Similar Hemoglobin Mass Response in Hypobaric and Normobaric Hypoxia in Athletes

Hauser, Anna; Schmitt, Laurent; Troesch, Severin; Saugy, Jonas; Cejuela-Anta, Roberto; Faiss, Raphaël; Robinson, Neil; Wehrlin, Jon Peter; Millet, Grégoire P.

doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000808

Cited by 63 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This statement is supported by evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of natural‐altitude LHTL on endurance performance in well‐trained runners . The results from this highly cited study tended to be confirmed by subsequent controlled research using natural‐altitude LHTL in well‐trained triathletes . Furthermore, a controlled study has verified this hypothesis in elite swimmers .…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…According to a power analysis of previous results from our group showing an increase in Hb mass of 42.3 ± 21.7 g at altitude (mean ± SD of differences), a sample size of 6 subjects provides a 95% power to detect a 5% change in Hb mass with a two‐sided α of 5 %. This dataset was selected because (a) power analysis should be based on data obtained by the same assessment methodology, and in this study, we used the same CO‐rebreathing assessment methodology; and (b) the reported Hb mass increase (5%) was equivalent to the ~5% increase in Hb mass or RCV previously reported in several natural‐altitude LHTL studies . According to a power analysis of previous results showing an increase in VO 2 max from 63.8 ± 1.4 to 66.3 ± 1.8 mL/min/kg after LHTL intervention (means ± SD), a sample size of 8 subjects provides a 95% power to detect a 3.9% change in VO 2 max with a two‐sided α of 5%.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hypobaric live high‐train low does not improve aerobic performance more than live low‐train low in cross‐country skiers

Robach

Hansen

Pichon

et al. 2018

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Live high-train low (LHTL) using hypobaric hypoxia was previously found to improve sea-level endurance performance in well-trained individuals; however, confirmatory controlled data in athletes are lacking. Here, we test the hypothesis that natural-altitude LHTL improves aerobic performance in cross-country skiers, in conjunction with expansion of total hemoglobin mass (Hb , carbon monoxide rebreathing technique) promoted by accelerated erythropoiesis. Following duplicate baseline measurements at sea level over the course of 2 weeks, nineteen Norwegian cross-country skiers (three women, sixteen men, age 20 ± 2 year, maximal oxygen uptake (VO max) 69 ± 5 mL/min/kg) were assigned to 26 consecutive nights spent at either low (1035 m, control, n = 8) or moderate altitude (2207 m, daily exposure 16.7 ± 0.5 hours, LHTL, n = 11). All athletes trained together daily at a common location ranging from 550 to 1500 m (21.2% of training time at 550 m, 44.2% at 550-800 m, 16.6% at 800-1100 m, 18.0% at 1100-1500 m). Three test sessions at sea level were performed over the first 3 weeks after intervention. Despite the demonstration of nocturnal hypoxemia at moderate altitude (pulse oximetry), LHTL had no specific effect on serum erythropoietin, reticulocytes, Hb , VO max, or 3000-m running performance. Also, LHTL had no specific effect on (a) running economy (VO assessed during steady-state submaximal exercise), (b) respiratory capacities or efficiency of the skeletal muscle (biopsy), and (c) diffusing capacity of the lung. This study, showing similar physiological responses and performance improvements in the two groups following intervention, suggests that in young cross-country skiers, improvements in sea-level aerobic performance associated with LHTL may not be due to moderate-altitude acclimatization.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hypobaric live high‐train low does not improve aerobic performance more than live low‐train low in cross‐country skiers

Robach

Hansen

Pichon

et al. 2018

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ECOs method has been recently used in a dozen of peer-reviewed papers with elite and high level athletes (Debevec et al, 2015; Hauser et al, 2016; Saugy et al, 2016; Villaño et al, 2016). Further studies should focus on training tolerance between different athletes' disciplines but including biomarkers to relate these theoretical training load comparisons and discriminate between hormonal status, muscle damage, oxidative stress levels or others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Marathon Training Harder than the Ironman Training? An ECO-method Comparison

Esteve-Lanao¹,

Moreno-Pérez

Cardona

et al. 2017

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the absolute and relative training load of the Marathon (42k) and the Ironman (IM) training in recreational trained athletes.Methods: Fifteen Marathoners and Fifteen Triathletes participated in the study. Their performance level was the same relative to the sex's absolute winner at the race. No differences were presented neither in age, nor in body weight, height, BMI, running VO2max max, or endurance training experience (p > 0.05). They all trained systematically for their respective event (IM or 42k). Daily training load was recorded in a training log, and the last 16 weeks were compared. Before this, gas exchange and lactate metabolic tests were conducted in order to set individual training zones. The Objective Load Scale (ECOs) training load quantification method was applied. Differences between IM and 42k athletes' outcomes were assessed using Student's test and significance level was set at p < 0.05.Results: As expected, Competition Time was significantly different (IM 11 h 45 min ± 1 h 54 min vs. 42k 3 h 6 min ± 28 min, p < 0.001). Similarly, Training Weekly Avg Time (IM 12.9 h ± 2.6 vs. 42k 5.2 ± 0.9), and Average Weekly ECOs (IM 834 ± 171 vs. 42k 526 ± 118) were significantly higher in IM (p < 0.001). However, the Ratio between Training Load and Training Time was superior for 42k runners when comparing ECOs (IM 65.8 ± 11.8 vs. 42k 99.3 ± 6.8) (p < 0.001). Finally, all ratios between training time or load vs. Competition Time were superior for 42k (p < 0.001) (Training Time/Race Time: IM 1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 42k 1.7 ± 0.5), (ECOs Training Load/Race Time: IM 1.2 ± 0.3 vs. 42k 2.9 ± 1.0).Conclusions: In spite of IM athletes' superior training time and total or weekly training load, when comparing the ratios between training load and training time, and training time or training load vs. competition time, the preparation of a 42k showed to be harder.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, some physiological responses such as the erythropoietic (Hauser et al . ) and the cerebral oxygenation/perfusion (DiPasquale et al . ) do seem unaffected by the differential P B .…”

Section: Maximal Changes In Barometric Pressure (Pb) and ‘Calculated’mentioning

confidence: 99%

CrossTalk proposal: Barometric pressure, independent of , is the forgotten parameter in altitude physiology and mountain medicine

Millet

Debevec

2020

The Journal of Physiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Similar Hemoglobin Mass Response in Hypobaric and Normobaric Hypoxia in Athletes

Abstract: HH and NH evoked similar Hb(mass) increases for the same hypoxic dose and after 18-d LHTL. The wide variability in individual Hb(mass) responses in HH and NH emphasizes the importance of individual Hb(mass) evaluation of altitude training.

Cited by 63 publications

References 39 publications

Hypobaric live high‐train low does not improve aerobic performance more than live low‐train low in cross‐country skiers

Hypobaric live high‐train low does not improve aerobic performance more than live low‐train low in cross‐country skiers

Is Marathon Training Harder than the Ironman Training? An ECO-method Comparison

CrossTalk proposal: Barometric pressure, independent of , is the forgotten parameter in altitude physiology and mountain medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About