knoback wrote:Careful you don't confuse work capacity at altitude with susceptibility to altitude illness. Not the same thing.
You may be able to increase your VC a little bit, but total lung capacity is kind of fixed - unless you get emphysema. Then it might increase. Maybe Camels should be the next training fad for the thin air sloggin' crowd?

Not sure what Whillans smoked, but it seemed to work for him...

Alpynisto wrote:

Ze wrote:LOSE USELESS WEIGHT.

Bad advice for high altitude climbing. Fine for little stuff (<15k) but extra body fat is often beneficial on longer expeditions to the big peaks.

Do you know how long 5% bodyfat will last you in terms of energy? A long time. And we're not even talking about that level, pretty hard to get to.

10% fat will give you like 20 marathons worth of energy. Or 20 8,000 ft climbs. I don't think an extra 10% of bodyfat above that is necessary.

Maybe extra fat is good for insulation. But it costs bodyweight --> workload --> oxygen consumption.

Of course, aren't you the one who believes the extra 1-2 lbs of weight you may gain from water when being carb loaded is bad?

and btw, I am not just talking about fat, but also muscle. Easy to have "excess" muscle if you lift heavy weights. That muscle is basically dead weight during endurance exercise.

Ze wrote:Do you know how long 5% bodyfat will last you in terms of energy? A long time. And we're not even talking about that level, pretty hard to get to.

10% fat will give you like 20 marathons worth of energy. Or 20 8,000 ft climbs. I don't think an extra 10% of bodyfat above that is necessary.

Maybe extra fat is good for insulation. But it costs bodyweight --> workload --> oxygen consumption.

Of course, aren't you the one who believes the extra 1-2 lbs of weight you may gain from water when being carb loaded is bad?

Pretty obvious you haven't been on major expeditions or read much about them. The lean boys are the the bodies still up there. The stout boys are the ones that come home. Lean only works when nothing else goes wrong and that's seldom the case in big mountains. If you start out with 10%, you'll never make it above base camp because the trek and local bugs will kick your ass. Lean can work on dinky peaks in north and south america. But that's more to do with the infrastructure (fast and easy access) and short time at real altitude.

You're "excess muscle" claim is absurd: it's incredibly hard to bulk in the first place for about 85% of the male population (even fewer women can do it) and virtually impossible when throwing in the conditioning for high mountains. And if you knew anything about the real protocols for effective carbo loading (hint: it's way more than a big pasta meal the night before), you'd agree it's BS for climbers of any sort.

man there are some haters around here.

Alpynisto, absolutely, I don't do major expeditions. but you need a little more than anecdotal evidence. and I would accept it but really you don't provide any explanations. more like you just are regurgitating something.

I understand as expeditions get longer, the need for fat increases. 1 month treks? yeah you need some fat. where is the cutoff? I don't know.

Backing up, I dont' think the OP was specifically asking about extremely high altitude climbing only, and that's where your idea of big boys maybe has some validity. I tried looking up some stuff, didn't find much (only how much fat and lean mass is lost, not correlates with success). I did find one study

http://www.wemjournal.org/article/PIIS1080603206702976/fulltext



BMI is negatively associated with success in summiting Everest (albeit not significantly). I'm open to rebuttal (what do I know?), but at least provide some real information.

I agree its hard to keep bulk when conditioning for very high mountains. but people can get some bulk without too much effort (I'd like to see you reference to something that 85% of males can't!)

Carb loading the night before? eh no it's more than that. But you can do it the day before if you follow the correct protocol (some Aussies or Kiwis found a nice way to do it a few years ago). Sure that's mainly for day treks. Ask cyclists what they do for multiday events. Month long treks? I don't know. But that's an extreme case.

knoback wrote:You guys are relying on a) anecdotal evidence b) extrapolation from experimental evidence that is poorly matched to the group and conditions you are discussing c) extrapolation from basic science data. None of those approaches are productive; may I suggest you abandon them. High altitude mountaineering is mostly a physiology test, and as far as we know you are born with most of the relevant physiology. If it makes you feel better to have one of the fine fellows in your local human performance lab shove a catheter in your radial artery and measure your lactate level every 15 seconds while you try not to collapse on the treadmill, go for it! But the information you gain will allow you to tweak around the edges, not transform your abilities. In the Olympics, where 2% is the gap between first and last, it will make a noticable difference, anywhere else, not so much. Better to ask youself, what are the redeeming features of laboring up a 50 degree snow slope at 20k feet? Perhaps you are seeking answers in the wrong medical subspecialty altogether.

sure, I think what you say has more validity the higher you go.

I lost 31 pounds on my last trip to Nepal. Other guys on our trip lost half of that for what seemed a similar workload and appetite.

Then again you have guides doing back to back trips from premonsoon Nepal to Pakistan to post monsoon Nepal who weigh nothing and still climb strong.

Hey this is a great thread, pretty interesting stuff.

Here's my simple two cents: If VO2 max is the max amount of O2 your body can use at a given instant, then it's logical to think that with a higher VO2 you should be more efficient in an environment with reduced 02. I guess how much of a difference that makes at altitude is debatable.

I think it does make sense that someone who is accustomed to working out hard for long periods of time and is in good shape will generally perform better at altitude than those who don't. Reasons for this could simply relate to mental stamina: If you're used to pushing your limits and hurting, than you may have a higher threshold for the uncomfortable nature of altitude...i.e toughness.

In other words:
If all genetic factors could be removed from the equation, it stands to reason that being more fit (mentally and physically) will lend itself to better performance at altitude.

Of course, being so tough you don't know you're about to die isn't great either....but that's what Darwin is for.