Altitude Living

[Mauritio]

I've successfully used Coca 30c going to 3,800 meters.

I can't handle caffeine well , so I'm not sure about that.

 

[Lejeboca]

I can't handle caffeine well , so I'm not sure about that.

It's a homeopathic remedy. It is not made from caffeine but rather from cocaine Note that beyond 30c there is no actual substance left in the final product. (I bought it on Amazon, e.g. )

 

[Mauritio]

It's a homeopathic remedy. It is not made from caffeine but rather from cocaine Note that beyond 30c there is no actual substance left in the final product. (I bought it on Amazon, e.g. )

Oh thought it said coca cola for 30 cents ...
I have to see if I can get my hand on that till Tuesday

 

[Mauritio]

Would short intermittent visits for work at a level to 1500 -2500 m also have benefits ?

 

[Lejeboca]

Would short intermittent visits for work at a level to 1500 -2500 m also have benefits ?

My interpretation of Dr. Peat's thoughts on altitude is that the effect is cumulative, in terms of the benefit duration post-altitude stay.
The only problem I see with short visits is that body doesn't have time to adapt to the altitude. On the other hand, for a healthy person, 1500-2500m is not noticeable. Go for it but do not work to hard! ;-)

 

[Mauritio]

My interpretation of Dr. Peat's thoughts on altitude is that the effect is cumulative, in terms of the benefit duration post-altitude stay.
The only problem I see with short visits is that body doesn't have time to adapt to the altitude. On the other hand, for a healthy person, 1500-2500m is not noticeable. Go for it but do not work to hard! ;-)

You mean not noticable in terms of difficulties or benefits ?

 

[Lejeboca]

You mean not noticable in terms of difficulties or benefits ?

Difficulties are not noticeable for such altitudes. Benefits still there

 

[Mauritio]

Difficulties are not noticeable for such altitudes. Benefits still there

Ok great. Do you think theres an optimal altidute for short term stays in the matter of difficulties to benefits ratio ?

 

[Lejeboca]

Ok great. Do you think theres an optimal altidute for short term stays in the matter of difficulties to benefits ratio ?

Since per Dr. Peat health benefits are already evident at 400ft (~1220m, see post #17 above), I'd start with that and increase to my body's adaptation tolerance based on duration of your stays. Alternatively, you could go right away to the maximum possible altitude for your short stays, see how you feel, and go lower if you feel off.
The frequency of sort stays would count too, I reckon: If you make these visits often, you can gradually build up your tolerance (i.e., improve adaptation time), assuming no other stress ensues.

 

[Mauritio]

Since per Dr. Peat health benefits are already evident at 400ft (~1220m, see post #17 above), I'd start with that and increase to my body's adaptation tolerance based on duration of your stays. Alternatively, you could go right away to the maximum possible altitude for your short stays, see how you feel, and go lower if you feel off.
The frequency of sort stays would count too, I reckon: If you make these visits often, you can gradually build up your tolerance (i.e., improve adaptation time), assuming no other stress ensues.

Thank I think I'll do the latter . But do you think a tolerance would build up even if those visits are short term and followed by going back to almost sea level ?

 

[Lejeboca]

Thank I think I'll do the latter . But do you think a tolerance would build up even if those visits are short term and followed by going back to almost sea level ?

I recall Dr. Peat saying in an interview that benefits from a month on altitude can be felt for six months at sea level. By projecting this to a day at altitude, I'd say that its beneficial effects would last about 6 days. I think benefits include adaption (tolerance build-up). So if you go back to the altitude for 1 day, say, after day 5 at the sea level, I'd imagine that continue to build up this tolerance per these calculations.
This, of course, sounds very simplistic but it is at least a train of thought and is something I use myself to estimate the duration of benefits when I return from an altitude to a sea level. (I don't go to altitude enough to have hard-core measurements of the benefits.)

 

[Mauritio]

I recall Dr. Peat saying in an interview that benefits from a month on altitude can be felt for six months at sea level. By projecting this to a day at altitude, I'd say that its beneficial effects would last about 6 days. I think benefits include adaption (tolerance build-up). So if you go back to the altitude for 1 day, say, after day 5 at the sea level, I'd imagine that continue to build up this tolerance per these calculations.
This, of course, sounds very simplistic but it is at least a train of thought and is something I use myself to estimate the duration of benefits when I return from an altitude to a sea level. (I don't go to altitude enough to have hard-core measurements of the benefits.)

But if you need to get through anadpation period of several days to reapctue benefits this might not apply. On the other hand, if the altitude isnt that high the adaptation period might be shorter .

Its boring, but its probably once again just individually different, so the proof is in the pudding.

 

[Amazoniac]

Guto making a case for living at extreme altitude not being as deadly as Blossom with her new Christmas gun:

- Gustavo Zubieta-Calleja
↳ Facts that Prove that Adaptation to Life at Extreme Altitude (8848 m) is Possible

With adequate and gradual adaptation, life is possible even at the hypoxic levels of the summit of Mt. Everest. We describe some further examples that provide proof of such a statement:

1. Life at high altitude in the city of La Paz between 3100 and 4100 m where people sustain variable degrees of tissue hypoxia having a very low arterial oxygen tension (PaO2 = 37 mmHg) due to respiratory and/or cardiac disease.
2. It is possible to perform maximal work at extreme altitudes, as evidenced by a soccer match played at 6542 meters, on the summit of Mount Sajama.
3. Severe high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) occurred in a rugby player within 72 hours at 3600 m (PaO2 of 27 mmHg and a SaO2 of 45 %) upon arrival from Portugal.
4. In the Triple Hypoxia Syndrome (THS) where Chronic Mountain Sickness (CMS) polyerythrocythemic patients with gradual adaptation to hypoxia, with a high hematocrit can occasionally tolerate a PaO2 of 30 mmHg, for a week or longer, a severe hypoxic condition similar to that on the summit of Mount Everest.
5. Human fetus under normal conditions develop at oxygen tension values equal to the altitude of Mount Everest until delivery (PaO2 = 28 mmHg). They are naturally capable of living in hypoxic enviromental conditions present on our planet.

Consequently, normal subjects with full capacity for adaptation will show that life is possible at any existing altitude on planet Earth, provided that the following conditions are met: adequate environmental temperatures, lodging, food, slow and progressive adaptation. This seems possible in only one generation, as the human organism is provided with the adequate compensation mechanisms thereby acquiring the capacity for reproduction on site.

 

[Lejeboca]

Guto making a case for living at extreme altitude not being as deadly as Blossom with her new Christmas gun:

- Gustavo Zubieta-Calleja
↳ Facts that Prove that Adaptation to Life at Extreme Altitude (8848 m) is Possible
Human fetus under normal conditions develop at oxygen tension values equal to the altitude of Mount Everest until delivery (PaO2 = 28 mmHg). They are naturally capable of living in hypoxic environmental conditions present on our planet.

​

Wow!
More about fetus from the said paper:
The fetus lives in optimal conditions in the uterus. He has adequate body temperature, optimal
metabolic conditions, and nutrition. His blood gases as reported by as low as 25 mmHg in the
ascending aorta (28). In the city of La Paz (3510 m), a normal delivery has been found to give the
following umbilical chord values: PaO2 = 28 mmHg, PaCO2 = 29 mmHg and pH = 7.28; PvO2 = 19
mmHg, PvCO2 = 47 mmHg and pH = 7.12.

 

[Mauritio]

Wow!
More about fetus from the said paper:
The fetus lives in optimal conditions in the uterus. He has adequate body temperature, optimal
metabolic conditions, and nutrition. His blood gases as reported by as low as 25 mmHg in the
ascending aorta (28). In the city of La Paz (3510 m), a normal delivery has been found to give the
following umbilical chord values: PaO2 = 28 mmHg, PaCO2 = 29 mmHg and pH = 7.28; PvO2 = 19
mmHg, PvCO2 = 47 mmHg and pH = 7.12.

Interesting ! Makes sense . Peat mentioned that fetuses have high CO2 and high urea .

 

[Amazoniac]

Wow!
More about fetus from the said paper:
The fetus lives in optimal conditions in the uterus. He has adequate body temperature, optimal
metabolic conditions, and nutrition. His blood gases as reported by as low as 25 mmHg in the
ascending aorta (28). In the city of La Paz (3510 m), a normal delivery has been found to give the
following umbilical chord values: PaO2 = 28 mmHg, PaCO2 = 29 mmHg and pH = 7.28; PvO2 = 19
mmHg, PvCO2 = 47 mmHg and pH = 7.12.

Open fetology book ,part there

- Umbilical cord - Wikipedia

"The umbilical cord contains Wharton's jelly, a gelatinous substance made largely from mucopolysaccharides that protects the blood vessels inside. It contains one vein, which carries oxygenated, nutrient-rich blood to the fetus, and two arteries that carry deoxygenated, nutrient-depleted blood away. Occasionally, only two vessels (one vein and one artery) are present in the umbilical cord. This is sometimes related to fetal abnormalities, but it may also occur without accompanying problems.​

​

It is unusual for a vein to carry oxygenated blood and for arteries to carry deoxygenated blood (the only other examples being the pulmonary veins and arteries, connecting the lungs to the heart). However, this naming convention reflects the fact that the umbilical vein carries blood towards the fetus's heart, while the umbilical arteries carry blood away."​