Mount Everest climbers show survival on record-low oxygen

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It's no secret that scaling Mount Everest tests the limits of human survival; more than 200 people have died trying to reach its summit. Today we have new information about just how seriously climbers push their bodies on the world's highest peak: Those who manage to stay alive do so on an amount of oxygen that is so minute it would only be seen, at sea level, in people who were in cardiac arrest or dead.

Four doctors from University College London (U.C.L.) trekked up to Everest's 29,029-foot (8,848-meter) summit.  They then descended to 27,559 feet (8,400 meters), where it was warmer and more sheltered from the high winds. There, they drew one another's blood and handed it off to a sherpa named Pafang, who took it down to a blood-gas analyzing machine at 20,997 feet (6,400 meters) to measure the oxygen levels in it.
 
The results, published in this week’s The New England Journal of Medicine, showed there was about a quarter less oxygen in the mountaineers' blood than is normal in people at sea level. There's about a third less oxygen on Everest's summit than on the ground.

"The oxygen levels were extremely low—lower than we expected and lower than have been measured in humans before," says study co-author Mike Grocott, a senior lecturer in critical care medicine at U.C.L. "We don’t know how people can survive at these low levels, but we believe there are cellular and molecular changes that allow people to metabolize low oxygen. It emphasizes that we're on the very edge of the physiological envelope."

As climbers acclimatize, or adjust to the thin mountain air, they may "turn down" their cells' housekeeping activities to preserve oxygen, Grocott says. They may also improve the efficiency of proteins that regulate how much oxygen is used to produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the body's energy currency.

The findings from U.C.L.'s Caudwell Xtreme Everest program, which studies Everest climbers to figure out how to better treat oxygen-deprived heart and lung patients on the ground, are just the latest in a growing body of medical research on Mount Everest. And while they're not entirely surprising—pulmonary edema, or fluid in the lungs that can prevent air sacs from absorbing oxygen, is a factor in most high-altitude deaths—the results shed light on the specifics of what's happening in the climbers' bodies, says R. Douglas Fields, chief of nervous system development and plasticity at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Less than 4 percent of climbers are able to scale Everest without supplemental oxygen.

"It’s not easy putting up with arterial sticks while climbing," quips Fields. "The climbers' bod[ies] showed remarkable acclimatization to be able to function at such low oxygen levels.” The amount of hemoglobin (an oxygen-carrying protein in the blood) increased, he says, “so, together with many other biological changes, their blood was able to capture more of the limited oxygen in the air. This is already very well known, but the study shows it nicely.

"If you go slow enough, your body will acclimatize, but you can't stay there long—no civilization has ever lived above 17,000 feet," Fields adds. "When you go up there it's borrowed time—you have to go back down. "

Image of Mike Grocott, courtesy of Caudwell Xtreme Everest

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe