Same Performance Changes after Live High-Train Low in Normobaric vs. Hypobaric Hypoxia.

Area of Science:

• Sports Science
• Exercise Physiology
• Altitude Training

Background:

• Endurance athletes often use altitude training to enhance physiological parameters and performance.
• The Live High-Train Low (LHTL) method is a popular altitude training strategy.
• Simulating altitude conditions using normobaric hypoxia (NH) or hypobaric hypoxia (HH) are common practices.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the physiological and performance effects of LHTL altitude training under normobaric hypoxia (NH) versus hypobaric hypoxia (HH).
• To evaluate changes in VO2max and 3-km running performance after NH and HH camps in well-trained triathletes.

Main Methods:

• A crossover study design involving 16 well-trained triathletes.
• Two 18-day LHTL camps were conducted: one in NH (hypoxic chamber) and one in HH (real altitude), with a 1-year washout period.
• Training loads and inspired oxygen partial pressure (P i O2) were matched, with measurements of oxygen saturation (S p O2), VO2max, and 3-km running time.

Main Results:

• Total hypoxic exposure was greater in HH than NH, but nocturnal S p O2 was higher in NH.
• Both NH and HH conditions led to similar increases in VO2max.
• Significant improvements in 3-km running time were observed 21 days post-camp for both conditions, with no difference between NH and HH.

Conclusions:

• LHTL training in both normobaric and hypobaric hypoxia elicits comparable improvements in VO2max.
• Performance enhancements, as measured by the 3-km running test, were similar between NH and HH conditions.
• These findings support the efficacy of both NH and HH for LHTL altitude training in endurance athletes.