CClaude wrote:To compare individuals based on their marathon times (unless all the marathons were at 15,000ft altitude) would be a poor predictor since it ignores the genetic aspects. But since the genetic aspect of acclimitization and high altitude performance is outside our control, maximize the potential in what we can control. Like being healthy , hydrated going into the experience and maximize your physical potential.

I agree that there are two different factors involved but would state the conclusion a little differently. The limiting factor for an individual's performance at altitude will depend on athletic ability and on acclimitization. Even highly fit individuals who aren't acclimatized may not perform well. What's more, if someone is already fairly fit, then a lot of additional training may only increase their fitness slightly in absolute terms. So while more training for such individuals may make them perform slightly better at altitude, more acclimitization will make them perform a lot better. So while I never think training is a bad idea (having been a runner for most of my adult life), and more training can't hurt the OP, if someone has a problem at altitude the solution for that person may not be to train more, but to focus on a better acclimatization strategy. Take more time on rest days, go slower on ascents, hydrate more, etc.

CClaude wrote:To compare individuals based on their marathon times (unless all the marathons were at 15,000ft altitude) would be a poor predictor since it ignores the genetic aspects. But since the genetic aspect of acclimitization and high altitude performance is outside our control, maximize the potential in what we can control. Like being healthy , hydrated going into the experience and maximize your physical potential.

Perfect!

Let's not forget though that aerobic and anaerobic fitness can only benefit ones altitude performance. Doing ones best to work at and then maintain fitness in these disciplines, should be included in ones training routine.

I'm certainly not arguing that climbers shouldn't train. If you're on a guided trip or climbing with a group where you don't control the pace, your degree of training may be the only part of performance at altitude you can control (other than maintaining hydration, getting sufficient nutrition, etc.). But if you have a say in the group pace, are already pretty fit, and still find yourself struggling at altitude, the best solution might be to tell your climbing partners you need to take an extra day at 4000m (or whatever) to acclimitize.

Mr Leghorn wrote:I'm now curious as to what altitude we are talking about, if we are talking about a specific altitude? I ask because 4000 meters was mentioned, which isn't usually considered very high.

Personally, I don't think 4000m is that high since I've spent a month camped above 5000m, but.... in the medical community anything above 2700m there are finite probabilities of altitude induced ailments (AMS, HAPE, HACE) and every year medical centers near ski resorts deal with altitude induced conditions at those altitudes (but I agree with you, in reality I don't think about that since we (Mr Leghorn and I) live at that altitude.

As for altitude induced performance effects, believe me, when I moved to Flagstaff from the Bay Area I really felt it running (and when I moved here I was fairly fit as a runner whereas the group of guys I ran with from my last company, the median/average marathon time for the group was about 2:15- he was 10th at the US trials).

Looking back at the original post, it could also be a pacing thing. I once climbed Mt Washington in NH with a guy on his first climb. He made it, but his pacing was all over the place, speed up, rest, hike fast for 10 minutes rest, etc.
Having climbed a bit, I can now settle into a "hike all day" pace pretty easily, I never thought of it as a "skill", but guess it really is.

CClaude wrote:As for altitude induced performance effects, believe me, when I moved to Flagstaff from the Bay Area I really felt it running (and when I moved here I was fairly fit as a runner whereas the group of guys I ran with from my last company, the median/average marathon time for the group was about 2:15- he was 10th at the US trials).

The average marathon for your company running group was 2:15? That means that if anyone in the group was over 2:15 there were people under 2:15 to make up for it. Unless the group size was one or your company has lots of employees who are sponsored athletes permit me to be slightly skeptical (or very impressed). There was one guy in the running group at my company (then about 50,000, now about 100,000 people) who ran a 2:20 (I thought he ran 1 2:13 in SF one year but can't find the record online) but after making the Olympic trials several times he left to focus on training/running a training company. Even for a company this size we'd be hard pressed to field a team with more than one person running 2:15s.

It depended on who got out but often there were 3 or 4 of us. Alex was the average marathoner in the group on some days, and other days he was the fast guy. There was a guy at the company next door who was the US National Champion at the marathon next door and the other guy in the group was more of an adventure racer but would joke to be on his team you'd have to beat his girlfriend in a 1500m (although she was 4th at the Olympic trials at the distance). I was the slow one of the group. We used to joke that we should have participated in the Corporate Cup series. Funny thing was they never talked about what they were doing, and the only reason I ever found out about anything was because of another guy who was intimidated about running with the group (and we would have to really coax to come out with us) would always feed me little soundbites. Personally I could have cared less except they were fun guys to run with.

But I speak like an old guy now since I permenantly messed up my left knee and can't run anymore (although I ski, climb, mtn bike and just about everything else).

When you look at the Ethiopians who train in Flagstaff, you understand that 2:15 is good but really mediocre in the large scheme of things nowadays. Those guys really move and are amazing to watch run.