Ariza: Altitude training is counterproductive

Read a book you ****ing nuff nuff

 

What do you mean by the indicators of EPO? EPO is a naturally produced hormone in the blood, exogenous EPO is different and can be detected.
Altitude training does help if you're competing at altitude but training at altitude for a performance at sea level is going to hurt you, especially in a sport that requires intensity like boxing as you say.

 

All I can contribute to the subject if it hasnt already be said is that the professional elite cyclist's often sleep in chambers that are set to altitude.

So, whether that is mental or real advantage I cannot say. But, there seems to be some credibility to live high and train low.

 

he's A LOT more credible than you :hi:
How come I never see you in the training section of the forum :huh

 

Ok I don't need to read a book, I read enough about this **** and there are plenty of specials on sports that have addressed this issue and PEDs. The trainers that use these methods are in competition measure the benefits depending on the sport it is being applied. There are thousands that have applied Altitude training who know exactly what they are doing so there is no need to deny it.

The porpose of the Altitude training is to increase the EPO levels. Other applications are used to even the playing field when competition is done at high altitude or competitors from high altitudes at lower altitude levels. The gains and losses are marginal and much of it is placebo effect. in the case of boxing. i.e. A confidence builder. The biggest gain for boxing would be in the area of endurance. Mosley is acclimatized to using both artifical EPO and Natural EPO.

There is enough experience and information on Altitude training to apply the appropriate methods to gain benifet for whatever sport desired with out it being counter productive. Mosley is no fool.

 

Indicator like having a blood hematocrit of over 50%. Normal is 40% red blood cells to 60% plasma. I believe 55% is when you could be banned from Cycling back in the early 2000's. You may not have the drug in the system, but can have indicators to show you were using or that it was present at some point. There are others too. Using indicators is used to catch drug cheats for other types of PEDs too, but can end in big law suits as it becomes a legal tassle i.e. as they were never caught with the drug they were banned for the defence arguing "is there a 1% chance another variable could have caused these indicators".

Also, I'm pretty sure that the clever and well funded scientists that make these drugs have found a way to hide the original EPO forms by now (otherwise all the cyclists would be banned).

Looks like we're going to disagree on the Altitude question. I agree high/low is better and that it is likely that if you only get 3% increase in performance in endurance sports then it would be hard to get increases with Boxing due to the heavy anaerobic element. However, I'd like to see some research before just dismissing it.

 

Why?

 

Spot on dude:thumbsup

 

These are the kind of bull**** arguments you'd expect to hear at a water dispenser in your local gym, not from one of the top conditioners in boxing.

Absolute bull****. If it were true why is epo and blood doping so successful in athletes across so many disciplines?

Higher Epo does make your blood thicker which can cause a lot of other bad things (like strokes) but to say it can decrease the amount of oxygen is amateurish.

Also not true. A good and well balanced diet can prevent muscle loss, I can't think of any reason why high altitude would cause more muscle loss than regular altitude.

Never heard of this, but it doesn't affect his training.

What would the "chemical changes" be? His second point is very subjective -

This is the only part of what he said that had some truth to it. The benefits of HAT are very short lived. But he can offset this by delaying the descent to as close to the day of the fight as possible.

 

I guess for some it works, for other not.

guerrero or marquez train in high altitudes and they have great condition.

 

thats the best you can come out with after I've shown you out to be the lying **** your are, I HATE ****S LIKE YOU, "OH IM A SPORTS SCIENCE STUDENT" no one here gives a **** and it doesnt impress anyone here.

 

He has contradicted himself several times already you asslicking ****


And wtf does thats even mean?? So I have to post on the training section to be an expert?? No I'm just not full of **** pretending I know it all like you two ****s!

 

Andre Ward has said that he uses a machine Victor Conte developed that's meant to simulate elevation training.

 

A couple of years ago they build ski-halls simulating high altitude training for cross country skiers, i.e. live low/train high ("normobar hypoxia" training (sp?) I think). I hear they are practically going out of business so I thought the method was close to obsolete. Maybe it's just among endurance skiers.

 

being a physio degree holder. some of his statements are suspicious to conventional theory. however, there has been some current research that backs up some of his statements.

the problem is when you read these super dense studies...you have a lot of problems. i mean is this invitro/in vivo...you can never really get a full 100 pct accurate grasp.

in general as it almost always is there is a real gray area. it still seems high altitude training has benefits but at a price. what ariza said is sorta true in the super new research but the bad effects may be avoided through proper nutrition etc etc (just one of the problems/issues). more iron...etc etc. there seems to be pros and cons.

realistically the issue is so damn complicated if someone were to put a real educated opinion down it would be a huge scientific journal review.