Tuesday, April 15, 2014

810 ft of elevation vs. 3,020 ft...does it make a difference?

Maybe it's the miles to kilometers conversion or the jet lag, but my pace has been slower here in Bangalore, India. It's likely the altitude...but how much should an extra 2,200 feet make?

Mason, Ohio (just north of Cincinnati) sits at 810 feet above sea level. Bangalore? 3,020 ft.

Joe Friel's article on Altitude and Aerobic Performance includes the following chart showing results of two studies and how aerobic power decreases at different altitudes:


So at roughly 1000 feet above sea level in Mason, my aerobic capacity is basically 100% since I'm acclimated to that elevation.

In Bangalore, I'm not acclimated (shoot, I barely know what time of day it is!), so at best the chart says I'm at 95% capacity.

If I do my math correctly, a 7:00 mile in Mason immediately becomes a 7:20 mile in Bangalore given the same effort.

Let's test it out. On Sunday, April 27, I'm running a 10K (first race outside the U.S.). I don't see many people running in this area, so I'm curious to see if I can hang with the fast runners. A few recent tempo runs have been around 6:45 pace, so I guess my time should be around 7:04 pace (assuming I give the same effort as my tempo runs).

However, how acclimated will I be after three weeks? Will it be enough to move me to the "acclimated" column? In which case, my pace should be closer to 6:56.

We'll see how it goes.

No comments:

Post a Comment