Altitude And Air Resistance

[[old] Galt]

I thought that I had seen it all until my wife told me about this thread.<br /><br />If someone could explain the following problem with the belief that performance is easier at alttitude, I would appreciate it.<br /><br />Most relationships in life are monotonic, either increasing or decreasing. That means that if something gets easier going one way, it will continue to get easier as you go more that way.<br /><br />Regarding this thread, if rowing is easier at 5,000 feet, it should be even easier at 10,000, even easier at 15,000 and so on. The problem is that, if you go high enough (say 40,000 feet) you won't be able to row at all... as you will be dead.<br /><br />As you go higher, you receive less and less oxygen, so I need to know at what altitude rowing stops getting easier and starts getting harder.<br /><br />Well, actually, I really don't need the answer, because the truth is that it starts getting harder as soon as you rise 1 foot above sea level.<br /><br />Before I go further, you should know that I live in Boulder, at about 5,300 feet.<br /><br />If you think that riding a bike is easier at altitude, I suggest that you come here and go for a 50 mile ride.<br /><br />Our city is full of world class atheletes who live and train here for the sole reason that it is harder to perform here. When you train here and then go compete at or near sea level, you have a huge advantage because your body is used to working with something like 20% less oxygen. <br /><br />I just spent a week in Florida. My resting pulse was about 8 beats slower tnan normal because my lungs thought that they were at an oxygen buffet.<br /><br />Any reduction in air resistance at altitude is grossly overshadowed by the effect of the lower oxygen at the same altitude.<br /><br />People actually get sick when they first come to Boulder because their bodies just can't deal with not having enough oxygen when they workout. It took me aoubt 6 weeks before I could expect to do a full workout and not expect to feel like I was going to pass out at the finish.<br /><br />This really is not rocket science, and I have probably expended more energy typing than the topic is worth (oh wait, I live at altitude so typing this was really really easy!)

[[old] rjw]

<!--QuoteBegin-Galt+Feb 21 2005, 05:25 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Galt @ Feb 21 2005, 05:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Any reduction in air resistance at altitude is grossly overshadowed by the effect of the lower oxygen at the same altitude.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />This was not the case when Merckx set the one-hour record at Mexic City. He was worried that his record would be over-shaddowed because it was at done at elevation (he actually wanted to do it in Italy at sea level but the weather was against him). When cycling at that speed (30+ mph), the reduction in air resistance outweighed the reduction in O2 which, by the way, is closser to 8%, not 20%. Also, Merckx aclimatized prior to his attempt which also helped him.<br /><br />Raoul<br /><br />PS - For the record, the current one-hour record was done close to sea-level (Manchester). VERY aerodynamic bicycle and very fit individual.<br />

[[old] Galt]

OK, here is my same question to you...<br /><br />At what altitude (fit or not) does rowing (or biking) stop getting easier and start getting harder?<br /><br />Untill somebody can answer that question, and explain why there is a curvilinear reltaionship, any other discussion is really of not much use.<br /><br />What is surprising to me is that this is such a univerally understaood concept among atheletes and it is for some reason being debated here.<br /><br />By the way, I am certainly not an expert in O2 pressure (the problem realtes to decreased pressure not decreased concentration ... air is air) versus altitude, but every table that I look at and the generally accepted number here in Boulder is an effective decrease in oxygen availability of about 20%.

[[old] Exrook]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 19 2005, 11:45 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 19 2005, 11:45 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-rjw+Feb 19 2005, 07:20 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rjw @ Feb 19 2005, 07:20 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then you agree with me - finally!!!  A 2,000 metre erg (row) at altitude is slower than at sea level.  Well done John. <br /><br />Raoul <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Raoul,<br /><br />Calm down. <br /><br />I have no comment about boats, but this thread is about erg times being "faster" at altitude, because of the beneficial effects of the reduction in air resistance. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I realized some time ago that the sky was a different color in "John's World", and now I learn that it behaves differently from that in the real world as well. Amazing.

[[old] ebolton]

<!--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-->What is surprising to me is that this is such a univerally understaood concept among atheletes and it is for some reason being debated here.<br /><br />By the way, I am certainly not an expert in O2 pressure (the problem realtes to decreased pressure not decreased concentration ... air is air) versus altitude, but every table that I look at and the generally accepted number here in Boulder is an effective decrease in oxygen availability of about 20%. </td></tr></table><br /><br />True. In cycling, an accepted principal is to sleep at high altitude, to acclimitize to the lack of O2, then train at low altitude where you can push harder for a more intense (and valuable) training session. Hence, pro cyclists sleeping in oxygen tents set for high altitude (low O2). It's sort of a legal form of blood doping, as long as you are not so successfull doing it your hematocrit goes over 50%. Perhaps the rowing community is not on board with this yet.<br /><br />For resistance, what really matters is the density of the fluid you are trying to move (erg) or push out of the way (bike). I see it with my snowblower often in the winter. For the same 11 horsepower power input, I can throw light fluffy snow a lot farther than wet heavy snow. For purposes of athletic aerodynamics, pressure and density measure the same thing basically, since the dependence on temperature of density is less than the dependence on temperature (numerically). On the erg, light air (hot or low pressure) moves through the fan easier than heavy air (cold or high pressure).<br /><br />I've spent almost my entire life within 1000 feet of sea level. Went to Denver just once, for work, and noticed the difference distinctly just in day-to-day existence. Running across the street winded me. Was only there 3 days, not long enough to acclimatize. I'm inclined to go with the 20% figure.<br /><br />Ed

[[old] NavigationHazard]

For Denver, the reduction in alveolar oxygen is more like 21.35%. See <a href='http://www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/pul ... titude.htm' target='_blank'>Pulmonary Hypertension-Altitude</a> for the calculation.

[[old] Steve_R]

<!--QuoteBegin-Galt+Feb 21 2005, 01:19 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Galt @ Feb 21 2005, 01:19 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK, here is my same question to you...<br /><br />At what altitude (fit or not) does rowing (or biking) stop getting easier and start getting harder?<br /><br />Untill somebody can answer that question, and explain why there is a curvilinear reltaionship, any other discussion is really of not much use. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />In addition to what Ed has already posted:<br /><br />- Movement of a body through air get easier the higher up you go (assuming no changes to sea level atmospheric pressure and temperature)<br />- O2 concentration and thereby aerobic athletic performance gets worse the higher you go up.<br /><br />The combination of these curves is what describes the exact point in elevation that would be optimal for performing the action. This curve would be unique for each athlete and each activity so there is no one right answer. The fact that cycling is more impacted (at appropriate O2 concentrations, not at 40,000 feet) by drag than by athletic performance, it makes sense for cyclists or other speed based activity to want to be higher in elevation for short periods of time. Since air drag has a much less of an effect on the erg (and a boat for that matter) due to the accomidation of changes in the flywheel motion in the DF factor (which impacts split time), the erg would get worse from sea level up because the only real impact the O2 concentration on the althete. There are athletes that could compensate for this by having a higher anaerobic capacity (not get a worse time at some elevation) but this would only work for short distances.<br /><br />Steve

[[old] PaulS]

Galt,<br /><br />This isn't really a "debate", it's more of a reality check gone bad. <br /><br />Welcome to the fray.

[[old] rjw]

<!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+Feb 21 2005, 07:45 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Feb 21 2005, 07:45 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For Denver, the reduction in alveolar oxygen is more like 21.35%.  See <a href='http://www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/pul ... titude.htm' target='_blank'>Pulmonary Hypertension-Altitude</a> for the calculation. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Thank you - I stand corrected. However, I have read that VO2 max only decreases by 2% per 300m gain in elevation above 1,500 metre in acclimatized athletes. So the 21.35% is a red herring.<br /><br />Raoul

[[old] rjw]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Feb 21 2005, 08:42 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Feb 21 2005, 08:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Galt,<br /><br />This isn't really a "debate", it's more of a reality check gone bad.  <br /><br />Welcome to the fray. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Awe come on Paul - you (of all people) know the routine. <br /><br />Raoul

[[old] John Rupp]

PaulS,<br /><br />It doesn't matter to me what you think.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-rjw+Feb 21 2005, 01:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rjw @ Feb 21 2005, 01:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Feb 21 2005, 08:42 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Feb 21 2005, 08:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Galt,<br /><br />This isn't really a "debate", it's more of a reality check gone bad.   <br /><br />Welcome to the fray. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Awe come on Paul - you (of all people) know the routine. <br /><br />Raoul <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yeah, you're right, and I should know better too.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Steve_R+Feb 21 2005, 11:45 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steve_R @ Feb 21 2005, 11:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since air drag has a much less of an effect on the erg (and a boat for that matter) due to the accomidation of changes in the flywheel motion in the DF factor (which impacts split time), the erg would get worse from sea level up because the only real impact the O2 concentration on the althete.  There are athletes that could compensate for this by having a higher anaerobic capacity (not get a worse time at some elevation) but this would only work for short distances. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I really don't know if the DF would equalize the same at altitude as at sea level and, even if it did, if this would be the only criteria of resistance. For example, does higher altitude change the moment of inertia of the flywheel. This is only one item that could be beneficially effected.<br /><br />Even with no machine benefits, however, the O2 performance difference should be less than 3-4 seconds in fit rowers. I don't know if anyone has even approached this standard but, in my opinion it should be less than this or even faster than at sea level, as with cycling.<br /><br />The anerobic component is, of course, more beneficial at altitude. Short distance sprint times are faster. For running, this extends to 800 meters and beyond, depending on the fitness of the athlete. Kip Keino smashed the Olympic Record for 1500 meters at Mexico City.<br /><br />Fitness helps to neutralize the lesser availability of O2, and extends this anaerobic component. A less fit or unacclimatized person would very quickly get into O2 debt, whereas a very fit athlete can maximize the available oxygen while at the same time greatly extending the range of the anaerobic component.<br /><br />So, as you have said, the effects vary from person to person, and depending on the stage and range of one's fitness and training.<br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 21 2005, 01:26 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 21 2005, 01:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PaulS,<br /><br />Yes I did approach you with emails a couple of years ago, in an attempt to mitigate your personal attacks at that time and it worked for awhile.  Apparently giving you my personal attention via email helped to assuage your overblown ego.  All was relatively quiet on the western front for awhile.<br /><br />Then you fell back to your usual ways, threatening to bounce my head around like a ping pong ball for daring to talk about rowing at 8 meters per stroke.<br /><br />Notably the ones you invariably pick on are kids, women, and lightweights.  You don't have the same attitude when directing your comments to Dwayne Adams or Graham Benton, for example.<br /><br />However, if it makes you think I'm crazy that I row at 8 meters per stroke then so be it.  That is probably nothing compared to your opinion of yourself.<br /><br />We all have the things we don't like.  You don't like women, kids, lightweights, or those of us who row at 8 meters per stroke.  I don't like bullies, wife beaters, and child molesters.  To each their own.<br /><br />It would be nice if you could stay on topic and stay away from the personal attacks.  I will admit that I have a very low tolerance for people like you whose only ambition is to attack, belittle and hurt others, like the women you supposedly train and who end up injured, sick or both, and probably the myriad of people you abuse in your personal life.<br /><br />This being as it is, I have nothing more to say to you. <br /><br />In the interest of the forum and my personal inclination I shall endeavor to focus entirely on what I enjoy most, which is training, constructive ideas, and positive enlightened open minded individuals. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Wow! I must quote that, so you will not be able to edit it away in the future.<br /><br />You have used this statement about me causing injury to others several times now, but apparently none of these people have come to back you up. That's quite slanderous John.<br /><br />You did not email me to mitigate anything, as a matter of fact your last email was quite hostile and I posted it for all to see in the old forum. I know that wasn't a nice thing to do, but there was no way I was going to simply make statements regarding your treatment of me without supporting evidence. You see, I would not just make up a bunch of crap, as you do. It just wouldn't be right.<br /><br />I do not pick on or threaten you (or others for that matter) in any way, however due to my good nature you have seen fit to take advantage of that to make yourself feel better by acting a "bully". I'll let much of your abuse pass without comment, as it does nothing to me, however when you go off onto these wild rants of fantasy, I do find ti somewhat entertaining to call you on them. I've even stood on your side on the rare occassion that you are on the side of reality. You see, it's the content that I care about, right up until you want to make it personal and then I'm happy to play that game also, at least until you bore me.<br /><br />Get Graham or Dwayne to make declarations as whacky as you do and I'll be happy to call them on it also.<br /><br />Who are these Kids, Women, and Little people that I pick on anyway? They must be here, as this is the only place we interact. Maybe a few of them will come forward and verify your accusations of my Evilness. But when they don't, John, you must look within yourself and figure out why.<br />

[[old] PaulH]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 21 2005, 04:49 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 21 2005, 04:49 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really don't know if the DF would equalize the same at altitude as at sea level and, even if it did, if this would be the only criteria of resistance.  For example, does higher altitude change the moment of inertia of the flywheel.  This is only one item that could be beneficially effected.<br /><br />Even with no machine benefits, however, the O2 performance difference should be less than 3-4 seconds in fit rowers.  I don't know if anyone has even approached this standard but, in my opinion it should be less than this or even faster than at sea level, as with cycling.<br /><br />The anerobic component is, of course, more beneficial at altitude.  Short distance sprint times are faster.  For running, this extends to 800 meters and beyond, depending on the fitness of the athlete.  Kip Keino smashed the Olympic Record for 1500 meters at Mexico City.<br /><br />Fitness helps to neutralize the lesser availability of O2, and extends this anaerobic component.  A less fit or unacclimatized person would very quickly get into O2 debt, whereas a very fit athlete can maximize the available oxygen while at the same time greatly extending the range of the anaerobic component.<br /><br />So, as you have said, the effects vary from person to person, and depending on the stage and range of one's fitness and training. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The monitor will compensate for the reduced air inside the cage, without caring if it's due to reduced air pressure, increased temperature, or just a change in weather. The moment of inertia is utterly unaffected, and I can't think of anything else that could be affected. In fact at altitude the rower will weigh very slightly less, so they won't be able to trade weight for pace as effectively <br /><br />So the rower loses the benefit of all that extra oxygen at sea level, and in return the resistance as his or her body moves up and down the slide is marginally reduced. The imbalance in that equation compared to the great benefit that cyclists and even runners have as they travel comparitively quickly through the air shows that rowing performance must fall off faster than either of those sports. Hence the 3-4 seconds figure you keep quoting would seem to be far smaller than any expected difference, as shown by the 30 seconds difference I seem to recall is typical for Denver rowers at sea level (My memory is hazy on the exact figure).<br /><br />Cheers, Paul