Which is Better for Acclimating?

FAQ and threads for those just starting to hike the Colorado 14ers.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
Trotter
Posts: 1409
Joined: 6/5/2013
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 220 2 8
Trip Reports (10)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by Trotter »

mikefromcraig wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:52 am Also, a big mistake that you see on this forum a lot is the belief that sleeping high the night before a summit helps you acclimatize. If you take only one thing away from this thread, know that that is incorrect and counterproductive. That will only leave you in a diminished state to start out. Which means that when you camped at 11.5k and then hiked to 13k the next day you were likely making it harder on yourself than it needed to be. Which, since you didn't have a problem is actually good news in that it means you shouldn't have a problem with an easy 14er as long as you don't sleep so high the night before.
Strongly disagree
After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. -Nelson Mandela
Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called Ego. -Nietzsche
User avatar
aholle88
Posts: 368
Joined: 3/24/2015
14ers: 57  24  26 
13ers: 300 29 3
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by aholle88 »

Trotter wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:38 pm
mikefromcraig wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:52 am Also, a big mistake that you see on this forum a lot is the belief that sleeping high the night before a summit helps you acclimatize. If you take only one thing away from this thread, know that that is incorrect and counterproductive. That will only leave you in a diminished state to start out. Which means that when you camped at 11.5k and then hiked to 13k the next day you were likely making it harder on yourself than it needed to be. Which, since you didn't have a problem is actually good news in that it means you shouldn't have a problem with an easy 14er as long as you don't sleep so high the night before.
Strongly disagree
You are both right. Sleeping high helps with training for altitude, no question. But to Mike’s point, if you aren’t used to it, it’s harder to sleep at altitude and often your first night up high is usually not great quality, less recovery, etc. Especially as high as 11.5k. Sleeping at 9-10k before is more ideal.

To echo Mike’s other point, getting high only helps if you are getting there at minimum once/week. If you have issues up high, got to get up there frequently to help, but it sounds like the poster does not have any issues and is overthinking it.

The Evan’s idea is simply overkill. And counterproductive to your confidence. When you drive up high and gain that altitude fast, you feel it much more. For instance, I am very acclimated but when I used to drive up Pikes and do workouts from DP up or 321s, I could tell I was at 14k immediately whereas when I hike up, I don’t feel it at all.
User avatar
mikefromcraig
Posts: 449
Joined: 11/10/2010
14ers: 53  24 
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (15)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by mikefromcraig »

Trotter wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:38 pm
mikefromcraig wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:52 am Also, a big mistake that you see on this forum a lot is the belief that sleeping high the night before a summit helps you acclimatize. If you take only one thing away from this thread, know that that is incorrect and counterproductive. That will only leave you in a diminished state to start out. Which means that when you camped at 11.5k and then hiked to 13k the next day you were likely making it harder on yourself than it needed to be. Which, since you didn't have a problem is actually good news in that it means you shouldn't have a problem with an easy 14er as long as you don't sleep so high the night before.
Strongly disagree
This is a common misconception.

Acclimatization works similar to how weightlifting works; you are stressing your body, breaking it down, so that it builds back stronger. For example, one could sleep at high elevation (breaking down), the next day come back down and rest (building back stronger), and then summit the next day more acclimatized. But if you just sleep high and then summit the very next morning, you have only broken down without recovering back stronger. You are starting your hike in a broken down state even worse than if you would have started from scratch.

Now, of course sometimes the setting dictates that sleeping high and summitting the next day is the best strategy due to how long the total hike is and other variables (although often the extra physical fatigue from hiking in with all that extra gear/food/water and getting suboptimal sleep outweighs the benefit of starting further into the trail). But this is only a good strategy despite acclimatization effects, not because of it.

For example, my very last 14er was Little Bear and I only had one chance at it before going out of state for a few months. I chose to hike in and sleep high the night before my summit because I wanted to get an extremely early start to minimize the risk of a failed summit due to weather and minimize the danger at the hourglass. I was willing to trade off the downside of worse altitude affects to obtain these benefits.

About 5 years ago I did a TON of research into how acclimatization really works while training for Ojos del Salado 22,600'. I even had discussions with one of the world's leading experts on the subject (If I remember correctly I think he lived near Telluride at the time). Implementing these scientifically-based practices I summitted in less than 100 hours from arriving when most people take 7 days (and I'm by no means a great athlete).

This is probably more of a response than what is deserved from the "strongly disagree" comment but for some reason this topic just has so much misinformation surrounding it. Much like the myth surrounding training at altitude to improve your sea-level performance.
"I don't believe anyone who says they would prefer to die on a mountain in their 30s than in a hospital in their 90s."
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by bdloftin77 »

mikefromcraig wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:26 am About 5 years ago I did a TON of research into how acclimatization really works while training for Ojos del Salado 22,600'. I even had discussions with one of the world's leading experts on the subject (If I remember correctly I think he lived near Telluride at the time). Implementing these scientifically-based practices I summitted in less than 100 hours from arriving when most people take 7 days (and I'm by no means a great athlete).

This is probably more of a response than what is deserved from the "strongly disagree" comment but for some reason this topic just has so much misinformation surrounding it. Much like the myth surrounding training at altitude to improve your sea-level performance.
What are some other big take-aways from your research? What are your thoughts for those training/acclimating for peaks higher than 14ers? (eg Orizaba, Kilimanjaro, and even higher peaks like Denali, Aconcagua, etc)

What scientifically-based practices did you implement for Ojos del Salado?
User avatar
mikefromcraig
Posts: 449
Joined: 11/10/2010
14ers: 53  24 
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (15)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by mikefromcraig »

bdloftin77 wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:28 am
mikefromcraig wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:26 am About 5 years ago I did a TON of research into how acclimatization really works while training for Ojos del Salado 22,600'. I even had discussions with one of the world's leading experts on the subject (If I remember correctly I think he lived near Telluride at the time). Implementing these scientifically-based practices I summitted in less than 100 hours from arriving when most people take 7 days (and I'm by no means a great athlete).

This is probably more of a response than what is deserved from the "strongly disagree" comment but for some reason this topic just has so much misinformation surrounding it. Much like the myth surrounding training at altitude to improve your sea-level performance.
What are some other big take-aways from your research? What are your thoughts for those training/acclimating for peaks higher than 14ers? (eg Orizaba, Kilimanjaro, and even higher peaks like Denali, Aconcagua, etc)

What scientifically-based practices did you implement for Ojos del Salado?
Altitude tents don't really work (I'm talking about the ones you sleep in at home to allegedly build up acclimatization, not the ones used on the mountain to save the life of someone with AMS).

Training at altitude does not improve sea-level performance

There are prescription medications that help but you should test them out well in advance to see how they affect you.

Stay hydrated

On big mountains the goal is to acclimatize, not to gain last-minute aerobic endurance; you should have done the latter before the expedition. Yes, you will generally need to hike to get up to high elevation to acclimatize (although on Ojos you can drive!) but the point is to acclimatize, not to work out and get more fit. On Ojos there were a few people who were intentionally going on vigorous hikes in an effort to get in better shape. Because they were simultaneously acclimatizing they were just breaking their bodies down further and not giving enough time to recuperate. You don't want to lay around literally doing nothing all day but don't go on strenuous hikes.

On summit day anything that makes the hike easier and faster will help with the altitude by minimizing your effort and time spent up high. This could include bringing poles, extensively checking out the trail/maps/trip reports to ensure you never go off trail, lightweight gear, dropping off your backpack a mile before the summit and then picking it back up on the way down, etc.

And of course the principle I previously explained about how you want to go high to acclimatize but then always come back down to recover before the summit push.

People are irrationally obsessed with starting really early. If there is no risk of bad weather then there's really no benefit and getting a couple hours more sleep will dramatically improve your aerobic capacity, which will reduce the danger of altitude sickness.

Finally, I got one of those breathing resistance trainers for $25. I don't know if it specifically helps with acclimatization but studies show it does improve aerobic capacity. Plus, it's really easy to use. I would just wear it for about 5 minutes while driving. Note that this is for training, you don't bring it on the expedition.
"I don't believe anyone who says they would prefer to die on a mountain in their 30s than in a hospital in their 90s."
User avatar
dan0rama
Posts: 104
Joined: 1/12/2022
14ers: 26  5 
13ers: 5
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by dan0rama »

So the "TON" of research you did that led you to follow "scientifically-based practices" is really what anyone would learn from clicking on the first google result for high altitude acclimatization?

This is such a beat up topic, and despite Science still being unsure how our bodies respond and adapt to high altitude, every now and then you find those who claim to know it all
User avatar
mikefromcraig
Posts: 449
Joined: 11/10/2010
14ers: 53  24 
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (15)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by mikefromcraig »

dan0rama wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:21 am So the "TON" of research you did that led you to follow "scientifically-based practices" is really what anyone would learn from clicking on the first google result for high altitude acclimatization?

This is such a beat up topic, and despite Science still being unsure how our bodies respond and adapt to high altitude, every now and then you find those who claim to know it all
Well which one is it, am I repeating info that's really basic and easy to find or am I "claiming to know it all"? lol

I agree there's nothing overly complicated with these best practices but yet there are people who still don't get it. See the previous "strongly disagree" comment.
"I don't believe anyone who says they would prefer to die on a mountain in their 30s than in a hospital in their 90s."
User avatar
dan0rama
Posts: 104
Joined: 1/12/2022
14ers: 26  5 
13ers: 5
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by dan0rama »

you had a mishmash here of stay hydrated, bring trekking poles and "there is meds to help with acclimation", as well as some pseudo bro science about acclimatization being like bodybuilding
User avatar
mikefromcraig
Posts: 449
Joined: 11/10/2010
14ers: 53  24 
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (15)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by mikefromcraig »

dan0rama wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:59 am you had a mishmash here of stay hydrated, bring trekking poles and "there is meds to help with acclimation", as well as some pseudo bro science about acclimatization being like bodybuilding
"psuedo bro science" is clearly an attack on my recommendations. What exactly did I recommend that is incorrect and why?
"I don't believe anyone who says they would prefer to die on a mountain in their 30s than in a hospital in their 90s."
User avatar
mtree
Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/16/2010
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by mtree »

dan0rama wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:59 am you had a mishmash here of stay hydrated, bring trekking poles and "there is meds to help with acclimation", as well as some pseudo bro science about acclimatization being like bodybuilding
I have to agree with dano.

People "think" they have the magic pill, but they just spew the same recycled marketing hype you find on Google. Acclimatization is nothing like bodybuilding. Its a combination of physiological and biochemical activity your body reacts to and compensates/adjusts for over time. If anything, its closer to weight loss/gain when you change your diet. And everybody's different. I'll leave it at that.

Sleeping the night before at altitude will likely just leave you tired and no better acclimated. But if you hike that morning you will get an earlier start! Occasional trips to altitude won't do much other than get your body and mind used to what's happening. That could be a good thing. Plus, its exercise.

This is a constant rehashed topic for the obvious reasons. Fact: There is no shortcut to getting acclimated to altitude. Just hike high and do it often. Its that simple.
- I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was blaming you.
User avatar
mikefromcraig
Posts: 449
Joined: 11/10/2010
14ers: 53  24 
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (15)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by mikefromcraig »

mtree wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 10:21 am
dan0rama wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:59 am you had a mishmash here of stay hydrated, bring trekking poles and "there is meds to help with acclimation", as well as some pseudo bro science about acclimatization being like bodybuilding
I have to agree with dano.

People "think" they have the magic pill, but they just spew the same recycled marketing hype you find on Google. Acclimatization is nothing like bodybuilding. Its a combination of physiological and biochemical activity your body reacts to and compensates/adjusts for over time. If anything, its closer to weight loss/gain when you change your diet. And everybody's different. I'll leave it at that.

Sleeping the night before at altitude will likely just leave you tired and no better acclimated. But if you hike that morning you will get an earlier start! Occasional trips to altitude won't do much other than get your body and mind used to what's happening. That could be a good thing. Plus, its exercise.

This is a constant rehashed topic for the obvious reasons. Fact: There is no shortcut to getting acclimated to altitude. Just hike high and do it often. Its that simple.
Acclimatization is a process whereby you break down and then build back stronger. How is that more like gaining or losing weight than bodybuilding (where you break your body down to build back stronger)?

Nothing I said is a "magic pill," just best practices. Just like there's no magic pill to running a faster 5k but there are known practices that you can learn to improve the process. If someone came along and suggested that you run a 5k the night before the morning of the 5k in an effort to better prepare for the race, we know that this is wrong.

At the end of the day I'll leave it up to the reader if they want go by the explanations I have provided or the assertions without explanation that I'm wrong and replace my advice with what you offer "Just hike high and do it often. It's that simple." Amazing all the research on altitude performance has been replaced by these two sentences.
"I don't believe anyone who says they would prefer to die on a mountain in their 30s than in a hospital in their 90s."
User avatar
HikerGuy
Posts: 1406
Joined: 5/25/2006
14ers: 58 
13ers: 426 8
Trip Reports (9)
 

Re: Which is Better for Acclimating?

Post by HikerGuy »

mikefromcraig wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 10:30 am Acclimatization is a process whereby you break down and then build back stronger.
I don't have a horse in this race, but this statement is categorically false.
Post Reply