Hypoxy (high altitude) training

[highnote]

I got an email today from a handicapper suggesting that "hypoxy training" should be something handicappers should be aware of and that it should be disclosed to the public. He suggested this is something HANA could get behind. I agree.

Here is what he wrote:

A certain number of trainers are using high-altitude simulation (hypoxy training) by keeping their horses in low-oxygen stalls.
This makes a huge difference in performance, and 6 months living in such a stall will significantly improve he oxygen carrying of a horse.
Such info should be disclosed. There should be a lasix-like X next to a horse that is being trained this way, and the all-important length of time spent in such training, is absolutely necessary for a handicapper to know.
Mine that Bird did it the natural way, by shipping "down" from 6,500 feet in New Mex to win the 2009 Kentucky Derby at 50-1.

[turninforhome10]

Keep track of the runners that disperse after Arapahoe meet ends. Only time I ever hit a true 99-1 shot when a horse with dismal Arapahoe form shipped into Columbus Park and won going away. He was exactly 1 week out of the altitude.
His next race after acclimating, last beaten many.

[BettinBilly]

The professional "Human" athletes I deal with (I'm a Race Director in another Sport) all train in Colorado Springs at the Olympic Training Center. Obviously it does make a difference training at altitude. I remember spending a few weeks in Colorado Springs for a meeting and went out for a 2 mile run every morning, and a 1 mile swim every evening. Much harder than sea level, but I was able to do it. Then I went to Breckenridge for a vacation. Crap, I was barely able to run 1 mile the first day. That extra elevation from Colorado Springs to Breckenridge killed me. But for a week I struggled through a 1 to 2 mile run and a 1/2 mile swim. From there I flew to Florida and could not believe my endurance. 2 miles felt much easier. For a few days anyway. Then I noticed the edge wearing off. Since I only had 3 weeks of altitude training, my red blood cell elevation was not as significant as those living there.

Regarding the horses, keeping them in low Oxy stalls is ridiculous. That's manufactured blood doping as far as I'm concerned. I'd have little objection if a stable was located at high altitude like Colorado and they trained horses there. C'est La Vie. If you can afford that kind of training, and transport to tracks from there, go for it. But it does not last. The Cardiopulmonary system adjusts to higher oxy levels at low altitude fairly quickly and the elevated red blood cell count diminishes. They may get one race boost out of it. But putting race horses in low Oxy stalls? Ridiculous. That's blood doping plain and simple. Somebody has to regulate our sport.

[turninforhome10]

The professional "Human" athletes I deal with (I'm a Race Director in another Sport) all train in Colorado Springs at the Olympic Training Center. Obviously it does make a difference training at altitude. I remember spending a few weeks in Colorado Springs for a meeting and went out for a 2 mile run every morning, and a 1 mile swim every evening. Much harder than sea level, but I was able to do it. Then I went to Breckenridge for a vacation. Crap, I was barely able to run 1 mile the first day. That extra elevation from Colorado Springs to Breckenridge killed me. But for a week I struggled through a 1 to 2 mile run and a 1/2 mile swim. From there I flew to Florida and could not believe my endurance. 2 miles felt much easier. For a few days anyway. Then I noticed the edge wearing off. Since I only had 3 weeks of altitude training, my red blood cell elevation was not as significant as those living there.

Regarding the horses, keeping them in low Oxy stalls is ridiculous. That's manufactured blood doping as far as I'm concerned. I'd have little objection if a stable was located at high altitude like Colorado and they trained horses there. C'est La Vie. If you can afford that kind of training, and transport to tracks from there, go for it. But it does not last. The Cardiopulmonary system adjusts to higher oxy levels at low altitude fairly quickly and the elevated red blood cell count diminishes. They may get one race boost out of it. But putting race horses in low Oxy stalls? Ridiculous. That's blood doping plain and simple. Somebody has to regulate our sport.

So would a unfit horse gain any advantage by trying to get fit in the altitude or would it be more advantageous to have a horse that is semi fit train in the altitude. I would think that getting a horse fit in the altitude could be fraught with metabolic issues and you would have to do something to prevent respiratory alkalosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_alkalosis. True Mr. Billy?

[highnote]

More from my racing friend:

The hyperbaric chamber is using high doses of oxygen, suddenly, very dangerous.

On the other hand, the high altitude stable stalls are doing exactly the opposite, depleting the oxygen as if the horse were living and breathing at a high altitude. Contrary to the the hyperbaric, the second system is very gradual, and it works, with no danger whatsoever.
The fact that it is so unknown is precisely because those trainers who are using it want to keep it a secret.

[Milkshaker]

Although I am generally an advocate for disclosure, allow me to be the devil's advocate against wanting every last detail made public to horseplayers.

Here's a factor that has far more of an everyday impact on how horses perform (compared to than the small percentage of trainers who use low-oxy stalls). Should this too not be disclosed?:

Trainer A feeds his horses high-quality, balanced nutrient-rich meals and best-he-can-get fresh organic hay.

Trainer B feeds the cheapest bags of grain that the feed guy has on the truck and tries to stretch every bag to make it last; he offers moldy, dusty hay (if at all) that could pass as bedding in Trainer A's stalls.

Betcha you could make more money at the windows knowing feed quality in every barn than knowing about the oxy levels in stalls.

[highnote]

Although I am generally an advocate for disclosure, allow me to be the devil's advocate against wanting every last detail made public to horseplayers.

Here's a factor that has far more of an everyday impact on how horses perform (compared to than the small percentage of trainers who use low-oxy stalls). Should this too not be disclosed?:

Trainer A feeds his horses high-quality, balanced nutrient-rich meals and best-he-can-get fresh organic hay.

Trainer B feeds the cheapest bags of grain that the feed guy has on the truck and tries to stretch every bag to make it last; he offers moldy, dusty hay (if at all) that could pass as bedding in Trainer A's stalls.

Betcha you could make more money at the windows knowing feed quality in every barn than knowing about the oxy levels in stalls.

Low-oxy stalls and poor nutrition could both affect performance.

The main difference that I see is that poor nutrition has been a factor since the beginning of racing. Low-oxy stalls are relatively new.

I'm not sure if having access to superior technology is too much of an advantage or is it similar to trainers who use racing flats versus those who use mud caulks?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It's always something. I'm assuming that the "low oxygen" stalls are only available in private stables, and not at a racetrack?

Something tells me this would be frowned upon in Hong Kong - or at at least reported on, like so much of the other equipment and workouts.

[BettinBilly]

So would a unfit horse gain any advantage by trying to get fit in the altitude or would it be more advantageous to have a horse that is semi fit train in the altitude. I would think that getting a horse fit in the altitude could be fraught with metabolic issues and you would have to do something to prevent respiratory alkalosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_alkalosis. True Mr. Billy?

Yes. Correct. It's algorithmic. You have to take into account current athletic condition, metabolic rates, general health, Cardiopulmonary efficiency, diet and genetics and TIME. Then you plug in training at altitude.

Theoretically, you can't take a weak, out of shape athlete, put him at altitude for a few weeks, and expect dramatically different results VS training at sea level. However, if you took your theoretical unfit horse, assume he's got decent Cardiopulmonary and general overall health, and he can respond to training - THEN, yes, if you put him at altitude for long term extended training, his endurance should be better than if you trained him at sea level.

It's not a simple formula, but 99 percent of coaches and trainers I talk to re: their athletes see differences with athletes training at altitude. They've been doing it for endurance races like "Tour De France" for a very long time. I even remember in the late 60's hearing about blood doping where athletes would train at high altitude for months, then have blood drawn in quantity. Then before a big race at normal altitudes, they'd transfuse in the high altitude blood.

Again, keeping horses in low Oxy stalls is blood doping plain and simple. It's not a NATURAL occurrence from training, it's manufactured.

[DJofSD]

BettingBilly, I appreciate the straightforward, clear and concise prose.

In the past, I had different activities which found me on top of mountains. The most strenuous was XC skiing. I often wondered, does the reduced pressure of the atmosphere have any part of the change to body's adjustment to the altitude and the changes to the blood chemistry as a response to the altitude?

Also, I learned there was a personal altitude limit which was in two steps. First, as long as I was not higher than about 5,000 feet above sea level, I could enjoy the outing without any concern for the effects of the altitude. Above 5-6,000 feet I could feel the effects if there was not any adjustment period of multiple hours at altitude. However, if there was an overnight at a high enough altitude, the next day the effects I might experience otherwise were not present. Finally, above 10,000, I always experienced altitude sickness.

Given my own personal "metrics" I wonder if some horses might need something different in the low oxygen stalls. Each horse would be different and some might need a greater reduction in oxygen before the red cell count is increased enough.

[BettinBilly]

That's an excellent question, DJ.

The answer is not so easy. While some athletes "May" benefit from even "higher" altitude, again, it's algorithmic in nature because of the many factors involved. The Higher the altitude, the longer it takes to adapt. You need more red blood cells carrying the oxygen at 8,000 feet than you do at 4,000 and at a critical point you can get "tipping" where your body can't produce them fast enough. You just can't seem to acclimate. There is a point of diminishing returns. Above safe threshold is one - generally regarded as 10,000 feet. You can't put an athlete at 8,500 feet and expect him to respond with amazing endurance quickly. Most likely you will get mild altitude sickness, possible joint pain, muscle cramps and a general malaise that he can't shake off. Watch buff mountain climbers whom just don't care to even get out of their sleeping bag to attempt a summit.

This is why our Olympic Training Center is in Colorado Springs. At just over 6,000 feet it's ideal. You can acclimate quickly, yet your body is taxed to produce extra red blood cells under strain without Hypoxia. If Breckenridge would have been better, I suspect the Olympic Committee would have built there, but at just under 10,000 feet, many feel the effects of Hypoxia and do not perform well, especially within the first week or so. So again, it's a point of diminishing returns. How much is too much for red blood cell saturation and what is the absolute limit? I don't think it's ever been nailed down and most likely would differ between anatomy of the subjects, but anything over 5,000 feet seems to adequately build the endurance levels to a point beyond sea level fairly quickly and efficiently without risk. While the same athlete "May" benefit more from training at 8,500 feet rather than 5,000 ft, it is subjective and the difference in performance at sea level may be minimal and would not be worth the risk of altitude sickness.

[chadk66]

Although I am generally an advocate for disclosure, allow me to be the devil's advocate against wanting every last detail made public to horseplayers.

Here's a factor that has far more of an everyday impact on how horses perform (compared to than the small percentage of trainers who use low-oxy stalls). Should this too not be disclosed?:

Trainer A feeds his horses high-quality, balanced nutrient-rich meals and best-he-can-get fresh organic hay.

Trainer B feeds the cheapest bags of grain that the feed guy has on the truck and tries to stretch every bag to make it last; he offers moldy, dusty hay (if at all) that could pass as bedding in Trainer A's stalls.

Betcha you could make more money at the windows knowing feed quality in every barn than knowing about the oxy levels in stalls.this:ThmbUp:some trainers could train on the moon and come back to earth and still get beat:cool:

[Jeff P]

The problem isn't Low Oxygen Stalls.

The problem is far more widespread than that. I could probably make the argument that it's become widely accepted best practice in North American thoroughbred racing to hide nearly everything that relates to the condition of the horse from the bettor.

I could also make the argument that full transparency of veterinary procedures performed on a horse would go a long way towards improving public perception of North American horse racing when it comes to integrity. I could also make the argument that the current culture of non transparency (lack of integrity) is a contributing factor when it comes to racing's downward handle trend.

That said, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. The Hong Kong Jockey Club has a pretty good info model when it comes to transparency.

I wrote the following for the HANA site:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hkjcmodel.html

The Hong Kong Jockey Club - An info model based on Transparency

The Hong Kong Jockey Club website contains a wealth of information. Navigate to the site at http://www.hkjc.com/home/english/ and click Horse Racing.

On race days, select Racing Info (Local) and then click on Entries.

From there, click on an entry to see past performance running line info for that entry.

Link to screenshot: Here. (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hkjc01.jpg)

I was impressed to discover that their running line info includes:

* Declared Weight of Horse

* Free Race Replays (including the gallop out)

I was also impressed to discover that each entry also includes a link labeled Veterinary Records.

Click the Veterinary Records to see a list of problems the horse has been treated for.

Link to screenshot: Here. (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hkjc02.jpg) And: Here. (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hkjc03.jpg)

Instead of hiding information from the bettor, as is common practice in North American thoroughbred racing, the Hong Kong Jockey Club is making information that relates to the condition of the horse available to bettors.

Transparency. What a novel idea.

Jeff Platt
President, HANA





-jp

.

[BettinBilly]

this:ThmbUp:some trainers could train on the moon and come back to earth and still get beat:cool:

Now THAT'S funny. Thanks for the grin. :) :ThmbUp:

[chadk66]

Now THAT'S funny. Thanks for the grin. :) :ThmbUp:
:ThmbUp: