Silly altitude question...
Discussion
Due to recent events in Peru it looks like Machu Pichu & Lake Titicaca is (realistically) off the menu this year but something did puzzle me whilst looking at the aforementioned lake...
Lake Titicaca is at 3,812 metres and everything I've read and heard about going pushes the message 'be careful about altitude sickness' and the dangers associated with it, fair enough. The confusing bit for me is that Großglockner in Austria is up at 3,798 metres and I've never heard altitude sickness concerns raised
Does anyone have any insights?
Lake Titicaca is at 3,812 metres and everything I've read and heard about going pushes the message 'be careful about altitude sickness' and the dangers associated with it, fair enough. The confusing bit for me is that Großglockner in Austria is up at 3,798 metres and I've never heard altitude sickness concerns raised
Does anyone have any insights?
Highest I've been would be 3200m, in my head, it's "noticeable" - 70% normal air density (ie O2) at 3000m:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pr...
Whether it's actually going to have a measurable affect... think you'd have to be unlucky / unfit.
Meissner climbed Everest without oxygen (35% normal air density).
If you ever get to Peru, you'll probably find sprightly 70 year olds striding around no bother.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pr...
Whether it's actually going to have a measurable affect... think you'd have to be unlucky / unfit.
Meissner climbed Everest without oxygen (35% normal air density).
If you ever get to Peru, you'll probably find sprightly 70 year olds striding around no bother.
3000 metres is the usual level where the altitude starts being an issue, but I would have thought you wouldn't notice much difference at 3700 metres even if you ascend quickly to that level.
(My only experience of this is wandering to the top of Kilimanjaro, where it took a couple of days (starting off around 3000m) before you got short of breath)
(My only experience of this is wandering to the top of Kilimanjaro, where it took a couple of days (starting off around 3000m) before you got short of breath)
I had mountain sickness for three days in Peru. It started coming on after 12 hours in Cuzco (3,400 metres), then went to Macchu Picchu (2,400 metres) and Ollantaytambo (2,800 metres). It didn't really recede until I came back to under 2,000 metres.
Since then I've been several times at 3,840 metres at the Aiguille du Midi for up to one hour, was totally fine even while slowly skiing down the Vallee Blanche. Maybe I only suffered in Peru because it was for several days.
Since then I've been several times at 3,840 metres at the Aiguille du Midi for up to one hour, was totally fine even while slowly skiing down the Vallee Blanche. Maybe I only suffered in Peru because it was for several days.
I believe more people die of altitude sikness in the Alps than in any other mountain range But it is mainly old Europeans like me sking, problems can start around 2400 m depenent on health and age.
Young fit people are unlikely to suffer in the Alps,
I have lost at least two friends who died of High Altitude Cebral Endema climbing around 6000m in the Himalayas, both of whom had successfully climbed things like My Blanc and the Matterhorn.
Young fit people are unlikely to suffer in the Alps,
I have lost at least two friends who died of High Altitude Cebral Endema climbing around 6000m in the Himalayas, both of whom had successfully climbed things like My Blanc and the Matterhorn.
DodgyGeezer said:
Due to recent events in Peru it looks like Machu Pichu & Lake Titicaca is (realistically) off the menu this year but something did puzzle me whilst looking at the aforementioned lake...
Lake Titicaca is at 3,812 metres and everything I've read and heard about going pushes the message 'be careful about altitude sickness' and the dangers associated with it, fair enough. The confusing bit for me is that Großglockner in Austria is up at 3,798 metres and I've never heard altitude sickness concerns raised
Does anyone have any insights?
Plenty of people arrive at Titicaca from sea level and then stay overnight(s), whereas generally people will have had a night at resort level before going high in the Alps and then not stay that long up there. Lake Titicaca is at 3,812 metres and everything I've read and heard about going pushes the message 'be careful about altitude sickness' and the dangers associated with it, fair enough. The confusing bit for me is that Großglockner in Austria is up at 3,798 metres and I've never heard altitude sickness concerns raised
Does anyone have any insights?
And most importantly if you do have a problem with the altitude in the Alps it's easy to go down again.
I did a bike tour of part of the Himalayas a few months back. Several times we were on passes close to 5000m. We were advised not to stay up at the top for more then 20-30 mins so as not to have problems (esp riding bikes!). I can't say I noticed any specific issues, and I'm 62, although blood oxygen levels fell quite quickly (down to 75-85, we were monitoring every time we stopped). We did take altitude sickness tablets for a few days either side of the high peaks as well. Can't remember the name of the drug offhand, sorry.
I would think that with skiing, where your max is probably <3500m (for marked pistes, anyway) you're not up there long enough for it to have any serious effect?
I would think that with skiing, where your max is probably <3500m (for marked pistes, anyway) you're not up there long enough for it to have any serious effect?
DodgyGeezer said:
Lake Titicaca is at 3,812 metres and everything I've read and heard about going pushes the message 'be careful about altitude sickness' and the dangers associated with it, fair enough. The confusing bit for me is that Großglockner in Austria is up at 3,798 metres and I've never heard altitude sickness concerns raised
My semi-educated guess on this is that Central and Southern American tours and trips tend to be focused towards the US tourist and thus US based tour operators are more prevalent in that particular sector. As we know, Americans are not shy of getting Lawyered-Up when things go a bit wrong whereas us Europeans are still happy to apply common sense (just) and are happy assume liability when we've taken something a bit too far.So we don't need to be told about Großglockner, it's assume we can work it out ourselves. American's don't need to be told either but doing so reduces the risk of legal blow-back.
I've been to Lake Titicaca, indeed kayaked across to the tourist island in the middle and stayed a night. Pretty hard work given the altitude and headwind.
I've been to altitude many times around the world. Always 'felt it', although never have serious issues. Always build it up, ideally a couple of days ~2k, then couple more at ~3.5k then whatever days above that.
In Peru that meant a couple of days in the sacred valley, then in Cusco with day trips to the usual machu pichu, then a couple of days downhill mountain biking starting each day from 5k meters but dropping to around 3k for the night, then the train down to lake Titicaca. When we got back to Lima I've never felt fitter, running up stairs like never before enjoying all the oxygen!
As noted by others you can jump straight to altitude and often survive. However your risk of serious problem is higher (but still very small in absolute terms). However you have a very high change of just feeling crap and spoiling your holiday. So if you have time I'd always advise building up a couple of days at a time. Any decent local tour company in Peru will offer this regardless (if they don't they are not a decent tour company!).
I've been to altitude many times around the world. Always 'felt it', although never have serious issues. Always build it up, ideally a couple of days ~2k, then couple more at ~3.5k then whatever days above that.
In Peru that meant a couple of days in the sacred valley, then in Cusco with day trips to the usual machu pichu, then a couple of days downhill mountain biking starting each day from 5k meters but dropping to around 3k for the night, then the train down to lake Titicaca. When we got back to Lima I've never felt fitter, running up stairs like never before enjoying all the oxygen!
As noted by others you can jump straight to altitude and often survive. However your risk of serious problem is higher (but still very small in absolute terms). However you have a very high change of just feeling crap and spoiling your holiday. So if you have time I'd always advise building up a couple of days at a time. Any decent local tour company in Peru will offer this regardless (if they don't they are not a decent tour company!).
Highest I've been is 3,899m on the Mattorhorn sky paradise ... you can feel the altitude but as you're only there for a short time, it didn't really cause any issues for me personally. At that height I felt very ligh headed ... and a strange headache that started on my temples as if my head were being squeezed in a vice 
I felt worse in Vail which is about 2500m on my first day of a weeks snowboarding ... I stupidly went to the highest point and had lunch (Two Elk lodge) at 3425m and felt terrible for the next 18 hours or so. Nothing serious, just nausia and a really bad headache. If I'm honest this was enough to put me off spending time ANYWHERE at any sort of significant altitude, especially as I live in the Vale of York
From what I have read, it can affect anyone ... no one is immune and fitness does not have a bearing on whether you get ill. I suppose training at altitude or and increasing time spent to acclimatise is the only way!
I felt worse in Vail which is about 2500m on my first day of a weeks snowboarding ... I stupidly went to the highest point and had lunch (Two Elk lodge) at 3425m and felt terrible for the next 18 hours or so. Nothing serious, just nausia and a really bad headache. If I'm honest this was enough to put me off spending time ANYWHERE at any sort of significant altitude, especially as I live in the Vale of York
From what I have read, it can affect anyone ... no one is immune and fitness does not have a bearing on whether you get ill. I suppose training at altitude or and increasing time spent to acclimatise is the only way!
DodgyGeezer said:
Due to recent events in Peru it looks like Machu Pichu & Lake Titicaca is (realistically) off the menu this year but something did puzzle me whilst looking at the aforementioned lake...
Lake Titicaca is at 3,812 metres and everything I've read and heard about going pushes the message 'be careful about altitude sickness' and the dangers associated with it, fair enough. The confusing bit for me is that Großglockner in Austria is up at 3,798 metres and I've never heard altitude sickness concerns raised
Does anyone have any insights?
Presumably nowhere near as many people climb Großglockner as visit Machu Pichu and Lake Titicaca though? I've not been but I'm assuming the majority of people who get to the top are climbers who know what they're doing (I'm guessing it's a harder climb than Snowdon), rather than the tourist walkers you get in Puru. The road is only about 2500m, which incidentally is about the same pressure as an airliner, which has presumably been chosen as an altitute very unlikely to cause any issues.Lake Titicaca is at 3,812 metres and everything I've read and heard about going pushes the message 'be careful about altitude sickness' and the dangers associated with it, fair enough. The confusing bit for me is that Großglockner in Austria is up at 3,798 metres and I've never heard altitude sickness concerns raised
Does anyone have any insights?
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Wednesday 25th January 13:23
I think it depends how long you are at altitude. I camped overnight at 3200M in Colorado. I was reasonably fit as I was 4 weeks into a cycling holiday and had already cycled over a slightly lower pass.
During the night I slept poorly. Slight headache. My tent was pitched on a gravel carpark with boulders on top of the pegs. When replacing the boulders in the morning I was out of breath after each one.
But if you are only going up for a few hours the effects may be less. When I have cycled over similar height passes without camping I haven't been able to separate any altitude issues from just being tired cycling a loaded bike uphill.
Varies widely regardless of fitness. Two friends climbed together in the Alps. Both fit at sea level One got altitude sickness the other was fine.
During the night I slept poorly. Slight headache. My tent was pitched on a gravel carpark with boulders on top of the pegs. When replacing the boulders in the morning I was out of breath after each one.
But if you are only going up for a few hours the effects may be less. When I have cycled over similar height passes without camping I haven't been able to separate any altitude issues from just being tired cycling a loaded bike uphill.
Varies widely regardless of fitness. Two friends climbed together in the Alps. Both fit at sea level One got altitude sickness the other was fine.
It impacts people in different ways. And it also depends how long it takes you to get there.
I've hiked to 13000ft in the Rockies coming from around 5000ft during a day and you noticed the lack of oxygen but not to bad.
Also driven to Mauna Kea 14000ft in Hawaii from the beach, got out of the car & you felt you could hardly breath! One of the guys who was with us was quite badly affected.
I've hiked to 13000ft in the Rockies coming from around 5000ft during a day and you noticed the lack of oxygen but not to bad.
Also driven to Mauna Kea 14000ft in Hawaii from the beach, got out of the car & you felt you could hardly breath! One of the guys who was with us was quite badly affected.
That beast Nims just did K2 with no oxygen. Unbelievable
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cn2tIf4DCFj/?utm_sourc...
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cn2tIf4DCFj/?utm_sourc...
Gassing Station | Holidays & Travel | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff