayama et al, 2004;Neya, Enoki, Kumai, Sugoh, & Kawahara, 2007;Saunders et al, 2004), but many researchers in the contemporary and classical altitude literature have found no significant changes in submaximal _ V O 2 (Consolazio, Nelson, Matoush, & Hansen, 1966;Klausen, Dill, & Horbath, 1970;Levine & Stray-Gundersen, 1997;Lundby et al, 2007).…”

Effects of the “live high-train high” and “live high-train low” protocols on physiological adaptations and athletic performance

“…No unanimous outlooks are available about the effects of the LHTL protocol on these requirements. However, recent studies have reported that the LHTL protocol is effective for them [28][29][30][31][32] , showing its efficacy when athletes stayed for about 10 hours a day (daily duration of exposure) for about 2 weeks (length of stay). Furthermore, maximal oxygen deficit and anaerobic power were reported to increase when athletes stayed for a relatively short duration (about 8 hours a day) and a relatively brief period (about 1 week) 33) .…”

“…The results from studies on the LHTL protocol that reported its efficacy for athletic performance are shown in Tables 4 24, [32][33][34][35][36] and 5 13,[37][38][39][40] . Not all studies on the LHTL protocol have reported an improvement in athletic performance 8,41,42) .…”