Ojos Del Salado

[Vincopotamus]

"Above 18,000 feet (5,400 meters) most people begin to deteriorate regardless of acclimatization."

Yes, that's what is meant by the approximate line of permanent acclimatization I was referring to.

Nope wasn't the point you differed on, ScottP. You said "Most mountaineering definitions I've seen use the definition of high altitude peaks starting at 18,000 feet," so I provided sources backing that H.A. refers to up to around 11,500-12,000'. Instead of providing your source(s) you act as though I was talking about "permanent acclimatization."

Do you have a source defining "high altitude" as 18,000'+ or not? And if so, what other ranges do they define? According to you, "high altitude" hikes start where people can't live, but sources above don't define H.A. thus.

This is the most asinine bit of semantics I have ever read on this forum.

[Scott P]

The OP simply said, "My wife and I are trying to get into more high altitude peaks" and you went off on him just because he didn't use the word "extreme", which is not useful.

Instead of providing your source(s) you act as though I was talking about "permanent acclimatization."

Do you have a source defining "high altitude" as 18,000'+ or not?

I said most mountaineering definitions that I know of and for peaks specifically (I said nothing about hikes or anything else that you are implying). I also didn't say that your definition was wrong, only that it is just one definition and that there are others. Personally, I don't even know if it's fair to say which of the many definitions are 100% correct, if any (of which discussion is best left to another thread).

I also listed several sources to the other definition. Just some of those sources included Climber’s and Hiker’s Guide to the World’s Mountains (who's author-Mike Kelsey, has probably climbed more mountains in more areas than anywhere else in the world), most permit issuing agencies in the Himalaya, and various high altitude climbing authorities. If you really want to get specific some of those that could be used are authors such as Messner, Wickwire, etc., all of whom have more authority to try and define high altitude mountaineering than your sources, which aren't specific to mountaineering.

Also, I didn't say that you were talking about "permanent acclimatization". I said that it was most commonly used as the approximate line between high altitude and other expeditions.

Let's use some specific examples for different definitions.

When you Google "High Altitude Mountaineering" the first source that bothers to list an elevation that comes up says the following:

http://www.sportsdefinitions.com/mounta ... itude.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

High Altitude Mountaineering:

Generally applied to climbs over 6,000m.

How about the example of the Pakistani Ministry of Tourism who are the ones responsible for issuing all permits for the Karakoram?

http://www.k2climb.net/guide/rulesofministry3.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For the distinction between high altitude porters vs low altitude porters in the Karakoram, 5500 meters is used, which in my opinion is a better definition than the 6000 meter one, since it seems arbitrary while the 5500 meter definition is useful and not arbitrary since it is based on science. Exact quotes:

A Low altitude porter shall carry a maximum weight of 20 kgs up to base camp. A high altitude porter shall carry a maximum weight of 12 kg.

Similarly free ration shall be provided to high altitude porter as per Annexure -H from the day he goes above 5,500 meters.

Notice that low altitude porters can carry loads up to K2 and other basecamps. Feel free to look up any source you want for the elevations of those various basecamps. I'll let you look them up yourself, but will guarantee to you that they are above the elevation in your definition. Personally, I do not think I'd call those basecamps low altitude, but from an expeditionary standpoint the basecamps aren't in the league of high altitude mountaineering.

The truth is that there is no real set definition for high altitude, high altitude expeditions, or high altitude mountaineering, so there was no reason to try and go off on the OP simply because he didn't use the word "extreme" when he said he wanted to get into more high altitude peaks.

The sources you list aren't mountaineering specific. I was trying to provide (and have provided) useful information to the OP. Arguing with OP that high altitude peaks are only those 4900--8000' to 12,000' is asinine, stupid, and not useful. This time I will not add the sentence that I don't mean any offence, because I don't care if you are offended or not.

To the OP, many on this site actually do have experience in the kind of peaks you are looking to climb and will be happy to help you out. Sorry if this thread kind of got messed up. If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM.

[kansas]

This is the most asinine bit of semantics I have ever read on this forum.

http://www.14ers.com/forum/search.php?a ... 9&sr=posts

Here, I found a source with more for you.

[12ersRule]

I've got nothing of value to add to this thread but to say that this is the douchiest emoticon on this site:

[I fall a lot]

This is the most asinine bit of semantics I have ever read on this forum.

The absolute need to be absolutely correct absolutely all the time is absolutely nauseating and tiresome.

I used to want to be right most of the time...then I got married.

[speth]

Came to find out about climbing the world's highest altitude volcano, stayed to find out if it's actually high altitude or not.

[Dave B]

An oldie but a goodie:

I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me.

[TallGrass]

To the OP, you said 10 days. One company takes 15 days for that peak, and that doesn't include flying there and back. Another lists 16 days, and here's another site with more route info. FotH suggests 1,000-1,500' a day for acclimatizing above 10,000', with an extra day at the same every few days. With the last refugio (Tejos) at 19,140' (5834m), that makes 8 days acclimating up.

So I'd say it's too much to bite off in 10 days noting you wanted to do other things while there -- it'll eat up a lot of time. Hopefully you can either stay there longer or find something else that will fit your time frame. Have fun!


[quote="Scott P"]The OP simply said, "My wife and I are trying to get into more high altitude peaks" and you went off on him[/quote] Nice hyperbole, noting my first comment (which hasn't been "edited 20+ times in total"). [quote="Scott P"]The sources you list aren't mountaineering specific.[/quote] So the International Society for Mountain Medicine, "Preparing for Safe Travel to High Altitude," U.S. Army research, and other "hiking" and "climbing" links are for, hmm, hot air ballooning? FWIW, another top-listed site from a "high altitude mountaineering" search uses "High Altitude: 1500 – 3500 m." It may not be what you think it should be, but at least it's a reference the OP can readily access and verify.

[Scott P]

Nice hyperbole, noting my first comment (which hasn't been "edited 20+ times in total").

I thought I'd edit enough so it's clear enough that anyone could understand. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Apparently it's still not clear enough. Sorry, I can't make it any clearer.

So the International Society for Mountain Medicine, "Preparing for Safe Travel to High Altitude," U.S. Army research, and other "hiking" and "climbing" links are for, hmm, hot air ballooning?

If you read through, most are for all aspects of high altitude, not just mountaineering only. Believe it or not, acclimatization is also important for people that aren't mountaineers.

FWIW, another top-listed site from a "high altitude mountaineering" search uses "High Altitude: 1500 – 3500 m It may not be what you think it should be.

I never said what it should be (not once), but only said that there was more than one definition and that there was nothing wrong with the OP referring to Ojos del Salado as a high altitude peak. That was the only point. I'm done.

To the OP, you said 10 days. One company takes 15 days for that peak, and that doesn't include flying there and back. Another lists 16 days, and here's another site with more route info. FotH suggests 1,000-1,500' a day for acclimatizing above 10,000', with an extra day at the same every few days. With the last refugio (Tejos) at 19,140' (5834m), that makes 8 days acclimating up.

So I'd say it's too much to bite off in 10 days noting you wanted to do other things while there -- it'll eat up a lot of time. Hopefully you can either stay there longer or find something else that will fit your time frame. Have fun!

That is actually a useful post. Your other one correcting the OP for not calling it extreme was not. Period. I'm done with you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the OP:

Just ignore the asinine banter. Feel free to ask more questions if you still have them. I wish you the best of luck on your trip.

[Mark A Steiner]

Atacama is a great place. I was actually planning on being there now, but things didn't work out.

There are several volcanoes there around 6000M +/-that can be climbed in itineraries of varying length, depending on your acclimatization.
Some of these are the following:

Vicunas (6067M), Ermitano (6146M), Guallatiri (6071M), San Pedro Volcano (6145M), Licancabur (5916M), Sairecabur (6026M), Toco (5604M),
Lascar (5592M), Marmolejo (6108M),San Jose (5865M) and a bit taller, Llullaillaco (6700M), and of course, Ojos del Salado (6893M).

I posted a few pics here of the area:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30805&p=363697&hilit=licancabur#p363697

Thanks for the pics from the link, Rob. Great images.

If you have more to share from your experiences in the high Atacama, I would welcome some additional views. Thanks in advance.

[Bullwinkle]

I used to live in Santiago and traveled extensively throughout the Andean countries. If you would like to save some time and $, there are other high altitude options in central and southern Chile that you might find worthy of your time and talent. I have posted some of these climbing venues previously, so try a 14ers search first. If you still need help, send me a PM.

[MountainHiker]

When I did Aconcagua, which is not a lot higher, we were 11 days trailhead to trailhead. We arrived at the 9800’ trailhead the day before starting. We had hiked above treeline in Colorado every weekend leading up to the climb.

MountainHikerette had to turn back from high camp 18,200’. So taking a few more days before moving to that high camp might have made the difference for her. There are different strategies for how much time to spend at each intermediate elevation, and how many carries to make before moving to a higher elevation. But the general consensus is you don’t rush a mountain that high. Some friends were 9 days trailhead to trailhead. We also met people who were hanging out for several days at 14,000’ before climbing any higher.

I have found that Colorado climbers can often get away with a quick climb of 18,500’ Orizaba. But with Orizaba there tends to be a couple acclimation days travelling through Mexico City and then to the hut. And this is often just a few days after climbing a fourteener.

But when you have a full summit day above the elevation of Orizaba, acclimation becomes a much more serious issue. With Orizaba, if you feel like crap, you don’t have as far to descend to safety. If things go bad above 20,000’ it might not be just a matter of sucking it up.