I read with interest Michael Horan's article in the Herald Sun today about Collingwood.

It prompted a thought in my mind, which is simply that Collingwood are obviously the benchmark team at the moment regarding most things they do. They have been going to Arizona for 6 years to do altitude training during their pre-season.

Surely our club, and every other club, would have switched on to the fact that this might be making a massive difference to their players' fitness and efforts, particularly toward the business end of the season.

So why aren't others (e.g. MFC) doing it? Is it a cost thing?

My take on it is that the altitude means the body adapts by increasing red blood cell counts and haemoglobin, making oxygen transfer more efficient, but that the specific physiological effects only last a couple of weeks once you go back to sea-level, when red blood cell counts quickly revert to a more normal level. You also have to train over about 2500m, which severely limits any locations close to Australia, making it costly. In a few cases, you may also get some minor short-term negative effects (nausea, light-headedness) when you first arrive at altitude, plus there's long travel times.

It could provide a fitness base to start the season, but I reckon Collingwood would get the best outcomes just from that segment of intense pre-season training. The altitude is a minor bonus. There would be other positives, such as the absence of other normal day-to-day distractions, and team cohesiveness. Some suggest you could get these anywhere if you locked the team away in any inspiring training area for 3-4 weeks.

Edited May 11, 201114 yr by maurie

yep, the way I see it is that any physical benefit derived over a short period of time can also be lost over a short period of time

Maybe the clubs want to go scuba diving?

Can't do both...

North Melbourne have done it the last two years. Its worked wonders for them so far....

no reason the clubs couldnt head to licola as we did a few years ago or wilsons prom as the kangas did a few years ago and get the same benefits in terms of team bonding etc. as dean bailey said, a weight is a weight no matter how dirty it is.

The cost is prohibitive to the less-rich clubs, but we did our own budget version of it a couple of years again in the high country near Mannsfield, from what I recall.

No high performance training facility up there though.

Just lots of hiking and hill running.

I think the main difference is that Collingwood spend a couple of weeks doing it.

Our trip was only a few days from memory, and then last year we went to China instead.

We need attitude training, not altitude training. We need to learn that we need to bring competitive footy every week and we can play good footy, it comes down to attitude, to have the right mental approach to each game. Even under Danners we enjoyed a roller coaster ride and once again it was all about our players attitude, the ability doesn't change.

We need attitude training, not altitude training. We need to learn that we need to bring competitive footy every week and we can play good footy, it comes down to attitude, to have the right mental approach to each game. Even under Danners we enjoyed a roller coaster ride and once again it was all about our players attitude, the ability doesn't change.

Rah rah rah. Fluff.

Spare me.

My take on it is that the altitude means the body adapts by increasing red blood cell counts and haemoglobin, making oxygen transfer more efficient, but that the specific physiological effects only last a couple of weeks once you go back to sea-level, when red blood cell counts quickly revert to a more normal level. You also have to train over about 2500m, which severely limits any locations close to Australia, making it costly. In a few cases, you may also get some minor short-term negative effects (nausea, light-headedness) when you first arrive at altitude, plus there's long travel times.

It could provide a fitness base to start the season, but I reckon Collingwood would get the best outcomes just from that segment of intense pre-season training. The altitude is a minor bonus. There would be other positives, such as the absence of other normal day-to-day distractions, and team cohesiveness. Some suggest you could get these anywhere if you locked the team away in any inspiring training area for 3-4 weeks.

My understanding is that it has short term benefits, but also has longer term benefits. Due to the air being thinner at altitude it is harder to replenish oxygen levels while training. Hence making training harder, this obviously leads to greater fitness levels due to the higher intensity of training.

My take on it is that the altitude means the body adapts by increasing red blood cell counts and haemoglobin, making oxygen transfer more efficient, but that the specific physiological effects only last a couple of weeks once you go back to sea-level, when red blood cell counts quickly revert to a more normal level. You also have to train over about 2500m, which severely limits any locations close to Australia, making it costly. In a few cases, you may also get some minor short-term negative effects (nausea, light-headedness) when you first arrive at altitude, plus there's long travel times.

It could provide a fitness base to start the season, but I reckon Collingwood would get the best outcomes just from that segment of intense pre-season training. The altitude is a minor bonus. There would be other positives, such as the absence of other normal day-to-day distractions, and team cohesiveness. Some suggest you could get these anywhere if you locked the team away in any inspiring training area for 3-4 weeks.

I think Collingwood have an decompression room @ their HQ training facility. So any headstart they get from Arizona, it seems to me, means they could have less of a preseason and still get longevity through the whole season. Not run out of gas towards the end as easily.

I think Collingwood have an decompression room @ their HQ training facility. So any headstart they get from Arizona, it seems to me, means they could have less of a preseason and still get longevity through the whole season. Not run out of gas towards the end as easily.

I thought we did a "budget" version at buller last year? maybe im wrong

I thought we did a "budget" version at buller last year? maybe im wrong

we're talking about the players here, not the supporters B)

I thought we did a "budget" version at buller last year? maybe im wrong

That would be better than nothing, but the hills work is probably the beneficial thing in the hardwork and the bonding through the great outdoors.

we're talking about the players here, not the supporters B)

Good call

we're talking about the players here, not the supporters B)

Great call

Great call

Visionary call

Yes physical benefits but I think the main benefit is the bonding through trying physical conditions and pushing each other. Basically developing a culture where in the last qtr when exhausted they can push each other to the finish line. Sure similar things can be done at sea level, but thin air has very different effects on people and needs leads to more, effort, concentration and a will to push on. All great attributes.

The best altitude training is sitting on top of the ladder. The other has merits but for the off season only.