Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)
With the recent introduction of 2 new high altitude races to
the Ironman calendar, the challenge of Ironman racing just reached a new level.
Now, not only must athletes overcome the challenges of optimal pacing (over
many hours), nutrition, heat, etc. but an additional variable has been thrown
into the mix – the reduction of the partial pressure in O2 that comes with
increasing altitude.
Considerable research has been conducted on the effect of
altitude on high intensity
performance. Much of this was inspired by the 1968 Olympics, which were held in
Mexico City, at an elevation of ~8000ft. The general consensus of this research
is that this reduced partial pressure results in a decreased O2 saturation
within the blood and a concomitant decrease in VO2max. Specifically, for the
non-acclimated, a decrease of ~2% per 1000ft of altitude after the first 1000ft
(Perronet et al., 1991). For an altitude of 8000ft, a reduction in VO2max of
14%!
However, as we know, Ironman is not an Olympic event. In
fact, the longest Olympic event, is only 2 and a bit hours long, a duration
that is still greatly affected by VO2max. If we look at the men’s marathon in
the Olympics, the winning time of 2:20 was a full 9% slower than the, then,
world record of 2:09. In practice this leaves the impact of altitude on truly long
duration performance still a little bit of a mystery. An important mystery to
solve for those looking to get their best possible performance out of a race
like Tahoe (~6200’) or Boulder (~5400’)
Long duration events like Ironman are fundamentally
metabolically limited. The athlete who wins is not necessarily the one with the
highest VO2max but rather the one who can sustain a high % of this VO2max for
very long periods of time. A large part of this comes down to sparing their
precious carbohydrate reserves and improving their ability to generate energy
from fat – a virtually limitless energy substrate.
The impact of high altitude on Ironman performance, then,
becomes a question of “how does altitude affect our body’s metabolism?” Or,
more specifically, do we burn more carbohydrate for a given intensity as
altitude increases? The limited research to date would suggest that the answer
is a big “yes”!
In one of the most comprehensive data sets on the metabolic
response to altitude in endurance athletes, Wehrlin & Allen (2005), found
that the athlete’s respiratory quotient increased by an average .08 for the
same absolute submaximal exercise intensity (55% vVO2max) when altitude was increased
from 2600 to 9200 feet. This seemingly small change corresponds with an
increase in carbohydrate oxidation from 53% to 82%! This has direct, linear
implications on the athlete’s time to fatigue. In other words, for a given
athlete, we would expect their time to fatigue in a metabolically limited
activity at an altitude of 9200 feet to be almost half of what it is at sea
level!
The data from that study along with the change in time to
fatigue for a hypothetical athlete, with CHO stores of 2500kcal, & 200W of
mechanical output at various altitudes is shown below.
While this presents a neat model for a hypothetical athlete,
in reality, athletic response to altitude is quite varied. For example, the
standard deviation in CHO burning in the study mentioned above was ~+/-8%!.
Meaning that an average, non acclimated athlete could be generating anything
from 74-90% of their energy from CHO at an altitude of 9200ft. Factors that
have a significant impact here are..
·
Gender/Size – females & smaller athletes appear
to be less metabolically impacted by altitude than males or larger athletes
(Amiel et al., 1993; Stary-Gunderson et al., 2000)
·
Fitness – fitter athletes are more affected by
altitude than less fit athletes (Gavin et al., 1998)
If we throw in the
impact of acclimatization, this range broadens by an additional ~5%.
So, what is an athlete without a good amount of altitude
experience (or altitude testing) to do? How should an athlete adjust their personal
pacing plan when confronted with an unfamiliar altitude? How do they discern where on the spectrum of the metabolic impact of altitude he or she lies?
If we look at the Heart Rate column in the table above,
there may be a clue. The difference in fat vs carbohydrate burning is strongly
indicated by a difference in heart rate, even when the absolute intensity of
the effort doesn’t change (remember, the intensity at all altitudes in the
above study was a fixed 55% of sea level vVO2max). In fact, if we were to just
look at the heart rate and fat burning columns in the above chart, it looks a
whole lot like the results we would see in a progressive fuel test, where power
(rather than altitude) is progressively increased. As HR (/stress) goes up, CHO
expenditure goes up somewhat irrespective of whether that stress is caused by
exercise intensity or environmental conditions.
Put simply, an athlete who is seeing half ironman heart rates shouldn’t
expect to be able to hold that effort for an additional 5 or 6hrs just because
they’re a few extra thousand feet up in the air!
Rather, the smart athlete will adjust their power/pace in
response to this heart rate feedback.
The smarter athlete, still, will attempt to narrow that gap
in altitude vs sea level heart rates by acclimatizing prior to the event. In
fact, McLelland et al. (1998) found that carbohydrate utilization at altitude
is the same as it is at sea level for the same % of relative VO2max. In other words, if you narrow the gap between your
altitude and sea level VO2max via altitude training, you will also narrow the
gap in CHO oxidation. While the details of acclimatization strategies extend
beyond the scope of this article, the use of sleep tents, intermittent hypoxic
exposure masks & altitude training trips close to the event can all have
significant positive effect.
In conclusion, if you’re a sea level athlete racing an
ironman at altitude…
·
Pay extra attention to heart rate during the
event. Recognize that increases in HR reflect a quicker usage of your body’s
precious CHO fuel.
·
Acclimatize! Non acclimated athletes will be at
a significant disadvantage, both in terms of oxygen transport and metabolic
efficiency.
Train smart,
AC
No comments:
Post a Comment