What Effect Will the Thin Air Have?

[James in PA]

The gravity is less there too since it's farther from the center of the earth. Players and footballs will be bouncing around like Son of Flubber.

I believe you used “farther” correctly. Good job. Just thought I’d mention that after the “effect” vs “affect” discussion.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[adeltaY]

Anyone that says mid 80s in Denver won’t be a factor is Coo Coo for Coco Puffs.

How much of a factor is yet to be seen.

Y’all up in Seattle, like myself here in the Houston area, walk around daily @ or near sea level.

When was the last time you went up to Mt. Rainer National Park?
How much walking/hiking did you do?

The oxygen demand for high level athletics is much higher than us “average Joes” require.

I make Colorado/Denver area every couple of years. Been to the top of Rocky Mt. National park.

It’s done “tongue in cheek” but they sell T-shits that say “Got Oxygen”.

It will effect some of our guys more than others depending on the individual but there will be an effect.
Will it effect the outcome of the game?

Maybe, Maybe not.
Time will tell.

I’d be willing to bet, we’ll see some guys slightly bent over with their hands on there hips. More so than we would see in Seattle or Houston.

I am confused. Stating that 83 degrees in Denver isn’t a big deal has nothing to do with altitude. Your giant rant is completely disconnected from your opening sentence. Fact remains low humidity largely negates heat issues in the low 80’s especially with the giant misters that are used. The body can cool very quick even with just a little shade.

The altitude is a given. It’s constant and does not change.

Didn’t feel I needed to explain that part in “my rant”.

Mid 80s although not hot for folks wearing street clothes and not playing a professional sport, it is fairly warm for an NFL game.

My point being, the temperature combined with the altitude will have an effect on the players, and it’s my opinion, anybody that thinks otherwise has bats in their belfry.

It’s also my opinion that we don’t know how much effect there will be but it’s safe to say, the effect will be greater on the Seahawks.

Greater on the Seahawks because they are not acclimated to the level that the guys that have been in Denver for weeks/months.
Altitude after all, is something that our bodies become used too, given enough time.

I’d agree that lower humidity may lessen the effect from the heat but I doubt it will be by much.

And for the record, I’m not saying that the Hawks will not win due to heat and altitude.
I’m saying that they will feel it, it will have an effect.
My hope is that it doesn’t catch the off guard because there are some steps that can be taken to lessen the effects. Good hydration being one of the most important and easiest ones.

Hopefully this clarified my thoughts on the matter, and you now have a better understanding of what I was trying to convey.

Bottom line for me here.

Anyone that lives or spends most of their time @ or near sea level, and suddenly finds themselves exerting @ altitude will tell you, there is a substantial difference.

I absolutely agree on the altitude advantage. Very noticeable when I first moved here after living at sea level my whole life. Any heat issues will affect both sides equally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The above graph suggests otherwise - Denver's winning% correlates with temperature up to a point. Anecdotally, the two recent hot away games we played @SD and @TEN seemed to affect our players more than the home team. It's like saying the cold at Lambeau would affect the Packers' opponents as much as their own players - I don't think it does.

 

[minormillikin]

When it's hot there's always a little advantage to the home team, because the stadiums are arranged so that the home side gets shade. Was true in San Diego, Los Angeles, and same in Denver.

Still... It's not going to be any hotter than it's been at the VMAC during training camp.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

Why isn’t Seattle in Denver already?

Acclimating is the key to beating high altitude

It takes a month or so if your in better condition a few weeks to feel close to acclimated.

I backpack extensively and train/workout mostly at sea level. 5k feet isn't that high, and good conditioning will usually equalize the "altitude advantage." Now, above 10k feet is when things get interesting!

Yes and no. Denver is always training at higher altitude so they have an advantage that will not get equalized. In fact their higher altitude training puts them even further ahead due to developing higher red blood cell counts and hemoglobin.

Yes true high altitude training is at higher levels but there is stilll a benefit that can’t be made up.

The proof is in the numbers. Marathon runners who train at altitude are only fractionally better than those who train at lower altitudes... over 26.2 miles. If Mile High and Denver's location made them better athletes, they'd win a hell of a lot more championships.

 

[Ad Hawk]

If Mile High and Denver's location made them better athletes, they'd win a hell of a lot more championships.

Only if all other things were equal. That's not been the case often for Denver.

 

[pmedic920]

It takes a month or so if your in better condition a few weeks to feel close to acclimated.

I backpack extensively and train/workout mostly at sea level. 5k feet isn't that high, and good conditioning will usually equalize the "altitude advantage." Now, above 10k feet is when things get interesting!

Yes and no. Denver is always training at higher altitude so they have an advantage that will not get equalized. In fact their higher altitude training puts them even further ahead due to developing higher red blood cell counts and hemoglobin.

Yes true high altitude training is at higher levels but there is stilll a benefit that can’t be made up.

The proof is in the numbers. Marathon runners who train at altitude are only fractionally better than those who train at lower altitudes... over 26.2 miles. If Mile High and Denver's location made them better athletes, they'd win a hell of a lot more championships.

I don’t for a minute think that training/playing in Denver makes the Broncos better.

I do think playing in Denver or similar places makes players that are not used to the elevation less than they would be otherwise.

Again, how much less is yet to be seen, and debatable.

 

[TheHawkster]

I've always wondered if Paul Allen has thought about making a football field in the Cascades at about 5000 feet just for training purposes.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I've always wondered if Paul Allen has thought about making a football field in the Cascades at about 5000 feet just for training purposes.

That would be a thought...or they could just have the team run or jog the John Wayne trail for a few hours.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

I backpack extensively and train/workout mostly at sea level. 5k feet isn't that high, and good conditioning will usually equalize the "altitude advantage." Now, above 10k feet is when things get interesting!

Yes and no. Denver is always training at higher altitude so they have an advantage that will not get equalized. In fact their higher altitude training puts them even further ahead due to developing higher red blood cell counts and hemoglobin.

Yes true high altitude training is at higher levels but there is stilll a benefit that can’t be made up.

The proof is in the numbers. Marathon runners who train at altitude are only fractionally better than those who train at lower altitudes... over 26.2 miles. If Mile High and Denver's location made them better athletes, they'd win a hell of a lot more championships.

I don’t for a minute think that training/playing in Denver makes the Broncos better.

I do think playing in Denver or similar places makes players that are not used to the elevation less than they would be otherwise.

Again, how much less is yet to be seen, and debatable.

This makes more sense to me. Even in MLS, which requires a great deal MORE aerobic capacity than Football, Denver does not appear to have an advantage. (they're currently 11 out of 12 in their division)

 

[Milehighhawk]

I am confused. Stating that 83 degrees in Denver isn’t a big deal has nothing to do with altitude. Your giant rant is completely disconnected from your opening sentence. Fact remains low humidity largely negates heat issues in the low 80’s especially with the giant misters that are used. The body can cool very quick even with just a little shade.

The altitude is a given. It’s constant and does not change.

Didn’t feel I needed to explain that part in “my rant”.

Mid 80s although not hot for folks wearing street clothes and not playing a professional sport, it is fairly warm for an NFL game.

My point being, the temperature combined with the altitude will have an effect on the players, and it’s my opinion, anybody that thinks otherwise has bats in their belfry.

It’s also my opinion that we don’t know how much effect there will be but it’s safe to say, the effect will be greater on the Seahawks.

Greater on the Seahawks because they are not acclimated to the level that the guys that have been in Denver for weeks/months.
Altitude after all, is something that our bodies become used too, given enough time.

I’d agree that lower humidity may lessen the effect from the heat but I doubt it will be by much.

And for the record, I’m not saying that the Hawks will not win due to heat and altitude.
I’m saying that they will feel it, it will have an effect.
My hope is that it doesn’t catch the off guard because there are some steps that can be taken to lessen the effects. Good hydration being one of the most important and easiest ones.

Hopefully this clarified my thoughts on the matter, and you now have a better understanding of what I was trying to convey.

Bottom line for me here.

Anyone that lives or spends most of their time @ or near sea level, and suddenly finds themselves exerting @ altitude will tell you, there is a substantial difference.

I absolutely agree on the altitude advantage. Very noticeable when I first moved here after living at sea level my whole life. Any heat issues will affect both sides equally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The above graph suggests otherwise - Denver's winning% correlates with temperature up to a point. Anecdotally, the two recent hot away games we played @SD and @TEN seemed to affect our players more than the home team. It's like saying the cold at Lambeau would affect the Packers' opponents as much as their own players - I don't think it does.

The graph actually indicates nothing. First, a 20% variance is very little with such a small data set (the scale of the graph is skewed intentionally to influence the perception of the reader). Second, it isn't showing any sort of trend. The graph actually shows Denver wins a little more in both hot weather and cold weather. No conclusions can be drawn from this.

 

[seahawkfreak]

Why isn’t Seattle in Denver already?

Acclimating is the key to beating high altitude

It takes a month or so if your in better condition a few weeks to feel close to acclimated.

Sure to be equal to hose living there

A few days does make a difference. There is no doubt about that

Yeah, when I moved there in 07 I felt weird for a week and that was driving in. People that fly in go through more of a shock to the system. I've had multiple family members fly there and be sick for a week, essentially ruining their whole vacation.

Honestly do not know how professional sports players go there and not have it effect them,,,,,, if that even happens.

 

[AgentDib]

I don't really see why this is a debate. If we can agree that both heat and elevation cause fatigue independently, then is it that unreasonable to suggest they have may have a compounding effect?

That doesn't excuse visitors from playing poorly, but it should lead to managing of expectations particularly when it comes to players getting gassed in the second half.

I also think the chart fits the hypothesis that home teams do better in extreme conditions pretty well. When it's snowing in Denver teams spend the week practicing in the cold while the visiting team shows up Friday night.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I don't really see why this is a debate. If we can agree that both heat and elevation cause fatigue independently, then is it that unreasonable to suggest they have may have a compounding effect?

That doesn't excuse visitors from playing poorly, but it should lead to managing of expectations particularly when it comes to players getting gassed in the second half.

I also think the chart fits the hypothesis that home teams do better in extreme conditions pretty well. When it's snowing in Denver teams spend the week practicing in the cold while the visiting team shows up Friday night from Green Bay in shorts and a t shirt and wonder if it is gonna be cold or not.

Sorry...I saw a shot and took it. :stirthepot:

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

Here's an effect it will have :irishdrinkers: