Nutrition and Altitude: Strategies to Enhance Adaptation, Improve Performance and Maintain Health: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training at low to moderate altitudes (~ 1600-2400 m) is a common approach used by endurance athletes to provide a distinctive environmental stressor to augment training stimulus in the anticipation of increasing subsequent altitude- and sea-level-based performance. Despite some scientific progress being made on the impact of various nutrition-related changes in physiology and associated interventions at mountaineering altitudes (> 3000 m), the impact of nutrition and/or supplements on further optimization of these hypoxic adaptations at low-moderate altitudes is only an emerging topic. Within this narrative review we have highlighted six major themes involving nutrition: altered energy availability, iron, carbohydrate, hydration, antioxidant requirements and various performance supplements. Of these issues, emerging data suggest that particular attention be given to the potential risk for poor energy availability and increased iron requirements at the altitudes typical of elite athlete training (~ 1600-2400 m) to interfere with optimal adaptations. Furthermore, the safest way to address the possible increase in oxidative stress associated with altitude exposure is via the consumption of antioxidant-rich foods rather than high-dose antioxidant supplements. Meanwhile, many other important questions regarding nutrition and altitude training remain to be answered. At the elite level of sport where the differences between winning and losing are incredibly small, the strategic use of nutritional interventions to enhance the adaptations to altitude training provides an important consideration in the search for optimal performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".