Altitude and FTP

[daveryanwyoming]

Steve,
It's clear you've delved a lot further into the stress vs. efforts at sea level vs. altitude question and I wasn't really considering the overall load or TSS/CTL question at all. I was just illustrating the difficulty of answering the OPs question about what she might expect in terms of FTP progress with an extended stay at altitude and pointing out why she might see different results than a highly trained cyclist.

My answer still makes sense to me, at least in the sense that it is possible (not assured or necessary) that a trained sea level cyclist who moves to altitude for an extended time might actually see a drop in FTP on their return to sea level (relative to previous sea level FTP) from the lower average workout intensity not TSS point of view.

You're way ahead of me on cortisol levels and the implications of working out high or low so I could be dead wrong but at some level I still believe a watt's a watt and if Andy's weekly L4 intervals at 300 watts turned into weekly efforts at 270 watts for an extended period of time it seems quite possible to me that he might not immediately return to 300 watts on returning to the sea level.

But to answer your original question, I'm working totally in the realm of inference and uneducated opinions so I wouldn't bet the farm on it...

-Dave

 

[SolarEnergy]

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

I told ya, *interesting* question

Seriously, some concepts that are apparently simple often hide a bunch of complex processes. Besides, threads like that one are good occasions to challenge few myths.

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.

we may... (euh well, I may) have made allusion to the level of maturity of your FTP and I hope I didn't make you feel *slow* per se. Reason why this allusion was repeatedly brought on the table as you could see, is that it is at the heart of this subject.

In order to provide you with a decent answer, we had to confirm this assumption as to where exactly you were in your development as a cyclist.

You may feel slow for now, especially visiting these sites and comparing your numbers with those who have trained for years, but you'll certainly get there. And the decision you made to purchase and use the right tools early in your involvement will help a lot.

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!!!

that's it.

 

[DancenMacabre]

.........

My apology to the OP for the diversion.

No, no apology needed. It is not a diversion at all because I am super curious on what you guys are talking about here.

My own totally unscientific, um, intuitive thought was kind of like what boba said about a watt being a watt. I mean if you do a train regularly with 60 min TT's and threshold work at 1800m then it would seem odd if it was less effective for your fitness than doing the same regular 60 min TT's at sea level. Yes? No?

So for example if the same person did 10 hours of threshold work at 1800 meters and that produced a 1w increase in your FTP - would you expect 10 hours of threshold work at sea level for the same person to improve their FTP by 1w also? more ? less?

Sounds like maybe living & training at high altitude may not be so great?

 

[DancenMacabre]

we may... (euh well, I may) have made allusion to the level of maturity of your FTP and I hope I didn't make you feel *slow* per se. Reason why this allusion was repeatedly brought on the table as you could see, is that it is at the heart of this subject.

In order to provide you with a decent answer, we had to confirm this assumption as to where exactly you were in your development as a cyclist.

You may feel slow for now, especially visiting these sites and comparing your numbers with those who have trained for years, but you'll certainly get there. And the decision you made to purchase and use the right tools early in your involvement will help a lot.

that's it.

Oh I think you guys are being pretty generous answering my questions actually. no offense taken and lets be honest - i am slow but working super hard to get faster

The tools help more than I can say. Now instead of 'oh today was a good/bad day' of riding, I know exactly how much and what i have improved.

 

[swampy1970]

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.)

Would you go through this routine again? It would seem as though you're closer to the expected non-acclimatized value for your adjusted FTP.

 

[acoggan]

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

Aye, but:

1) that is just a general rule-of-thumb to help people make sense of the absolute vs. relative question (i.e., unless preparing for competition in a specific compromising state/environment it seems best to "go big", i.e., attempt to achieve the highest absolute training intensity);

2) any gain you might achieve by doing so will still be small, and most importantly;

3) TSS is intended to be an predictor of (primarily metabolic) strain based on the stress that is applied, not a (direct) predictor of the resultant training effect.

 

[acoggan]

Would you go through this routine again? It would seem as though you're closer to the expected non-acclimatized value for your adjusted FTP.

Sure: for the last ~4 mo, I trained, on average, for 1 h/d, 3 d/wk, on the ergometer at ~80% of my altitude-adjusted functional threshold power while breathing 14.8% O2 (simulating just over 9000 ft). I then slept in the altitude tent (also set to simulate ~9000 ft) for the last 9 d before traveling to the race.

I developed this approach on my own (based in part on constraints of my normal life), have used it previously, and have found that it is effective in inducing at least some degree of acclimatization (based, e.g., on changes in my ventilation during exercise in hypoxia).

I do agree that at best I fall mid-way beteween the two ranges provided by Bassett et al.'s meta-analysis even after following this protocol. That could be because the exposure isn't 24 h/d as experienced by those subjects, but is probably more related to the fact that I experience mild-to-moderate exercise-induced hypoxemia during high intensity exercise at sea level (in keeping with Steve P.'s allusions to individual differences).

 

[Fightin Boba]

No, no apology needed. It is not a diversion at all because I am super curious on what you guys are talking about here.

My own totally unscientific, um, intuitive thought was kind of like what boba said about a watt being a watt. I mean if you do a train regularly with 60 min TT's and threshold work at 1800m then it would seem odd if it was less effective for your fitness than doing the same regular 60 min TT's at sea level. Yes? No?

So for example if the same person did 10 hours of threshold work at 1800 meters and that produced a 1w increase in your FTP - would you expect 10 hours of threshold work at sea level for the same person to improve their FTP by 1w also? more ? less?

Sounds like maybe living & training at high altitude may not be so great?

Perhaps the best way to answer these questions is, to quote, "specificity, specificity, specificity". The concept of specificity not only applies to training methodology, but also to training environment.

 

[swampy1970]

Sure: for the last ~4 mo, I trained, on average, for 1 h/d, 3 d/wk, on the ergometer at ~80% of my altitude-adjusted functional threshold power while breathing 14.8% O2 (simulating just over 9000 ft). I then slept in the altitude tent (also set to simulate ~9000 ft) for the last 9 d before traveling to the race.

I developed this approach on my own (based in part on constraints of my normal life), have used it previously, and have found that it is effective in inducing at least some degree of acclimatization (based, e.g., on changes in my ventilation during exercise in hypoxia).

I do agree that at best I fall mid-way beteween the two ranges provided by Bassett et al.'s meta-analysis even after following this protocol. That could be because the exposure isn't 24 h/d as experienced by those subjects, but is probably more related to the fact that I experience mild-to-moderate exercise-induced hypoxemia during high intensity exercise at sea level (in keeping with Steve P.'s allusions to individual differences).

Interesting. Out of curiosity what tent do you use?

I noticed 'issues' developing power at over 8,000ft on a couple of rides in the Sierras this year that weren't directly explainable by accumulated fatigue. As soon as I got back down into the valleys (below 6,500ft) it was much easier to get the power back to where I wanted it. One thing I did find 'odd' was that I based my planned average power on average altitude and estimated time (altitude 7,600ft and 198miles). During the first 100 miles, even above 8,000ft, holding the planned average power was easy. During the last 50 miles holding the power below 7,000ft was easy, above that it was hard but once I returned to lower elevations it was easy again...

 

[taricha]

I find this discussion fascinating as I am used to encountering it from a competitive running perspective. There seems to be very little support for the idea of training at altitude being preferable to sea level for improving sea level performance. In fact, it's usually thought to do bad things to sea-level runners like cost top speed and induce muscle loss. At the same time the sport has been consistently dominated by athletes hailing from the high altitude regions of Kenya, Ethiopia, and even Mexico. And the high altitude is always credited as being the key to the immense talent coming from these regions.
So the conventional wisdom boils down to: Gebrselassie gets fast when he runs at elevation, and I would just get slow. Genetics is cruel.
Not sure how much of that conventional wisdom is true, or what part of it if any applies to cycling.

 

[acoggan]

what tent do you use?

I have one of the original Hypoxico systems (tent plus HYP100 generator).

 

[Fightin Boba]

So the conventional wisdom boils down to: Gebrselassie gets fast when he runs at elevation, and I would just get slow. Genetics is cruel.

"Our success is based on attitude, not altitude." - Mike Kosgei, Kenyan coach

 

[SolarEnergy]

Not sure how much of that conventional wisdom is true, or what part of it if any applies to cycling.

Not sure neither. Our swim team (like most top level organizations) used to invest lots of money and time and expectations on altitude training camps. No one in the tent before. Just travel get up there and train.

We can't claim to be the best team in the country, but we have put athletes on the national team for every single edition of the Olympics (at least from 1988 up 'til now), World Championship as well as other events of secondary importance (pan am, pan pac, commonwealth etc). Our best results I believe in 2005 with a second place on 4x100 free (before the Aussies and South Africans), not to mention several victories on marathon swims (world cup events and others).

I am no longer working for this organization, but I believe that they still invest this money effort and expectation.