Reseach paid for/sponsored by the powerbreathe makers by any chance? Is any non-biased research done in UK universities anymore? The volume of pseudo-science being published these days is quite staggering.

Given the number of pills popped and drugs injected by the typical high-altitude athlete I suggest it will be very difficult to separate the effects of the powerbreathe from the effects of the doping arsenal. Cyclists only started using Viagra to enhance performance when climbers reported its benefits for example.

I can categorically state that eight days between 1400 and 2400m didn't make jogging at 170m even a little bit easier this morning.

Hi all,

I am a PhD student and my studies are funded by my University who had no input into the making of the Powerbreathe nor do I receive any funding from the company itself.  Powerbreathe have however donated their training devices so I can conduct my research.  Since this is a relatively new area it may be that I find evidence to show that Powerbreathe training has no benefit on performance at altitude and if that is the case, that is what I will publish and then move on to investigate other methods to aid performance such as acclimatisation.

I agree that there is a huge volume of psuedo-science babble out there.  This is mainly due to the internet and that research studies which lack credible evidence are published in newspapers and magazines.  There are however many highly regarded scientific journals out there which would not publish such information and these publications form the basis of my work.  Ethical requirements of credible research require that data is reported accurately and without bias.   

I aim to apply my research to mounatineering expeditions as opposed to athletes, although they may also benefit if I find a positive outcome from my study.  This is because there is limited research in this area as most altitude training studies focus on improving athletic performance back at sea-level.  If you will be performing exercise in any extreme environment whether it is the heat, cold or altitude you will always be at a disadvantage compared to a native or someone who has stayed in that climate for a few weeks beforehand.     

Dean, I would love to have the money to fund myself and others to go to Morezine for the purpose of research but sadly I do not even have enough funding to send a group up to Ben Nevis   We have just had a new environmental chamber installed at the university and would use that for the purpose of simulating altitude.  Not as much fun but cheaper and easier than getting people to go to altitude for the study. 

John, spending just 8 days at altitude would be unlikely to have any effect on your performance back at sea-level.  This is because the adaptation you require is an increase in red blood cells which doesn't tend to occur until at least 3-4 weeks at altitude.  This is the natural method of achieveing the same results as blood doping.  What you may have found is by day 8 of your trip you were less breathless during mild exercise at altitude as the body adapts to those heights quite quickly.

I hope this helps.  If anyone is interested in participating in the current or future studies, please message me,

Regards,

Amanda

To Old

and Ive been to 3250 several times this year.

It was a lot more than eight days in reality. The blood cell response at the altitudes I quoted (less than 2500m) is pretty small but exaggerated by athletes that use illegal methods to get to near the 50% haematocrit limit and need to justify their anomalous results. Personally I can spend most of the winter at altitude and still return 43%.

Experience of fellow athletes around here suggests that spending long enough at altitude to get much haematocrit benefit will lead to muscle wasting as you can't train as hard or recover as well when oxygen starved. Training with anything that reduces oxygen suppy to the muscles seems like a very bad idea.The whole  idea of the nitrogen tents/rooms some athletes use is to sleep in them rather than train in them.

I was serious about taking into account the drug taking habits of your study group. Expedition doctors have their victims rattling with pills before they even get to base camp.

Sorry to butt in.....John can quietly help me out here.  My knowledge is way to limited to open their tiny minds here

Sorry again, carry on

You've just proved Godwin's law to be right again Hobo.

Amanda can either take my contributions as constructive criticism or the kind of unsympathetic grilling she can expect at her viva. I expect they'll be useful to her either way.

 I am glad you feel your own posts are:

a) Useful to the OP

b) Interesting

Really - I am pleased for you, you must go to bed feeling very satisfied each and every day.

I am just saying your posts a bit self absorbed. It's my opinion - I voiced it like you felt you can voice yours - if you dont like it then that is very unfortunate.

I have stuff to say on the subject, its as interesting as yours (honestly it is) - but I dont consider it anything the OP or anyone else would be interested in, so wont post it.

I expect you will find this post useful and interesting.

Yup Dick, it's interesting that you can't resist interrupting a thread to have a pop at me whereas I just ignore the crap you write on threads unless it's directly aimed at me.

It's also interesting that you would rather post a personal attack than make an on-topic contribution even when you could. It's commonly known as trolling. Look in the mirror, when did you last make a useful contribution to any debate on here?

John Gourette wrote (see)

Reseach paid for/sponsored by the powerbreathe makers by any chance? Is any non-biased research done in UK universities anymore? The volume of pseudo-science being published these days is quite staggering.

Was this on topic? Helpful?

Yes, I am trolling. No I dont provide many useful contributions - but what you posted there (and prompted my remarks) was not helpful / constructive / on topic or really needed. You also trolled.

So John - wanna borrow my mirror?

Mirror Mirror on the wall

who is the argumentive of them all ?

It was right on topic and accurate. The powerbreathers were provided free which is a form of sponsorship. We don't know how the powerbreather people can use the results of the research but you've no doubt seen as many products vaunting themselves on the basis of (sometimes dodgy) university research as me. I really believe that there are far too many variables in such a study to objectively attribute changes in athlete performance to the powerbreather. Having been through power tests fully wired up at the hospital and observed others I also know the limits of experimental error in such tests. Then there is the psychological aspect: Tell someone they will perform better with a gadget and they probably will. A clinical trial would require a placebo.

There is a big difference between us Dick. You post then think, I generally think at least three posts ahead then make my first post.