Sports Medicine

, Volume 42, Issue 12, pp 1083–1085 | Cite as

The Authors’ Reply

  • François Billaut
  • Christopher J. Gore
  • Robert J. Aughey

We are grateful for the feedback of our colleagues, Professor Millet and Mr Faiss.[1] We have little disagreement with their letter, which makes two main points.

First, they highlight the physiological differences between normobaric hypoxia and hypobaric hypoxia, which is an issue that our review did not address explicitly. This topic has been debated recently by Professors Millet and Mounier,[2, 3, 4] and it remains a contentious topic, particularly in terms of whether there is a greater performance benefit of one form of hypoxia over the other. Millet and Faiss cite the meta-analysis of Bonetti and Hopkins[5] to point out a 4.0% performance benefit for elite athletes from hypobaric hypoxia training compared with 0.6% ‘benefit’ for normobaric hypoxia training. However, they neglect to mention the uncertainty of both estimates. The respective means and 90% confidence limits were given as 4.0 ± 3.7% for hypobaric hypoxia and 0.6 ± 2.0% for normobaric hypoxia, where the latter was an...


Elite Athlete Hypobaric Hypoxia Normobaric Hypoxia Altitude Training Sprint Training 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this letter.


  1. 1.
    Millet GP, Faiss R. Hypoxic conditions and exercise-to-rest ratio are likely paramount [letter]. Sports Med 2012; 42(12): 1081–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Millet GP, Faiss R, Pialoux V. Last word on point: counterpoint: hypobaric hypoxia induces different responses from normobaric hypoxia. J Appl Physiol 2012 May; 112(10): 1795.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Millet GP, Faiss R, Pialoux V. Point: Hypobaric hypoxia induces different physiological responses from normobaric hypoxia. J Appl Physiol 2012 May; 112(10): 1783–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mounier R, Brugniaux JV. Counterpoint: hypobaric hypoxia does not induce different responses from normobaric hypoxia. J Appl Physiol 2012 May; 112(10): 1784–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonetti DL, Hopkins WG. Sea-level exercise performance following adaptation to hypoxia: a meta-analysis. Sports Med 2009; 39(2): 107–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Billaut F, Gore CJ, Aughey RJ. Enhancing team-sport athlete performance: is altitude training relevant? Sports Med 2012; 42(9): 751–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nummela A, Rusko H. Acclimatization to altitude and normoxic training improve 400-m running performance at sea level. J Sports Sci 2000 Jun; 18(6): 411–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lundby C, Millet GP, Calbet JA, et al. Does ‘altitude training’ increase exercise performance in elite athletes? Br J Sports Med 2012 Sep; 46(11): 792–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faiss RL, Léger B, Fournier P-E, et al. Repeated-sprint ability is further enhanced by intensive training in hypoxia than in normoxia. In: The Physiological Society, editor. Biomedical basis of elite performance. London: The Physiological Society; 2012: 38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Billaut
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher J. Gore
    • 3
    • 4
  • Robert J. Aughey
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Institut national du sport du QuébecMontréalCanada
  2. 2.School of Sport and Exercise Science, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL)Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PhysiologyAustralian Institute of SportCanberraAustralia
  4. 4.Exercise Physiology LaboratoryFlinders University of South AustraliaBedford ParkAustralia
  5. 5.Western Bulldogs Football ClubMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations