Up, up and away 

In the beginning

For many years, international-level endurance athletes have been spending several weeks at high-altitude training camps, often making more than one yearly trip. Shorter trips have become more popular amongst ordinary mortals, notably certain university teams. The theory is that by training in thinner air, your system starts to compensate by producing more red blood cells, which are responsible for carrying oxygen to where it's needed.  Then, when you return to lower altitudes, you have a supercharged oxygen transport system that, in theory, should provide better race results, at least for a few weeks until the effect wears off. 

Consequently, altitude training, whether actual or simulated, benefits only those doing events where the aerobic system is the most important energy provider, in other words, those lasting 2 minutes or more. The subject first came to prominence in the run-up (no pun intended) to the 1968 Olympic Games, which were held in Mexico City at an altitude of 2,240m. At that time, athletes were preparing to compete at altitude as best they could; some spent weeks or months at similar heights, others, who, for example, had full-time jobs, could do nothing at all. Up until that point, athletes who had spent all their lives at altitude in East Africa were relatively small in number (although one had won the previous two Olympic marathon titles, both in world's best times).  In Mexico, East Africans picked up a large share of the medals on offer in the men's events from 1500m upwards, and this signalled the start of an at-first gradual change to the multitude of high-class runners from Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and the like that we see today. 

Before we go on, it has to be said that altitude can be of benefit to sprinters, but in a very different way - competing at altitude means faster times because of reduced air resistance. Mexico, for example, provided the first legal sub-20-second 200m time. This advantage doesn't just apply to runners; it's why track cyclists such as Chris Hoy head off to La Paz in Bolivia to make world record attempts over 500m and 1 km in the world's highest velodrome (3,400m).     

After the Mexico Olympics

It was after Mexico that endurance athletes realised that having been at altitude, their performances back at sea-level were improved, and therefore they could use this training much more generally wherever they intended to compete. By the time of the next Olympics in Munich in 1972, many countries were using altitude training, although it was generally very much at an experimental stage. For example, the time between coming down and competing was left to the individual, with the result that it worked for some but not for others. Some simply took the view that “running is harder up here, so it must be doing me good”, which was fair enough at that time.

Not surprisingly, much has changed over the last 50 years as our understanding has improved. For example, during a base-building phase, all endurance athletes benefit from working in places such as Eldoret in Kenya at altitudes of 2100m or more. Here, the sort of training that can be maintained is necessarily of relatively low intensity. However, closer to the competitive season, while those focusing on the longer events could well stay put, middle-distance athletes needing higher-intensity training might work at a lower altitude, say 1850m, at venues such as Font Romeu in France. 

National squads with full-time athletes go away with various sports scientists in support, measuring the effect of altitude on parameters such as red blood cell count. The ultimate test is, of course, race performances, and it is worth noting that those whose parameters remain unchanged (the so-called "non-responders") very often still show improvements when racing back at sea-level. Oxfordshire's own Hannah England was an example, and she attributed her improvement to the "training camp effect", in other words simply by being in an environment where "all" you had to do was train, eat and sleep, away from all the hassle of life back at home.  Which is where shorter, more occasional stays can be of value.   

High altitude training today

These days we have a range of high altitude venues to choose from, many being available to athletes of any ability, provided, of course, that they have the time to spare and the cash to pay for it – bear in mind that a stay of a few weeks is considered the minimum needed to see some effect.  There is much to think about before signing up. What about the time of year?? - There is no point in going somewhere when the only way you can train is to follow a snowplough through the streets.  Many venues involve changes in time zones, so you must allow enough time to readjust and acclimate to some easy training before carrying out any harder work in a training camp. So 2 – 3 weeks in a training camp soon stretches to 4 weeks or more away from home if you want to make the most of it.

The training camp environment

The training camp environment deserves a mention, especially at altitude, where the pace of easy and steady runs will need to be slower than what you'd be doing at home, and the recovery that you'd normally take between shorter distance repetitions will need to be extended. Generally, wherever the training camp is being held, just being in that environment can lead to doing far too much volume at far too high an intensity, with the result that the fit athlete who went out comes back either injured or just plain burnt out. There is often someone who'll say, “We've got a free hour, let's get a few more miles in". You feel bad refusing the invitation, but you shouldn't; recovery between sessions is a vital part of being in a training camp.  If you haven't been to any training camp before, or even if you have, talk with a suitably experienced coach or fellow athlete, come up with a suitable plan before you go and then stick to it.     

Conclusion

Coming back to altitude training specifically, the general view these days seems to be that, if used judiciously, it can make you progress a bit faster than you would staying at around sea level. However, it needs to be at the right time in your career, when you think you need just that extra something, when you're doing all you can at home. For this reason, while it would certainly be an experience, the overall benefit to the club-level competitive distance runner is questionable. Whatever hype you might read, it certainly won't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  In the words of Eamonn Martin, famed for his ability to combine a busy family life, full-time work and world-class distance running, "attitude before altitude". 

Meanwhile, the East African conveyor belt rumbles on, but the rest of the world seems thankfully to have gone past the view that "we'll never beat the Kenyans."  Spending your entire life at altitude is no guarantee of success in distance running; if it were, we'd be seeing a lot more of the aforesaid Bolivia in the world cross country championships.   

As ever, all views are my own.