Premium
Clarification on altitude training
Author(s) -
Millet Grégoire P.,
Brocherie Franck,
Faiss Raphael,
Girard Olivier
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
experimental physiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.925
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1469-445X
pISSN - 0958-0670
DOI - 10.1113/ep085936
Subject(s) - altitude training , sprint , hypoxia (environmental) , medicine , altitude (triangle) , physical therapy , psychology , physical medicine and rehabilitation , athletes , mathematics , chemistry , oxygen , geometry , organic chemistry
The authors report that many LHTL studies in normobaric hypoxia (NH) "failed to show a positive outcome", which in our view is only partially true. In a cross-over design, we (Saugy et al. 2016) recently tested if LHTL in hypobaric hypoxia (HH) would lead to larger performance enhancement than in NH. Our hypothesis was that HH (i.e. natural altitude) would lead to larger enhancement than NH but the results were contrary to this hypothesis. So we cannot support the affirmation by Lundby & Robach that "natural altitude remains the best approach". We acknowledge that observed changes in hemoglobin mass (Hbmass ) on the same experiment might have been influenced by the training camp conditions. However, again, a fair review would cite our response (Wehrlin et al. 2016) detailing the controlled training and environmental parameters along with the high level of reproducibility of the duplicate Hbmass method used. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.