Hypoxic Advice/Workouts--Not Your opinion of Hypox Efficacy

Google Scholar is Google, or more accurately a subset of Google. If you want an independent research search engine I’d recommend Scopus. There are a lot of ways to search for research, and Google Scholar isn't the only one I use. It's just my favorite for a quick subject search. The important point, however, is that the results from a Google Scholar search will be articles from peer reviewed journals, and not just a collection of whatever anyone chooses to put on the web.

Well this article pretty strongly tells me theres something to gain out of hypoxic training. jap.physiology.org/.../733 Did you read the article you linked to? :dunno: This is what I found under their discussion... The present study showed that high-intensity flume training significantly improved swimming performance in a pool over both 100 and 400 m. However, this improvement was not enhanced by performing such training under hypoxic conditions. This conclusion is strengthened by the carefully matched groups containing well-trained swimmers and by the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled nature of the intervention. Therefore, our hypothesis that intermittent hypoxic training improves swimming performance more than training under normoxic conditions was rejected. And this in the abstract... We conclude that 5 wk of high-intensity training in a flume improves sea-level swimming performances and O2 max in well-trained swimmers, with no additive effect of hypoxic training.

Swimming maverick..I love it! Good stuff. Anyhow, I am still waiting for somebody to discredit the study that Morgan and I have posted (each hoping to prove something different with the same article it seems).

Did you read the article you linked to? :dunno: This is what I found under their discussion... The present study showed that high-intensity flume training significantly improved swimming performance in a pool over both 100 and 400 m. However, this improvement was not enhanced by performing such training under hypoxic conditions. This conclusion is strengthened by the carefully matched groups containing well-trained swimmers and by the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled nature of the intervention. Therefore, our hypothesis that intermittent hypoxic training improves swimming performance more than training under normoxic conditions was rejected. And this in the abstract... We conclude that 5 wk of high-intensity training in a flume improves sea-level swimming performances and O2 max in well-trained swimmers, with no additive effect of hypoxic training. well i forgot to attach the second article was the problem--but that was that intermittent hypoxic training does not improve swimming. I had another article that used more swimmers and a longer test period, that showed that the prolongation of hypoxic training does reap benefits. I have to go look it up again. I found it using my colleges online journal source, ill look for it later after practice. sorry about that.

Geek, we've seen two articles in this thread supporting the point of view that hypoxic training doesn't cause additional adaptations. Here's a couple more. Effects of Hypoxic Interval Training on Cycling Performance The effects of intermittent hypoxic training on aerobic and anaerobic performance If you really want to debate me on this, I would suggest you find some opposing literature. I'm not saying it's not out there, it could be. But the evidence we have here seems to agree with me. The swimming-specific study is especially good evidence for our purposes. I think it's weird that you are so obsessed with my use of Google Scholar (owned by Google!). An academic research article is an academic research article, regardless of how you find it.

Ah yes, weird. Weird like "that's weird he makes assertions and then tries to find proof afterwards by posting partial articles" or weird like "I'm right, most coaches are wrong, including most legendary coaches out there" or weird like "wow, someone is really stepping up and calling me out?" Lots of weirdness out there, I agree totally, Capt. Google. Now you are just being ridiculous. I already explained why it was necessary to search for articles to back up something that I remember reading about previously. As far as I can tell, you either didn't read that post or you completely ignored it. Neither one of those options would surprise me at this point. I don't even know where to begin with this "Captain Google" crap. I'm presenting scholarly research articles. Why in the name of L. Ron Hubbard would it matter in the slightest how I found them? You need to either start making sense or stop posting.

yes, I just wanted a starting point so I could work on going longer without breathing...

Annually we do the 12 50’s of Christmas; however it can be done any time. Set an interval that gives you about 15 seconds rest at 85% effort (e.g. on 50 sec. if you hold 35’s) 1) 50 free, 12 breaths total 2) 50 free, 10 breaths total 3) 50 free, 9 breaths total … 11) 50 free, 2 breaths total 12) 50 free, 1 breaths total After #6 we add 5 seconds to the interval. For the real macho types, we take an extra minute then throw in one more no breather 50.:weightlifter:

Here's a toughie we did recently. 5 X 200 @ a faster interval (whatever is faster for you, maybe your normal int - 10 secs), breath every 3,5,3,7 by 50. That's a gasser.

9 x 75s free or back (5, 7, 9 dolphin kicks off each wall, repeat 3 times) four point underwater shooters (more fun with monofin, decrease the interval) I like Rob's set.