When the World Anti-Doping Agency hears the words “increase red blood cells”, it starts to get jittery. That’s why in 2007 it considered banning training at high altitude or replicating high altitude as they can increase the production of red blood cells.
But because the increase is marginal and is a natural response to standing on a mountain top looking like an idiot for an extended period (and not a result of injecting EPO or performing blood transfusions), it was permitted.
I had always suspected that Collingwood’s sports science director David Buttifant didn’t really believe in altitude training; that he talked Mick Malthouse into believing it was beneficial so that could get free trips to the US.
So when he announced earlier this month that he had contributed to an academic paper proving that it enhances the performance of footballers, I was sceptical.
Also, for a sports scientist Buttifant can at times be rather …well, unscientific. In his previous publishing effort ,The Ox is Slow But the Earth is Patient, he comes across as Kung Fu Master Po conveying “that mysterious spiritual quality that transforms a collection of good individuals into a champion team”.
But no, apparently the aforementioned paper was a true scientific study (albeit in collaboration with the Australian Catholic University – can I say that?) of 19 Collingwood players who after returning from a 20-day high-altitude camp in Arizona showed a 3.6 percent increase in their red blood cell count, and in running outperformed a control group, who had remained at home, by 2.1 per cent.
The players were able to train harder than the control group for approximately four weeks before the effects wore off.
The problem is that by publishing the findings in The International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Buttifant has effectively blown the competitive advantage the training may have given the club.
Collingwood set a precedent when they first went on an altitude camp in 2005 and the other teams, or at least those who can afford it, have started following suit. Most, if not all clubs, at least use hyperbaric chambers.
Poor Melbourne, who lodged a meagre profit of $19,000, were forced to hitchhike to Darwin for their pre-season. “We are not ruling out altitude in the future, but we are going down the heat and humidity line for now”, commented coach Mark Neeld, as if they had a choice.
The cash strapped Western Bulldogs have been staying at Victoria University’s ‘Altitude Hotel’ in low-oxygen living quarters but train in normal conditions. It has been argued that this “live high train low” approach is in fact superior to remaining at high altitude because the intensity of training is greater.
Carlton travelled to Qatar in the Middle East last year to do the same thing.
North Melbourne have been to Utah three years running but strangely coach Brad Scott seems reluctant to mention the red blood cells, just skill development.
And St Kilda have been traipsing around the foothills of the Rocky Mountains with Stephen Milne accosting the poor local university students with his microphone and juvenile questions such as: “Have you heard of Stephen Milne? Ha ha ha!”
I’m already fed up with clubs discussing their high altitude training. Buttifant’s damn paper is only going to see the practice expand. I propose a return to good old fashioned pre-season training methods like dragging a spare tyre around or carrying bricks.
At sea level.
Lroy
Guest
" It has been argued that this “live high train low” approach is in fact superior to remaining at high altitude because the intensity of training is greater" Interestingly (for me at least) this is one of the things Lance Amrstong pioneered in his early days... he worked out that maximum benefit was achived by recovering at altitude, not training at altitude... And, yes, the effects wear off rather quickly, hence the blood transfusions before his TDF wins... so unless the Pies are going to get their players in hyberbaric chambers all year, Im not sure what the long lasting benefits really are....
Harry
Guest
Great comment Polly - couldn,t agree more. Hard work not high altitude is the answer. Take these blokes to regional Australia in 40+ heat and live in shearers quarters for two weeks - that,ll sort the men from the , well, GWS actually !
allblackfan
Guest
okay so maybe that's 6000 feet (I stand corrected) but in regards to noticing its effects: were you playing rugby?
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Collingwood sent some players for a mid season altitude camp. What benefit do they get from that? Win the next couple of games?
The Kebab Connoisseur
Guest
"6000 metres" above sea level. So what yo are saying is Jo burg and Pretoria are the equivalent of Mt Everest base camp? Funny, I have been there a number of times and you will find it is actually closer to Mt Buller. I did not notice any difference at all when I was there.
The Kebab Connoisseur
Guest
Geelong was at Mt Beauty and Falls Creek drinking the pubs dry.
The Kebab Connoisseur
Guest
The science of it gives you about a fortnight of improvements when you get back to sea level and it slowly tapers off. Interestingly most players are off on Xmas break for 2 or 3 weeks when they get back so the enhancements are negligible. Collingwood has been doing it for years, Geelong goes to Falls Creek or Lorne and has won more flags in the past 6 years so there is proof in the pudding.
allblackfan
Guest
If the agency had banned altitude training then that would have ruled out half the African athletes competing worldwide! FYI RU teams face this problem in South Africa. The RSA high veldt is 6000m above sea level and includes places like Johannesburg (home to the former Super rugby team Lions), Pretoria (Blue Bulls) and Bloemfontein (Cheetahs). For teams not used to playing at altitude, players'' stamina breaks down about the 60th minute while the lack of oxygen can add 10m to a kick (RSA players can regularly place kick from 50m+ out). The debate about the benefits of training at sea level then playing at high level continue all the time in RU and each team has come up with its own routing. What is noted is that it takes about 14 days for the body to acclimatise to high altitude. A lack of oxygen stimulates the body to compensate by producing more red blood cells which boosts stamina (so I've heard it explained)
afc
Guest
Why is acu considered less reliable?
polly
Guest
Sounds like attitude training would be just as effective as altitude training if all you get is 2.1% lasting four weeks ! I'm not a sports scientist & obviously clubs are willing to try anything going to get an edge, but I do wonder if this is the sort of thing that eventually kills a game, where athletes are valued over actual footballers. I know it's an athletic game & you need a base level of fitness to even be able to compete, but I just can't help but think that I like to watch Australian football, not necesarily Athlete football.
Brewski
Guest
Its always struck me as a junket, but i don't know anyone who would knock it back if offered.
Cameron
Guest
Port Adelaide's new high performace manager, who has previously worked with Liverpool F.C. , has publicly questioned the efficacy of altitude training when compared to the physical benefits of training in the heat, which are quite similar to training at altitude. If this is true, one cannot help but think that clubs who go to the expense of sending their players to America for this are effectivly on an end of year overseas junkets disguised as preseason training.
Dingo
Guest
Can't beat running up and down sand dunes in midsummer 35 deg + heat.
Brendon
Guest
Where do the swans, Geelong and hawthorn go? -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].