Altitude And Air Resistance

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 19 2005, 01:22 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 19 2005, 01:22 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Paul,<br /><br />Sorry if you feel you're getting batted around by reality.<br /><br />However, in the long run to realize your lack of fitness can be motivation to improve it.<br /><br />From memory, your PATT percentages are something like:<br /><br />2k -  86%<br />10k-  78%<br />h/m-  73%<br /><br />Notice the decline as the distance gets longer?  <br /><br />And this is no small matter.  An 8% drop from 2k to 10k is a major difference, illustrating your gross (pardon the pun) lack of fitness.  Even beginning rowers would have a closer percentage than this. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />So if Paul wasn't so strong and had a slower 2k, he would be more fit because his PAT numbers wouldn't decline as much from short distances to longer ones? That is indeed an interesting measure of fitness! As one gets better at pacing a 2k, one gets less fit...<br /><br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 18 2005, 06:33 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 18 2005, 06:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The value of PATT is well established as it is based on World Record performances for each age, gender, and weight class.<br /><br />Your percentages are based on the "fastest" times you have accomplished and entered in the rankings over the last 3 years. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />There are only Official WR's for 2k, so your generalization to other distances is not valid.<br /><br />I'll let you in on a little secret, I haven't been entering my times for quite a while, though my endurance fitness does seem to be coming right along. (You didn't include my old 500M time, why not? I don't think I've even done a 10k in 2 years, and never for best time possible, i'm not into suffering for that long.) So your figures are highly out of date and completely inaccurate, which is par for you.<br /><br />Now Stop being ridiculous!<br /><br />So you are leaving the rail slope as designed? (non-jacked) That's good to hear, so you can officially report your spectacular performances. How tough is it to "build" a couple of wood blocks, for training purposes?

[[old] rjw]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 19 2005, 02:33 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 19 2005, 02:33 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The value of PATT is well established as it is based on World Record performances for each age, gender, and weight class.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John,<br /><br />Could you direct me to the world famous article that talks about the value of the PATT? How does it differ in concept from the Nonatlon scoring system? <br /><br />Raoul

[[old] rjw]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 19 2005, 01:24 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 19 2005, 01:24 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Feb 18 2005, 05:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Feb 18 2005, 05:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, now you have changed to "likely have faster times at altitude" <br /> </td></tr></table><br />The average fit rower can achieve faster times at altitude, period.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The average fit rower (erger) CAN NOT achieve faster times at altitude, if there times at sea level were were there max effort, period.<br /><br />And besides, John, is there a point to this topic?<br /><br />Raoul

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Running times are FASTER at altitude up to 800 meters, and close for distances beyond that, for example 10000 meters, and 30 kilometers etc. </td></tr></table><br /><br />No they're not. A check of the <a href='http://www.algonet.se/~pela2/athletics/m_10kok.htm' target='_blank'>all-time best 10000m results for men</a> shows that the 522 fastest competition times in history have been turned in at low altitudes.<br /><br />Paul Kosgei's 27:44.14 at Nairobi (1700m above sea level) is the fastest time ever recorded at altitude, and it ranks 523d on the list.<br /><br />And FWIW, Kosgei -- who must be considered fit -- has been over 20 secs faster at Brussels.

[[old] John Rupp]

PaulH (whp4),<br /><br />Cyclists know very well the advantages of less air resistance at altitude.<br /><br />Fitness at altitude means equivalent performances across the range of events, especially the distances.<br /><br />For example, top Kenyan runners have 10k times at altitude that are within 20 to 30 seconds of their times at sea level. This means a fit runner's time for the 2k would be less than 3-4 seconds difference at altitude than at sea level. This is considering "only" the o2 differential, and not the greater compensating effects of decreased air resistance that has a much greater beneficial aid in the times for cyclists and rowers.<br /><br />Thus we have -- at the maximum -- a 3-4 second slower 2k time at altitude, considering only the o2 effects, but not factoring in the benefits of the lower air resistance and reduced moment of inertia.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-whp4+Feb 19 2005, 04:38 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(whp4 @ Feb 19 2005, 04:38 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So if Paul wasn't so strong and had a slower 2k, he would be more fit because his PAT numbers wouldn't decline as much from short distances to longer ones?  That is indeed an interesting measure of fitness!  As one gets better at pacing a 2k, one gets less fit... <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Do you consider a 78% PATT percentage for the 10k to be strong?<br /><br />I don't.<br /><br />Considering he has been rowing for more than 20 years, his PATT percentages are not very good.

[[old] John Rupp]

Raoul,<br /><br />Click the link in my profile to calculate your PATT percentages.<br /><br />PATT is based on current World Records and World Record equivalent performances, thus it's value is established by these.<br /><br />It differs from the Nonathlon as to having this accurate comparison to current existing world records. For example someone commented they had over 100 points for some event in the Nonathlon, yet their performance was around 86% PATT meaning 86% of the World Record performance for that age, gender, and weight class.<br /><br />100% PATT represents a World Record equivalent performance.

[[old] John Rupp]

Raoul,<br /><br />Have you ever competed at altitude???<br /><br />I have, both running and cycling. And I have trained at altitude, as well.<br /><br />Out of shape it is very "difficult" to approach sea level times at altitude.<br /><br />But when in top distance conditioning, it is possible to come very close to them running, and to far exceed them with cycling and rowing.

[[old] John Rupp]

Nav,<br /><br />You don't think that 20 seconds is "close" for a 10k?<br /><br />I do.<br /><br />By the way, 20 seconds for a 10k is less than 4 seconds for a 2k.

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 19 2005, 02:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 19 2005, 02:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nav,<br /><br />You don't think that 20 seconds is "close" for a 10k?<br /><br />I do.<br /><br />By the way, 20 seconds for a 10k is less than 4 seconds for a 2k. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />At the elite level, a 20 secs differential for a 10k means finishing 100 to 120m behind the winner. No I don't think that's particularly 'close.' <br /><br />If I've counted accurately, 20 of the 1305 all-time best 10k comeptition times for men have been done at high altitude. 1285 have been turned in at low altitudes.<br />Nineteen of those 20 high-altitude times have been turned in by Kenyans who were born at high altitude, grew up at high altitude, and did most of their training at high altitude. The other was turned in by a Tanzanian who also acquired his fitness at altitude.<br /><br />The point is that Kenyans and others who have long-term acclimatization to high altitude -- and train like demons -- get cardiovascular boosts when they move down to low altitudes to race. In the case of Kosgei, it was 20 secs/10k. For others it may be somewhat greater. <br /><br />Not a single non-East African man has run a 10k at altitude that makes the list of the 1305 best times. This STRONGLY suggests that altitude has an inverse relationship to performance for the distance. <br /><br /><br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 19 2005, 11:03 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 19 2005, 11:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you consider a 78% PATT percentage for the 10k to be strong?<br /><br />I don't.<br /><br />Considering he has been rowing for more than 20 years, his PATT percentages are very poor. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John, you're full of it! In the 2004 season Men lwt 50-59 90th percentile 2k time is 6:56.7, in the same season the Mens hwt 40-49 90th percentile 2k time is 6:36.0. So while I may not be in the shape you are, it seems that I've made it into the 90th percentile and you have not, nuff said.<br /><br />And as for the "been rowing for 20 years", you are once again inaccurate, I began my rowing career in 1982, and had it very abruptly interupted in 1985 for 17 years, though I did spend some of that time coaching. Fortunately I have been back rowing since July 9, 2001 with only brief interuptions due to going a bit harder than the body would tollerate. There is still a long way to go to be 100%, but the progress over the last 3.5 years has been relatively steady. The fitness attained early in my rowing career was due to the several years of base training prior to that, along with the far quicker recuperative abilities of being 20 something and indestructable (or so I thought). <br /><br />Now that we have that cleared up, please continue with your ideas on how rowing at high altitude guarantees faster times for fit individuals, it's truly fascinating. Don't simply repeat your statements, elaborate for us.

[[old] BigBuck]

I'm reading Matthew Pinsent's (4 times Olympic Champion) autobiography at the moment. In it he describes a training session at altitude of 2000m at Rate 20 for 30 minutes. He describes how he can break 9000m at sea level but had never been able to achieve this at altitude. He managed to do it and was really pleased because it is so difficult at altitude because (at 2000m) there is 7% less oxygen available.<br /><br />It's interesting to hear what an Olympic Champion says, and I'd really recommend reading the book to John Rupp..........

[[old] Steve_R]

The way that I look at it there are several factors that are affected by high altitudes some are physical and others are physiological.<br /><br />- Drag, which would describe the motion of the body on the slide and the flywheel.<br />- Aerobic capacity, which describes oxygen uptake of the athlete.<br />- Anaerobic glycolysis, which describes the athlete's ability to work anaerobically.<br /><br />These effects of these are what have been discussed here and the effective sum of these forces would describe how much of a benefit or detriment would be experienced at high altitude.<br /><br />Drag is affected by the density of air and velocity given that the body moving is the same size(same person). For the erg, there are two moving bodies, the flywheel and the athlete. There are multiple impacts to air density: air pressure, temperature, and humidity. Since air density is accounted for in the calculation of DF, the only body left is the athlete. Drag is impacted by the square of the velocity so this can be very important for fast moving bodies. Since the athlete is moving relatively slow, the change in velocity would be small for less dense air. But since a cyclist is moving fast, this is why they would like to trade for less dense air. We don't talk about the benefit to the erg based on lower atmospheric pressure or increased temperature which can affect air desity as much as a change in altitude.<br /><br />Aerobic capacity is based on many factors including cardiac output, mitochondria density, muscle composition, capillary profusion, lactate tolerance, and hemoglobin concentration. At 2k, it has been said that the body is working about 70% aerobically which would say that a reduction in oxygen would impact this portion of the activity. The other 30% (anaerobic glycolysis) would not be impacted by altitude. To what impact is the other 70% affected by altitude? I would think that there would be a negative effect on the athlete that would result in worse times at high altitudes. It could also be the case that at altitude, the body will shift to a higher percentage of anaerobic contribution to 2k times. If this is the case and the athlete's ability to operate through the metabolism of glycogen has not been consumed over 2k, there may not be as significant an impact to 2k times but this would only be mitigated by training in these conditions. People with higher lactate thresholds could also compensate for the added anaerobic needs at high altitude.<br /><br />Overall, I think that moving an athlete to an environment with less oxygen would negatively affect the 2k time until they trained to compensate for the added anaerobic needs of the 2k at high altitude. Over longer distances, the athlete would not be able to compensate due to the decreased anaerobic contribution to exercise at those distances. Cycling is not a good comparison due to the high contribution of velocity on added drag that is not in place when studying the erg.<br /><br />I'm not an exercise physiologist so this is all just my opinion and not based on any testing. Feel free to shoot holes in this if you want.<br /><br />Steve

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+Feb 19 2005, 11:52 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Feb 19 2005, 11:52 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I've counted accurately, 20 of the 1305 all-time best 10k comeptition times for men have been done at high altitude.  1285 have been turned in at low altitudes. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Nav,<br /><br />Those are good points and certainly true. Along with that, consider that Kenyans and a few other Africans are the "only" ones who ever compete at the 10k at altitude, and often this is on chewed up and/or not very good tracks. The Ethiopians don't even compete in the 10k at altitude. I don't know of "any" track 10k's in this country at altitude, and there are probably not that many in other parts of the world either, except Kenya. So the fact that 20 of the 1305 all time best times have been accomplished at altitude is quite outstanding!<br /><br />This is also considering the difference at altitude is about 20 seconds for a very fit aclimatized runner, and more than that otherwise. Also, these examples are for running. Even so, for running, this shows the o2 disadvantage is no more than 3-4 seconds -- or less -- for a 2k. It is certainly not any more than that for rowing.<br /><br />However, cycling and rowing have the far greater -- advantages -- of less air resistance, which is not so much a factor with running, but certainly is for cycling and rowing.<br />