6. Altitude & East Africans, Thirsty Thursday : Speakers & Interviews

its not altitude why they win because they are HUNGRY when you want to be the best its one thing but if your hungry and this is your only way out of poverty thats why they smoke us americans americans are spoiled

is da man! end of story.

You do not need any theories or arguments. It's really simple: The Africans have more talents.

It seems to me he was not exactly sure of the answer, and thats why he said what he said.

You are obviously very well educated in what your talking about, Steve, and you are a highly regarded individual for your experience in all things running, but I think its wrong to speculate about what Jack mean to say (or maybe what he didn't mean to say) and than give evidence that could give a reader the opinion you are saying he is wrong. I see what you mean but I think the banter here is coming from the way your comment was written (prehaps unintentional) similarly how maybe Jack's answer was vague and could lead to misconstrued perceptions.
Is it correct that we (anyone in the scientific community) really don't know the exact answer to the question at hand? Or are there some scientific journal entries to shed light on this to settle the argument that has cropped up whether we like it or not.

Good points Jack!

I always look forward to this segment!!!

No I didn't.

He says and I quote:
"I don't know that there is any difference." (Between live high/train low). "I'm not sure it (live high/train low) is any better."
Then he says... "If it's better, then it scares me that the east african's might learn to do it." Then he goes on to talk about how they are doing well without it...
Follow the logic. He says that live high train high might work just as well as live high train low. He then uses the fact that africans don't live high/train low as evidence. The whole freaking point is that, that logic doesn't hold up.
It doesn't mean that the rest of his argument is wrong or anything. It's just that using the evidence of Africans training at altitude as evidence does not, because they respond completely differently.
That is the whole point. Nothing more, nothing less. Not attacking anyone, creating a strawman, whatever.

There are any number of theories floating around, but the truth is that those who have dedicated their careers to understanding this issue are no clearer today on the answer than they were 10 years ago. Some may try to convince you that they have the answer, but it is usually in the context of trying to sell a particular coaching philosophy and/or a book or two which nerdy runners like myself, and apparently a few others on Flotrack, will actually buy and read (i.e. if money is involved, there will always be an incentive for someone to propose a new theory, whether they know what they are talking about or not). There are simply too many factors at play, not the least of which is the culture and society in which you were raised (at altitude or otherwise).

I appreciate that Jack acknowledges he has no more answers than the next guy, but considering how long he has been doing this, I'm inclined to give his words some weight...

Magness, the problem is your original post was a straw man argument. You attributed a position to JD which he did not actually state, and then you refuted it.

My intention wasn't to disprove Jack or anything like that. The truth is we really have no idea.

My point was just to point to the research and field data. It's not like I was stating random opinions to try and tear down what JD said. If you want another opinion on it, go read Renato Canova's presentation on the difference of adaptation to altitude between Kenyans and Europeans.
What you do with the data is up to you. Read the data, make your own decision. Don't just believe it because I said so or Jack said so. I say some things that turn out to be wrong. So, does JD. So does every great coach or scientist. It doesn't mean you are attacking them if you bring up evidence that points to the contrary. It's part of science, especially a young one. Things change all the time.

What is your point Steve Magness besides embarrassing yourself?

First off...athletes come to him
secondly...he earned those facilities
thirdly..."facilities at altitude" you obviously did not listen to what he said

You have to keep in mind that he understands the audience who is going to view all of these videos. Do you really think if he went in depth on many of the topics shown that the majority of people watching this would even understand?

jack needs some science behind what he says

he's a legendary coach, but give me world-class athletes and facilities at altitude for a couple decades and i'll produce some stellar performers too
the majority of what he says is anecdotal

Jack Daniels...76 years old, olympian, coaches olympians, has coached multiple national champions, has written his own book, public speaker, considered as one of the greatest distance coaches ever.

Steve Magness....24 years old....has read JD's book
Why is Magness trying to prove JD wrong? The more you try the less people care for you.

i don't like how whatever jack says, he then negates it. live high, train high... but train low... but maybe if they did this it would be the same... but if he did this...

straight dope

are they showing DI nationals online?

I would trust what Jack says any day over Steve Magness - ANY day.

This Coach has the best running logic I've ever heard. Love what he has to say.

powned!

Steve Magness knows his . I'm not saying that Jack Daniels doesn't, but they are two very credible sources.

Just keeping things straight here. Steve you quoted Daniels as saying "Hey the Kenyans live and train high so it must be right." (What time did he say that? I can't seem to find him saying that quote in the interview.) Please don't forget that Daniels also said that East Africans may perform even better if they had grown up at sea level.

Well, no offense to Jack, but most people don't consider it. I know I didn't for a while.

Muscle recruitment is suppressed via regulation. THere's all sorts of studies to prove it. Depending on which model you subscribe to muscle recruitment is suppressed because the CNS or a central governor regulates recruitment either to prevent heart ischemia or because there's less oxygen available to the muscles. Whatever the reason, at low oxygen levels, motor unit recruitment is decreased at almost all intensities.
go to link below, slide # 29 shows a nice graph showing the iEMG levels at different artificial altitudes at all intensities.
http://www.slideshare.net/sjm1368/altitude-training
As for the individual adaptation. We have a lot of field data to back this up. (Slides #33-34). And some good research which has found three different ways of adapting to altitude so far. A quick summary:
Ethiopian- regular Hgb, increased Oxygen saturation
Andean- erythrocytosis with arterial hypoxemia
Tibetan- normal venous hemoglobin concentration with arterial hypoxemia
Or a study:
An Ethiopian pattern of human adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia.
Beall CM, Decker MJ, Brittenham GM, Kushner I, Gebremedhin A, Strohl KP.
Lastly, I use the presentation b/c it's easy to point to the data. It should be noted that it's a quick presentation made for a presentation to an undergrad class so it's not complex and missing some stuff.
The point isn't weather Jack knows it or not. THe point is that saying "Hey the Kenyans live and train high so it must be right," is a fallacy. It assumes that both groups adapt to training in the same way. They don't.
For instance, if the Kenyans are like Ethiopians and they have increased oxygen saturation compared to Caucasians, then it's likely that they won't have as much of a drop in muscle recruitment at altitude. So maybe they don't get the negative consequences of training at altitude all the time...

In my personal opinion, I would love to train for about 10 years with East Africans in the altitude. They respond so well because they run everywhere at altitude. Therefore over time, their lungs adapt as well as other muscles. Caucasian runners like myself have to work constantly in order to achieve that.

im pretty sure jack understands that buddy. and how is muscle recruitment suppressed at altitude? i dont think the brain says hey half of you motor neurons take a break cuz were at altitude.

Jack is making a common mistake. He's assuming that the east Africans and Americans/Europeans respond to altitude in the same way. They don't. The response and adaptations that take place are very different. FOr instance, in Ethiopians, they generally don't respond to altitude with the rise in RBC, instead its generally with a change in oxygen saturation.

For Caucasians live high/train low works better for most of us. THe problem with training high all the time is that you can't run at the intensity needed. In addition, your going to get some neural/muscul,ar adaptations due to this that may negatively effect performance at sea level. For instance, muscle recruitment is suppressed at altitude. So if you are constantly not recruiting as many fibers during altitude, it's quiet possible that that initially carries over to sea level for a while. Not to mention that when recruiting less fibers all the time, your not going to be training as many as at sea level.
It depends on the individual, but in general, live high-train low helps to get the benefits of altitude that most people are looking for without the negative consequences. Essentially it's maximizing the good stuff and minimizing the bad to a much greater degree than living and training up high for prolonged times.