Chuckie

A recent thread on here got me thinking about comparisons between cyclists who train and race at altitude vs those who are at sea level. I've done a search to find the answer, but I must be doing it wrong because I didn't find anything on here.

Given identical courses, racers, and conditions, are speeds and performance generally higher or lower at altitude? There is less wind resistance due to the elevation, but there is also less oxygen available for the "engine" to operate.

Opinions? Data?

Naterider

A little attitude is required to pull off the silly clothes we wear.































I almost left it alone, but I am not a troll. Training in high altitude is harder/better.

X-LinkedRider

Lets put it this way. It is WAY harder to cycle up and down hill with changing air pressures than it is to do at ANY flat. Basically training in the hardest terrains will make the easier things to do even easier.

Same application for climbing, hiking, and skiing. The more ups and downs take more of a toll on your respiratory system to acclimate itself to the changes back and forth. As this builds tolerance and strength, it will appear more normal and make the flats and sea level rides seem almost boringly easy.

Chuckie

I know that training at altitude is better, but is performance and output different at altitude vs. sea level? For instance, I know that in the automotive world, cars have significantly less horsepower when they are up at altitude compared to at sea level. Moving over to cycling, do racers have less wattage when the elevation goes up? I know that the physics/physiology behind cars vs. humans are completely different, but I was just wondering if there is some type of performance disadvantage vs. advantage to being at a higher elevation.

As for hills vs. flats, I'm not talking about that at all. Let's assume the terrain is identical, to remove that from the equation.

kudude

check out where the hour record is always attempted. that should give you a clue

X-LinkedRider

Higher altitude = shorter breathers. That makes it less efficient in the long run.

merlinextraligh

Flat ride, Speeds will be faster at altitude. Hence World record attempts being done at Altitude.

As for training, Conventional wisdom is sleep high, train low. You get the adaptive effect living at elevation, and you can train at higher pwoer with more oxygen by training low.

Hence the rationale behind sleeping in a tent.

kudude

just so I can post twice in a row....

The reason for the cars is because air is less dense at altitude. Therefore, a 3.0L engine effectively becomes a 2.XX L engine due to the less air mass it pulls in with each cycle. Less air, less gas, less HP. It doesn't work the same way for humans. After aclimating, your body has effectively increased it's red blood count and you're 'back to where you were at sea level', except now there is less air resistance.

X-LinkedRider

Nice, I should have just waited for the answer from the pros, instead of throwing in my .02. But same goes for boxing and such. Sleep high train low.

asgelle

No. Even after aclimating, there is a decrease in performance at altitude. The literature is filled with data showing this. https://www.midweekclub.ca/powerFAQ.htm#Q17

kudude

fine. you win.

RFC

The correct answer.

Chuckie

Cool, thanks everyone! (especially for the link)

asgelle

By putting an end to your false information, I'd say the readers win.

Jynx

So the performanced lost (decreased oxygen) from the altitude is less then the performance gained (decreased air density) from the altitude? Meaning faster times at altitude even though reduced "performance output".

dark13star

All mountaineers know to plan for slower performance at higher altitude, no matter how well acclimatized we are. Come ride Mt. Evans and climb out of the saddle through the upper switchbacks (approaching 14,000'), and you will know what I mean.

Busta Quad

Doesn't Landis sleep in a (home-made) chamber?

sgrundy

Moscow, Manchester, Bordeaux...I'm not sure what you're getting at.

patentcad

Does the bulge in my underwear when Mr. Happy gets excited qualify as an Altitude Tent?

ken cummings

You got it. The rules for the hour record had to be cooked to keep low altitude players in the game. Now there are two records one down low and the fast one. Back in the day Rory O'Rielly went to La Paz to break the Kilometer track record. Something like 11,000 feet up there.

Nbob

All of the world record times for all distances in speed skating now and since the late 80's /early 90's have been set either in Calgary ( 3,438 ft ) or Salt Lake ( 4, 226 ft ) - prior to that most world records had been set at Davos ( 5, 118 ft ) ( Davos would still be #1 if it's oval was indoors like Calgary/Salt Lake - but their natural ice is too iffy to plan to peak on as the oval may be slush the day of the big race. The ISU no longer allows World Championships there because of that)

Just about all of the world's elite skaters train year round in Calgary ( mostly ) or Salt Lake.

At sea level they will have trouble reaching a PB let alone a record so don't expect much come next year at the winter olympics in Vancouver.

jonestr

he does. I think he may just nap in it as it is located in his backyard

asgelle

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is nothing in the UCI rule book concerning altitude in section 3.6 of the UCI rules for velodrome homologation. Section 3.5 doesn't have anything either. You couldn't possibly be thinking of the hour record and best hour performance, could you?

Busta Quad

"A Pup Tent is a small version of a ridge tent"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent

GV27

Bingo. That's a bit of a controversy. Yes - for awhile Mexico City was THE place to set records but ti's not so clear now. Especially for the longer distances where you need oxygen. A shorter record at altitude (e.g. Chris Hoy's KM attempt in Bolivia) makes a lot of sense since you're anaerobic across those distances anyhow. I don't know if anyone really knows for sure what the best way to go is. But those that contrast flat vs. climbing are absolutely right. The advantage at altitude is aerodynamic. When you're going slow it doesn't matter and the fact you can't breath holds you back. On flat, it does count and then it's a balancing act. Maybe that's why it's more clear-cut in speed skating - Salt Lake and Calgary are decidedly middle-of-the road altitude wise and perhaps that's where the balancing point is. In places like Bordeaux and Manchester you get plenty of oxygen but the air is thick. In Mexico City (~7,500 ft) and especially La Paz (~12k ft) the air is thin but it's really tough to breath. Extremes either way. An hour attempt in La Paz would be really difficult. I can't think of a famous velodrome that's at a middle altitude. Colorado Springs is but it's old and bumpy.

I know from first hand experience that sleeping at altitude makes a big difference. Especially when you want to perform at altitude. I grew up in Boulder, Colorado (~5,500 ft) and had a few friends up in Ward (10k ft). One year I decided I'd get an early jump on training, taking advantage of the nice weather down in town. While I was training hard, they were snowed in up in Ward, sitting on the couch drinking beer and smoking pot and getting cabin fever. Once spring broke up there I was talking trash about how I'd been training and how they were in for some hurt. I got my butt kicked anyway. D'oh! That's why places like Boulder are so popular for endurance athletes. Get a place up in the mountains, ride down in the morning and train "low" (relatively) then ride home getting good climbing training and then sleep high in your own bed with no tent.

Chris