At very high altitudes (>5000m), weight loss is unavoidable because your body actually consumes your muscles in order to provide energy. There is even a risk that the body’s immune system will become weakened, leading to an increased risk of infections, and there may be adverse changes in the chemical make-up of the muscles. Additionally, the body cannot exercise as intensely at altitude. This results in reduced training intensity, which can reduce performance. This is bull****. Altitude has nothing to do with losing muscle. Nutrition and your diet does. Calories in vs calories out.
I can beleive everything except for the part about them adapting to the low altitude once they go in the ring. They may adjust to it, but they got a lot more tired in the higher altitude and they won't gas as quick in the lower, so it does help It's like saying training with a weighted vest for conditioning isn't a good idea because once you fight with no vest on there is no benefit because you adjusted to having ne vest on.
I think altitude training is only good if you are gonna have your match at high altitude Ive seen this in other sports like Rugby, Some of the South africans teams come from the highveld... visiting teams always complain that it takes a bit of getting used to , but that same team who comes down to normal altitude for their games arent any fitter... Still losing to the Nz teams :good So I agree with Ariza here
Absolute bull****. He makes it seem like living in the mountains (Which many people in the world do) is dangerous. Besides, Big Bear isn't greater than 5000m high. It's more like 5000 feet high (Not 16,000 feet high).
Your metabolism does rev up in higher altitudes so if you are'nt taking more calories then at lower altitudes, the metabolism will probably eat at a well trained athlete's muscles.
Manny Steward said Chavez used to train very high altitude. Even higher up than other Mexican boxers do.
Are you asking the TS? :think That's Ariza's theory . . . the TS simply posted it . . . so you are barking at the wrong tree. :deal
Guys, this is nothing but a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (with this, therefore, because of this-implying that b/c there's a correlation, that it's the cause. You have to ignore the "outliers" like: age, diet, personal distractions, training method, competition, etc etc etc. You know, the stuff that doesn't matter). However, going off his reasoning, I've noticed that every fighter who has eaten broccoli in 1849 is now dead. Stay away from the broccoli!!