by Graham Averill

Running could very well be the least expensive sport in the history of man. Two legs, two feet. That’s all you need. If there’s any sport in the world that classifies as “primal,” running is it. This is a sport that existed even before man developed the concept of sport. It’s more than a pastime, it’s the natural progression of human development: crawl, walk, run. It’s elemental. Natural. Simple.

And above all else, running is the great equalizer. Put a prince next to a pauper on the starting line and both have an equal opportunity at winning the race. All the prince’s money and influence won’t buy him a faster 5K time. Only natural ability and hard work matter in running. This is not the case in most other outdoor sports, where money is often a barrier to participation and success. You want to start kayaking? Boats start at around a grand. Cycling struck your fancy? Be prepared to fork over $1,500 for a bottom-of-the-line racing bike-and even more if you want the advantages of the latest technology.

It’s a well-known secret that athletes in most sports can buy better performance. Running, however, has managed to remain a poor man’s sport-a fact proven year after year in the international running scene. The most successful countries in running are predominantly third world. Distance running was dominated by Ethiopians and Kenyans in the‘80s and ‘90s, and in the 2004 Olympics in Athens, 10 out of 12 distance medals were won by East Africans. On American soil, some runners are even pushing to keep non-US citizens from being able to collect purses from races. Why? Because the Kenyans are too fast for us. Since 1991, Kenyans have won every Boston Marathon except for one.

But if America, land of the corporate dollar and advertising machine, has anything to say about it, our lackluster performance in the international running scene is going to change. And we’re going to use money to change it.

“Every year training becomes more and more scientific,” says Pete Rea, the elite athlete coach at Zap Fitness, a running camp for professional athletes trying to reach the top of their game. “Science and technology may be the only way America catches up with the East Africans.”

Life at Simulated Altitude

A number of different theories try to explain Kenya’s success in the running world-they come from a running culture, their bodies are genetically designed for running-but the leading scientific theory is altitude. It seems the problem with beating the Kenyans is that they live and train at 6,500 feet.

“Running at high altitudes is like legal blood doping,” says Jason Dunn, head coach of the University of Virginia’s cross-country team. “It increases the amount of oxygen your body can carry and the amount of red blood cells you can produce. As a result, you can deliver oxygen to your muscles faster and recover faster.”

Translation: high altitudes equal fast runners. According to the latest scientific theory, however, it’s more complicated than just living at high altitudes. If you want to maximize your potential as a runner, you have to live high and train low. Runners seem to gain the most advantage from altitudes when they do their day to day activities like sleeping, cooking, watching TV at 10,000 feet but then train at sea level. Which is physically impossible, unless you’re sponsored by one of the wealthiest companies in the world.

In 2001, Nike founded the Oregon Project, a state of the art training facility for America’s top distance runners. The sole goal of the OP was to create better runners through science and technology. The OP house overlooks Portland near Nike headquarters and boasts scientific novelties like high-pressure oxygen chambers, vibration trainers, software that analyzes internal organs, computers that dissect a runner’s gait-imagine Dolph Lundgren’s training regimen in Rocky IV.

“We’ll do whatever is necessary to create winners,” Oregon Project’s coach Alberto Salazar told Wired magazine in 2001. “We’re trying to train smarter.”

The centerpiece of the Oregon Project’s training is altitude manipulation. The entire house is rigged to simulate life at altitudes ranging from 6,000 feet to 12,000 feet. The runners involved in the project sleep at 10,000 feet, play video games at 10,000 feet, check their emails at 10,000 feet, but they walk out their door and train at sea level.

The result? Dan Browne, one of the first Oregon Project guinea pigs, qualified for the U.S. Olympic Team in 2002. He also shaved 30 seconds off his 10,000 meter PR, an improvement unheard of at this level of competition. Better running through superior bank accounts. Put the prince and the pauper at the starting line, and give the prince six months of high altitude simulation and low altitude training, and running is no longer the great equalizer. It’s up for the highest bidder.

Trickle Down Economics

As sci-fi as the Oregon Project sounds, it makes perfect sense that professional athletes and the companies that sponsor them would exhaust their resources for an edge over the competition. It’s what pros are supposed to do. What’s surprising, however, is that amateurs are willing to go to the same lengths for that small edge.

The altitude chambers that the Oregon Project helped to innovate only five years ago are now available on the mass market. The most popular model is Hypoxico's "Hypoxic Tent," which creates a high altitude atmosphere over your bed. You want to sleep high and train low just like the pros? All it takes is $6,500.

“We have a mass market appeal,” says Jarrod Currin, a spokesperson for Hypoxico. “Most of our clients are recreational runners in their 40’s and 50’s looking for an edge.”

Altitude tents are just the latest and greatest in a long line of products designed to give the average runner “an edge.” An advertisement for Under Armour (a wicking base layer) claims “the advantage is undeniable.” Suunto watches, which measure everything from your pace to your exertion level, promise to “replace luck.” You can buy shoe inserts that correct pronation and socks that supposedly “exhale heat.” There’s a product sold in the back of running magazines called “the Stick” that’s made from “space age plastic” that’s supposed to accelerate muscle recovery and improve strength, just by rubbing it on your calf. The price? $59.95. Those socks that exhale heat? $12 a pair. The Suunto watch that tells you when you’re tired? $600.

But can a sport that appeals so strongly to the poorest athletes in the world, that promises a level playing field and fairy tale successes to those who can barely make ends meet, sustain a market flooded with high-price performance enhancing products? Apparently so.

“As a runner, you measure your success in seconds. 10ths of seconds. 100ths of seconds,” says D.C. runner Matt Peters. “It’s a sport where your ‘PR’ defines you. And there are a lot of American runners who have the money to spend on products that promise a better PR.”

When the San Francisco Marathon wanted to lure advertisers to its race, all they had to do was publish the numbers: 64 percent of their registered runners earn over 50K a year. When Senator John Edwards was running for president in 2004, he didn’t appear on the cover of Golf magazine. He posed for the cover of Runner’s World. While their predecessors were often photographed playing golf, both President Clinton and Bush Jr. were snapped jogging while in office. The Kaiser Permanente Corporate Run/Walk Fitness 5K attracts 20,000 runners from 500 different corporations in Atlanta every year. Forget networking at the corporate golf tournaments; now it’s all about the 5K.

Does this sound like the sport of paupers to you? While running’s roots may be firmly planted in populist soil, its limbs are undergoing serious gentrification. And this wealthier demographic is making expensive training products commonplace rather than an anomaly. If $6,000 altitude chambers are widely used, what happens to the runner who can’t afford one? If money becomes a determining factor in a runner’s success, then will running become the sport of the elite? Will the wealthiest countries dominate the Olympics? Will the runner with the most disposable income conquer the local 5K?

The Oregon Project continues to push the boundaries of science and technology, and a recent breakthrough in gene therapy has athletes curious about the practice of altering their genes for better performance. Experts guess athletes will be willing to pay $100,000 for this sort of procedure on the black market. The more science and sport continue to merge, the more economics will play a factor in performance.

But right now, running remains one of the few sports that money still can’t buy. Three years after the inception of Nike’s Oregon Project, not one of its athletes managed to take a medal from the East Africans in Athens. Kenyans that immigrate to the United States specifically to run our race circuit do so without the benefit of altitude chambers and still win race after race.

“Even after the ongoing Oregon Project, the poorest countries are still dominating the world,” says Rea. “Despite all our scientific achievements, the runners that rise to the top are the ones that bust their asses. All our money hasn’t helped us so far.”

Ultimately, it’s not money, but that other American value-hard work (really, really hard work)-that keeps the East Africans ahead of the pack. But for how long?