Was the old approach to altitude training done and dusted?
Wayne Goldsmith wrote:
… to my amazement, nations continue to invest in one of the most questionable sports performance ”enhancement” methodologies in the business.
You can’t be serious!
Do a literature review on all the available research on altitude training and you know what you end up with………….
“Altitude training may help some athletes, in some situations, sometimes“.
Think about this. The research pretty much says “altitude training is hit and miss”.
In spite of the thousands of pages of journal articles, hundreds of books and thousands of conference papers presented on altitude training since the mid 1960s, the best the sports science community can tell us is “it might work with some athletes from time to time”- followed by the ubiquitous “but further research is needed”.
Look at the holes in the logic:
1. The vast majority of papers of altitude training are physiology based. Athletes arrive at the altitude camp. They have a blood test. Three weeks later they have another blood test and all the usual suspects - red blood cells, oxygen transport mechanisms and blood buffering capacity all have measured changes - therefore everyone taps each other on the back, congratulates each other for the great job done and for another successful altitude camp. The assumption is bordering on stupid because…..it assumes that all performance is dependent on physiological adaptations.
2. One of the basic principles of research is to control or allow for confounding variables. For some reason, this principle has been thrown out the window when it comes to altitude training. Look at a typical altitude training camp scenario:
….
Read the whole article here:
http://www.sportscoachingbrain.com/altitude-training-a-breath-of-fresh-airnot/