Review of Athletic Guidelines for High-Altitude Training and Acclimatization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ramchandani, Rashi, Ioana Tereza Florica, Zier Zhou, Aziz Alemi, and Adrian Baranchuk. Review of athletic guidelines for high-altitude training and acclimatization. High Alt Med Biol. 00:000–000, 2024. Introduction:Exposure to high altitude results in hypobaric hypoxia with physiological acclimatization changes that are thought to influence athletic performance. This review summarizes existing literature regarding implications of high-altitude training and altitude-related guidelines from major governing bodies of sports. Methods:A nonsystematic review was performed using PubMed and OVID Medline to identify articles regarding altitude training and guidelines from international governing bodies of various sports. Sports inherently involving training or competing at high altitude were excluded. Results:Important physiological compensatory mechanisms to high-altitude environments include elevations in blood pressure, heart rate, red blood cell mass, tidal volume, and respiratory rate. These responses can have varying effects on athletic performance. Governing sport bodies have limited and differing regulations for training and competition at high altitudes with recommended acclimatization periods ranging from 3 days to 3 weeks. Discussion:Physiological changes in response to high terrestrial altitude exposure can have substantial impacts on athletic performance. Major sport governing bodies have limited regulations and recommendations regarding altitude training and competition. Existing guidelines are variable and lack substantial evidence to support recommendations. Additional studies are needed to clarify the implications of high-altitude exposure on athletic ability to optimize training and competition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".