From: AWaddington@acorn.co.uk (Andy Waddington)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: Acclimatisation (was Re: Europe bound => The Matterhorn)
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:22:13 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England

luong@naxos.inria.fr (Quang-Tuan Luong) writes:

>
>The difference between 3900m and 4000m, even 4200, from an acclimatisation
>point of view, is only psychological. 
>
Andrew Leaver> we did Tacul one day and then a traverse of Mt. Blanc the
 >next. On the summit of Tacul we both felt a little queasy due to the
 >altitude. The day after, both of us felt fine on the summit of Mt. Blanc -
 >no queasiness; we were able to enjoy the chocolate cake we'd brought up for
 >the occasion! So I certainly think that going over 4000m (12,000ft) is very
 >helpful, even if only for a day. I felt much better for it - though no
 >doubt the fact that we slept at 3500m that night helped too.
>
>That's great that you report the entire story to support your claim as I
>think it supports mainly mine. The facts that:
> * you climbed for a few weeks before, and up to 3900m (Courtes, or Aig.
> d'Argentiere, I suppose. There is more than 1000m to climb, so it is a 
> good training).
> * you slept at 3500m
>suffices largely to explains you felt fine on Mt. Blanc.

Errrmmm... Andrew, I know you were supporting my original posting, but here
I think I have to say I agree (mainly) with Tuan. I think that if you were
climbing up to 3900m earlier, then the only reasons for feeling queasy on
Tacul could be:

1) Down in the valley for long enough to lose some acclimatisation (Chamonix
   is low enough for this to be a problem, and Argentiere isn't that much
   higher)
2) Psychological - you expected to have trouble at 4000+m, so did.
3) Your previous climbs would all have been by climbing from the valley, or
   at least, using mechanical assistance only some of the way. The Midi
   telepherique from 1000m to 3800m tends to have a nasty effect, if only
   a temporary one, on even quite well acclimatised people. You come out of
   the Midi not even slightly tired, and then its downhill. You end up going
   very much faster at the 3500-4000m level than you have been doing
   previously and end up feeling the effects much more. The fact that this
   is quite a short day wouldn't have helped you pace it slowly.

It is often said that a safe way to acclimatise, without ever feeling any
ill-effects, is to sleep 1000m lower than you climb, and to climb 300m
higher each day. If the gap between being at 3900m and climbing Tacul was
no more than two or three days, then you should easily have coped with the
climb, and I would very much suspect that reason 3 above applies.

Last year, we did a couple of climbs in the Aiguilles Rouges (up to about
3100m ?), then the Papillons arete on the Peign (less than 3500m where we
descended), had a day off and then went up Tacul, using the telepherique up
the Midi. We had no trouble at all on the way to the summit, not even
slowing down noticeably, but got headaches on the descent, which were mainly
cured by sitting on the Col du Midi and drinking lots. Note that we had had
every night except one in the valley, and the one exception was a bivouac
at about 2700m.

In my first alpine season, in 1983, we had acclimatised up to 3800-4000m
in Switzerland without sleeping high. I had little trouble climbing to
4000m on Weissmies (from the valley at 1900m) on my third day out. After
playing in Arolla for a few days, we moved to Chamonix, then waited for the
weather for several days before ascending by Telepherique to Plan d'Aiguille
and on foot to the Grands Mulets (3050m). We were both feeling the altitude
on the ascent to the hut much more than 1000m higher earlier on. After an
overnight at the Grands Mulets, we each climbed (independantly) to the top
of Mont Blanc, neither getting headaches (although both fairly exhausted -
probably lack of sleep in the hut).

My thesis is that you can certainly acclimatise by climbing every day and
descending to the valley (as long as the valley is not very low), and it is
time at altitude that helps, not how much work you do there. Time at low
altitude will destroy acclimatisation however active you are. As Tuan says,
sleeping high is very beneficial. The extra hours at altitude help, and you
don't need to do much work. This agrees with my suggestion that you can
acclimatise by festering around near the Breithorn and on the glacier (a
day summer-skiing would be almost as good). For myself, it takes two or
three nights to get used to hut atmosphere, and I don't climb well without
sleep, so would prefer either to sleep in the valley and climb high, or to
bivouac at altitude (if the weather's fit).

Andrew again > Near the end we decided Mt. Blanc itself had to be done,
just to say we had been there...

Tuan > I approve. It is the Summit. However it is also very fine routes,
surely amongst the finest in the Alps.

Like the Matterhorn, its worth waiting until you have the ability to do
one of the better routes - the Gouter and the Grands Mulets are both very
crowded on a good day, though not as deep in s**t as the Hoernli. There are
some very fine, remote and not that technical ways up on the Italian side
that will never be crowded. Or, of course, ski the mountain in 'off peak'
season :-) I'm sorry if this is very much a case of 'do as I say, not as I
have done', but I wouldn't have climbed Mt. Blanc by the easiest route if
I had known then what I know now... Its a good view, though, isn't it ?

Happy acclimatising.         Andy.
Newsgroups: rec.climbing