Physiological Adaptation to Altitude: A Comparison of Fast and Slow Ascents to 5,300 m Above Sea Level
preprint
OA: closed
⚙
AI-generated summary
by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-14
ⓘ
A gradual 8-day ascent to 5,300m resulted in fewer symptoms, less severe oximetry reduction, and lower heart rate increases compared to a rapid 4-day ascent.
⚙
AI-generated deep summary
by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-14
· read from full text
ⓘ
This paper compares physiological adaptation to high altitude by studying differences between fast versus slow ascents to 5,300 meters. It describes how ascent rate affects key measures of adaptation over the ascent period, using an observational or experimental comparison approach between the two groups. The main limitation is that the abstracted content provided here does not include specific participant characteristics, methods, outcomes, or the authors’ explicit caveats about generalizability or measurement timing. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rapid ascent to altitudes of over 5,000m above sea level are associated with dramatic changes in adaptive physiology. The effects of a gradual ascent on symptoms, oximetry and heart rate are described, and compared with the effects of a rapid ascent to the same altitude by a comparable cohort. METHODS: A group of 13 (6 females) representing 10 countries from 5 continents, ascended gradually from Lukla (2,300m) to Everest Base Camp (5,300m) in Nepal over an 8-day period, then descended over a further 4 days. All symptoms and medication were recorded, along with pulse oximetry and heart rate (HR) every 500m of ascent. The results were then compared with those obtained at equivalent altitudes using similar methodology from a fast ascent of Mount Kilimanjaro to an equivalent altitude by a comparable cohort over 4 days. RESULTS: The gradual ascent group had a median age of 33 years (range 25-66), and all successfully completed the trek. No severe headache, vomiting, orthopnoea nor productive cough occurred, although minor nausea and mild headache was common. Baseline oximetry fell from a median of 96% (93-97%) to a median of 78% (53-86%) at 8 days but recovered to 94% (89-99%) inside 4 days. Corresponding HR rose from a baseline median of 72bpm {m/57-85/} to a median of 103bpm {m/78-115/} at 8 days, then recovered to 80bpm [1][2] after 4 days. Neither age nor gender correlated with outcomes. Individually, HR correlated inversely with oximetry, but there was no group correlation between these two variables. By contrast, a more rapid 4-day ascent from the same starting height, with similar baseline values for HR and oximetry, to the same final altitude was associated with more severe headache, breathlessness, and vomiting. The fast ascent was associated with a significantly more marked reduction in oximetry to a median of 71% [3][4][1][2] and an increase in HR to a median of 110bpm {m/88-140/}. The fast ascent group also required significantly more medication and rated their experience as less enjoyable. DISCUSSION: Oxygen desaturation and tachycardia are inevitable consequences of ascending above 5,000m but the degree to which this occurs can be reduced by slowing ascent times and taking rest days every 1,000m of ascent. This practice is associated with fewer symptoms and greater safety, with less need for either prophylactic or therapeutic medication. Careful consideration should be given to rates of ascent when climbing to altitudes at or above 5,000m.
Full text
621 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version
{{ publication.field_name }}
{{ publication.subfield_name }}
Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information.
Listen on
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
⚙
Ask this paper
AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text
· source: oa-doi-fallback
ⓘ
Citation neighborhood
(no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet.
This is a recent paper (2024) — citers
typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference
graph may still be filling in.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00