Remix.run Logo
shadow28 6 hours ago

> 12-15K feet just isn’t that high in the scheme of things. Many peaks in the western US are in that range or more.

The highest peak in the contiguous United States is Mt. Whitney at ~14.5k feet

IncreasePosts 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are 50+ peaks in Colorado higher than 14,000 ft and 1000+ higher than 12000 ft

kortilla 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_highest_major_summ...

Many peaks in the western US are in that range. Lots more with several exceeding if you include Alaska in “the western US”.

tristor 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you mean continental United States, as Alaska and Hawaii are excluded, where-as Alaska is contiguous with the United States, but requires crossing through parts of Canada to reach by land. That said, yes Whitney is the highest in the continental US, and McKinley in Alaska is the highest in the US (and contiguous US) and is also the tallest in the world from base to peak and the third most prominent peak in the world.

shadow28 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's exactly the other way around actually, continental US would include Alaska since it's still on the North American continent whereas contiguous US excludes both Hawaii and Alaska. Contiguous US refers to the lower 48 states.

coldtea 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Continental "could" include Alaska (it's even in the official U.S. Board on Geographic Names definition), but in practice when "continental US" are casually mentioned, it's rarely implied as included. Most use it as interchangeable with contiguous.

coldtea 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>where-as Alaska is contiguous with the United States, but requires crossing through parts of Canada to reach by land.

Contiguous means the 48 connected (contiguous) states. It never includes Alaska.

And even though definitionally/officially continental could include it (it's in the same continent), in common use "continental US" is not meant to include Alaska either.

kjkjadksj 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I went from sea level to 11k feet in the same day many times before. I would say the altitude effect is there but not as much as you might expect. A little quicker to be out of breath a little longer to recover it. Not sure what it is like at higher elevations or greater daily altitude delta.

prasadjoglekar 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Very much dependent on age, rest and general conditioning. I went from sea level to 14K at Pikes peak in 1 day and it was quite uncomfortable. I managed, but folks who lived in Denver with lower physical fitness levels than me, did better.

linsomniac 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Agreed, we live at ~5K and went up to Pikes Peak; my wife and I had no problems (beyond minor headache), but my son's lips were turning blue and he was feeling pretty bad.

Other amusing things from that trip: we went up there the 3rd of July, and it snowed. We charged the car in Colorado Springs before we left, got up to the peak with 36% battery remaining. My wife worried we wouldn't be able to make it back. Got back to CS with ~70% battery left.

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
nonameiguess an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I guess fitness makes a difference from what these other comments are saying. My ex-wife and I lived in Long Beach (which is obviously sea level) when we were in ROTC and pretty regularly took day trips out to San Gogornio and walked to the summit in about five hours, which is ~11,500ft. Not once did that have any noticeable effect, but we were both pretty serious runners back in the day trying to become Army officers. On the other hand, she tried to summit Aconcagua during a spring break and couldn't make it due to altitude sickness. I've never been higher than Mt. Whitney, personally.

Even if you don't feel it, the altitude still makes a difference, though. I recall doing two-a-day hell weeks at Big Bear at the end of summer cross-country training in high school and there was a 5k up there at the end of that week. We all got worse times than typical at sea level, and somewhat amusingly, I recall a high school senior from Rim of the World High School (who lived up there) getting 2nd place overall the first year I ever competed in that race, beating way more seasoned competitors just because he was used to the altitude.

It works in reverse, too. There was an officer in my Armor Basic Officer Course from Colorado who gave himself rhabdo during the two-mile test the first week we in-processed, apparently because he was so used to altitude that he hadn't quite acclimated to Fort Knox atmosphere.

hermitcrab a few seconds ago | parent [-]

>I guess fitness makes a difference

Not really. Altitude sickness seems quite random in who it effects worst. I trekked to the top of Mera Peak (~21,000 ft) many years ago. 3 of the fittest people in our party got altitude sickness and didn't make it to the peak.

quickthrowman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I went from ~500 ft above sea level (Palm Springs) up to 8,500 feet above sea level (San Jacinto Peak) in less than an hour via the aeria tram a couple months ago and it was very noticeable, my walking speed fell by a third and I was breathing a lot harder than I usually do.