Can You Acclimatize at Home? Using a Hypoxic Tent for the Himalayas

(This post may contain affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links and make a purchase, I’ll receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows us to continue to make videos like this. Thank you for the support!)

I like science. I am not a scientist. I like data. I am, however, a statistician and an expert in analytics. If worked on risk analyses for the government. I’ve run analytics for multi-billion dollar organizations. I would like to think that many of your may find that affinity for data imbued throughout my channel. I try to show up as evidence based, and with a calmness rather than virtually shouting or making emotional claims or “hot takes” on current issues. I’m much more of a “consistency is safety” kind of person. If we can make consistently good decisions, consistently apply our systems in the right situations, consistently communicate with one another… and so on… we push the odds slightly upward in our favor.

Every once in awhile, though, I just like to trot out the data, itself. In academic circles, it is referred to as a “literature review,” taking a look at the preponderance of evidence and providing a summary of what is known and what is still in question. This, by the way, is different than a meta study, which applies statistical methods to quantitatively combine multiple studies into a coherent set of values.

Meta studies are hard, time consuming, and in my opinion, usually require that we be an expert on the subject of the studies. So, given that we are talking about physiological responses to simulated and real altitude, that fact that I am not an expert on that physiology makes it hard for me to come up with appropriately applied quantitative methods. But a literature review of statistically sound studies requires an understanding of statistical methods (including their short comings), and a strong reading comprehension. Thankfully, I have those two skills.

So, providing an overview of what the science can say conclusively, directionally, and what is still unknown is well within my capabilities.

This is one of those videos.

In high-altitude circles, there is a lot of hype around the strategy of pre-acclimatizing using simulated altitude via a hypoxic tent. Services that run commercial trips to high peaks talk about cutting expedition durations down by 30-50%. That can be a big deal when we consider the financial implications of halving a trip duration (cost) and the time away from work (income). This, of course, is all anecdotal. That doesn’t mean it’s a lie, but it means is some sort of manual tabulation then authored through the voice of a marketing effort. For what it’s worth, based on the conversations I’ve had with a few people who have done these types of trips, I think that it is actually true.

To be clear, though, this duration shift isn’t done by suddenly being able to climb 5000 feet from camp to camp, each day, skipping the slower acclimatization practices of only gaining no more than maybe a couple thousand feet at any one jump. Rather, it stops the need for so many rotations from lower to higher and back down to lower before going higher, again, and so on. In essence, you’ve already done a rotation or two (or three) at home, before ever getting in country.

But what they don’t all seem to publish as readily is the percentage of people who make the summit. The reality is that performance at altitude, ease of acclimatization, and physiological response to pre-acclimatization. are all highly individualized. So, it seems to me - like so many things in a marketing context - that the claims aren’t exactly false, they are just selective in what they present.

That’s why I like peer-reviewed research so much. They lay out things like that individualization. They talk about the types of physiological responses we get due to low oxygen and those we get due to low air pressure. Those two things are the same at natural altitudes, but hypoxic tents (typically) only offer the former, not the latter. So, while it’s hard to suggest that when it works, it’s not beneficial, it is equally as hard to say that it will always work and in the same way for everyone.

So, take a look at the video and see what the research says, to date. I’m not saying this is a bad idea. In fact, I’m going to make it a part of my pre-acclimatization protocol for my future high altitude expeditions. But it’s not a panacea that checks every acclimatization box we need, either. It’s a PART of my future plan, not the WHOLE plan.