training mask (high altitude simulation training)

Originally posted by TriMyBest

It's a waste of time and money.

 

Originally posted by gsmacleod



x2

And you would look silly.

Shane

Originally posted by TJHammer

Been around these in MMA, they sponsor so many MMA athletes that people jumped all over the bandwagon. All they do is restrict total air intake, they do not impact % Oxygen IN THAT AIR; which would be actual altitude training. One can do that by breathing through a straw or few bucks for a snorkel.
Only thing that does that genuinely is via a hypoxic generator and mask.

Originally posted by tlancer23 It is true, the oxygen content stays approximately 20.9%, however, the air volume is significantly reduced as intake is restricted, resulting in reduced oxygen available to the respiratory system. It causes your body to experience hypoxia more easily, just as training at altitude. Or you can constantly train in zone 4 for the same effect but then you will likely hit LT before hypoxia. Wearing the mask is more comfortable than training with a straw in your nose. It costs some $50, whether that is a lot of money is purely subjective but I have very little triathlon equipment that costs less. In response to the OP, I have one and I like it. I don't have Vo2 Max before/ after data but I can't see how it can hurt. There are multiple elevation settings; when I first got it, I would feel dizzy at rest with the 9,000' setting and I have worked my way up to 18,000' in training- though I do get headaches for workouts longer than an hour. If nothing else, it has conditioned me to take deeper, fuller breaths... which is critical when racing at altitude, or any altitude for that matter. I don't feel abnormal when I go up to Tahoe (7,000' gain) to train. I would recommend it for any training goal. There are many dissenting opinions out there on it, most of those opinions appear to be based on speculation rather than experience.

Originally posted by TriMyBest

 

eta: BTW, this isn't my speculation.  This is SCIENCE and not some marketing BS!

 

Originally posted by TriMyBest

By increasing resistance to diaphragm movement, the amount of oxygen available to the respiratory system isn't reduced, because these masks do not change the partial pressure of oxygen.  Without a reduction in partial oxygen pressure, in healthy individuals, the performance limiter is primarily biochemical (how efficiently the body can utilize the available oxygen to generate ATP to fuel the muscles), not biomechanical (how strong the muscles are, nor how much air you can get into your lungs).

It can hurt, because it can theoretically limit the performance that can be achieved during training, resulting in less training stress accumulated, and consequently a smaller training effect (smaller fitness gains), compared to unrestricted training.  In other words, it's creating an artificial limiter to performance separate from the limiters that need to be stressed to improve performance the most.

eta: BTW, this isn't my speculation.  This is experience.

 

Originally posted by tlancer23 I am I wrong for assuming you haven't trained with a training mask? I do not expect an increase in RBCs like actual elevation training. Nor do I recommend it for every work out because you'll never optimize or develop LT with such a breathing restriction. But I do expect improved lung capacity, improved diaphragm strength, and oxygen absorption. After a few months of use, I would argue it does that much... areas I didn't condition through regular HITT or tempos. Bottom line is whether it improves performance. I'm sure it isn't a substantial gain but I don't think research exists to prove it doesn't improve performance.

Originally posted by Fred D
Powercranks

Originally posted by Fred D

I won't delve too deep into the quackery that this mask is, but I am fascinated with the argument that one can't be critical of something if one hasn't tried it. *I* mean, there are lots of things that sound incredibly stupid, and thus I don't try them.

For instance, *I* believe it is incredibly foolish to jump out of a moving car on the freeway. I have never done this (and yes, some people undoubtedly have), but I feel safe in commenting on the foolishness of the activity, despite having no personal experience with it.

Other things I haven't done, but feel safe in commenting against are as follows:

1. Riding my bike into oncoming traffic with my eyes closed.
2. Jumping into a lion's Den, and yelling 'SURPRISE'
3. Drinking paint thinner.
4. Powercranks.

 

So, I'm not equating my points to 'THE MASK", rather trying to make the argument that it *might* be ok to have opinion for or against something without having used the item or done the activity ;-)

Originally posted by TriMyBest

No, you're correct in assuming that I haven't used one.  As Fred said, I don't need to use it to know that it's snake oil.  I only need to have a basic understanding of endurance sports physiology.

I'm not even going to debate the adaptations that you state that occur from using one.  Instead, I'm going back to my original point that even if those adaptations do occur (and that is debatable), it's irrelevant, because none of those limit performance in healthy endurance athletes.

Let's look at is using one of my favorite analogies for athletic performance:  Cars.  Your theory is akin to putting a larger air intake on a car's engine to increase horsepower when it already provides more air than needed to burn the fuel available based on the capacity of the fuel pump, fuel line diameter, fuel injection system, and combustion chamber volume.  The power output is limited by those variables, not available air.

Again, athletic performance is not limited by lung volume, diaphragm strength, or oxygen absorption in the lungs.  It's limited by aerobic capacity (the body's ability to process oxygen through the krebs cycle and deliver ATP to the working muscles).  There's a reason that power (or pace) at lactate threshold is the best indicator of endurance fitness, and not lung capacity, diaphragm strength, or O2 absorption rates.  It's because that's the performance limiter.

 

Originally posted by Leegoocrap



Nothing to add... just happy that this isn't forgotten

Originally posted by tlancer23 I am afraid you misunderstood me. I never said someone couldn't be critical of it, I stated that those that are critical typically have never tried it. It's a free country; every person has a right to be critical of anything of their choosing... though I would encourage anyone to at least try it out for themselves before condemning it. Experience matters. I think you have to agree that an opinion tends to have more validity if they have actually experienced that which they criticize or support? I wouldn't receive marriage advice from a single man the same I would from someone that has actually been married. 

Comparing wearing a training mask to a near death experience is a bit unfair... here is a better example: many professionals warn against the actual health benefits (see link below) of endurance training and racing but we do it anyway, don't we? So you are willing to accept all of these risks with racing, plus the stress on your personal relationships and wallet, yet unwilling to blow a couple bucks to see if it makes you feel or perform better? http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/how-running-a-marathon-can-s...

So, I'm not equating my points to 'THE MASK"

Originally posted by brigby1

You are misunderstanding his point. You are asking people to only look at their own experience, ignoring that of the entire rest of the world. The others (Don, Fred, etc) are looking at collective experience of people besides themselves. This collective set will vastly outnumber the individual. This is part of where the theories being explained are coming from. By using such information one is able to concentrate their efforts on things with a much higher probability of working. It's simply not necessary for every individual to start entirely from scratch because while there are differences between people they are still much more alike and various theories usually only need to be tweaked for each one instead of built from the ground up countless times.

You misunderstand the point here too. He is not actually equating any of those situations to this. And he specifically said as much, taken from his post:

He ramped it way up like that to help emphasize the earlier point about using the experiences of others. You are not going to "try it" in any of those things in the list. You go with the collective experience of others to realize it's not a good idea. The risk factor doesn't have to be nearly so high for this to be helpful. You could try painting your bike in all various types of colors in the hopes that one will give loads of free speed over the other combinations, or go with the collective experience of others that it doesn't really matter (because it's obvious red is the fastest).

Originally posted by tlancer23 You are putting words into my mouth. I haven't asked anyone to ignore anything. You are free to ignore my experience with the product. I don't recall asking anyone to do anything other than to open their minds to trying the mask. My position is that I think anyone that has trained with this would appreciate it. I think the use of 'collective experience' in this example is a bit loose because nobody has pointed to an actual experience with the training mask, instead, seem to have made individual assumptions- though I'm sure considerable knowledge is being applied. I don't think collective experience is necessarily better than experiencing it yourself, you will be hard-pressed to persuade me to think differently. Even theories don't quite simplify or fully explain many facets of our complex life... especially when applying them to an little-known product. When I purchased my training mask, I used my own collective experience then combined it with actual experience to formulate my opinion. Sometimes you just have to conclude for yourself. I'm not afraid to question what others say. If you are making your conclusions without ever trying on a training mask, you can make an educated guess but you will never truly know if it benefits you or anyone. If painting my bike red motivates me to train harder, makes me believe I am faster, or what if this red paint is lighter in weight than the original paint, which the collective experience hadn't considered? Then it resoundingly does make me faster. Our reality is constructed entirely by our perceptions. If you think I am missing everyone's point, then you are justly right. If I am using the wrong approach or not changing anyone's position on the value of the training mask or of experiential learning, no problems here. This is simply a respectful, voluntary discussion. Here's a few of the links I found of others that have appeared to have tried this training mask, that wasn't somehow associated to the sale of the mask. There weren't many, most reviews are posted by retailers. Both generally feel that comparing the mask to actual altitude training is false but do validate it's usefulness. I only found one article with a negative take on it (in which, again, it is not clear whether the author ever actually wore one), which the author based his views by claiming that training at actual altitude is not beneficial... explain that to the Ethiopia marathon team and the USOC. Was the Synergy word found on www.trainingmask.com? I didn't see it there. http://www.boxlifemagazine.com/training/high-altitude-training-mask... http://breakingmuscle.com/strength-conditioning/training-masks-idea...

Originally posted by tlancer23

But I do expect improved lung capacity, improved diaphragm strength, and oxygen absorption.

I'm sure it isn't a substantial gain but I don't think research exists to prove it doesn't improve performance.

Originally posted by Fred D

Powercranks got more responses than jumping into a Lion's Den and yelling "SURPRISE".

Powercranks really are amazing!  ;-)

Originally posted by tlancer23



It is true, the oxygen content stays approximately 20.9%, however, the air volume is significantly reduced as intake is restricted, resulting in reduced oxygen available to the respiratory system. It causes your body to experience hypoxia more easily, just as training at altitude. Or you can constantly train in zone 4 for the same effect but then you will likely hit LT before hypoxia. Wearing the mask is more comfortable than training with a straw in your nose. It costs some $50, whether that is a lot of money is purely subjective but I have very little triathlon equipment that costs less.

In response to the OP, I have one and I like it. I don't have Vo2 Max before/ after data but I can't see how it can hurt. There are multiple elevation settings; when I first got it, I would feel dizzy at rest with the 9,000' setting and I have worked my way up to 18,000' in training- though I do get headaches for workouts longer than an hour. If nothing else, it has conditioned me to take deeper, fuller breaths... which is critical when racing at altitude, or any altitude for that matter. I don't feel abnormal when I go up to Tahoe (7,000' gain) to train. I would recommend it for any training goal. There are many dissenting opinions out there on it, most of those opinions appear to be based on speculation rather than experience.

Originally posted by Billyk

I actually did my Thesis researching such a device with cyclist. End result, no significant difference.