FOR THE first time in eight years, Collingwood will not venture overseas this pre-season for high-altitude training.

News Limited reports that the Magpies will instead use their own on-site altitude room, which was built during the $10 million redevelopment of club headquarters at the Westpac Centre.

The Pies' altitude room, which measures 150 square metres, is believed to be the largest in the southern hemisphere.

It simulates altitudes of up to 5000m, can accommodates about 40 people, and until now has been used predominantly for rehabilitation and recovery.

Collingwood confirmed that it would remain at home this pre-season but refused to elaborate on the reason the change.

Under former coach Mick Malthouse and recently departed fitness guru David Buttifant, Collingwood became the first AFL club to embark on altitude camps in the US, which they have conducted in Arizona and Utah from 2005.

Coach Nathan Buckley oversaw US camps in his first two pre-seasons in charge.

The Pies' initiative, and their success in the 2010-11 period, sparked rivals to explore altitude training overseas.

According to News Limited, seven clubs – Brisbane Lions, Carlton, Essendon, Gold Coast, North Melbourne, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs – will send either their entire playing list or a group of players to the US.

Reigning premier Hawthorn will journey to South Africa and train at a high-altitude facility, although the Hawks insist that was not the sole reason for the choice of location.

The remaining clubs, like Collingwood, will conduct their training at home. (Richmond didn't respond.)

Meanwhile, a leading sports scientist has questioned the overall benefit of altitude training overseas for AFL clubs given the considerable financial cost.

Dr Ian Gillam told News Limited one club had been quoted up to $1 million for the exercise.

"(They) said we can spend the money better than this," he said.

"Why don't we employ a couple of extra coaches to improve their kicking skills or their decision making skills, some other aspect of their performance rather than spending all this money for what might be considered very small performance benefit, which is only short lived. It's just not justifiable."