RunningAHEAD - Topic: at what altitude is one "running at altitude"?

redrunner

posted: 3/10/2008 at 6:24 PM

I'm contemplating running a HM that is at 800m, and am wondering if that requires any special adjustment for someone living on the coast.

ajaxinacan

posted: 3/10/2008 at 6:30 PM

When I moved from a low altitude (600') to a high altitude (5800'), I felt a definite change. My running stamina decreased for several weeks as I adjusted to the new altitude. I felt fatigue in my legs more than in my lungs, but that's just me. Everyone is different, and you might do just fine. I'd recommend training at the new altitude, if possible.

Do bears bear? Do bees be?

jlynnbob

You'll ruin your knees!

posted: 3/10/2008 at 6:45 PM

I wouldn't worry too much about 800m versus the coast. According to The Center for High Altitude Training..."As you ascend to altitudes above about 1000 meters (a little over 3000 feet), the amount of oxygen that is carried by the hemoglobin in the blood is reduced, resulting in less oxygen being delivered to exercising muscles." and "In as few as two weeks, altitude performance will be noticeably improved. Within about six weeks of altitude training, acclimatization will be quite complete." You may be able to tell some difference, but unless you are willing to spend 2 weeks at the higher altitude, there is nothing you can really do about it. I've heard lots of gimmics on how to train at sea level to prepare for the altitude, but they are just that...gimmics... Good luck on the race...

""...the truth that someday, you will go for your last run. But not today—today you got to run." - Matt Crownover (after Western States)

jons3116

posted: 3/10/2008 at 7:43 PM

I run occasionally at ~2900 ft, and live at not more than 100 ft, and I never really noticed any difference. Even doing a couple long runs (15 & 18 miles), there wasn't much noticeable change at that altitude. I did run in denver a few years ago, and I remember it feeling harder, but I was not running very often then anyway. I think you'll be fine.

holo

posted: 3/11/2008 at 12:49 AM

I live at 1500 feet and frequently run at 4000 ft and at sea level. I haven't noticed any real differences, sometimes I run faster at 4000 feet, but I think that has more to do with the fact it is cooler than at sea level.

RunnerKSA

posted: 3/11/2008 at 11:25 AM

I think some of it depends on the individual. I am very sensitive to altitude. Back "in the day" when I was a lot faster, I did a track workout while on a business trip in Amarillo, TX. I was horrified at my times, and marched myself into the high school and demanded that they tell me the "real" distance of their track! Turns out I was running at about 3500 feet, which was enough to slow ME down. Other people don't notice a thing until they get to about a mile high. My husband and I raced in the early 90s in Santa Fe and were killed by all the local runners. Santa Fe is higher than Denver.

Out there running since dinosaurs roamed the earth

Ringmaster

posted: 3/11/2008 at 11:40 AM

Maybe it is individual, because I can tell you I felt a real difference going from the coast, where I train, to about 3500ft. I couldn't keep my mileage anywhere near what I keep here--just couldn't breathe well at all. Of course, I am slightly asthmatic, but I keep it under control very easily with controller medication. Wow, I couldn't believe how hard it was for me to catch my breath "up there." I was only there for a week; I suppose I would have acclimatized eventually, but if you're going there just to run your race you're not going to have time to do that. Just my two cents.

Let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. (Heb. 12:1b)
Mile by Mile

navghtivs

posted: 3/11/2008 at 2:03 PM

I know a calculator can do altitude equivalent performance: http://www.runworks.com/calculator.html I don't know how accurate the result is though. I have a reverse question: I live at 5200ft and have never had a race below 4000ft, what shall I expect when I run at sea-level (I plan to have an east coast vacation)? Any one has this kind of experience?

cgerber

posted: 3/11/2008 at 4:06 PM

Quote from navghtivs on 3/11/2008 at 2:03 PM:

I have a reverse question: I live at 5200ft and have never had a race below 4000ft, what shall I expect when I run at sea-level (I plan to have an east coast vacation)? Any one has this kind of experience?

I live at 5500' and just ran a 50 miler that was at 400'. It was really sweet :-) Enjoy all that oxygen!

redrunner

posted: 3/12/2008 at 3:28 PM

Quote from navghtivs on 3/11/2008 at 2:03 PM:

I know a calculator can do altitude equivalent performance: http://www.runworks.com/calculator.html I don't know how accurate the result is though.

Accurate or not, it is interesting. I don't think 800m will be too bad, and looking at the race profile again, most of the race is run under that altitude. I can also drive away from the coast for a few training runs.

turboterie1

posted: 3/12/2008 at 4:25 PM

I live in Albuquerque which has about the same altitude as Denver. For me an altitude race is anything 5000' or over. I've raced at altitudes up to 12,000 feet (in Santa Fe) and it about killed me! I've also raced at sea level (PHX) and felt like I was flying due to having more oxygen available for my muscles. So I digress.. To answer your question........there's nothing you can do to help make the change better unless you have AT LEAST two weeks that you can take off and train at that altitude. All in all that's not very high though so it shouldn't make that much of a difference.

Finished my first marathon 1-13-2008 in 6:03:37 at P.F. Chang's in Phoenix. PR in San Antonio RnR 5:45:58!!!!!! on 11-16-08 The only thing that has ever made any difference in my running is running. Goal: Break 2:30 in the HM this year Jay Benson Tri (place in Athena category) 5-10-09

AA717driver

posted: 3/16/2008 at 7:45 PM

I thought I was in good enough condition that running in Denver wouldn't be a problem. It was. Now, it was July 3 last year and it was beastly hot (running out by the airport). And, I believe I started too fast. But it did knock me down a peg or two (having previously felt bullet-proof... Roll eyes

). Fast forward to December in Reno (elev. 4,300', I believe). I started out REALLY slow, being spooked by my Denver experience and all. I soon realized I was running normally and breathing normally--no stress. Does 1000' make THAT much difference? (I live in Indiana at 800' or so.) But, my $.02 says anything 3-4000' above where you live would be enough to alter how you run. (I'm sure the effect increases geometrically--or exponentially, with an increase in altitude above 4,000'.) TC

"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead..." J. Buffett There are two rules in life: 1.) Don't sweat the small stuff 2.) It's ALL small stuff

Chels

posted: 3/20/2008 at 10:38 AM

Most my races are usually anywhere from 6000' to 7400' and it makes a big difference. Breathing wise I'm ok, but I go at a much slower pace at the higher altitude. I have also noticed I need more water as well. Thank you navghtivs for posting the calculator.

Saph

Runs with ALTITUDE!

posted: 3/21/2008 at 4:25 PM
modified: 3/21/2008 at 4:30 PM

800 meters? That's approximately 2400ft and not considered to be altitude, at least not in medical terms, i.e. people with heart problems are often told not to go above 3000ft From Colorado, running and singin' at 7500ft, "You make me feel like I can fly, so high...E-le-vation! Woooo hooo!" And Oh Yeah! Is it ever fun to run at sea level for a change...soooo much oxygen!

Saph Body Wise: The Diet-Free Way

Yeah France2

posted: 3/21/2008 at 10:36 PM

In contrast to elevation, people in the costal states/midwest deal with humidity. Having run in both I believe that 90+ humidity is comprable to 7000'. Does anybody else agree/disagree?

at what altitude is one "running at altitude"? (Read 810 times)