解題
At altitude, the lower atmospheric (partial) pressure of oxygen means the body receives less oxygen with each breath. In response, the kidneys increase production of erythropoietin (EPO), which stimulates increased red blood cell (and haemoglobin) production, improving the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity. When the athlete returns to sea level, this elevated red blood cell count can persist for several weeks, potentially improving aerobic endurance performance, as more oxygen can be delivered to the working muscles than before the altitude training block.
However, there are several drawbacks. It can take two to three weeks or longer at altitude for these beneficial adaptations to develop fully, and the effects are temporary, fading within a few weeks of returning to sea level, so the timing of altitude training relative to competition is critical. Training intensity and volume are often harder to maintain at altitude, due to reduced oxygen availability, which can lead to detraining of other fitness components, such as speed or muscular power, if not carefully managed. Access to suitable altitude locations or altitude-simulation facilities can also be expensive and impractical for many athletes. Finally, individual responses to altitude training vary considerably, so not all athletes benefit equally, and some may experience altitude sickness or other health issues.
Overall, altitude training can be an effective tool for improving endurance performance if used appropriately — with the correct duration, careful timing before competition, and close management of training load — but it does not guarantee an improvement for every individual, and it carries real practical and financial drawbacks that must be weighed against its potential benefits.
Final answer: altitude training can improve endurance performance by stimulating increased EPO production and red blood cell count, raising oxygen-carrying capacity, but its benefits are temporary, take weeks to develop, are hard to combine with maintaining training intensity, are expensive/impractical for many athletes, and vary between individuals — so it is only effective when carefully planned and is not guaranteed to benefit everyone.
評分準則
Levels of response (12 marks). Level 1 (Basic, 1–4 marks): limited, fragmented comments on altitude training with little reference to physiological mechanism or drawbacks; weak written communication. Level 2 (Good, 5–8 marks): describes the physiological adaptation (EPO/red blood cells) and identifies some drawbacks, with reasonable development; satisfactory written communication. Level 3 (Excellent, 9–12 marks): detailed, well-balanced evaluation covering the physiological mechanism (reduced oxygen pressure → increased EPO → increased red blood cells/haemoglobin → improved oxygen-carrying capacity) and multiple drawbacks (time needed, temporary effect, detraining risk, cost/access, individual variation), with a clear, justified overall evaluative conclusion; confident use of specialist terminology and clear written communication. All other valid responses will be given credit.