Is this a rite of passage for privileged white tourists?

Anonymous wrote:You might want to try taking your kids to altitude for a shorter trip first. We were not happy to find that our 6 year old vomits for at least 48 hours after getting to (a much lower) altitude when we went skiing in Utah last year.

Are you sure this is why?
Kids shouldn't have any more problem with altitude (and in fact, if anything, much less than an adult) although I acknowledge that if they did have sickness they would have a harder time dealing with it. Still, I'd be surprised if the altitude really causes huge problems.
Signed,
Lived at 10,000+ feet most of my adult life and with plenty of visitors

Anonymous wrote:I think it's definitely doable but you have to adjust your expectations. Those people telling you to do treks are mistaken and I recommend not listening to them. I can't imagine any of that being okay for a 6 year old. I recommend skipping the trek and taking the train. Don't plan any strenuous hikes on site, just buy a regular ticket to Machu Picchu. Stay in Ollantaytambo (or Urubamba) first to get accustomed to the altitude and take the train from there. Plan to stay the night before and night after Machu Picchu in Aguas Calientes so that your kids can rest, bathe and don't have to rush.

Yes, I definitely agree with this poster about going down to Ollantaytambo once you arrive. It was the best advice I read and my husband was thankful. We had experienced shortness of breath walking through the airport of Cusco. Also the day we flew in the airport had no running water. I do think that kids would enjoy Machu Picchu, a trek, maybe not so. I suggest doing day hikes around. Hit up Machu Picchu after lunch, everyone leaves to get something to eat and make their way back down to Aguas Calientes. There are way less people. Don't try to see it all in one day.

There's also day hiking to be done in Ollantaytambo as well. And I suggest taking Peru Rail and not Inca Rail. We did both and Inca Rail is a rough ride, a passenger got motion sickness and puked all over other passengers.

Have fun!

I went with younger kids and had a great time. We didn’t trek — took train and then bus.

I would strong advise against starting in Cusco. Cusco is at much higher altitude than the sacred valley. Once you fly into Cusco, I would head down to the valley right away and spend time there. You can take train/bus to MP. Visit Cusco at the end and be prepared to go low for the night if needed.

When I climbed Mt Kilimanjaro, I wasn't peak fitness. I prepared but was probably the least fit of my group. I did not get sick. It's quite unpredictable who will and will not be so affected. I saw many very ill people on that trek and many were the fittest of the fit.

[img]titude is defined on the following scale High (8,000 - 12,000 feet [2,438 - 3,658 meters]), Very High (12,000 - 18,000 feet [3,658 - 5,487 meters]), and Extremely High (18,000+ feet [5,500+ meters]). Since few people have been to such altitudes, it is hard to know who may be affected. There are no specific factors such as age, sex, or physical condition that correlate with susceptibility to altitude sickness. Some people get it and some people don't, and some people are more susceptible than others. Most people can go up to 8,000 feet (2,438 meters) with minimal effect. If you haven't been to high altitude before, it's important to be cautious. If you have been at that altitude before with no problem, you can probably return to that altitude without problems as long as you are properly acclimatized.

What Causes Altitude Illnesses

The concentration of oxygen at sea level is about 21% and the barometric pressure averages 760 mmHg. As altitude increases, the concentration remains the same but the number of oxygen molecules per breath is reduced. At 12,000 feet (3,658 meters) the barometric pressure is only 483 mmHg, so there are roughly 40% fewer oxygen molecules per breath. In order to properly oxygenate the body, your breathing rate (even while at rest) has to increase. This extra ventilation increases the oxygen content in the blood, but not to sea level concentrations. Since the amount of oxygen required for activity is the same, the body must adjust to having less oxygen. In addition, for reasons not entirely understood, high altitude and lower air pressure causes fluid to leak from the capillaries which can cause fluid build-up in both the lungs and the brain. Continuing to higher altitudes without proper acclimatization can lead to potentially serious, even life-threatening illnesses.[/img]

https://www.princeton.edu/~oa/safety/altitude.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you have active kids they will be fine with the altitude.

2 years ago I took my then 4 and 9 year olds to Colorado for a 4 day backpacking trip at about 8500 feet and they were fine. They were carrying light bags and we only averaged about 4 miles a day so it wasn't super challenging as far as back-packing goes but they had no trouble with the elevation but both kids are pretty active.

I on the other hand struggled a bit but I was carrying a 40 pound pack and am not in as good of shape as my kids at this point.

How you deal with altitude has little to do with how active or fit you are. While being fit will definitely help, there are some people (and not just a few) who just have a hard time with altitude.

Nonsense - while it is true that very fit people can have altitude sickness being fit is a corollary of the same issue that people have at altitude. It is all about the bloodstreams absorption rate of oxygen and one of the main advantages fit people have is they better absorb oxygen. Which is a huge benefit at higher altitudes. Even fit people of course will still have to make an adjustment but it will be a much less significant one and unnoticeable for many. But don't take my word for it - google it and you'll find lots of articles.

I think if you are going to Machu Picchu and just taking the bus up to walk around you will be fine if you are reasonably fit.

If you are going and planning to hike in it will probably be a good idea to spend a couple of days adjusting first before hitting the trail but most fit people will be fine.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Anonymous wrote:How you deal with altitude has little to do with how active or fit you are. While being fit will definitely help, there are some people (and not just a few) who just have a hard time with altitude.

This is true. I don't think there's a fitness connection at all. But children cope with altitude better than adults, in my experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you have active kids they will be fine with the altitude.

2 years ago I took my then 4 and 9 year olds to Colorado for a 4 day backpacking trip at about 8500 feet and they were fine. They were carrying light bags and we only averaged about 4 miles a day so it wasn't super challenging as far as back-packing goes but they had no trouble with the elevation but both kids are pretty active.

I on the other hand struggled a bit but I was carrying a 40 pound pack and am not in as good of shape as my kids at this point.

I disagree with this - I ran track in college and post-college was a marathon runner and still got altitude sick in Peru at around age 23. I don't believe I got very sick at 8500 feet (& not until we got to a certain high height in the Rockies), but more around 10,000 feet.
I went with 3 adults (all 23-24 y/o) to Cusco / Macchu Picchu - two got sick with altitude, and 1 didn't. I don't know that you have any way to tell in advance what group you would fall in, until you get to a high altitude. We spent about 3 days in Cusco acclimating to altitude until we did the 4 day hike as I previously mentioned. We were fine by the hike. But I was out of breath eating dinner in Cusco for the first few days.

This is true but there is a difference between those elevations where oxygen really starts to thin out - which happen to be the elevation differences between Cuzco and Machu Picchu. So go early and spend a couple of days in Cuzco first and you'll be fine at the lower elevations of Machu Pichu.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you have active kids they will be fine with the altitude.

2 years ago I took my then 4 and 9 year olds to Colorado for a 4 day backpacking trip at about 8500 feet and they were fine. They were carrying light bags and we only averaged about 4 miles a day so it wasn't super challenging as far as back-packing goes but they had no trouble with the elevation but both kids are pretty active.

I on the other hand struggled a bit but I was carrying a 40 pound pack and am not in as good of shape as my kids at this point.

How you deal with altitude has little to do with how active or fit you are. While being fit will definitely help, there are some people (and not just a few) who just have a hard time with altitude.

Nonsense - while it is true that very fit people can have altitude sickness being fit is a corollary of the same issue that people have at altitude. It is all about the bloodstreams absorption rate of oxygen and one of the main advantages fit people have is they better absorb oxygen. Which is a huge benefit at higher altitudes. Even fit people of course will still have to make an adjustment but it will be a much less significant one and unnoticeable for many. But don't take my word for it - google it and you'll find lots of articles.

I think if you are going to Machu Picchu and just taking the bus up to walk around you will be fine if you are reasonably fit.

If you are going and planning to hike in it will probably be a good idea to spend a couple of days adjusting first before hitting the trail but most fit people will be fine.

Anonymous wrote:I think if you have active kids they will be fine with the altitude.

2 years ago I took my then 4 and 9 year olds to Colorado for a 4 day backpacking trip at about 8500 feet and they were fine. They were carrying light bags and we only averaged about 4 miles a day so it wasn't super challenging as far as back-packing goes but they had no trouble with the elevation but both kids are pretty active.

I on the other hand struggled a bit but I was carrying a 40 pound pack and am not in as good of shape as my kids at this point.

I disagree with this - I ran track in college and post-college was a marathon runner and still got altitude sick in Peru at around age 23. I don't believe I got very sick at 8500 feet (& not until we got to a certain high height in the Rockies), but more around 10,000 feet.
I went with 3 adults (all 23-24 y/o) to Cusco / Macchu Picchu - two got sick with altitude, and 1 didn't. I don't know that you have any way to tell in advance what group you would fall in, until you get to a high altitude. We spent about 3 days in Cusco acclimating to altitude until we did the 4 day hike as I previously mentioned. We were fine by the hike. But I was out of breath eating dinner in Cusco for the first few days.

Anonymous wrote:I think if you have active kids they will be fine with the altitude.

2 years ago I took my then 4 and 9 year olds to Colorado for a 4 day backpacking trip at about 8500 feet and they were fine. They were carrying light bags and we only averaged about 4 miles a day so it wasn't super challenging as far as back-packing goes but they had no trouble with the elevation but both kids are pretty active.

I on the other hand struggled a bit but I was carrying a 40 pound pack and am not in as good of shape as my kids at this point.

How you deal with altitude has little to do with how active or fit you are. While being fit will definitely help, there are some people (and not just a few) who just have a hard time with altitude.

I think if you have active kids they will be fine with the altitude.

2 years ago I took my then 4 and 9 year olds to Colorado for a 4 day backpacking trip at about 8500 feet and they were fine. They were carrying light bags and we only averaged about 4 miles a day so it wasn't super challenging as far as back-packing goes but they had no trouble with the elevation but both kids are pretty active.

I on the other hand struggled a bit but I was carrying a 40 pound pack and am not in as good of shape as my kids at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Piggybacking, but I am considering a trip for next year, kids are 10 and 12 and decent hikers. OK to do the hike at those ages?

Michu Picchu is 8,000 feet with a lot of climbing. Denver is like 5,200. The only place in the states that is close is Mammoth Lakes, California 7,800 feet. Remember you do not go down at night so it can be very uncomfortable for a lot of people. Cusco is at 11,100 feet. That is really high.

We did hike to Gaylor lakes in Yosemite when the kids were 7 and 9, and they did great. That was without acclimatization - we came up for the day from Yosemite Valley. I think that trailhead is around 10,000 feet, but I could be remembering wrong... But yes, there is still a difference between 10 and 12K. And if we do the Salkantay trek, which is the one I would like to do, that is almost 15K at the highest point... Still debating. May have to leave the kids at home for this

Keep in mind the elevation gain to Lower Gaylor Lake is maybe 750 feet. The highest point on the four-day trek is nearly 14,000 feet at Dead Woman's Pass -- which was hard but doable. And the typical camp sites are much lower elevation. But when I did the Santa Cruz-Llaganuco circuit in the Cordillera Blanca, where you usually camp above 12,000 feet and cross a pass at more than 15,000 feet, I really felt it. Headaches, dizziness. (Fortunately no vomiting.) And we spent four or five days in Huaraz acclimating ourselves to the elevation. Had some of the same issues a week later in the Cordillera Huayhuash. I would not take kids on treks at high altitude, including Salkantay, unless your camp sites are at considerably lower elevation than your highest point each day. The only thing you can really do to address altitude sickness is descend.