I am currently debating on which guided climb to pursue this summer. I have a lot of experience with winter camping and long hiking trips. I have summited both Mt. Shuksan and Mt. Baker and have completed a week-long glacier mountaineering course. Currently, I train 5-6 days a week. The plan is to head to South America to get some experience with altitude- I have not been above 12K feet. The question is, would the Ecuador Volcanoes be a better climb for me? I really would like to acclimate in Peru and climb Yanapacha/Chopicalqui but do not want to bite off more than I can chew. My ultimate goal is to climb Denali, so I am trying to take the right steps. Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Adam

Hello Adam, Nice project you have. I came across this article https://www.explore-share.com/blog/7-top-5-volcanoes-to-climb-in-ecuadorabout the top volcanoes to climb in Ecuador. You might find some useful info to plan your trip there. This website also lists certified mountain guides from all around the world, including in Ecuador and Peru. Enjoy !

I've been planning an Andes trip myself, and this is what I have discovered in talking to people in the know. Peru is generally steeper and more technical, Ecuador generally walk up volcano type of climbs. For your goals and experience Ecuador would probably be the better bet.

Here is another thought. Have you considered Bolivia? That is where I have set my sights. A partner of mine is a professional mountain guide who has guided all over the world and he said Bolivia is his favorite country to guide in. Considered to have the best weather of any major mountain range in the world with easy access, high mountains up to 6500 meters, and more technical options than Ecuador as well as many straight forward ascents. Look at the Cordillra Real http://www.boliviaclimbinginfo.org/

The Ecuador Volcanoes are very beautiful and I'd like to go back and climb some more of them. That said, the Cordillera Blanca is even more spectacular, so if you had to choose, I'd go there. Those two Peruvian peaks you list are similar in technical difficulty to some of the higher Ecuador Volcanoes (such as Chimborazo), so it shouldn't be much of a problem of one vs. the other if you are going guided.

Although as mentioned I really like Ecuador, Peru and Patagonia have the most spectacular mountains in South America. Ecuador does, however, have the Galapagos if that interested you.

As mentioned, Bolivia is also a possibility. Guided climbing trips there also tend to be a little cheaper than in Peru.

Some things to keep in mind about Ecuadorian volcanoes (and Mexican volcanoes too):
1) Most trips to climb these mountains are pretty short in duration, giving you minimal time to acclimatize
2) In both Ecuador and Mexico, you typically climb the peaks in a single day from a hut, making the climbs essentially extreme day hikes at altitude. In Ecuador you typically leave the hut at midnight or thereabouts in order to get up and back down before the snow softens to the point that the descent is too exhausting or dangerous due to snow bridges over crevasses softening
3) In both Ecuador and Mexico, glacier recession has created a situation where the first several hours of climbing from the hut are over steep moraine / scree

Although my first exposure to altitude was in Ecuador (back in 1987) and I have been back twice since then (most recently in December 2014) I preferred climbing in Peru and Bolivia.

1) Most trips to climb these mountains are pretty short in duration, giving you minimal time to acclimatize

I agree with some of your post, but I don't think I'd agree with the part about having minimal time to acclimatize. Quito is at 3000 meters and in the vicinity there are many places to stay between 3300-3600 meters. There are also many 4000+ meter and low 5000 meter peaks to acclimatize on. I don't think is any harder to acclimatize in Ecuador than it is in Peru and Bolivia.

Fortunately, I do not have to choose between the two. I really would like to stay focused on the goal of Denali though. Hence, I should probably spend more time in the cascades as well as winter camping in NY & NH. I know that I will get good altitude experience on both trips- just don't know how my body will function at those heights. I feel like I am getting mixed reviews. Some say that they are same in difficulty but others say deep snow and technical pitches make Peru more of a challenge. Any additional input would be great!

Some say that they are same in difficulty but others say deep snow and technical pitches make Peru more of a challenge.

Overall the Cordillera Blanca peaks are generally more difficult than the Ecuador Volcanoes, but for the two peaks you listed (Yanapacha and Chopicalqui) the difficulties are similar to say Chimborazo or Antisana, at least from a technical standpoint. The peaks you listed are some of the easier of the big peaks in the Blanca.

Other than El Altar (which is quite difficult), the harder Ecuador Volcanoes (Illiniza Sur can have some steep pitches, but it's short) are comparable to the easier peaks in the Blanca.

I really would like to stay focused on the goal of Denali though. Hence, I should probably spend more time in the cascades as well as winter camping in NY & NH.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Spend time on Rainier, Baker, and other heavily glaciated peaks to learn and get comfortable with glacier travel. Learn crevasse rescue, prussiking, ice axe and crampon use. Practice winter camping in the NE, build snow walls, practice peeing in a bottle, dressing to stay warm. Climb some ice and winter mixed alpine routes to become comfortable with exposure. Do some aid climbing to get the hang of ascending fixed lines. I don't think a trip to the Andes or Mexican volcanoes is necessary to climb Denali. Can't hurt though.

Scott wrote:

1) Most trips to climb these mountains are pretty short in duration, giving you minimal time to acclimatize

I agree with some of your post, but I don't think I'd agree with the part about having minimal time to acclimatize. Quito is at 3000 meters and in the vicinity there are many places to stay between 3300-3600 meters. There are also many 4000+ meter and low 5000 meter peaks to acclimatize on. I don't think is any harder to acclimatize in Ecuador than it is in Peru and Bolivia.

Hi Scott, I was referring to the itinerary of many (not all) commercial trips, which tend to try to get a lot done in short time frames like 10 days (or less for the Mexican volcanoes). I agree that Ecuador has great opportunities to acclimatize.

aduris12 wrote:Fortunately, I do not have to choose between the two. I really would like to stay focused on the goal of Denali though. Hence, I should probably spend more time in the cascades as well as winter camping in NY & NH. I know that I will get good altitude experience on both trips- just don't know how my body will function at those heights. I feel like I am getting mixed reviews. Some say that they are same in difficulty but others say deep snow and technical pitches make Peru more of a challenge. Any additional input would be great!

If your main objective is to test yourself at altitude, Ecuador is a great place to do that, just be careful not to sign up for something that will take you to altitude too quickly. One tactic is to arrange your own trip, and hire local guides in Quito to your own schedule. Another tactic (if for whatever reason you want to sign up for a particular commercial trip) is to tack some extra time on the front end, i.e. arrive early in Quito, and have a local guide / trekking service take you up one or two of the local non-glaciated volcanoes near Quito (such as Guagua Pichincha) before the start date of the trip. You'll feel a lot better in the hut on Cotopaxi or Illinizas with a few extra days of acclimatization and will do better on the hill as a result.

I would suggest Ecuador as well. The volcanoes are not so technical, but still there is some danger to deal with, above and under your feet.
Most of the volcanos are reachable in 1/2 to one day to BC, and you can find good accommodation. I climbed the Ilinizas, with my wife (no high altitude experience) and it was great for acclimatization. Also being in Quito itself is an acclimatization but still you can hike from the city to some nice 4000+m peaks. Going around the city was quite simple,easy and cheep.
Peru is more spectacular then Ecuador.The mountains are just amazing, with razor sharp ridges and pointy peaks. I had the opportunity to climb Pisco and Ishinca, alone (not recommended), a filing that I can not describe. These peaks would be also recommendable for what you are looking for. Chopi would be doable with a guide. Logistics are a little more complicated than in Quito. Lima/Huaraz is 8 h with the bus and then to access the BCs you have to hire a taxi.
When are you planing for Denali?
Good luck.

I was planning on doing a commercial trip with a guide from the states. The itineraries are 15-16 days including acclimation at the beginning. I am open to other options if y'all think I am better off getting a guide down there. My plan is to climb Rainier in June with a buddy before heading down there. As far as Denali goes, I was thinking Summer 2017. However, I am not in a rush and want to make sure that I am prepared.

ExcitableBoy wrote:I don't think a trip to the Andes or Mexican volcanoes is necessary to climb Denali.

Agreed, I climbed it having never climbed outside of CA previously...but with 2 experienced partners.

I am open to other options if y'all think I am better off getting a guide down there.

I'd recommend going with a local company. It will cost much, much less and will add more to the local economy. Check forums like SP or Lonely Planet to find out who had had good experiences with each company.