Re:
cnc-it said:
Well yes but anybody with little knowledge will know that training at altitude doesn't have long lasting effects..is it 3 weeks or so not sure..so even as a cover for doping practices it shouldn't seem remotely plausible to a doping panel you wouldn't think..yet the UCI have only started doing test at mount tied this year?
Ok yes I was tongue in cheek on the first post but the Giro Tour double seems even more of a joke now I come to think of it!!
There are some mixed perspectives on altitude, scientifically and through athlete knowledge.
For the clean, altitude non-native or non-resident, altitude training is not for race-specific training. The literature shows that while altitude does boost some blood and other physiological parameters, the trade off of only being able to work at train at lower intensities makes coming down from altitude just as important as going up. For the same reason that the early season lon,long and slow training ride isn't meant to make you faster, but to be able to sustain later-season race-specific training, altitude training (for this population) is just for building the physical infrastructure for better training, closer to your target. So it doesn't matter if the effects of altitude wear off, because they don't effect the race performance as much. Put another way, athletes spend most of their time training to train. Weightlifting, aerobic sessions, pure speed, don't train the atglete for the demands of the race. Instead, those sessions are there to support the sessions that are race-specific; those are the seasions that do affect performance much more directly. Altitude is very similar. It has a role, and must be consodered in the overal periodization)
For the dirty athlete, altitude is an easy way to explain problematic bariations in the biopassport caused by blood doping. The drugs are more powerful than the performance boost of higher intensity training of sea-level training. Staying at altitude longer opens a longer window for doping.
For the clean altitude native or resident, staying at altitude for a while is usually out of convenience. More, natives are more adapt to manage higher intenisities at altidude, so staying at altitude is less of a detriment on their late season, more race specific training.
When it comes to changes in
performance, both reasearch and anecdote (of clean athletes) seem to show that training and living at altitude makes you better at performing at altidude than sea level only athletes, while both groups' sea level performances are more equal. So what matter is less about where you are training, but what kind of training you can do. Repeating above, for a clean athlete, altitude is a trade-off and must be periodized. For the doped, it is a cover, and there is less of a physiological trade off. For the clean altitude resident, the trade-off of lower intensity matter a little less because they are a little more adept, but it is still irellevent if the performance is at sea level.
I hope that made sense...