Altitude and FTP

[DancenMacabre]

Going to be spending a few months living at high(ish) altitude of about 1600-1800 meters. This is due to family stuff and not some daft plan of mine to get stronger

Still want to train as hard as I can for cycling though, while up there.

I saw this article (FAQ for training with power) and it says what I suspected, that aerobic ability is decreased. Less air I assume.

It mentions a difference on whether you have gotten used to the altitude (acclimated) or not, but several months sounds like enough time for me to acclimate.

So suppose my threshold power is 150 watts at 1800m after several months of being up there. Should I expect it to be higher than 150 watts when I return to my home which is at sea level? The table in that FAQ says power at 1800m is about 92ish% for someone acclimated to altitude as compared to your sea level power. Does that mean whatever threshold number I have at 1800m will be 92% of my sea level #?

 

[SolarEnergy]

What an interesting question.

If you were to plan a short training camp (for instance 3 week long) at 1800m, only to give your blood a red cells boost, I'd say that you would expect the gains to fade away over time when back to sea level (after few weeks).

But since you plan to stay and train there for a while, given that you train well, I'd guess that some net gains may become persistent.

The chart you used tries to estimate % of Vo2Max available per altitude level. These values represent the higher end of the aerobic spectrum though. This may not translate (as is) for FTP values (lower in the aerobic spectrum). God knows how these % would apply to threshold power.

The key thing is that back at sea level, you should (and probably will) feel stronger. Take this opportunity to perform your personal bests day in day out. I think Friel refers to this as life changing workouts or something. This may send a signal to your body that you want (or need) to keep these gains.

 

[acoggan]

God knows how these % would apply to threshold power.

I don't know if God does...but I do.

(Here's a hint: my sea level functional threshold power is 300 W. I recently did a TT at 6200 ft altitude during which I averaged 268 W. Although I live at sea level, I attempted to preacclimatize by performing hypoxic workouts 3x/wk for ~4 mo, then slept in an altitude tent the last 9 nights before traveling.)

 

[SolarEnergy]

I don't know if God does

it has been a while since his last visit at sea level, or should I say *on* sea level

How long would you need to train up there to get close to sea level values and then back home, would this translate into a boost?

Altitude training probably won't have the same effect depending on the maturity of an athlete. For a newbie, it probably pays more. And the gains may stay since this improvement would have probably occurred anyway (process may simply be accelerated due to additional constraint on cardiovascular functions).

 

[acoggan]

How long would you need to train up there to get close to sea level values and then back home, would this translate into a boost?

Depending upon the altitude, it may take as long as 9-12 mo before red cell mass stops increasing. Even at that point, however, performance (power) will be impaired relative to that attainable at sea level.

 

[Fightin Boba]

So suppose my threshold power is 150 watts at 1800m after several months of being up there. Should I expect it to be higher than 150 watts when I return to my home which is at sea level? The table in that FAQ says power at 1800m is about 92ish% for someone acclimated to altitude as compared to your sea level power. Does that mean whatever threshold number I have at 1800m will be 92% of my sea level #?

If your FTP is 150 at 1800m after 3 months, your FTP on return to sea level will be higher. Exactyl (or even roughly) what you FTP would be is more difficult to predict than the study's numbers would lead you to believe, because:
1) the study is a metaanalysis in which many studies are folded in to get one set of population data - YMMV
2) the study does not account for the specific effect of training at a lower power for 3 months

 

[Fightin Boba]

What an interesting question.

If you were to plan a short training camp (for instance 3 week long) at 1800m, only to give your blood a red cells boost, I'd say that you would expect the gains to fade away over time when back to sea level (after few weeks).

But since you plan to stay and train there for a while, given that you train well, I'd guess that some net gains may become persistent.

The altitude gains will not be persistent after a three month exposure.

The chart you used tries to estimate % of Vo2Max available per altitude level. These values represent the higher end of the aerobic spectrum though. This may not translate (as is) for FTP values (lower in the aerobic spectrum). God knows how these % would apply to threshold power.

In the aerobic spectrum of activity, the altitude effect at VO2max is about the same for an individual. Of course, L6 and L7 efforts should be less impacted at altitude.

 

[SolarEnergy]

The altitude gains will not be persistent after a three month exposure.

Sorry for this.

I got distracted by two little things. The FTP of 150w used as an example suggested that there's room for short term improvement. Like I said, it's possible to expect some improvement after 3 months of focussed training at sea level, and I thought that the OP could expect even greater gains due to additional constraint put on cardiovascular functions.

Then (as a Frenchy) I didn't know that several months could be a short as 3 months (semantic).

In other words, I interpreted his question rather like: With an FTP of 150w, can I expect to see some (persistent) improvement after several months of focussed training at high altitude. If indeed this is the question then I'd probably stand by my opinion that something good and persistent might result from this training camp.

It may depend on what the OP will do with this altitude boost when he's back at sea level. For instance, let us use ball park (arbitrary) figures to illustrate my thoughts. Say after 3 months the OP is able to test 165w back at sea level. If he manages to try and hold to this (new) power level, that may work, that may persist. The situation would be different for a rider having a much more mature FTP (one that can no longer increase by 10-15% per year).

Thanks for the clarification Steve.

 

[DancenMacabre]

Solarenergy - the OP, that would be me, is a femme, not an homme. Comprends monsieur?

No sports scientist or physicist here so perhaps I am not quite understanding everything here.

I will try to explain what I make of it and you guys can correct/edit as needed?

Today - @ sea level - threshold power = 150

Tomorrow (let's suppose) - @ 1800m - threshold power = 130 or 135 (let's suppose). We agree on this yes? That FTP drops at altitude as compared to sea level I think.

Three months from now - @ 1800m with consistent training - threshold power = 150w

Three months + 1 day - @ sea level - threshold power = ?

Are any gains temporary or do you keep them? I figured that training for threshold power gain would help you improve no matter what the altitude?

 

[Fightin Boba]

[

Today - @ sea level - threshold power = 150

Tomorrow (let's suppose) - @ 1800m - threshold power = 130 or 135 (let's suppose). We agree on this yes? That FTP drops at altitude as compared to sea level I think.

Correct. Although your exact response is TBD. There are a number of factors that determine individual response. For example, females tend not to decline as much as males upon altitude exposure.

Three months from now - @ 1800m with consistent training - threshold power = 150w

Three months + 1 day - @ sea level - threshold power = ?

Assuming you build up to 150 @ 1800m, then upon arrival at sea level, you should be at FTP >150. The FTP could be around 165, but, again, Your Mileage WILL Vary.

Are any gains temporary or do you keep them? I figured that training for threshold power gain would help you improve no matter what the altitude?

First, gains at sea level following altitide training is an area of research that has produced mixed conclusions. Second, maintaining gains at sea level, if any are actualized, is dependent upon other things besides simply the altitude exposure - like what you do in training once you are back. Regardless, count on the altitude adaptations being temporary once resuming sea level training.

BTW, this book is a good read (and well referenced):
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Altitude-Training-Athletic-Performance-Randall/dp/0736001573/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252870704&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Altitude Training and Athletic Performance (9780736001571): Randall Wilber: Books[/ame]

 

[Alex Simmons]

No sports scientist or physicist here so perhaps I am not quite understanding everything here.

Dr Coggan is a scientist, an internationally renown exercise physiologist and a competitive cyclist himself (and a current US Masters National Champion).

I also think you might find some of the other contributors here over the years have some pretty impressive credentials. Others hang 'cause they've got a good sense of humour. Some have both while others have neither

 

[DancenMacabre]

Boba - what you said and how you said it made much, much sense to me. My training plans will be 100% identical @ 1800m as it is at home (sea level) both before and after my time away. So I guess I will see but am hopeful that the threshold power will increase.



Hi Mr. Alex. I meant no sports scientist here as in me, the person writing

I'm just another green rider trying to learn from the experts, coaches, scientists, and experienced riders here

I know of Doctor Andy Coggan from reading the book that he wrote on power technique training with Hunter Allen. It is a super helpful book but there are always a few things you cant cover in a book and this forum seems like a place to get good help.

Obviously you guys seem to have plenty of know-how & sense of humor to be answering my (novice) questions

 

[daveryanwyoming]

...Obviously you guys seem to have plenty of know-how & sense of humor to be answering my (novice) questions

Actually the altitude question is pretty advanced, which is part of the reason that the answer's not simple.

If you were highly trained (as Andy is) and you had a very solid idea of FTP and how much it does or doesn't vary from season to season and year to year, then it's a bit easier to estimate or account for the drop in sustainable power you'd see at various altitudes. But in that case you wouldn't expect it to rise above your well established baseline when you return to sea level.

Worse yet, you might actually expect it to drop relative to your sea level baseline when you return from extended training at altitude. The problem is that a lot of the adaptations we seek are more closely tied to absolute exercise intensity than relative intensity. IOW, Andy no doubt felt like he was working absolutely as hard as possible to hold ~ 270 watts for a hour in New Mexico, but from an exercise stress standpoint he wasn't working as hard as he would have been to hold 300 watts at sea level regardless of how hard it felt.

But in your case you're relatively new to power training (don't know about structured training in general) so you're likely to be lower down on the adaptation curve where gains come quicker. It's likely that your potential FTP after several years of structured training is substantially higher than your current 150 watts. So you go to altitude and train the same(from a perceived exertion standpoint) and you might take a 7 to 10% hit in sustainable power but you might also progress quite a bit over three or more months just because you haven't approached your genetic potential as an endurance athlete. So it's quite possible that your FTP will climb above your current sea level 150 watts and as Steve suggests it's very likely that it will be 7 tp 10% higher than that when you return. So unlike a highly trained endurance athlete you might very well continue to improve at altitude and improve even further when you get back to sea level.

But all that depends a lot on your genetics, your background in endurance sports, how structured your training, was, is, and will be and how you personally respond to altitude.

Good luck,
-Dave

 

[Fightin Boba]

IOW, Andy no doubt felt like he was working absolutely as hard as possible to hold ~ 270 watts for a hour in New Mexico, but from an exercise stress standpoint he wasn't working as hard as he would have been to hold 300 watts at sea level regardless of how hard it felt.

Dave,
How do substantiate this? Are you saying that Dr Coggan's day one race effort at Moriarty garnered him about 70 TSS instead of about 87 TSS?

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Dave,
How do substantiate this? Are you saying that Dr Coggan's day one race effort at Moriarty garnered him about 70 TSS instead of about 87 TSS?

Oh nooooo we're back to the indoor/outdoor TSS debate

That comment is based on Andy's frequent reminders that training efficacy come from those things that allow greater training intensity. He's made comments to that effect a number of times in discussions of hypo/hyer baric, oxia, etc. training methods. I've always taken that to mean that the bottom line is that things that allow us to push ourselves harder in an absolute sense lead to more stress (in the intensity, not overall workload sense) and the body responds with greater adaptation. It makes sense of things like 'live high train low' or hyperoxic training aids.

I'm sure Andy, Alex or someone else will correct me if I've misread those comments but I've definitely taken them to mean that methods that allow us to push harder (big fans or big trainer flywheels, supplemental O2 or training at lower elevations) result in bigger gains than methods which feel just as hard but force us to work at a lower absolute intensity.

-Dave

 

[SolarEnergy]

Solarenergy - the OP, that would be me, is a femme, not an homme. Comprends monsieur?

Bienvenue Madame, désolé for the misunderstanding

Have a wonderful camps d'entraînement

 

[SolarEnergy]

Oh nooooo we're back to the indoor/outdoor TSS debate

Very interesting question being debated here I find.

Anything that allows us to push harder (use our muscles more) is likely to trigger better adaptation. Motivation issue? Push less therefore adaptation is lessen.

Up there though, does the effort just feels harder, or is the sustained hypoxia effect represents by itself an additional constraint from which the body is likely to adapt?

Heads or tails

 

[DancenMacabre]

My my, this truly does seem like a complex subject. I mean if you guys are saying it is, then I believe it

It is true that my threshold power seems to be increasing consistently. Yeah, I admit for me it feels like a snail's pace - very very slow. I want to get to 3+ watts/kg of weight and even after a couple of months of power training I am still in the 'untrained' category for threshold power. Probably bad genetics or some sort of physiological limitations I guess

But compared to those of you having done this for years and stuff, I do probably improve quicker since I am such a novice/untrained/etc and have nowhere to go but to get better!!!

I understood what Mr. Dave said about the perceived effort and stuff regarding the indoor trainer and how that kind of parallels what happens to people who go from sea level to altitude and train. That it may feel harder or wear you out more for certain reasons (maybe altitude if you go up from sea level or heat if you are on the indoor trainer) but your body isnt necessarily getting fitter and your level of performance not getting higher either.

What about people who live at 1800m year round? Is it like that for them? Is it like the indoor trainer thing where because their vo2max is lowered because of altitude that their workouts don't improve fitness as much as if they lived at sea level? I read about some olympic bicycle riders living in the high desert and mountains of colorado.

I guess they must do OK since they live there all the time?

 

[daveryanwyoming]

...What about people who live at 1800m year round? ...

In general they'll have lower FTP's than a similar sampling of athletes(similar race categories for instance) living at sea level. But at least when they race locally so will their competition.

But there are benefits of 'living' at altitude such as increased red blood cell count. And many serious athletes try to get the best of both worlds with a 'live high, train low approach' either by actually commuting to lower elevation training venues if they actually live high or by sleeping in hybpobaric chambers like altitude tents or rooms converted so that the ambient air is at lower partial pressures and simulates higher elevations if they actually live and can train at lower elevations.

I just recently moved to sea level after a decade of living at 1900 meters. My sustainable power for durations from roughly 3 minutes to over an hour went up pretty quickly in my first few of months at sea level but certainly not overnight when I first arrived. That's after three plus years of structured power based training, I was still seeing slow yearly gains but certainly not at the rates I saw three years ago.

The biggest immediate thing I noticed when I moved down to sea level was how fast I could recover from repeated attacks and hard high power bursts. Friend's who've visited from the mountains have commented on the same thing.

-Dave

 

[Fightin Boba]

Oh nooooo we're back to the indoor/outdoor TSS debate

I would hope you know me a bit better than that. I've been limiting my comments to an area where there is ample research to support/refute physiologic/training stress differences between two environments: sea level vs altitude.

That comment is based on Andy's frequent reminders that training efficacy come from those things that allow greater training intensity. He's made comments to that effect a number of times in discussions of hypo/hyer baric, oxia, etc. training methods. I've always taken that to mean that the bottom line is that things that allow us to push ourselves harder in an absolute sense lead to more stress (in the intensity, not overall workload sense) and the body responds with greater adaptation. It makes sense of things like 'live high train low' or hyperoxic training aids.

We may be talking around each other here. I understand the concept on which LHTL hangs its hat. However, what I am limiting my commentary to was the inference that a maximal effort over 40K at altitude carries less physiologic stress than a maximal effort for 40K at sea level. Research into the physiologic responses at altitude simply does not support that. Moreover, there are physiologic markers (cortisol being one) in unacclimated, but trained subjects that may suggest that the physiologic responses may be more severe for such an effort at altitude.

Consequent to this, and WRT the indoor/outdoor TSS debate, I do support adjusting FTP in PMC when going to altitude for one ATL TC or more (in order to capture the true physiologic training stress during that period at altitude), yet do not support such a notion with indoor vs outdoor training.

My apology to the OP for the diversion.