by shiny on 2/22/19, 10:02 PM with 3 comments
We know that Tibetans have genetic adaptions to living at high altitudes [3], suggesting it's less than ideal for "ordinary" people to live that high. The question is whether it's also less-than-ideal to live even 2k feet above sea level and it's just a matter of severity?
In other words, will a human (let’s say a programmer) living at sea level perform the same as a “fully adapted” person living at 2,200 feet (all else equal)?
Thank you.
[1]: https://medium.com/@dhh/air-quality-matters-but-dont-trust-foobot-on-it-e2df4234a776
[2]: https://youtu.be/BB7tpgwvg1g?t=4110
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans#Tibetans_2
by broahmed on 2/22/19, 10:11 PM
1. detrimental effects of too much CO2
2. detrimental effects of too little O2
The short and long-term effects of both may be very different. The human body can adapt to the low O2 at high altitudes given enough time[0], but I don't know if the same applies to high levels of CO2.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude_sickness#Prevention
by cimmanom on 2/23/19, 3:57 AM
So basically, if you moved to Denver and maintained your current activity level, your body would adapt within a few weeks.
Also, Denver for one is not all that high, even at 5k feet. Visiting there for a few days after several years spent at sea level didn’t result in any noticeable altitude sickness symptoms for me, just somewhat decreased stamina for aerobic activity. (Whereas a few hours spent driving over the continental divide at nearly triple the altitude did trigger very obvious altitude sickness symptoms such as dehydration, sleepiness, and headache.)