REF-971 · Chapman et al., 2014 · Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Defining the "dose" of altitude training: how high to live for optimal sea level performance enhancement

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on highly trained athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

The authors hypothesised that athletes living higher would improve sea-level performance more, through greater haematological acclimatisation. 48 collegiate distance runners first trained and were tested together at sea level for 4 wk, then were randomised among four living altitudes while training as one group on a modified live high-train low model.

Only the two middle-altitude groups improved sea-level 3,000-m time-trial performance significantly; erythrocyte volume increased in every group, with no difference between groups. The authors conclude that a 4-wk live high-train low camp has a target living altitude of 2,000-2,500 m.

Participants

n=48 collegiate distance runners (32 men, 16 women), randomly assigned to one of four living altitudes.

Protocol

4 wk of group sea-level training and testing first.
Living altitude: 1,780, 2,085, 2,454 m or 2,800 m; daily training was shared by everyone at one common altitude in the 1,250-3,000 m range (modified live high-train low).
Sea-level testing before and after the altitude period covered haematological, metabolic and performance measures; EPO was sampled at several time points during the altitude stay.

Key Results

3,000-m time trial on return: significantly improved in the groups living at 2,085 and 2,454 m, but not in the groups living at 1,780 and 2,800 m.
EPO: rose significantly in every group at 24 and 48 h; in the 1,780-m group it had returned to the sea-level baseline by 72 h.
Erythrocyte volume: significantly higher within all groups after return, and not different between groups.

Practical Application

In 48 collegiate distance runners randomised to live at 1,780, 2,085, 2,454 or 2,800 m for a 4-wk live high-train low camp, sea-level 3,000-m time-trial performance improved only in the two middle groups (2,085 and 2,454 m), although erythrocyte volume rose in all four. To "how high should I live at an altitude camp?": this trial points to between 2,000 and 2,500 m; higher was not better.
Red-cell volume did not explain the result: it rose at every altitude and did not differ between groups, so the highest group gained blood without gaining performance. The abstract does not say why.
Inference, not tested here: a camp base well below 2,000 m or near 3,000 m is a weaker choice for a sea-level goal than one in the 2,000-2,500 m band.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: iron status is checked before any altitude block (SYNTH-06; REF-969).

Limitations

No sea-level control group: a training-camp effect cannot be separated from the altitude effect.
The abstract reports within-group significance, not a between-group comparison, and gives no effect sizes or times.
Group size per altitude and any dropouts are not stated in the abstract.
Collegiate runners, one camp length (4 wk), one model (live high-train low).
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

randomised, n=48 across four arms; no sea-level control group and the abstract reports within-group changes