The main downside of Ketones is the expense. The study states that you need to take 25 g per day after training (for a product such as KE4), which is about $30 per day for a 26% increase in EPO. The breath holding study that I posted earlier in the thread gave a similar level of increase (24%). While this is cheaper, it takes like 1.5 hours to complete per training session. Doing continuous hypoxia at 80% Spo2 for an hour is more efficient, giving an 85% increase.
What have you read stating that altitude tents don’t induce changes to blood values?
I think the main risk of taking exogenous EPO is thickening the blood too much, increasing risk of clotting and stroke.
Thanks for the perspective on Ketones. I did not realize that it was 25g per day to increase EPO. Perhaps there will be at least some sort of bump from a lesser dose? This is an older study, but I haven’t seen anything else that can justify the expense and inconvenience of an altitude tent. Do you have a study that the altitude tent can produce better hemoglobin levels?
What is the protocol for the 80% hypoxia and would I benefit if I only have 2 weeks to practice it?
My physician prescribed diamox. However, I don’t think that will make up for lack of training.
The big increase in EPO was seen in this paper where they did 2 hours of continuous hypoxia at 80% SpO2, using a hypoxia machine like Hypoxico or HigherPeak supply. These are typically what is used to supply the air for an altitude tent, so still quite expensive. I haven’t bought a hypoxia generator yet but am considering it in the future, so I plan to do a deeper dive to see if it’s justified but haven’t done so yet. Here’s one study that suggested longer (4+ week) is needed. I also have the new Millet book arriving soon which will hopefully help as well.
I doubt only two weeks of hypoxia training would do much to raise hemoglobin since it takes about 5-7 days for new red cells to mature after EPO release. My guess is 6-8 weeks might be better.
Something more of a quick-fix that you could buy would be Hypoxen. Did you measure your hemoglobin at all?
That’s a wealth of information on increasing performance in hypoxic environments. It’s very interesting. Are you looking for athletic performance increase or just general health from the hypoxia? I’m not familiar with Hypoxen, but at first glance that is a solid recommendation for a quick ascent or anaerobic effort. I don’t know if I can get some in time, but perhaps I will look into it. Any downsides? Yes, I’ve been checking hemoglobin and hematocrit without seeing much movement. Around 15 for hemoglobin and 46 for hematocrit. At least I will have a baseline for this experience and maybe try a different intervention next time.
I’m interested for athletic performance at the moment, but if there is good longevity evidence then that will be all the more reason to justify buying a machine.
Here is an info sheet for Hypoxen. It looks like it could cause some GI disorders such as nausea, dry mouth and abdominal discomfort. I have never tried it.
Yes, sounds correct regarding coca. A friend from Peru recommended coca tea 3x day for altitude. It does sounds more like a normal tea rather than the hard drugs that are derived from the plant.
I’m so lazy I should have just looked it up. The car worked and worked to get up there, then on the way down they made us stop at the company store while we waited for the brakes to cool.
I can’t imagine how long it takes to pedal a bike up there. These days I’d need pharmaceutical intervention. Lol, thanks,
Young (2 months old) and aged (20 months old) female C57BL6/J mice were maintained for 4 days under control conditions (normoxia; 21% O2) or at different levels of hypoxia, including 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8% O2.
Dual-immunofluorescence of brain sections demonstrated that the thresholds required to trigger hypoxia-induced BBB disruption (CD31/fibrinogen) and endothelial proliferation (CD31/Ki67) were much lower in aged mice (15% O2) compared to young (13% O2).
So:
It’s chronic and not intermittent
Even with a long chronic exposure, BBB disruption only starts at 13% O2 among young ones (that’s the equivalent of 3,700 m of altitude) and 15% O2 among old ones (2,600 m altitude)
“The findings are important for understanding age-related cognitive decline and the potential risks faced by individuals with chronic oxygen-limiting conditions such as asthma, sleep apnea, emphysema, and heart disease.”
“These results may help explain why older adults with chronic hypoxia-related diseases are at higher risk for neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. The study also draws attention to the risks of high-altitude exposure for aging populations, where oxygen levels naturally drop.”
“Altogether, these findings underscore the importance of protecting brain health in older individuals by managing oxygen exposure and reducing hypoxia-related risks. The researchers emphasize the need to develop new therapies that support blood-brain barrier integrity, particularly in aging populations exposed to chronic or intermittent low-oxygen conditions.”
Defining the hypoxic thresholds that trigger blood-brain barrier disruption: the effect of age
“Considering the pathogenic potential of the link between hypoxic exposure, BBB disruption, neuronal loss, and cognitive decline, and the notion that this could affect a large number of (particularly aged) people, it becomes a high priority to dig deeper into this connection to address some important fundamental questions.“
The observed benefit was in elderly (and in the paper they cite younger demographics have increase in mortality), likewise simply being in the group of testing for sleep apnea trended towards a decrease in mortality by 30%, with RDI below 20 same as asymptomatic, presumably what they’re comparing with. Might be residual confounding there, but they did adjust for some confounding factors. Since it’s a relatively small study they can’t adjust for too many.
The altitude/hypoxic ranges in the mouse article for chronic exposure to 13-15% seems to agree with the paper below. Moderate altitudes are protective while high altitude can be damaging.
Consequently, it could be speculated that living at higher altitude, and therefore in hypoxic conditions, accelerates aging. This assumption is indeed supported by evidence from populations residing at very high altitudes (>3,500 m). In contrast, accumulating evidence suggests that living at moderate altitudes (1,500–2,500 m) is protective rather than injurious, at least for some body systems.
