The article above mentions that people are not spending enough time at altitude before attempting to get to the summit, it goes onto suggest that this is in part due to $100 a day fees to be on the mountain and that people could acclimatise themselves by climbing other mountains first.
I'm no expert on this but I understood that as soon as you go down from altitude your body changes quite fast and takes a while to get used to altitude again, so is the advice to climb other mountains first correct?
perhaps going up a different one would give an indication as to whether you would be prone to getting sick, what altitude it kicks in, how much acclimatisation time it takes etc without it costing you a lot.
i too thought that when down from altitude the body adapts rapidly back to its preferred environment.
Its quite a common thing in Himalayan climbing to descend to a lower height before a summit push. The gains in acclimatisation don't wear off that quickly. If you think about it acending any of the 8000m peaks would be pretty much impossible if acclimatisation 'wore off' within a few days
Cant remember the statistics but I read some figures showing a far greater sucsess rate for Kili for people who climb a lower peak in the area first. It was a big difference, i remember that much.
You have to remember that its not the Charities that are organising these fund raising trips but intermediate fund raising organisations who have their own agenda, I doubt a high sucsess rate is one of them when you compare their itineries to those of " package trip" trecking companies.
Acclimatisation does last for several days so ascending a lower peak 1st, greatly improves your chances of success and makes the Kili climb far more enjoyable. You will be astonished by how much better you feel so can enjoy the climb rather than suffering from nausea and headaches.
Right next to Kili is a 4500m peak called Mt Meru, another extinct volcano but still has most of the crater rim intact. Has great huts and amazing views across to Kili with the sun rising above its right hand slopes. You take 3 days to climb this peak and it doesn't have the high costs of Kili.
It is interesting that this thread has started following the thread about Ben Fogle's attempt to get a group up Kili. As in many things preparation and knowledge are everything. There is a huge amount of information available on avoiding and minimising AMS. Fogle's group, and I am sure most people who go on these walks, do nothing in the way of preparation. in my limited experience most people spend more time preparing their cameras than their bodies.
I have climbed to Kili's summit 4 times and taken 20+ groups there since 1988. Some points to make: Going slowly from the start makes a huge difference and we had very low incidents of AMS. As a tour operator, we used to try and persuade charities who climbed with us to add the extra day, but they never want to pay for it. Roughly 80 tourists a day climb Kili, so the stats above mean the death rate is .012% which is not huge. Unlike Himalayas, Kili is really quick and easy to descend from, so any dodgy signs can be dealt with swiftly if you have a half decent guide and tour leader. It's not that bad if you are sensible, it's potentially fatal if you treat it lightly, but adding extra days or extra mountains is out of most peoples budget and time constraints. A 5 day climb is fine if you take it slowly, drink lots of water and pay attention to your body.
It's not that bad if you are sensible, it's potentially fatal if you treat it lightly, but adding extra days or extra mountains is out of most peoples budget and time constraints. A 5 day climb is fine if you take it slowly, drink lots of water and pay attention to your body.
That's the point though. There's no way that I would climb a 6,000 metre peak on only five days of acclimatisation. I might be able to do it, but I can tell you from experience, that it wouldn't be a pleasant few days and I generally acclimatise quite well.
Charging people a daily peak fee is, at best, making the actual experience of climbing the mountain a lot less pleasant than it could be and at worst, risking lives.
Oh, and many commercial, non-charity schedules are just as bad because spending longer on the mountain costs more money and ups the cost of the trip. Kili's not really a mountaineer's peak, so understandably, a lot of the people going don't understand the mechanics of acclimatisation and would rather spend less money and less time on the mountain.
I think it's become something of a crusade for Ed Douglas since it's so patently dangerous and revenue driven.
