Ojos Del Salado

[Turboprop]

My wife and I are trying to get into more high altitude peaks. Planning a vacation to Chile for the end of this year. If we have around 10-12 days down there but still want to do other things besides hike the peak, is it too much to bite off? I keep reading all the guided setups and they take 10ish days to do it. What is a reasonable time duration for this hike?

[Scott P]

If we have around 10-12 days down there but still want to do other things besides hike the peak, is it too much to bite off? I keep reading all the guided setups and they take 10ish days to do it. What is a reasonable time duration for this hike?

10 days (including acclimatization peaks or hikes) is short for a mountain this high. Be extremely careful. Longer is better. At least 12 is better, but even then use caution.

I'm sure you already know, but getting to the trailhead for Ojos del Salado probably will take about three days (one way) of travel time from the US. Keep that in mind too.

[TallGrass]

My wife and I are trying to get into more high altitude peaks.

"High Altitude" : from ~4,900-8,000' to ~12,000' (plenty within a short drive for Longmont)
"Very High Altitude" : ~12,000' to 18,000'
"Extremely High Altitude" : 18,000' +
Nevado Ojos del Salado: 22,615'

[Fisching]

If we have around 10-12 days down there but still want to do other things besides hike the peak, is it too much to bite off? I keep reading all the guided setups and they take 10ish days to do it. What is a reasonable time duration for this hike?

10 days (including acclimatization peaks or hikes) is short for a mountain this high. Be extremely careful. Longer is better. At least 12 is better, but even then use caution.

I'm sure you already know, but getting to the trailhead for Ojos del Salado probably will take about three days (one way) of travel time from the US. Keep that in mind too.

This suggestion is time dependent on when the date of the trip, but if the road is open to the top of Evans I would suggest car camping for a day or two above 14000 ft. shortly before leaving for Chile to help with the acclimatization process in advance.

[Turboprop]

If we have around 10-12 days down there but still want to do other things besides hike the peak, is it too much to bite off? I keep reading all the guided setups and they take 10ish days to do it. What is a reasonable time duration for this hike?

10 days (including acclimatization peaks or hikes) is short for a mountain this high. Be extremely careful. Longer is better. At least 12 is better, but even then use caution.

I'm sure you already know, but getting to the trailhead for Ojos del Salado probably will take about three days (one way) of travel time from the US. Keep that in mind too.

This suggestion is time dependent on when the date of the trip, but if the road is open to the top of Evans I would suggest car camping for a day or two above 14000 ft. shortly before leaving for Chile to help with the acclimatization process in advance.

That's a good suggestion. I think we'll actually have around 14 days down there if we want, and we'll go over Christmas so we'll have plenty of time to do some pre-acclimatization. I've been trying to mimic our plans based on what tour groups do, and I found one that budgets around 11-13 days for the whole climb.

Are there any basic rules-of-thumb for acclimatization times?

[skik2000]

Are there any basic rules-of-thumb for acclimatization times?

~1000'/day

[skik2000]

There are a lot of lower peaks outside of Santiago that easily get into some views of the Andes. The elevations won't be much higher than what we have in CO but you won't waste a lot of time either.

[Scott P]

I think we'll actually have around 14 days down there if we want, and we'll go over Christmas so we'll have plenty of time to do some pre-acclimatization.

That's really not much time. It will probably take a day and half each way from Santiago to reach the trailhead. That will leave you with 11 days (plus travel time USA to Santiago and back of course). If you do want to do the climb, it would probably be reasonable to attempt it, but don't plan on doing anything else. Ojos del Salado is a long way from places like Santiago (which is where you will fly first if arriving in Chile).

As someone mentioned, there are peaks that are close to as high, but closer to Santiago. If you are short on time, they may be a better bet.

The Atacama Desert is a neat area, but more time is best, at least if you want to do more than just Ojos and then go home.

Good luck either way and have a great trip!

"High Altitude" : from ~4,900-8,000' to ~12,000' (plenty within a short drive for Longmont)
"Very High Altitude" : ~12,000' to 18,000'
"Extremely High Altitude" : 18,000' +
Nevado Ojos del Salado: 22,615'

That's just one definition. American Journal of Medicine perhaps or something like that?

Most mountaineering definitions I've seen use the definition of high altitude peaks starting at 18,000 feet. That doesn't mean that you can't get sick or even die below that, but it's used in a general sense because it's the approximate line of permanent acclimatization.

[nyker]

Atacama is a great place. I was actually planning on being there now, but things didn't work out.

There are several volcanoes there around 6000M +/-that can be climbed in itineraries of varying length, depending on your acclimatization.
Some of these are the following:

Vicunas (6067M), Ermitano (6146M), Guallatiri (6071M), San Pedro Volcano (6145M), Licancabur (5916M), Sairecabur (6026M), Toco (5604M),
Lascar (5592M), Marmolejo (6108M),San Jose (5865M) and a bit taller, Llullaillaco (6700M), and of course, Ojos del Salado (6893M).

I posted a few pics here of the area:

http://14ers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... ur#p363697" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TallGrass]

My wife and I are trying to get into more high altitude peaks.

"High Altitude" : from ~4,900-8,000' to ~12,000' (plenty within a short drive for Longmont)
"Very High Altitude" : ~12,000' to 18,000'
"Extremely High Altitude" : 18,000' +
Nevado Ojos del Salado: 22,615'

That's just one definition. American Journal of Medicine perhaps or something like that? Most mountaineering definitions I've seen use the definition of high altitude peaks starting at 18,000 feet.

Sources and what other categories they use? All the following list the thresholds as
1,500m/4,900' or 2,500m/8,000' for High
3,500m/11,500' for Very High (some use 12,000')
and all use 5,500m/18,000' for Extremely High Altitude.

International Society for Mountain Medicine (ISMM)
U.S. Army Public Health Command (starts Very at 4,000m)
Mayo Clinic
http://www.basecampmd.com/expguide/highalt.shtml
http://www.climbing-high.com/altitude.html
http://www.hikingdude.com/hiking-high-altitude.php
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Altitude
(8,000m/26,000' is commonly used for "Lethal..." or "Death Zone")
As the OP's question is health-based (what a body can do), I'd go with the above terms.

Also interesting
"Above 18,000 feet (5,400 meters) most people begin to deteriorate regardless of acclimatization." (FotH p. 470) Kind of morbid "starting" point, no?
ISMM's Golden Rules
Army studies high-altitude health effects
"Low, Medium and High" mountains: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/docume ... combat.htm
"Altitude Acclimatization and Illness Management" http://afhsc.army.mil/viewDocument?file ... d505_1.pdf
Didn't find any classifications by the UIAA.

[Scott P]

"Above 18,000 feet (5,400 meters) most people begin to deteriorate regardless of acclimatization."

Yes, that's what is meant by the approximate line of permanent acclimatization I was referring to. 18,000 feet (5500 meters) is the most common guideline, but various sources have it pegged somewhere between 17,000-19,000 feet. Some older sources (such as the original Climbing and Trekking in the Himalaya) have it listed as high as 22,000 feet, but this has come down in recent years and with more knowledge and studies on high altitude.

Most sources I’ve seen (including those by famous mountaineers) use that (the approximate line of permanent acclimatization) cutoff for high altitude expeditions vs other expeditions because you have to descend that low or lower to fully rest and recover. It’s also the approximate elevation of the basecamps for the world’s big mountains. They range from 13,600 feet to 18,000 feet for the reason stated above. A climber or any other person, no matter how well acclimatized, with eventually die if left over 18,000 feet for long enough.

The above is also the definition that most world guidebooks (such as the Climber’s and Hiker’s Guide to the World’s Mountains) use as well as most permit issuing agencies in the Himalaya. It’s the US (all sources you pointed out are basically cut and pasted from a single source, likely the military high altitude studies, and aren't specific to mountaineering expedition definitions-soldiers don't have the same time to acclimatize) that seem to use various other definitions for expeditionary mountaineering. Cookbooks list it as low as 3500 feet, but we're not really speaking of baking a cake here.

My own personal recommendation is that even those living in Colorado, whenever possible should take one week (or more) of acclimatization to ascend to 18,000 feet; two weeks to ascend to 21,000 feet; and three weeks to ascend to 23,000 feet. It can be done with less, but the chances of safety, success, and having a good time increase with more acclimatization.

Here was my original recommendation above:

10 days (including acclimatization peaks or hikes) is short for a mountain this high. Be extremely careful. Longer is better. At least 12 is better, but even then use caution.

The lowest I’ve ever seen someone get serious altitude sickness was at 12,687 feet/3867 meters at Tengboche (Nepal). He had to be helicoptered out. Worse, I and others warned him while he was ascending that he shouldn’t continue up and was asking for trouble. He did anyway and slept at Tengboche. It was already evident long before he got there that he was already sick.

As the OP's question is health-based (what a body can do), I'd go with the above terms.

Since the OP stated he wanted to try more high altitude peaks, personally I think it was rather pointless to try and argue with him about the definition or try to correct him. As mentioned, most sources I’ve seen use a different criteria for high altitude mountaineering.

I'll leave it up to the OP to decide, but I just didn't think yours was a useful post (I don't mean any offense by this though). It’s kind of like arguing the definition of an easy mountain vs. a difficult one. In that case, it’s better just to use the definition of classes instead. When it comes to acclimatization, it's much more useful to recommend timeframes or experiences rather than try and argue what is a high altitude expedition vs. and extreme one.

[TallGrass]

"Above 18,000 feet (5,400 meters) most people begin to deteriorate regardless of acclimatization."

Yes, that's what is meant by the approximate line of permanent acclimatization I was referring to.

Nope wasn't the point you differed on, ScottP. You said "Most mountaineering definitions I've seen use the definition of high altitude peaks starting at 18,000 feet," so I provided sources backing that H.A. refers to up to around 11,500-12,000'. Instead of providing your source(s) you act as though I was talking about "permanent acclimatization."

Do you have a source defining "high altitude" as 18,000'+ or not? And if so, what other ranges do they define? According to you, "high altitude" hikes start where people can't live, but sources above don't define H.A. thus.