Altitude training has been a common component of endurance training programs for the last five decades (Saunders, Pyne, & Gore, 2009). The goal of this method of training at increased altitudes is to improve endurance performance. It has been well documented that through proper acclimatization and training at elevations greater than 1,200 m there are many physiological adaptations that could correlate improved performance. A few of the adaptations are an increased production of hemoglobin and red blood cells, the body’s oxygen delivery system, increased capacity of oxygen diffusion through pulmonary membranes, and increased capilarization (Baechle & Earle, 2008). While it is common for endurance athletes to train at altitude, it is becoming more common for athletes to train at low elevations while they live and sleep at higher elevations.

This strategy of live high train low (LHTL) has become especially popular in recent years. However, this strategy is not readily available to most athletes because it has been dependant on the geography of their hometowns (Saunders, Pyne, & Gore, 2009). This has led to the development of training accessories such as hypoxic tents, and masks. These products are designed to replicate a high altitude environment by decreasing the amount of oxygen readily available to the consumer (Rusko, Tikkanen, & Peltonen, 2004). Ideally, this would allow the athlete to sleep inside the hypoxic tent, or workout in the mask in order to replicate the physiological adaptations gained from altitude training without having to actually go to a different location.

The Elevation Training Mask allows for an individual to adjust the simulated oxygen levels for varying elevations. The lowest setting would simulate 3000ft above sea-level while the most intense setting would simulate 18000ft. These values are additive upon whatever elevation the individual is already at. The producers make the claim that wearing the mask during a workout will increase lung and diaphragm strength, increased lung capacity, and anaerobic thresholds. Our group of researchers tested these claims by testing the participants VO2 max, lactate levels, and lung parameters such as forced expiratory volume (FEV) and maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV) (ACSM, 2014). These tests will help us determine whether or not the training mask is a viable option to improve endurance performance as an alternative to training at high altitude.

Participants and Recruitment

Subjects were selected from a local Crossfit gym. Members of this gym were asked to voluntarily participate in a 6-week experimental study. Those that voluntarily agreed to participate were given consent forms, as well as an outline of the experiment. These subjects were then asked to report to the researchers training gym for pre-test measures at a scheduled time within the following three days. Ten of these subjects were male, and ten were female. The subjects age range was between 18-52.

Pre/Post Test Measures

The pre- and post-tests were designed to examine and measure specific physiological factors; including Body Composition, Maximal Oxygen Consumption (VO₂ Max), lactate threshold, and lung parameters such as Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) and Maximal Voluntary Ventilation (MVV). Body composition was measured in subjects using the Bod Pod GS (Cosmed Inc., Italy). Subjects then performed an Arizona Protocol treadmill test to measure VO₂ Max while being connected to a metabolic cart that measured the rate of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide elimination. At the beginning, and at three minute intervals throughout the test, blood lactate levels were collected from subjects using a blood lactate analyzer, Lactate Plus (Sports Resource Group, Inc., USA). VO₂ Max, FVC and MVV were measured with an MGC Ultima CPXTM (Metabolic Testing System, Cosmed Inc., Italy) administered by the researchers. The subjects heart rates during the pre and post tests were measured using a Polar® Heart Rate Monitors.

Procedures

Subjects were randomly selected to one of two groups, which included the control group and the experimental group. A coin was flipped to help randomly select subjects to a group. Subjects in the control group were not given training masks. They were asked continue their regular workout regime for the following 5 weeks and record the duration and intensity of each workout. Subjects in the experimental group were given training masks. Likewise, they were asked to continue their regular workout regime for the following 5 weeks and record the duration and intensity of each workout. Subjects in this group were also asked to wear the training masks during the cardio portion of their workouts. At the end of the 5 weeks, subjects reported to the researcher’s gym to undergo post-testing. Workouts during the 5-week period were the same for subjects in both groups. The workouts consisted of high intensity interval training, and other movements consistent with CrossFit training.

Data Collection

Data from the pre- and post-tests were collected and analyzed using excel. Pre-test measures for each subject were then compared to post-test measures for that same subject. An ANOVA test was used to compare pre-test values to post-test values.

                                                                                             

​