snoopdhani wrote:i also read a lot of that guys links and lot of the studies seemed to say that it did not affect performance at sea-level....but that is not what we are talking about...we are talking about being at altitude and it seems that is where it works.

+1

There was a time when marathoners would run in Denver, with the theory that it would help when they went to sea level; but none of those who trained at high altitude seemed to do better in races near sea level. The theory then was that the blood got more viscous after high altitude training.

When I lived in Albuquerque, there were East African runners who would train by running above 9000' on Sandia Crest. Their argument was that they could run a shorter time each day, and lessen the chance of tendon injury.

I have absolutely no doubt that when I go to altitude locally (10k' to 12k') twice a week in the summer, I'm better prepared for days in the Sierra at 14k', than when I just train intensely at 3K'.

bird wrote:Gotta go with Midwest. The original question was pretty clear and Brian's answer was exactly what the OP asked for. And seems pretty cut and dry, at least in Brian's case.
Fort's original case study of 3hrs doesn't seem to apply. And the laundry list appears to have some positive and negative cases so provides little value.
And this study suggests the tent would have benefits... http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol24/levine2.htm
+1 Brian.

Agree with Bird

Fort, best I can tell is everything you've dug up suggests the scientific data is inconclusive, and the military says no study has been conducted that measured performance in hypobaric environments after normobaric training.

I can tell you that units in the military are using Hypoxico tents, today. They have their scientists, and they have their pragmatists, the operators.

A friend of mine used the apparatus in question when preparing for the US crosscountry championships a few years back. Race ran at 11 to 13,000 feet that year in CO. He couldn't escape sea level til 36 hours before the race. It's anecdotal, but he felt the system worked quite well. Better aclimitized than previous experiences when showing up to high altitude venue one week ahead of time.

Even if it's only the placebo effect, it 'works' for some people, no doubt.

I just chain smoke and sleep with a plastic bag over my head for the cheap version.

Fort, again you find a study that has little relation to the way climbers and other athletes use hypoxic tents to pre-acclimitize.

It's well understood that to TRAIN for increased performance, sea level is best.

The question is prolonged, intermittant rest periods in the hypoxic environment and acclimitization.

Cyclists headed to the Tour, runners headed high, SpecOps headed up high, and alpinists aren't TRAINING in these tents, they are sleeping in them. Find that study for us.

FortMental wrote:I know, I know.... none of the guys in this study spent 12 hrs a day, for 60 days in their tent. Wait, that's 720 hours. 30 days in a high altitude bed for $7000? For that kind of money I'd have taken a couple of strippers and a keg to the summit of Orizaba. But that's just me.

http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=hypoxi ... ent&_rdc=1
You can get one on ebay for $4,350. One of the strippers will have to stay in Tlachichuca.

bird wrote:You can get one on ebay for $4,350.

When I first read that, I thought you meant a stripper!

Although I have no idea if the tents work or not, I would rather spend the $4000 spending more time in the mountains, which will do a hell of a lot more to help performance than the hypoxic tent.

FortMental wrote:
CONCLUSIONS: One week of IHE combined with exercise training does not improve endurance performance at a 4300-m altitude in male lowlanders.

I wonder what this means for the people who insist on sleeping "at altitude" the night before they go to 14k'?

I wonder what it means for previous high altitude condition in general?

I know many a climbers who have heard use these tents. FOF.