I was in pain during the whole thing, I am in pain now and I love every second of it.
I set the mask to 9000 feet above sea level, because moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess..
Figured I would start a thread since I searched and did not find anything about it on here. I PM’d WillBrink and he didn’t object so I gave it a whirl.
From what I have read through the interwebz it does not actually simulate working out at higher elevation like it advertises. It does give your lungs/diaphragm a workout though, which is essentially what I was looking for.
The reviews I have read from people who have used these masks for months all point to faster cardio/endurance development which produces faster mile times and longer workouts without it.
Of course your experience may vary. You do sound like darth vader though and you can’t do shallow quick breaths, they have to guttural deep breaths or else you don’t get any air through the mask.
None… You can’t replicate altitude training without reducing atmospheric pressure. The percentage of oxygen in the air you breath is constant at different altitudes. Atmospheric pressure is lower at higher altitudes and this decreases the “driving” pressure needed for your lungs to exchange gas.
“Work” for what would be the Q. There’s been a number of studies with conflicting findings due to a wide range of protocols used. Some studies suggest benefit in a number of areas, such as V02 max and other outcomes. More studies are needed, but I’d put it in the “worth a try” category.
Quite a bit doesn’t mean it’s reliable. I’ll bet that the majority, if not all, of the literature that leans pro was commissioned by the manufacturer of the masks or someone who had a financial interest in its success.
I do know the original mask was developed by Victor Conte of BALCO fame. That should be enough for anyone to be very skeptical of it. If these masks had even modest potential for improved athletic performance, everyone and their proverbial brother would be using them. At best, this mask would only help elite athletes at sprint distances. I find it as corny as the “Built with Chocolate Milk” nonsense permeating TV land as we speak. Unless your battling for tenths of a second, your average man on the street needs nothing more than high quality food in the proper amounts and a strength/cardio workout tailored to his fitness aspirations to reach peak performance.
So then just disregard the first hand reviews of people putting down faster times in their distance runs or stating they feel that their endurance has increased?
Everyone loves scientifically backed data, no argument there. I can say that I gave it a try because I would consider myself in good cardio shape and wouldnt mind making my workouts more difficult.
Half the studies I read said there is nothing supporting its use and the other half say the opposite. Only one way to figure out for myself…
I would think there would be some benefit. I grew up with asthma and had to do a ton of breathing exercises as part of my care. Pushing past my comfort level seemed to expand the point where it got uncomfortable over time. I eventually grew out of or conditioned out of it.
The correct term would anecdotal. If you’re going to throw terms around to be condescending to sound like the smartest guy in the room, use the correct term at least. Anecdotal evidence does not trump data to be sure.
A recent review paper covering different protocols and failures to show performance benefits, etc of hypoxic training, which is a more accurate term than elevation. You might follow what appears to be the more effective protocols per this paper:
Review:Advancing hypoxic training in team sports: from intermittent hypoxic training to repeated sprint training in hypoxia
Br J Sports Med 2013;47:i45-i50 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-092741
Abstract
Over the past two decades, intermittent hypoxic training (IHT), that is, a method where athletes live at or near sea level but train under hypoxic conditions, has gained unprecedented popularity. By adding the stress of hypoxia during ‘aerobic’ or ‘anaerobic’ interval training, it is believed that IHT would potentiate greater performance improvements compared to similar training at sea level. A thorough analysis of studies including IHT, however, leads to strikingly poor benefits for sea-level performance improvement, compared to the same training method performed in normoxia. Despite the positive molecular adaptations observed after various IHT modalities, the characteristics of optimal training stimulus in hypoxia are still unclear and their functional translation in terms of whole-body performance enhancement is minimal. To overcome some of the inherent limitations of IHT (lower training stimulus due to hypoxia), recent studies have successfully investigated a new training method based on the repetition of short (<30 s) ‘all-out’ sprints with incomplete recoveries in hypoxia, the so-called repeated sprint training in hypoxia (RSH). The aims of the present review are therefore threefold: first, to summarise the main mechanisms for interval training and repeated sprint training in normoxia. Second, to critically analyse the results of the studies involving high-intensity exercises performed in hypoxia for sea-level performance enhancement by differentiating IHT and RSH. Third, to discuss the potential mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of those methods, and their inherent limitations, along with the new research avenues surrounding this topic.
A recent review paper covering different protocols and failures to show performance benefits, etc of hypoxic training, which is a more accurate term than elevation. You might follow what appears to be the more effective protocols per this paper:
Review:Advancing hypoxic training in team sports: from intermittent hypoxic training to repeated sprint training in hypoxia
Br J Sports Med 2013;47:i45-i50 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-092741
Abstract
Over the past two decades, intermittent hypoxic training (IHT), that is, a method where athletes live at or near sea level but train under hypoxic conditions, has gained unprecedented popularity. By adding the stress of hypoxia during ‘aerobic’ or ‘anaerobic’ interval training, it is believed that IHT would potentiate greater performance improvements compared to similar training at sea level. A thorough analysis of studies including IHT, however, leads to strikingly poor benefits for sea-level performance improvement, compared to the same training method performed in normoxia. Despite the positive molecular adaptations observed after various IHT modalities, the characteristics of optimal training stimulus in hypoxia are still unclear and their functional translation in terms of whole-body performance enhancement is minimal. To overcome some of the inherent limitations of IHT (lower training stimulus due to hypoxia), recent studies have successfully investigated a new training method based on the repetition of short (<30 s) ‘all-out’ sprints with incomplete recoveries in hypoxia, the so-called repeated sprint training in hypoxia (RSH). The aims of the present review are therefore threefold: first, to summarise the main mechanisms for interval training and repeated sprint training in normoxia. Second, to critically analyse the results of the studies involving high-intensity exercises performed in hypoxia for sea-level performance enhancement by differentiating IHT and RSH. Third, to discuss the potential mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of those methods, and their inherent limitations, along with the new research avenues surrounding this topic.
Not enough time in the day to research what amounts to the fitness equivalent of a financial get rich quick scheme.
Tangential yes, but nonetheless interrelated.
I used the correct phrase to illustrate the logical fallacy that the OP walked into. I’ll try and make it easy for you to understand with the following example…
All goats have beards.
Santa Claus has a beard.
Santa Claus is a goat.
He simply has no basis other than a single variable (use of the mask) to support his anecdotal evidence (not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research) of improved performance.
I tried one tossed it in the garbage 3 months later…
I saw absolutely no benefit with the device unless your goal is trying to gain consistency, from my experience you are not going to train the rockys then hit Miami and blow everyone away. Just does not work that way (for me at least)
I split my time 50-50 between Clearwater, FL (30 ft) and Flagstaff, AZ (6,910 ft) though the year and I wanted to try and simulate the high elevation at 30 ft to get a consistent workout. At 6,910 ft my lungs generally hit a wall before I reach hypertrophy, at 30 ft I hit hypertrophy rather quickly.
The mask did nothing at 30 ft but cause respiratory distress, generate headaches and in one session case nausea.