Altitude & Conversions?

[tgeldean]

I live (and row) in Colorado at approximately 5135', and I'm curious to know if anyone knows of any way to "convert" a performance on the erg from a higher altitude setting to sea level. And I'm hopeful to find out a good way to convert a variety of distances/times.

I've seen the qualifying time differences between Denver and the other regional satellite qualifiers, and I seem to recall these time differences are primarily based on historical data between the Mile High Sprints and the CRASH-Bs.

I primarily compete as a runner, and I've got a pretty good idea on the relationship between altitude and sea level performances there. In running, the general consensus is that 800m is the break even point (at higher altitudes, times will be faster at distances under 800m and slower over 800m). And the longer the distance, the more seconds/mile for the conversion.

Thanks for your help,

Tim Geldean

[johnlvs2run]

I'd say at 7000 feet 3 to 4 seconds for a 2k,

1 second per minute for 10k,

and 2 1/2 seconds per minute for a marathon.

What differences in race times do you find with your running?

[tgeldean]

Thanks for the numbers.

Well, I'm not at 7000', but I've run quite a few races in the 5000-6000' range out here. What I generally go by is:

1500m 4:10 here = 4:04 sea level
5000m 15:15 here = 14:50 sea level
10,000m 33:00 here = 32:00 sea level
Marathon 2:40 here = 2:34 sea level

There's obviously a lot of factors involved in any conversion, which is why I'm trying to find out more about rowing and possible conversions.

One issue I (and other runners) run into with living and training here is that our training pace out here will be slower than if we were training at a similar cardiovascular intensity at sea level. So...one can get plenty strong, but not as muscularly ready for the possible faster paces at sea level.

But running is different in a variety of ways from indoor running, which must affect the translation between high and low altitudes:

- Running is weight bearing, rowing is not (which brings up the whole lightweight/heavyweight discussion - weight isn't a disadvantage in rowing like it is in running)
- Runners deal with wind resistance, indoor rowers do not (or very little!). There's less of a conversion at shorter distances, because the "thinner air" (lesser pressure) offsets some of the disadvantages of altitude. Which is why performances improve at altitude in events/activities like: running sprints, long jumping, throwing events, kicking, punting, etc.

Looking at my ranked performances, I realize I'm at a disadvantage when I compare myself to rowers at sea level. I'm just trying to determine how much of a disadvantage. My strength right now is not really at 2000m. As a runner with a large base of endurance training, my stronger events on the erg have been 5000m and up. That being said, I basically have 2 months of rowing under my belt since I got back into it for the first time in a few years (running injury forced me to take February off from running).

I hope to get stronger at the shorter distances over the next several months, and also work back to lightweight status. I rowed 6:36 this spring, and would like to get back to my PR from 2000 by the end of this month (6:29.6). 6:31 was the qualifying time this year at the Mile High Sprints for 30-39 LWT, while the corresponding sea level qualifiying time was 6:17.2. From what you're saying, I shouldn't expect to be able to row ~ 14 seconds faster at sea level (more like 3 seconds). Is there
some debate/discussion about the conversion? If not, why is there such a large time discrepancy between the qualifying times (altitude vs. sea level)?

I also know that I need to be strong enough, and comfortable enough with the faster paces so that I can take advantage of sea level when I get there. Even if aerobically I can handle a significantly faster pace at sea level, there's no guarantee that my muscles will be ready for that increased effort.

Thanks for your insight,

Tim Geldean

[johnlvs2run]

Hi Tim,

I based the difference for rowing on running performances, and think they would be much the same. I ran a 2:35 marathon at the rather hilly Palos Verdes marathon at age 31 and have run various races at altitude, but not any rowing at altitude yet. Your times are close to the percentage differences I have seen.

It seems you could get just as muscularly strong at altitude. I know some of the Kenyan training groups take, for example, 2:00 rests at altitude and 1:30 rests at sea level, running about the same times in their reps.

I rowed 6:36 this spring, and would like to get back to my PR from 2000 by the end of this month (6:29.6). 6:31 was the qualifying time this year at the Mile High Sprints for 30-39 LWT, while the corresponding sea level qualifiying time was 6:17.2. From what you're saying, I shouldn't expect to be able to row ~ 14 seconds faster at sea level (more like 3 seconds). Is there some debate/discussion about the conversion? If not, why is there such a large time discrepancy between the qualifying times (altitude vs. sea level)?

Your 6:29.6 is quite excellent. Do you train the same for rowing as with running?

There is considerable debate about the amount of conversion. I seriously doubt the difference would be 14 seconds, though that would make it easier to qualify. Also it might be more than 3 to 4 seconds, and somewhere in between. On the other hand even if the difference is only 3 to 4 seconds, the higher level of competition at sea level could result in times much faster than that.

An advantage at altitude is the drier climate and I believe this makes the training much easier. I often find the humidity to be a stuggle, especially in the summers. Certainly, higher humidity affects the ability to breathe as well, not only with exercising but also through the rest of the day and when sleeping. This is where altitude has an advantage over lower altitudes, in particular areas near the coasts. Some have used altitude tents in their training. My feeling is that doing so is not so much a benefit of "training" at altitude, as being able to breathe more easily while sleeping and thus recover more quickly.

At least this has been my personal experience. There are many nights in the summer in Santa Maria, where a fog bank rolls in from the ocean and the humidity is close to 100%. It is difficult to sleep well and deeply when the conditions are like this.

[whp4]

I also know that I need to be strong enough, and comfortable enough with the faster paces so that I can take advantage of sea level when I get there. Even if aerobically I can handle a significantly faster pace at sea level, there's no guarantee that my muscles will be ready for that increased effort.

Tim, it seems to me that you could probably help prepare your muscles with some suitably chosen interval work like 30 seconds on 30 seconds rest doing a large number of reps. The short bursts should allow you to work the muscles harder than you could with longer pieces.

It would be interesting to know if there is a "sweet spot" on the altitude chart where the lower O2 availability spurs adaptation but you can still work hard enough that you don't have to worry about not having the strength to use that third lung when you're down at sea level

Bill

[tgeldean]

Bill -

As for a "sweet spot," I don't think such a place exists. If there was, you'd see it overrun with elite endurance athletes of all sorts. However, there's some places where you can "live high & train low." The concept is to live (and sleep) at a higher altitude (8000'-9000' may be ideal), and do most of your taining at an altitude much closer to sea level. A number of endurance athletes live in Mammoth, CA where they can relatively quickly "get low" for faster training, while "getting high" where they spend the bulk of their time.

Yeah, I figure I need to do more shorter work year round, and ramp it up even more as I approach any sea level racing.

John -

I can't say that I've set up much of a structured training plan as of yet. I've tried to mix longer distance work, mid distance LT type work, and harder shorter efforts along with a very limited amount of intervals. I've only been back at it since February 1st, and I wasn't really sure how long I'd be doing it. I've enjoyed it enough that I plan to continue even if I get back to running at full strength. My thought is to try to read up some more, and develop a training plan that incorporates both running and rowing. I guess my training would be more specific to the sport with the closest upcoming races of significance.

One thing I've read that I haven't been comfortable with, is training at lower spm. I'm rarely under 30 spm, whether it's distance work, intervals, time trials, whatever. I'll usually average somewhere around 33-34 spm on a 2K, 36-37 spm on a faster 500m, and 30-32 on a longer piece 5-10K. Is that an training element I'm lacking when it comes to increasing my strength and top end speed? Or will my times at 500m continue to drop as I get more fit even if stick with my normal spm? I've gotten down to 6:36 doing what I'm doing (6:29 off of similar training over a little longer period in the past).

Then there's that small matter of dropping my weight to get within striking distance of lightweight. I need to do it for my running anyway. Missing time and dealing with injuries has added way too many pounds to my frame (which can contribute to more injuries when running). The qualifiying time for 30-39 LWT at the Mile High Sprints is 6:31, but 6:12 for HWT. It's gradually coming off, so I just need to remain patient and I'll get there.

Thanks for the advice and kind words,

Tim Geldean

[Bob S.]

Bill -

A number of endurance athletes live in Mammoth, CA where they can relatively quickly "get low" for faster training, while "getting high" where they spend the bulk of their time.

Tim Geldean

Tim,

This topic was covered recently and I posted the URL of a report on the study of this subject:

http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/

I am curious about your reference to people sleeping in Mammoth and training at lower altitude. How much lower? Bishop? That’s still at about 4200 ft. I live at 4000 ft (Big Pine) and my best 2k time here is over 22 seconds slower than my best time at sea level.

Now if they could get to Death Valley, it would be interesting to see what they could do at below sea level, but that is another hundred miles away. There would be no humidity problems for sure, but it can be hard on the throat – especially on the long pieces. In Big Pine, a relative humidity of 30% is fairly common and I often have throat problems on long pieces (like an hour or more).

Bob S.

[dennish]

Tim, send me a pm and I'll give you all the info I have about conversions and some ideas about what would be a good plan. I have some serious time with both the Wolverine Plan and 10mps approach. Happy to share. dennis