Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study shows lower incidence of acute mountain sickness in moderate-altitude residents, indicating acclimatization benefits.
Moderate-altitude residence (1,600-2,400 m) elicits altitude acclimatization and reduces acute mountain sickness (AMS) following rapid ascent to higher altitude (HA). Cross-sectional studies suggest lower altitude residence (800-1,200 m) provides similar benefits, but conclusions are unclear due to lack of control. Purpose: Determine whether moderate-altitude residents (MAR, 1,200 m) experience less AMS than low-altitude residents (LAR) following active or passive ascent to HA (3,600 m). Methods: 78 Soldiers (mean±SD; age=26±5yr; women=8) were tested at their baseline residence at 331 m (LAR; n=41) or 1,200 m (MAR; n=37), transported to Taos, NM (2,845 m), hiked (n=39) or were driven (n=39) to 3,600 m and stayed for 4 days. AMS was assessed using the Environmental Symptoms Questionnaire twice on day 1 (HA1), five times on days 2 and 3 (HA2, HA3) and once on day 4 (HA4). Daily peak cerebral factor score (AMS-C) was recorded; if AMS-C was ≥ 0.7 individuals were considered sick that day. Results: Ascent condition (active vs. passive) did not demonstrate a significant main or interaction effect on AMS. The MAR vs. LAR experienced lower AMS incidence on HA1 (16% vs. 44%, p=0.008) and HA2 (19% vs. 39%, p=0.05), similar incidence on HA3 (14% vs. 29%, p=0.08) and lower incidence on HA4 (0% vs. 17%, p=0.007). AMS-C was lower in MAR vs. LAR on HA1 (0.40±0.49 vs. 0.74±0.86, p=0.04), HA2 (0.30±0.34 vs. 0.86±0.88, p=0.001), HA3 (0.30±0.36 vs. 0.56±0.69, p=0.03) and HA4 (0.09±0.14 vs. 0.35±0.58, p=0.01). MAR exhibited an approximately 3-fold reduction in the odds of developing AMS at HA1 (odds ratio (OR)=0.25, p=0.01), HA2 (OR=0.37, p=0.05) and HA3 (OR=0.38, p=0.09) compared to LAR. Conclusions: Residence at 1,200 m induces a 3-fold reduction in the odds of developing AMS following rapid ascent to 3,600 m.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Figueiredo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: