I still don't think it would make a real difference, but you never know. I do agree about the mental part though.
The main reason I posted this was because I saw a thread a few weeks back about how to "Solve Denver" or something like that. I'm sure someone else remembers it. In any case, like I said, I'm not a great athlete, but I could tell a huge difference between today when I played basketball, and the last time, which was about a week ago in Monmouth, OR at maybe 50 feet above sea level. I really, REALLY noticed a difference. It was more than I expected. Unless you've actually experienced it yourself, then I don't give it any credibility. A textbook can't describe how much I've noticed the dry, thin air affecting me. It's more than blatantly obviously and everyone has been warning me to drink a ton of water. I've heard "there's no use, your lips WILL be chapped". I know it's kind of common knowledge, but I really took it with a grain of salt. I've been in Denver almost a week, and even then didn't think the air would make a big difference. I doubt I've gotten that out of shape in the last week. I'm simply comparing my experience today with that of a week ago. And it was a big difference. More than I expected. Maybe for the really in shape it won't make as much of a difference, but I'm not so sure.
I'm just saying there's a lot of research to back up what I'm saying. They've done studies on each olympics involving their elevations, factored in individual improvement, and compared where are from and come up with some interesting stuff. Just one example. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about it, so you know my side. EDIT: And for the record multiple textbooks I have factor in humidity, wind chill, barometric pressure, among other things. It's not like the people writing books used for graduate work don't know what they're talking about.
my personal experience doesn't agree with the research you're siting. For multiple summers I've worked in California's High Sierras on a biology research project that involves a lot of intensive hiking from trailheads averaging over 9,000'. I show up in great shape after months of working out in the Bay Area mostly on my bike averaging well over 100 miles a week w/some pickup hoops on the side. When I first arrive and hit the trails, I typically get light headed after just a few miles of hiking even without a pack. A few times I've had to lay down with a bad case of the spins. I tire easily, am usually a bit loopy, and have a hard time getting a good nights sleep. This dramatically changes a couple days in. I'm strong again and able to go all day with a 60+lb. pack. This sort of transformation is typical with my co-workers as well. It's not unusual for someone to spend an afternoon green and puking during our first couple of days only to be crushing the hills a day or two later. I attached a pic from our 2007 training week STOMP
Altitude theory is nonsense and I lived in Denver for a year. I did a lot of running and hardly noticed much at that altitude. Of course, I've done a few marathons and can adapt quickly. For extreme training at high mountain altitudes about 10,000; yeah, there is a difference. However, playing basketball at Denver's altitude should not have any substantial effect on professional athletes that are in top condition. I'm not buying the altitude excuse, and doubt any experienced athletes would either.
Hmm, my experience is much different. although I did spend a lot of my life on the ski hills of the Cascades and the Rockies while growing up at sea level. I never have had a problem with elevation, even when going from sea level to 12,000 feet in a day. Two years ago I went on a 15 mile hike one day after leaving PDX in Glacier National Park to an elevation of over 11k, and last year I was in a wedding where we lived at 8k for a week and hiked much higher (while drinking each night) in Montana. Zero problems on either occason, and I'm in my late 30s now. What I am saying is that anecdotal evidence means almost nothing, so LameR's data still is valid.
It would be interesting to study the home court advantage of the Nugs with that of their NFL and NHL counterparts. You could compare home/road winning % splits, come-from-behind wins at home vs on the road, number of "long" TD plays by the Broncos and their opponents, etc. Where is Hollinger when you really need him!
to me denver never being a great team has nothing to do with the advantage of playing in denver. i'm interested in the overall home vs away record and where they stand there.
Maybe it affects people really differently, but I agree with you. Although I've been in Denver for a couple of days, today is the first day I've done any "exercise", outside walking. Like I said, I'm in pretty decent shape. Probably about 6'1" 190lbs and ~10% BF (at the maximum, probably lower). I really noticed a difference quickly. Granted, I guess I could have been dehydrated already due to the days I was here beforehand. But I made it a point to drink water like no other the last couple of days. If I were to go again tomorrow maybe I'd notice a significant improvement (I won't be able to test, I'm flying back to PDX). Like I said, I thought it was kind of a joke. I've gone snowboarding and even hiking on Mt. Hood for a day. I felt it a little. But that was relatively low-intensity. At least compared to how I play basketball. Hiking a distance isn't the same as running sprints. Neither is lifting weights. I noticed a big fucking difference. Play ball, where you RUN (and jump, not really stopping) for the better part of an hour and tell me it's not the same. Then I'll believe you.
