UKC

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Fascinating. I wonder how easy it would be to test for this capability?

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Surely a test based on four participants has a limited amount of reliability?
James

In reply to james oswald:

Yes, but 19mm Hg is really little. If these 4 people had normal values at sea level, then I suspect the effect is real. Furthermore were the blood samples taken at 8,400 meters- I have the vague suspicion that this limits the sample size somehow...

The paper is published in the new england journal of medicine, which is AFAIK a fairly good journal, and they've probably discussed the relatively small sample size.

In reply to james oswald: The aim of the study wasn't to see how individuals react as much as to try to shed some light in how the body copes in low oxygen environments, and more specifically the survivability of the cells.
Most of the research was carried by doctors specialised in the ICU departments, where they assess if the body is still alive by measuring the oxygen levels in the cells. Interestingly, according to medical standards, all climbers tested were clinically dead!
There's been a good documentary on TV a few years ago on this research done by the authors, most entertaining to see them haul a full on static bike all the way to 8000m

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

I'm sure this was on tv a wee while back, where researchers hoisted up various equipment such as cycling machines etc. T'was quite fancinating to watch and the struggle to acheive these results.

In reply to Ian Paterson:

When I saw this I thought it sounded like a neat way of raising funds for an Everest trip, and that much better quality data could have been obtained in a lab (and at much lower cost and risk to the participants). But then I'm not a medical researcher, so I could be missing something important.....

In reply to Mark Bull: Isn't that the point of every research project/charity fundraiser? Do anybody really believe that people really do this stuff 'to help others'?
Obviously a low pressure chamber would have been cheaper, but hey, everybody is in it for the free ride isn't it? One of the doctors in the project had even summited Everest before with another commercial expedition

In reply to Mark Bull:

The point is that convincing 200 people to spend 3 weeks in an altitude chamber may have proven somewhat tricky. And expensive!

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Why didn't they use a decompression tank in a lab. They could have got many more readings, and made their readings far more accurate.
Also I thought we knew a bit about oxygen carrying molecules and the sort, being as much work has been put in to studying the differences of myoglobin and hemoglobin.
Although, there may be other simpler physiological reasons behind the conclusions that some people are more efficient at gaining sufficient oxygen from depleted air sources. A dissection of the lungs would be interesting and informative; any volunteers?

In reply to gethin_allen: Did you read the article linked to from the UKC news? Here's the link again

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/39763/title/Record_low_for_human...

The original paper was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but it's behind a paywall.

In reply to Tom Briggs: Mmmmmh... 54.000US per person not including flights, gear, etc. minus a discount for the publicity, but extra for the lugging of the bike, lab, etc. plus the cost of the 200 people flown to Kathmandu and herded to to Everst base camp at 2.000UK a head, with maybe a group discount.
It sounds like a lot of dough to confirm that the human body adapts to low pressure environments up to 8000m and cells start dying higher than that. Certainly enough money to adapt a nice low-presure chamber where a good deal of people can spend 3 weeks comfortably.

In reply to Tom Briggs:


Sure, I can understand that for studying 200 people at 5,300m, then doing it at Everest Base Camp makes a lot of sense. However, to study 4 people at 8,000m+, I'm still a bit skeptical whether the top of Everest is the most sensible option from a scientific point of view......

In reply to toad:
I could only get the abstract through our subscription, I'd have to wait until july to get the whole thing.
Another angle on the "use a tank" method; how much fuel was burnt transporting all the people and the kit to Himalayas?

In reply to Arjen:
was at a talk by the team leader this evening - the previous data for the PaO2 at that location was base on an expired gas sample from one person - so 4 is quite an advance!

In reply to gethin_allen:
fair point - but a lot of the trekkers would have been going anyway - it was a pretty awesome project, I guess another advantage of doing it the way they did is that most barometric change sare very small and to keep 200 folks in the required conditions for weeks on end would have taken ages - the team have generated something in excess on man years of data and will be spending the next several years analysing it.

Full Article: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/360/2/140.pdf

In reply to Mark Bull, Mr Lopez, gethin_allen


---

"The single most asked question to Caudwell Xtreme Everest is: Why are you climbing a mountain when you could just use pressure chambers instead?"

http://www.xtreme-everest.co.uk/news_detail.php?newsid=482

M

In reply to Mark Bull: i think that is probably the key point... an impressive feat of oranising and clearly the team felt the E factor was a good way of attracting money/kudos

by comparison there was a number of greenland trips where to qualify for grants the team investigated the effect of cold weather on the efficacy of tooth paste....

In reply to davies00:

The excuses in that thread sound good until you realise it implies that it relies on the comparative liklihood of volunteers in the two scenarios as well as the medical support on the Everest trip involving much less care than that required in the lab (ie being Everest we can get away with reduced medical monitoring costs). The availability of chambers argument is rubbish: you just do the tests consecutively. One argument I could see is that you can't easily simulate what happens to a person climbing in a mountain environment in a chamber (esp varying effort from full on when climbing to 'resting' on sleepless nights, plus weather changes, diet problems etc) but that argument wasnt used!!!

I was thinking about this, but what are they actually investigating? Is it what happens to mountaineers at altitude or to simulate what happens to hypoxic patients?
If it's the latter then chambers would be fine. Although they try to give it clinical relevance, I suspect that really the aim of it is to study the effects of altitude on mountaineers. I think this is a perfectly acceptable aim btw. IMO they gave it a glossy "we're researching for icu patients etc" to get the coverage, as not many members of the public would be interested in the effects of altitude on mountaineers.
Obviously they could be sincerely trying to do relevant research for patients, however then they could use chambers. This goes back to the first question I asked; what is the aim. M