I lived at 10,600 feet for 6.5 weeks last summer, coming from essentially sea level.
I felt like I was adjusted 90% adjusted about 2 weeks in, like I could walk at a normal speed. My Garmin watch agreed with this adaption. However, trying to mountain bike with the locals was hilarious... even at week 6 I barely started to be able to keep up on climbs. I rode my mountain bike nearly every day, or at minimum took a several mile hike
Near the end I had a bender with some coworkers. I started developing a persistent "altitude" cough after that that never really went away until I got back down to sea level. The cough disappeared in 36 hours. And wow, did I feel like superman when I got back racing my peers.
Did you catch the important point in my story though? I live an active life style at sea level, but man, people living in small towns in the mountains _love_ the outdoors. We were active every day of the week: riding, hiking, climbing, etc. I could definitely see how altitude helps with cardiovascular health, but it's already been proven that leading an active lifestyle is one of the most amazing things you can do for your health and happiness.
> And wow, did I feel like superman when I got back racing my peers.
Huh, interesting. A friend of mine moved from sea level to ~6000 ft a few years ago. She said it took her a bit of time to get used to running at the new altitude, but eventually felt as comfortable with it as she had down here at sea level. I asked her if running feels easier to her at sea level now, when she comes down the mountain to visit, and she said it doesn't; it's basically the same as it used to be when she lived here.
Maybe the extra 4600ft you went up to made a difference in that, and of course everyone is different, but that's still interesting to me.
Your friend is the exception, I think. I’ve not lived below 5000 ft for over a decade, and every time I get to sea level, I feel like I can run FOREVER. My personal records are all from those types of trips.
I was thinking there's probably a correlation between high altitude living and getting exercise which may explain the lack of hear attacks. My main high living experience was the Everest area like Namche Bazaar and there are no roads or cars so everyone walks.
I had that exact feeling when I visited denver, many years ago when I was doing triathlons. I woke up the next morning, went to the gym to do a 1 hour bike threshold session, and started panting for breath within the first 10 minutes of warmup. I was like, what-the-heck?
> people living in small towns in the mountains _love_ the outdoors
You have to. There's no activities besides outdoor activity and drinking and almost every other aspect of living in the mountains is more difficult (versus a normal, big city in a more hospitable terrain and climate).
When I lived in the mountains everyone was either there for the activities, or was a drug addicted hospitality worker there because they couldn't find jobs in cities.
Mountains are objectively aesthetically pleasing to humans. They also retain the most wild and specific nature around, especially in western world where in the past mostly agriculture changed environment forever. You can find entire states in Europe where 'wilderness' is basically a well curated park that was a field some time ago. Air is much cleaner, you see far and you feel utterly insignificant up there.
Mountains also allow tons of various sports most of the year as you mention and attract such crowds.
Overall, people go in droves to mountains every year, summer and winter, to recharge. And its a different recharge compared to some beach holiday, much more active and I dare to say a more effective one (active vacations simply recharge better mental tiredness of modern living and working).
I live near Geneva, Switzerland and after moving here basically became mountain sports addict. Hiking, ferratas, climbing, a bit of alpinism in non-winter, and skiing / ski touring in winter. For exotic places there is diving to keep a bit of balance. Did also some paragliding too but had a nasty accident last year that almost killed me so stopped that. Rest I continue, and will do till the last moment I can still do them, they make me properly happy like a toddler. I live in best possible place in the world for people like me, 1h drive from home and I am right below Mont Blanc, towering almost 4km higher than Chamonix valley.
One drawback as you mention - higher mountains are basically high altitude deserts, snow and ice everywhere but humidity easily below 5% ie in Himalaya. Many folks trying ie Everest didnt get higher than base camp simply due to being often sick up there, amateurs and pros alike.
"And its a different recharge compared to some beach holiday, much more active and I dare to say a more effective one"
That depends on the type of person I think. Plenty of stuff to do at the beach or in the water as well. Surfers (with ambitions) are pretty active people for instance. But sure, on average most people are way more active in the mountains than on the beach and personally I do prefer the mountains.
(And I tried hard moved moving also into the alps, but it did not work out so far, I will rather now move from semi mountain area to a flat area, but not for too long I hope)
I do tropical paradise vacations too, ie few weeks ago in Indonesia - Sulawesi, Togian Islands. But the heat takes away any attempt to serious efforts, without AC one is just chilling, diving/snorkeling, checking culture or history and traveling around. Sure there are ie some higher volcanoes, but I wasn't in such place this time.
I always lose few kgs of muscle on a vacation like that, despite ie full diving suit weighting maybe 40kg. Surfing is very active sport I didn't master yet, but can't imagine doing that around equatorial with that humidity, ie in that Sulawesi sea was 29-30C, air 32-33C day and night and 90-100% humidity.
> Mountains are objectively aesthetically pleasing to humans
Not sure about that. I find them aesthetically pleasing, and probably most people do, but I know at least one person who remains unmoved when looking at mountain scenery. Of course I find that strange, but there it is.
So not sure about the "objectively". Maybe "Mountains are aesthetically pleasing to MOST humans"
> it's already been proven that leading an active lifestyle is one of the most amazing things you can do for your health and happiness.
For your health sure. But for happiness, only if you actually like sporty activities. I don't, and it feels like a chore. Having to do chores all the time makes me unhappy. I've always hated anything to do with sports.
In think some people get an endorfin hit from it but for me that doesn't do much either. I just feel empty and exhausted after it.
I wonder if they're confusing the cause and effect.
Do people who live above 8k feet not die of heart disease or do people with heart disease find it too difficult to live above 8k feet so only people without heart disease live above 8k feet?
I live at 7200 feet and I know several people who have moved to lower altitudes because it's "too hard to breath" here.
I visited Mexico City a couple weeks ago and it is at 7200 feet. As I got off the plane I was gasping a bit and I woke up 3 or 4 times the first night gasping for air. I didn't have any problems visiting Denver at 5000 feet in years past but I was absolutely feeling it at 7200. I didn't stay long enough to see if I would acclimate as I continued to feel bad and returned home early.
My dad visited Machu Picchu. He was doing poorly and the guides put him on oxygen. They were well prepared for it, as it happens a lot and is not very predictable.
It's at 8,000 feet.
I remember staying overnight at Estes Park, 7500 feet. I got a headache. I didn't try anything strenuous.
I recall reading about Mt Everest climbs. Even on supplemental oxygen, your brain measurably dies a little. No thanks. People who climb it repeatedly are, in my not-so-humble opinion, idiots.
Yes people who climb Everest (in this time) are touristic idiots, even people who climb it "~alpine style".
However people who climb more interesting (for example Gasherbrum IV 8000m, Muztagh Tower 7200m, Thalay Sagar 7000m or Trango Towers 6200m) Mountains (in alpine style) would call people who sit 8 hours a day in front of a screen "idiots" ;)
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Mexico City and SMA, and the first time was definitely the worst; lots of shortness of breath and walking seemed much harder there than other places. My 75 year-old mother had no issues at all when she came to visit tho
I am originally from the Himalayas (Garhwal specifically), although not quite as high as in the article, my village is at 5000 ft and damn did I have a shock when I took my desi friends up there (desi means people from the Indo-Gangetic plains, I unfortunately had to come to New Delhi for college and you can imagine the contrast!). While in Delhi, I am one of the more unathletic nerds, but as soon as we were in the mountains, these guys were no match for me! Roads are still very few and far in between in my region so you have to walk a lot, and these guys were getting tired on paths even small children and 80 year olds have no problem completing!
I visited the region around Dharamshala last year which is the same altitude (1500m) and was somewhat surprised I did not notice any effects of the altitude. My whole life (nearly 40) I've been living at sea level, except for trips.
I've lived mostly outside cities though so no major pollution. I'd imagine for Delhi folks the pollution must have a big effect on their lungs - but you'd think it would translate to working well for high altitude.
Ask a Himachali person how far something is and it's always "just around the next hill." Another couple of hours of walking and you"ll still get the same answer.
When I did a 2 week road trip from Chengdu to lijiang a couple of decades ago, we spent the first two days of the trip just acclimating on the Tibetan plateau at 3000 meters or at the town near siguniang. Then we hit places like daocheng (3500 meters), we drive through passes at 5000 meters, Litang town at 4000 meters (about the height of mt rainier). The biggest problem I had was the lack of vegetables that high, my teeth really got tired of eating judt meat and potatoes. The places were all populated though with Tibetans, they just lived up there as if it was the most normal thing in the world (heck, litang had 60k people living at 4k meters, that seemed crazy to me).
8,000 ft (2,400 meters) isn't particularly high. Millions of people live at that altitude. It's extremely common for people to go on a skiing vacation at that altitude or above, up to maybe 4,000 meters, and not need to take any particular precautions.
As to comments here about days resting while progressing to higher altitudes, such as in the Himalayas. A day or two will mostly result in adjustments in the water balance of your blood. It takes about 10 days to two weeks for your bone marrow to start producing additional red blood cells to compensate for the lower level of oxygen in the air.
High level altitude sickness is more complex and relates to multiple factors, including fluid balance, the health of one's vasculature and lungs, etc.
It is certainly the case that populations that have lived at high altitudes in the Himalayas or Andes for thousands of years have evolved adaptations that make such living easier.
Yeah, I spend a decent amount of time during the year at 6500-7000 feet (and live at sea level for the rest of the year). There's always an acclimation period when I first get there, but it's nowhere near as severe as the article suggests. I'm fine going right to the gym or whatever when I get there; I don't need a few days of rest first. In the winter I'll spend hours of the day up at 8000-9000 feet, and yes, I get winded easier, but I'm otherwise fine. I'm in my 40s, so while I'm not old, I'm not young either.
I think the highest up I've ever been for any solid amount of time was 10,500 feet, and sure, I could tell the difference, but it wasn't debilitating or anything remotely like that, and I could do moderate-plus physical activity without anything bad happening.
I've also been up to 15,000 feet (Salkantay Pass in Peru) for a very short time, and definitely felt it. A few people in my hiking group had to take some medicine, and one or two availed themselves of camels. But I would also consider this hike a high-exertion activity; they were fine when we took a break for a while and relaxed.
But I'm just not convinced that most (generally healthy!) people need that much acclimation before doing day-to-day tasks, including regular levels of exercise.
15k feet is already in danger territory for unpressurized aircraft. Above 14000 ft a pilot must use oxygen immediately. And that's not even strenuous work (though decision making and spatial awareness is also very affected)
Potentially not even so high as that. You often see 2,500 m (8,500 ft) used as the beginning of "high altitude" - at that point some studies have detected cognitive effects from long-term exposure. (10.1007/s11065-004-8159-4) A lot of research is focused more on ~4,000+ meters though due to the existence of the Tibetan Plateau.
Very asymmetrically, too. There's a (relatively) small impact on cooking grains and pasta and stuff, but even at 5000 ft where I live beans can easily take 2x as long to cook. It's a challenge.
Hmm, is coffee a problem? (some of the extraction depends on temperature, but if water boils before reaching that temperature then the extraction wouldn't work...)
Coffee takes compensation, but even ambient pressure extraction can be tuned for great results — Denver and Boulder have good coffee scenes, for example. The bigger challenge is that Mr Coffee style brewers (bubble pump) have no way to adjust extraction time; and some fancier brewers try to closed-loop control temperature, and end up boiling the water continuously while brewing. Pour-overs obviously give you control to succeed, but for traditional machines I’ve found it critical to find one that allows a set point temperature JUST below local boiling, as well as time adjustment. The Breville Precision is my current workhorse, although I have some mixed feelings about it.
Espresso machines work at high pressures (8-9 bar) so it's less of an issue with those. I went up to the observatory on Mont Blanc a few years ago and had an espresso there. That's 3500 meter. I definitely was out of breath. The coffee was fine.
Yes! I like to vacation in the summer at Mammoth Lakes (~8000 ft ~2400m) and coffee is a bit of a problem. I like weak coffee and compensate for altitude by adding more grounds, but it's really not the same.
One can compensate with (steam)pressure and/or duration. Or cold brewing.
In practice I note not that much difference at about 2500m altitute, where my main residence is. French/Aeropress suffices. 100°C isn't necessary. Even only 90°C suffices.
Similar for good Tea. You destroy that with 100°C. Very good Tea should be brewed at 60 to 70°C for greens, blacks more like 70 to 85. Though the hardness/pH of the used water is equally important for them. For coffee not so much.
It's not just the boiling point. Food tastes less salty as well.
I once cooked a stew for friends at 8000 ft. I thought I had made a mistake because it tasted so bland. After the trip I had the leftovers at sea level and realized it tasted just fine. It gave me an appreciation for the fragile relationship between location and following recipes. (Humidity also changes taste)
As a child I lived for two years at ~11k ft (La Paz, Bolivia). I can vouch for the impact of both Acute Mountain Sickness and the sun at that elevation.
I first learned about La Paz and its even higher-elevation sibling city El Alto from this video [1] about their new cable car transportation network [1][2]. I then spent a few hours on Google Maps and Youtube looking at El Alto up close, what a fascinating and different world up there.
My in-laws have a timeshare at 8300 feet. The first couple of days we have to take it easy and drink a ton of water, but then we kinda get used to it. And definitely feel superhuman when we return to sea level!
The hardest part is getting used to cooking at the elevation.
Water boils at lower temperature because of lower pressure at higher altitude. As a result cooking is different - normal recipes don’t work as expected. From my personal anecdotal experience even grilling somehow is different at 8000ft.
I spent time in Lhasa, it sits at 12k. It was like another world. High altitude isn't forgiving either. My (62) father was with me and didn't make it home.
> The best defense is to start at 5,000 feet and stay there for 3 days, drinking water like crazy and resting. Then, come up to the higher elevation and give yourself a day or two to adjust. That usually works.
This is crazy to me as I usually only get 1 acclimation night in before going up. I’m curious how people can find their limits / needs?
I met Charles Snead Houston, who lead the first two American attempts on K2 and became a doctor. (He fell the furthest in "The Belay", the most famous belay in mountaineering history.)
He asked me to explain my work on card shuffling, so we traded. He taught me about altitude sickness, for which he was the foremost expert. I then read his books before my own mountaineering, and his advice worked for me.
In a nutshell, where you sleep matters. 7,000' is free, and a conservative pace is to sleep 1,000' feet higher each night. (Good luck finding a Kilimanjaro ascent that climbs that slowly, but have you met anyone who was comfortable at the summit?)
My wife's brother lives at 10,000'. As it happens the last hotel is at 8,500'. One night does the trick for her.
I lived in Breckenridge (9,600ft) for a few winters post college.
Before college, when I had last been to CO, I didn't get any altitude sickness. Post college, I discovered (by blacking out on the slopes at Vail) that I now got bad altitude sickness. It now takes me almost 2 weeks to aclimate, but once I do, boy, is it amazing.
The most fun time was when I flew home to the East Coast after being there 4 months. I felt like absolute Superman. So much energy, barely needed any sleep! I only wish those effects lasted more than 5 days...
I grew up in Memphis TN but lived in Boulder CO for a few years. I worked at a hospital in both cities; my job was checking people into the ER.
In Memphis, I’d probably see 7-10 heart related issues a day, with about 2-3 of them being actual heart attacks. Every single day.
By contrast, in Boulder I saw maybe 1-2 heart attacks a year.
It was absolutely astounding. Now, there could be some confounding variables like income/education/exercise/diet. But like another poster said, high altitude places seem to bring out more activity in us.
You have experience in 2 very different places demographically. High altitude may be on the list of factors but I would guess it’s pretty far down.
Boulder is a small college town of mostly affluent younger people. Memphis is an urban city in a hot climate that is older, poorer, and in the middle of the section of the US that has some of the worst health overall.
Worked for four months as a mountain bike guide on the death road in La Paz.
3600 meters to 4800 getting to the start of the road to about 1000 meters each day, and back. I believe I made many blood cells and nearly died 3 times
"Living at high altitude reduces risk of dying from heart disease", but you're litereally locked in your house because the sun takes every chance to fry you. I'm okay with not reducing my risk of dying from heart disease.
I grew up in the mountains at about 8500 ft, but was often spending my freetime at higher elevations surrounding the village. There are lots of little things about living at high altitude people don't think about, such as cooking times and quirks, sealed containers exploding when going up, etc. My favorite has to be just how superhuman (when I was in my prime) going down to low elevation made me feel.
The biggest issue people don't talk about? Remote high alt places often become unlivable for people when they get elderly due to altitude interference in certain medical conditions, and the general distance away from hospitals.
I miss the mountains so much all the time, and hope to retire back up there.
I lived at 10,600 feet for 6.5 weeks last summer, coming from essentially sea level.
I felt like I was adjusted 90% adjusted about 2 weeks in, like I could walk at a normal speed. My Garmin watch agreed with this adaption. However, trying to mountain bike with the locals was hilarious... even at week 6 I barely started to be able to keep up on climbs. I rode my mountain bike nearly every day, or at minimum took a several mile hike
Near the end I had a bender with some coworkers. I started developing a persistent "altitude" cough after that that never really went away until I got back down to sea level. The cough disappeared in 36 hours. And wow, did I feel like superman when I got back racing my peers.
Did you catch the important point in my story though? I live an active life style at sea level, but man, people living in small towns in the mountains _love_ the outdoors. We were active every day of the week: riding, hiking, climbing, etc. I could definitely see how altitude helps with cardiovascular health, but it's already been proven that leading an active lifestyle is one of the most amazing things you can do for your health and happiness.
> And wow, did I feel like superman when I got back racing my peers.
Huh, interesting. A friend of mine moved from sea level to ~6000 ft a few years ago. She said it took her a bit of time to get used to running at the new altitude, but eventually felt as comfortable with it as she had down here at sea level. I asked her if running feels easier to her at sea level now, when she comes down the mountain to visit, and she said it doesn't; it's basically the same as it used to be when she lived here.
Maybe the extra 4600ft you went up to made a difference in that, and of course everyone is different, but that's still interesting to me.
Your friend is the exception, I think. I’ve not lived below 5000 ft for over a decade, and every time I get to sea level, I feel like I can run FOREVER. My personal records are all from those types of trips.
I was thinking there's probably a correlation between high altitude living and getting exercise which may explain the lack of hear attacks. My main high living experience was the Everest area like Namche Bazaar and there are no roads or cars so everyone walks.
I had that exact feeling when I visited denver, many years ago when I was doing triathlons. I woke up the next morning, went to the gym to do a 1 hour bike threshold session, and started panting for breath within the first 10 minutes of warmup. I was like, what-the-heck?
Then I remember Denver was the mile-high city.
> people living in small towns in the mountains _love_ the outdoors
You have to. There's no activities besides outdoor activity and drinking and almost every other aspect of living in the mountains is more difficult (versus a normal, big city in a more hospitable terrain and climate).
When I lived in the mountains everyone was either there for the activities, or was a drug addicted hospitality worker there because they couldn't find jobs in cities.
out of curiosity, Leadville?
Thanks for the marvelous story!
Mountains are objectively aesthetically pleasing to humans. They also retain the most wild and specific nature around, especially in western world where in the past mostly agriculture changed environment forever. You can find entire states in Europe where 'wilderness' is basically a well curated park that was a field some time ago. Air is much cleaner, you see far and you feel utterly insignificant up there.
Mountains also allow tons of various sports most of the year as you mention and attract such crowds.
Overall, people go in droves to mountains every year, summer and winter, to recharge. And its a different recharge compared to some beach holiday, much more active and I dare to say a more effective one (active vacations simply recharge better mental tiredness of modern living and working).
I live near Geneva, Switzerland and after moving here basically became mountain sports addict. Hiking, ferratas, climbing, a bit of alpinism in non-winter, and skiing / ski touring in winter. For exotic places there is diving to keep a bit of balance. Did also some paragliding too but had a nasty accident last year that almost killed me so stopped that. Rest I continue, and will do till the last moment I can still do them, they make me properly happy like a toddler. I live in best possible place in the world for people like me, 1h drive from home and I am right below Mont Blanc, towering almost 4km higher than Chamonix valley.
One drawback as you mention - higher mountains are basically high altitude deserts, snow and ice everywhere but humidity easily below 5% ie in Himalaya. Many folks trying ie Everest didnt get higher than base camp simply due to being often sick up there, amateurs and pros alike.
"And its a different recharge compared to some beach holiday, much more active and I dare to say a more effective one"
That depends on the type of person I think. Plenty of stuff to do at the beach or in the water as well. Surfers (with ambitions) are pretty active people for instance. But sure, on average most people are way more active in the mountains than on the beach and personally I do prefer the mountains.
(And I tried hard moved moving also into the alps, but it did not work out so far, I will rather now move from semi mountain area to a flat area, but not for too long I hope)
I do tropical paradise vacations too, ie few weeks ago in Indonesia - Sulawesi, Togian Islands. But the heat takes away any attempt to serious efforts, without AC one is just chilling, diving/snorkeling, checking culture or history and traveling around. Sure there are ie some higher volcanoes, but I wasn't in such place this time.
I always lose few kgs of muscle on a vacation like that, despite ie full diving suit weighting maybe 40kg. Surfing is very active sport I didn't master yet, but can't imagine doing that around equatorial with that humidity, ie in that Sulawesi sea was 29-30C, air 32-33C day and night and 90-100% humidity.
> Mountains are objectively aesthetically pleasing to humans
Not sure about that. I find them aesthetically pleasing, and probably most people do, but I know at least one person who remains unmoved when looking at mountain scenery. Of course I find that strange, but there it is.
So not sure about the "objectively". Maybe "Mountains are aesthetically pleasing to MOST humans"
Exception proves the rule, blah, blah. I’m sure OP wasn’t speaking about every single person on the planet, without exception.
Yeah obviously that goes without saying
> it's already been proven that leading an active lifestyle is one of the most amazing things you can do for your health and happiness.
For your health sure. But for happiness, only if you actually like sporty activities. I don't, and it feels like a chore. Having to do chores all the time makes me unhappy. I've always hated anything to do with sports.
In think some people get an endorfin hit from it but for me that doesn't do much either. I just feel empty and exhausted after it.
I wonder if they're confusing the cause and effect.
Do people who live above 8k feet not die of heart disease or do people with heart disease find it too difficult to live above 8k feet so only people without heart disease live above 8k feet?
I live at 7200 feet and I know several people who have moved to lower altitudes because it's "too hard to breath" here.
I visited Mexico City a couple weeks ago and it is at 7200 feet. As I got off the plane I was gasping a bit and I woke up 3 or 4 times the first night gasping for air. I didn't have any problems visiting Denver at 5000 feet in years past but I was absolutely feeling it at 7200. I didn't stay long enough to see if I would acclimate as I continued to feel bad and returned home early.
My dad visited Machu Picchu. He was doing poorly and the guides put him on oxygen. They were well prepared for it, as it happens a lot and is not very predictable.
It's at 8,000 feet.
I remember staying overnight at Estes Park, 7500 feet. I got a headache. I didn't try anything strenuous.
I recall reading about Mt Everest climbs. Even on supplemental oxygen, your brain measurably dies a little. No thanks. People who climb it repeatedly are, in my not-so-humble opinion, idiots.
Yes people who climb Everest (in this time) are touristic idiots, even people who climb it "~alpine style".
However people who climb more interesting (for example Gasherbrum IV 8000m, Muztagh Tower 7200m, Thalay Sagar 7000m or Trango Towers 6200m) Mountains (in alpine style) would call people who sit 8 hours a day in front of a screen "idiots" ;)
There are reasons to be gasping for air in Mexico City that don't have to do with the altitude.. has terrible air quality
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Mexico City and SMA, and the first time was definitely the worst; lots of shortness of breath and walking seemed much harder there than other places. My 75 year-old mother had no issues at all when she came to visit tho
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercompensation
I am originally from the Himalayas (Garhwal specifically), although not quite as high as in the article, my village is at 5000 ft and damn did I have a shock when I took my desi friends up there (desi means people from the Indo-Gangetic plains, I unfortunately had to come to New Delhi for college and you can imagine the contrast!). While in Delhi, I am one of the more unathletic nerds, but as soon as we were in the mountains, these guys were no match for me! Roads are still very few and far in between in my region so you have to walk a lot, and these guys were getting tired on paths even small children and 80 year olds have no problem completing!
I visited the region around Dharamshala last year which is the same altitude (1500m) and was somewhat surprised I did not notice any effects of the altitude. My whole life (nearly 40) I've been living at sea level, except for trips.
I've lived mostly outside cities though so no major pollution. I'd imagine for Delhi folks the pollution must have a big effect on their lungs - but you'd think it would translate to working well for high altitude.
Ask a Himachali person how far something is and it's always "just around the next hill." Another couple of hours of walking and you"ll still get the same answer.
I really do wonder how big of that is a genetic factor and how big just being more acclimated to the altitude and the region?
It sounds like you didn’t lose your acclimation while away at school?
Well it has only been 2 years, and I actually grew up in the plains, but keep going back to my village for atleast a month each year
When I did a 2 week road trip from Chengdu to lijiang a couple of decades ago, we spent the first two days of the trip just acclimating on the Tibetan plateau at 3000 meters or at the town near siguniang. Then we hit places like daocheng (3500 meters), we drive through passes at 5000 meters, Litang town at 4000 meters (about the height of mt rainier). The biggest problem I had was the lack of vegetables that high, my teeth really got tired of eating judt meat and potatoes. The places were all populated though with Tibetans, they just lived up there as if it was the most normal thing in the world (heck, litang had 60k people living at 4k meters, that seemed crazy to me).
8,000 ft (2,400 meters) isn't particularly high. Millions of people live at that altitude. It's extremely common for people to go on a skiing vacation at that altitude or above, up to maybe 4,000 meters, and not need to take any particular precautions.
As to comments here about days resting while progressing to higher altitudes, such as in the Himalayas. A day or two will mostly result in adjustments in the water balance of your blood. It takes about 10 days to two weeks for your bone marrow to start producing additional red blood cells to compensate for the lower level of oxygen in the air.
High level altitude sickness is more complex and relates to multiple factors, including fluid balance, the health of one's vasculature and lungs, etc.
It is certainly the case that populations that have lived at high altitudes in the Himalayas or Andes for thousands of years have evolved adaptations that make such living easier.
Yeah, I spend a decent amount of time during the year at 6500-7000 feet (and live at sea level for the rest of the year). There's always an acclimation period when I first get there, but it's nowhere near as severe as the article suggests. I'm fine going right to the gym or whatever when I get there; I don't need a few days of rest first. In the winter I'll spend hours of the day up at 8000-9000 feet, and yes, I get winded easier, but I'm otherwise fine. I'm in my 40s, so while I'm not old, I'm not young either.
I think the highest up I've ever been for any solid amount of time was 10,500 feet, and sure, I could tell the difference, but it wasn't debilitating or anything remotely like that, and I could do moderate-plus physical activity without anything bad happening.
I've also been up to 15,000 feet (Salkantay Pass in Peru) for a very short time, and definitely felt it. A few people in my hiking group had to take some medicine, and one or two availed themselves of camels. But I would also consider this hike a high-exertion activity; they were fine when we took a break for a while and relaxed.
But I'm just not convinced that most (generally healthy!) people need that much acclimation before doing day-to-day tasks, including regular levels of exercise.
15k feet is already in danger territory for unpressurized aircraft. Above 14000 ft a pilot must use oxygen immediately. And that's not even strenuous work (though decision making and spatial awareness is also very affected)
> Millions of people live at that altitude
Millions isn’t that many people :)
Tens of millions (Bogotá, Quito, La Paz), to be specific
On the other hand, if it’s too high it’ll just kill your brain cells: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-cells-into-...
Potentially not even so high as that. You often see 2,500 m (8,500 ft) used as the beginning of "high altitude" - at that point some studies have detected cognitive effects from long-term exposure. (10.1007/s11065-004-8159-4) A lot of research is focused more on ~4,000+ meters though due to the existence of the Tibetan Plateau.
One other fun thing about living at altitude is that the recipes you use need to be redesigned because the boiling point of water is lower.
Very asymmetrically, too. There's a (relatively) small impact on cooking grains and pasta and stuff, but even at 5000 ft where I live beans can easily take 2x as long to cook. It's a challenge.
Hmm, is coffee a problem? (some of the extraction depends on temperature, but if water boils before reaching that temperature then the extraction wouldn't work...)
Coffee takes compensation, but even ambient pressure extraction can be tuned for great results — Denver and Boulder have good coffee scenes, for example. The bigger challenge is that Mr Coffee style brewers (bubble pump) have no way to adjust extraction time; and some fancier brewers try to closed-loop control temperature, and end up boiling the water continuously while brewing. Pour-overs obviously give you control to succeed, but for traditional machines I’ve found it critical to find one that allows a set point temperature JUST below local boiling, as well as time adjustment. The Breville Precision is my current workhorse, although I have some mixed feelings about it.
Espresso machines work at high pressures (8-9 bar) so it's less of an issue with those. I went up to the observatory on Mont Blanc a few years ago and had an espresso there. That's 3500 meter. I definitely was out of breath. The coffee was fine.
Yes! I like to vacation in the summer at Mammoth Lakes (~8000 ft ~2400m) and coffee is a bit of a problem. I like weak coffee and compensate for altitude by adding more grounds, but it's really not the same.
One can compensate with (steam)pressure and/or duration. Or cold brewing.
In practice I note not that much difference at about 2500m altitute, where my main residence is. French/Aeropress suffices. 100°C isn't necessary. Even only 90°C suffices.
Similar for good Tea. You destroy that with 100°C. Very good Tea should be brewed at 60 to 70°C for greens, blacks more like 70 to 85. Though the hardness/pH of the used water is equally important for them. For coffee not so much.
Did I really write altituTe? Well, there is something about cognitive changes elsethreads.
/giggle
Have you tried baking bread? Pizza dough? Some surprises wait :)
It's not just the boiling point. Food tastes less salty as well.
I once cooked a stew for friends at 8000 ft. I thought I had made a mistake because it tasted so bland. After the trip I had the leftovers at sea level and realized it tasted just fine. It gave me an appreciation for the fragile relationship between location and following recipes. (Humidity also changes taste)
Probably why airplane food is made extra salty to compensate for the rise in altitude
I remember the kettle took forever at ~ 9000 ft (near Huanglong, Sichuan Province).
Kettle should boil sooner as it will boil at a lower temperature
As a child I lived for two years at ~11k ft (La Paz, Bolivia). I can vouch for the impact of both Acute Mountain Sickness and the sun at that elevation.
I first learned about La Paz and its even higher-elevation sibling city El Alto from this video [1] about their new cable car transportation network [1][2]. I then spent a few hours on Google Maps and Youtube looking at El Alto up close, what a fascinating and different world up there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5126u88E7E
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi_Telef%C3%A9rico
My in-laws have a timeshare at 8300 feet. The first couple of days we have to take it easy and drink a ton of water, but then we kinda get used to it. And definitely feel superhuman when we return to sea level!
The hardest part is getting used to cooking at the elevation.
Super curious, what’s different about cooking in your experience?
Water boils at lower temperature because of lower pressure at higher altitude. As a result cooking is different - normal recipes don’t work as expected. From my personal anecdotal experience even grilling somehow is different at 8000ft.
There's an old aviation adage that says that time spent flying isn't deductible from one's lifespan. This article supports that. :-)
I spent time in Lhasa, it sits at 12k. It was like another world. High altitude isn't forgiving either. My (62) father was with me and didn't make it home.
> The best defense is to start at 5,000 feet and stay there for 3 days, drinking water like crazy and resting. Then, come up to the higher elevation and give yourself a day or two to adjust. That usually works.
This is crazy to me as I usually only get 1 acclimation night in before going up. I’m curious how people can find their limits / needs?
I met Charles Snead Houston, who lead the first two American attempts on K2 and became a doctor. (He fell the furthest in "The Belay", the most famous belay in mountaineering history.)
He asked me to explain my work on card shuffling, so we traded. He taught me about altitude sickness, for which he was the foremost expert. I then read his books before my own mountaineering, and his advice worked for me.
In a nutshell, where you sleep matters. 7,000' is free, and a conservative pace is to sleep 1,000' feet higher each night. (Good luck finding a Kilimanjaro ascent that climbs that slowly, but have you met anyone who was comfortable at the summit?)
My wife's brother lives at 10,000'. As it happens the last hotel is at 8,500'. One night does the trick for her.
I'm interested in your work on card shuffling. Or perhaps you could point me to a starter website?
Alas, I don't have much to trade for it except respect.
I lived in Breckenridge (9,600ft) for a few winters post college.
Before college, when I had last been to CO, I didn't get any altitude sickness. Post college, I discovered (by blacking out on the slopes at Vail) that I now got bad altitude sickness. It now takes me almost 2 weeks to aclimate, but once I do, boy, is it amazing.
The most fun time was when I flew home to the East Coast after being there 4 months. I felt like absolute Superman. So much energy, barely needed any sleep! I only wish those effects lasted more than 5 days...
I grew up in Memphis TN but lived in Boulder CO for a few years. I worked at a hospital in both cities; my job was checking people into the ER.
In Memphis, I’d probably see 7-10 heart related issues a day, with about 2-3 of them being actual heart attacks. Every single day.
By contrast, in Boulder I saw maybe 1-2 heart attacks a year.
It was absolutely astounding. Now, there could be some confounding variables like income/education/exercise/diet. But like another poster said, high altitude places seem to bring out more activity in us.
You have experience in 2 very different places demographically. High altitude may be on the list of factors but I would guess it’s pretty far down.
Boulder is a small college town of mostly affluent younger people. Memphis is an urban city in a hot climate that is older, poorer, and in the middle of the section of the US that has some of the worst health overall.
Boulder is one of the most fit places in the country. Lowest obesity rates, as you would expect from the first statement.
Worked for four months as a mountain bike guide on the death road in La Paz. 3600 meters to 4800 getting to the start of the road to about 1000 meters each day, and back. I believe I made many blood cells and nearly died 3 times
Higher UV…
Theoretically solar cells designed for more more UV intensity could produce quite a lot more electricity.
I imagine solar panels for space craft are designed with this in mind.
Of course the economics of this, that there’s only a few places where this is useful wouldn’t justify it all.
Note that 8000ft is the regulatory maximum cabin altitude in a plane, although many keep it lower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization
If anyone watched that movie, Elevation[0], the “line of death” was 8,000 feet.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(film)
The line of death is at 8,000 meters, not feet
Nope. Feet.
At least, that's what I remember from the film, and the Wikipedia page says "feet."
Also, I don't know if the Rockies have a 25,000-foot mountain (I think the Andes do, though).
Us Americans are kinda awkward about measurement units...
Even that’s a stretch.
The highest peak in the Andes, is Mount Aconcagua, which is just under 7,000 meters. That’s the highest point in the Western Hemisphere.
"Living at high altitude reduces risk of dying from heart disease", but you're litereally locked in your house because the sun takes every chance to fry you. I'm okay with not reducing my risk of dying from heart disease.
So easy to protect from the sun and the reward in the mountains is so wonderful. Terrible waste to stay locked in.
Wouldn’t be surprised if this were another contributor to less heart disease- so much incentive to get outside and do stuff.
No, you just wear long sleeve shirts and a hat.
Wait that was super short. I liked this article I wanted it to be longer.
On the contrary, do people who live high above for years have any trouble when coming back down?
I grew up in the mountains at about 8500 ft, but was often spending my freetime at higher elevations surrounding the village. There are lots of little things about living at high altitude people don't think about, such as cooking times and quirks, sealed containers exploding when going up, etc. My favorite has to be just how superhuman (when I was in my prime) going down to low elevation made me feel.
The biggest issue people don't talk about? Remote high alt places often become unlivable for people when they get elderly due to altitude interference in certain medical conditions, and the general distance away from hospitals.
I miss the mountains so much all the time, and hope to retire back up there.
Just don't try to have a baby up there.
Why not?
I would guess OP is referring to the association with lowered birth weight due to chronic hypoxia: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7050200/