Elite Norwegian xc-skieers dont want to train at altitude. Should runners follow?

If it's the perception of difference that affects performance, it stands to reason you might find the greatest benefit from living at higher altitude and training/racing at lower altitude. This would explain the desirability of high alt. cities with access to lower alt. training locations.

If elite Norwegian XC skiers are anything like their runners, they’re probably using enough EPO to not get any benefit from altitude. Might as well stay at sea level for better recovery.

skerr wrote:

If it's the perception of difference that affects performance, it stands to reason you might find the greatest benefit from living at higher altitude and training/racing at lower altitude. This would explain the desirability of high alt. cities with access to lower alt. training locations.

Isn’t that well known? It’s just hard to find locations where you can reasonably commute to a lower elevation for workouts.

My basis is the Norwegian and Swedish media, about the likes of Sundby who was one of craziest of the whole xc skier group, having been up to 1100 or even 1200 hours a year, but then went back to 800-900 at times. There have been many who state at the beginning of the season that they have trained more than ever, only to end up in 30th, 40th, 50th placings in the actual races.

From November to March, there are about 30 world cup races per season, in maybe 15 locations around the world, usually something like 3 weeks of competitions, 1 week off, with a lot of travel and recovery involved as well. In addition, there's the national championships and such. One would think that training 25+ hours a week, every week, during the racing season would be stupid.

I ran my fasted road times, including my one marathon, after cycling around England for six weeks, while

running about 20 miler a week.

I was always very injury prone from running, and I think that the low impact cycling contributed to

greatly increased fitness, without breaking down…

World-class XC skiers have previously reported 800-950 annual training hours. Of the total annual training volume, >90% was reported as endurance training, with the remaining ~10% performed as strength or speed work.

These studies showed a pattern of endurance training time distributed as:

--> 88-91% low-intensity training (LIT, <VT1 aerobic threshold)

--> 3-7% moderate-intensity (MIT, VT1 <> VT2 anaerobic threshold)

--> 5-8% high-intensity (HIT, >VT2)

Source:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5741652/

You have to remember that XC skiers do a lot of training at very low intensities. Their long runs can be 4 hours at a crawling pace (like 7 min/km) and they walk as soon as there is a tough uphill.

Yes, Kipchoge trains at altitude for most of the year at their training camp in Eldoret Kenya, altitude about 6,800 ft. Cheptegei’s camp in Uganda is about 6,200 ft.

Jakob I does targeted altitude training in Europe and US.

*and heat

Similar response to altitude training

Traditional Glacier Training Camps in the Europeans Alps have had problems with less and less real snow available the last years, especially during the preseason (i.e the winters are getting shorter due to higher temps). Sure, the altitude is still there, but with a sport in overall decline (the television money and the prize money is moving a lot towards the Biathlon) female athlete are less willing to spend time away from family only to have to go roller-ski there too.

DC Medic wrote:

Yes, Kipchoge trains at altitude for most of the year at their training camp in Eldoret Kenya, altitude about 6,800 ft. Cheptegei’s camp in Uganda is about 6,200 ft.

There are non-Kalenjin runners who train at those altitudes as well. So how come altitude doesn't work on non-Kalenjin athletes?

skerr wrote:

If it's the perception of difference that affects performance, it stands to reason you might find the greatest benefit from living at higher altitude and training/racing at lower altitude. This would explain the desirability of high alt. cities with access to lower alt. training locations.

If that's true, then live low train high is equally valid for improving efficiency.

Nioitic Runners wrote:

DC Medic wrote:

Yes, Kipchoge trains at altitude for most of the year at their training camp in Eldoret Kenya, altitude about 6,800 ft. Cheptegei’s camp in Uganda is about 6,200 ft.

There are non-Kalenjin runners who train at those altitudes as well. So how come altitude doesn't work on non-Kalenjin athletes?

First, I didn’t make any statement about the value of the altitude training. I just stated facts about some well known top runners.

What evidence can you cite to show that altitude training does not work on non-Kalenjin runners?

DC Doctor wrote:

Nioitic Runners wrote:

There are non-Kalenjin runners who train at those altitudes as well. So how come altitude doesn't work on non-Kalenjin athletes?

First, I didn’t make any statement about the value of the altitude training. I just stated facts about some well known top runners.

What evidence can you cite to show that altitude training does not work on non-Kalenjin runners?

Obviously it was a rhetorical question.

Can you guys move along to disussing what makes runners more energy efficient? Or is that outside of your remit?

In a non-covid year, many more skiers would be happy to go to the alps and train at altitude. Because of COVID, the risk-reward of travelling to central europe isn't as high. A long training camp at the top of a alpine valley can be a bit isolating and boring. You might train five hours a day but then you sit around the rest and probably spend too much time in your room.

You can get hella fit training at low-altitude. especially if I had kids/family I think you might be more productive by staying home and prioritizing happiness and having 2 days less travel.

Norway is a pretty m iserable place in November/October. Rainy, cold, windy and dark. There is a reason Norwegians have historically trained in central europe in the late fall (Pre-covid).

not so fast... wrote:

DC Doctor wrote:

First, I didn’t make any statement about the value of the altitude training. I just stated facts about some well known top runners.

What evidence can you cite to show that altitude training does not work on non-Kalenjin runners?

Obviously it was a rhetorical question.

Can you guys move along to disussing what makes runners more energy efficient? Or is that outside of your remit?

Sorry that is out of my remit. It’s a deep question with many variables that interact, from genetics, geography, diet, body type, and on and on.

Also: training at altitude is a necessity if you are going to race at altitude. It's not just about the physiological benefits, but you also need to spend time at altitude learning how pace at altitude. Pacing at >5000 ft and sea level is very different and the only way to learn altitude pacing is to practice at altitude.

The olympics XC ski venue is at altitude this year so XC skiers are targetting their training to race there. You need to spend like 30-60 days a year at altitude to get the benefits.

Here is a interesting podcast on strategies athletes can use to target a peak race at altitude.

https://fasterskier.com/2021/06/the-devon-kershaw-show-prepping-for-beijing-2022-a-chat-with-dr-oyvind-b-sandbakk/

I saw the Swedish xc ski team training in Font Romeu a few weeks ago, so the Swedish apparently aren't agreeing with the Norwegians.

Norway seems to be more conservative about COVID safety than the Swedes.

Klaebo and Johaug (both among the top 3 skiers of all time in their gender) have done extended training camps in europe and I think are there right now.

My 2 cents: Norway will have an athlete on the podium at every olympic XC ski event and it wouldn't be crazy to see them win every single event. Boring, but true :(