The Authors’ Reply
- 86 Downloads
We are grateful for the feedback of our colleagues, Professor Millet and Mr Faiss. 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 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...
KeywordsElite Athlete Hypobaric Hypoxia Normobaric Hypoxia Altitude Training Sprint Training
The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this letter.
- 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