Search

We evaluated whether or not changes in body composition following moderate hypoxic exposure for 4 weeks were different compared to sea level exposure.In a randomized crossover design, nine trained participants were exposed to 2320 m of altitude or sea level for 4 weeks, separated by 3 months. Body fat percentage (BF%), fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM) were determined before and after each condition by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and weekly by a bioelectrical impedance scanner to determine changes with a high resolution. Training volume was quantified during both interventions.Hypoxic exposure reduced (P 0.01) BF% by 2 ± 1 percentage points and increased (P 0.01) FFM by 2 ± 2% determined by DXA. A tending time × treatment effect existed for FM determined by DXA (P = 0.06), indicating a reduced FM in hypoxia by 8 ± 7% (P 0.01). Regional body analysis revealed reduced (P 0.01) BF% and FFM and an increased (P 0.01) FFM in the truncus area. No changes were observed following sea level. Bioelectrical impedance determined that BF%, FM, and FFM did not reveal any differences between interventions. Urine specific gravity measured simultaneously as body composition was identical. Training volume was similar between interventions (509 ± 70 min/week vs. 432 ± 70 min/week, respectively).Four weeks of altitude exposure reduced BF% and increased FFM in trained individuals as opposed to sea level exposure. The results also indicate that a decrease in FM is greater at altitude compared to sea level. Changes were specifically observed in the truncus area.

Some have questioned the evidence for performance-enhancing effects of several substances included on the World Anti-Doping Agency's Prohibited List due to the divergent or inconclusive findings in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, inductive statistical inference based on RCTs-only may result in biased conclusions because of the scarcity of studies, inter-study heterogeneity, too few outcome events, or insufficient power. An abductive inference approach, where the body of evidence is evaluated beyond considerations of statistical significance, may serve as a tool to assess the plausibility of performance-enhancing effects of substances by also considering observations and facts not solely obtained from RCTs. Herein, we explored the applicability of an abductive inference approach as a tool to assess the performance-enhancing effects of substances included on the Prohibited List. We applied an abductive inference approach to make inferences on debated issues pertaining to the ergogenic effects of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO), beta2-agonists and anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS), and extended the approach to more controversial drug classes where RCTs are limited. We report that an abductive inference approach is a useful tool to assess the ergogenic effect of substances included on the Prohibited List - particularly for substances where inductive inference is inconclusive. Specifically, a systematic abductive inference approach can aid researchers in assessing the effects of doping substances, either by leading to suggestions of causal relationships or identifying the need for additional research.

The aim was to investigate whether 6 weeks of normobaric “Live High-Train Low” (LHTL) using altitude tents affect highly trained athletes incremental peak power, 26-km time-trial cycling performance, 3-min all-out performance, and 30-s repeated sprint ability. In a double-blinded, placebo-controlled cross-over design, seven highly trained triathletes were exposed to 6 weeks of normobaric hypoxia (LHTL) and normoxia (placebo) for 8 h/day. LHTL exposure consisted of 2 weeks at 2500 m, 2 weeks at 3000 m, and 2 weeks at 3500 m. Power output during an incremental test, ~26-km time trial, 3-min all-out exercise, and 8 × 30 s of all-out sprint was evaluated before and after the intervention. Following at least 8 weeks of wash-out, the subjects crossed over and repeated the procedure. Incremental peak power output was similar after both interventions [LHTL: 375 ± 74 vs. 369 ± 70 W (pre-vs-post), placebo: 385 ± 60 vs. 364 ± 79 W (pre-vs-post)]. Likewise, mean power output was similar between treatments as well as before and after each intervention for time trial [LHTL: 257 ± 49 vs. 254 ± 54 W (pre-vs-post), placebo: 267 ± 57 vs. 267 ± 52 W (pre-vs-post)], and 3-min all-out [LHTL: 366 ± 68 vs. 369 ± 72 W (pre-vs-post), placebo: 365 ± 66 vs. 355 ± 71 W (pre-vs-post)]. Furthermore, peak- and mean power output during repeated sprint exercise was similar between groups at all time points (n = 5). In conclusion, 6 weeks of normobaric LHTL using altitude tents simulating altitudes of 2500–3500 m conducted in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled cross-over design do not affect power output during an incremental test, a ~26-km time-trial test, or 3-min all-out exercise in highly trained triathletes. Furthermore, 30 s of repeated sprint ability was unaltered.