Hypoxic dose, intensity distribution, and fatigue monitoring are paramount for “live high-train low” effectiveness

Excerpt

We read with attention the article by Bejder et al. (2017). While we acknowledge the good intent of the authors to carefully follow scientific gold-standard design of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial, we were disappointed that the general recommendations (i.e., >12 h day⁻¹ at simulated altitude ranging 2000–2500 m for 3–4 weeks) for “live high-train low” (LHTL) altitude strategy (Chapman et al. 2014) were not respected. Subsequently, one may have been surprised to observe any LHTL putative effects. Even though Bejder et al. (2017) extensively discuss several potential limitations (see Methodological considerations section), several other boundaries (i.e., unsuitable hypoxic dose, normobaric hypoxic tent discomfort, inadequate training intensity distribution) may have, alone or in combination, altered the outcomes of their study. …