Bringing a Newborn Baby to 'high altitude'?

Ocalslay Onlyyay wrote: I wonder how infants born in areas that are higher that the "safe" zone you're all describing, ever make it?

They acclimatize in-utero to the ambient oxygen levels and air pressure. As I said earlier, my daughter was born at approximately 9,000 feet. Babies gestated at altitude tend to have lower birth weights but turn into totally normal sized adults. I don't think there's any higher incidence of breathing complications among that group of babies. But, as noted above, the physiology of being pregnant and in-utero at altitude vs. bringing a baby up to altitude who isn't used to it is different. 

One other concern would be with an infant that has congested sinuses or congestion in the Eustachian tube.  The change in altitude could cause severe pain in the ear if the infant can't equalize the pressure in the inner and outer ear canals.

OP, I dunno about high altitude, but want to second what someone or other said about changes in pressure. That, can bother anyone, but babies in particular. A pacifier, or nursing/feeding so they are swallowing, will help their ears adjust. Remember, that's both up and down, even just over a pass. When the kid is old enough, they can chew gum, if that's okay with you and they're civilized about it.

And congratulations!

Best, OLH

Ocalslay Onlyyay wrote: I wonder how infants born in areas that are higher that the "safe" zone you're all describing, ever make it?

Some of them don't make it.  Infant mortality (sudden infant death syndrome) rate is higher in infants living at high altitude. 

 I never said that ALL infants will have problems above 8000ft, most will be fine.  But some won't, and an infant cant tell you their brain isn't working right.  Hell even a 3 year old cant tell you that.  Personally I would rather not risk stunting my child's development to spend a week above 9000ft.  There are plenty of other places I can spend a week that will be just as much fun.  

Thanks again for the encouragement and thoughts!

I've talked to Children's Hospital in Denver as well as our Pediatricians office. Both said that after 1-month the baby would be fine to go up for some 'tude. Obviously this assumes that the baby is healthy. I'm also assuming that the Google results that mainly site 3-months as the cutoff are for babies coming from 'low altitude' to 'high altitude'.

Dan Vinson wrote: 
I've talked to Children's Hospital in Denver as well as our Pediatricians office.

Did you speak to a nurse or doctor at those places?

First time we camped at somewhat high altitude, 9kish ft, our daughter was 6 months old and didn’t have any issues. Next camping trip didn’t go that well, we camped around 10.5 K ft above Georgetown, Guanella pass, she was 18 months old. First day was fine, she didn’t appear to have any issues, but the next day she was sluggish, didn’t have any energy and even puked once. We just packed up, drove back home and within couple of hours she was her usual self. She’s 3 and a half now and every time we go over 10000 ft, she starts to exibit symptoms of high altitude sickness. Like few people said up thread, talk to your pediatrician, which you did, but still be very vigilant if you take your kid to altitude.

I'll be honest, all this is nice, but the real question I want to know is how young can a baby have its first IG account?  

That's MY concern.

FrankPS wrote:

Did you speak to a nurse or doctor at those places?

I talked with Nurses both times. I'll also be consulting with multiple docs as well.

We've all had the 'climbing is an unnecessary risk' discussion at some point. A lot of us have probably also used the justification that risk is a part of life. We're way more likely to die in a car crash than on the rock. My biggest fear with being a Dad is being too safe, conservative, or letting others tell me what is best for my family. By no means, do I want to be reckless. Rather, I want to make informed decisions based on the best available information. It's impossible to eliminate risk entirely. I believe that as long as I understand the consequences and take reasonable actions to mitigate these consequences life is going to be really good, fun, and adventurous.

See you all out there.

Dan Vinson wrote:

I talked with Nurses both times. I'll also be consulting with multiple docs as well.

We've all had the 'climbing is an unnecessary risk' discussion at some point. A lot of us have probably also used the justification that risk is a part of life. We're way more likely to die in a car crash than on the rock. My biggest fear with being a Dad is being too safe, conservative, or letting others tell me what is best for my family. By no means, do I want to be reckless. Rather, I want to make informed decisions based on the best available information. It's impossible to eliminate risk entirely. I believe that as long as I understand the consequences and take reasonable actions to mitigate these consequences life is going to be really good, fun, and adventurous.

See you all out there.

That's a great attitude to take, Dan. I travelled extensively with both my children when they were young. About the only place I didn't take them was to the Amazon Basin because my S. American doctor advised me that the yellow fever vaccine that it required had potential serious consequences for a child under 1. But we explored mountains, jungles, rivers, big cities. Both my kids are now teens and extremely adventurous and self-sufficient. I trust either one of them to make good, critical decisions about their safety and well being.

Some of their friends who are lovely people but were raised, frankly, like veal, have no idea how to make good decisions like that. They just don't have the experience. 

We're going to need you to talk to at least 13-14 different doctors.

Dan Vinson wrote:

I talked with Nurses both times. I'll also be consulting with multiple docs as well.

We've all had the 'climbing is an unnecessary risk' discussion at some point. A lot of us have probably also used the justification that risk is a part of life. We're way more likely to die in a car crash than on the rock. My biggest fear with being a Dad is being too safe, conservative, or letting others tell me what is best for my family. By no means, do I want to be reckless. Rather, I want to make informed decisions based on the best available information. It's impossible to eliminate risk entirely. I believe that as long as I understand the consequences and take reasonable actions to mitigate these consequences life is going to be really good, fun, and adventurous.

See you all out there.

Consulting medical experts was/is the right thing to do. Nothing "too safe" or conservative with concern about your child's health. Good job contacting the hospital and pediatrician.

FrankPS wrote:

 Nothing "too safe" or conservative with concern about your child's health..

Yeah  -  with a little dose of germ therapy now and then plus a smattering of come-to-Jesus close calls along the way.

Mark Paulson wrote: It's relative.  Taking your baby from Boulder to Crested Butte would be about the same as someone on the coast here in NC taking their baby to Boone (3300') for the weekend.  They wouldn't think twice about it, yet the change in effective oxygen levels is roughly the same as in your situation.  Worst-case scenario, your baby super-compensates and has a mutant-like VO-max for life-  you'd be stupid -not- to do it!

just FYI going from 0 to 3K is not the same as going from 5K to 8K or 8K to 11K.  It is not a linear relationship.

Stagg54 Taggart wrote:

just FYI going from 0 to 3K is not the same as going from 5K to 8K or 8K to 11K.  It is not a linear relationship.

Correct, it's not a linear relationship, but the point you're making is actually diametric to the point you -seem- to be making.  The difference in effective oxygen at 0 feet (20.9%) and 3000 feet (18.6) is 2.3%.  The difference between 8k (15.4%) and 11k (13.7%) is 1.7%.  Air thins at a -slower- rate as you increase in altitude.

Señor Arroz wrote:

That's a great attitude to take, Dan. I travelled extensively with both my children when they were young. About the only place I didn't take them was to the Amazon Basin because my S. American doctor advised me that the yellow fever vaccine that it required had potential serious consequences for a child under 1. But we explored mountains, jungles, rivers, big cities. Both my kids are now teens and extremely adventurous and self-sufficient. I trust either one of them to make good, critical decisions about their safety and well being.

Some of their friends who are lovely people but were raised, frankly, like veal, have no idea how to make good decisions like that. They just don't have the experience. 

Wow! That's so awesome! I'm hoping to follow a similar trajectory. The more I listen to people smarter than myself and reflect back on 'growing up', I agree that there is something about exposure to risk that develops a specific kind of intelligence that cannot be learned in a classroom. The ability to quickly problem solve, cooperate, think-on-your-feet, and have self-reliance all seem to be waning characteristics. Or, at least the environment that helps foster these qualities seems to be shrinking.

Dan Vinson wrote:

Wow! That's so awesome! I'm hoping to follow a similar trajectory. The more I listen to people smarter than myself and reflect back on 'growing up', I agree that there is something about exposure to risk that develops a specific kind of intelligence that cannot be learned in a classroom. The ability to quickly problem solve, cooperate, think-on-your-feet, and have self-reliance all seem to be waning characteristics. Or, at least the environment that helps foster these qualities seems to be shrinking.

I don't actually think the environment is shrinking in that way. There are lots of cool parents doing awesome things with and for their kids. Just don't let a culture of fear make you afraid to let your children have their own experiences, take risks and thrive.

Interestingly, my observation is that kids who are parented by overly-cautious people tend to actually get injured more. Because they weren't allowed to develop their own limits and comfort zones and so they don't know what it feels like to really take physical risk while being really IN your body. So they tend to fall, slip, break things WAY more than kids who have been making those same calculations since they stood up to walk.

Best advice I ever got about physical safety was to not lift your kid up things they're trying to climb or push them to climb things beyond their comfort level. Let them go as far as they can and no farther. They'll always be within their ability level then. That's not talking about rock climbing, just life in general. Trees, chair, furniture, bunk beds, whatever. Learning to be really neutral and observant rather than always praising them for accomplishments also helps. Kids want to be seen, not constantly judged whether what their doing is a "good job" or not.

Old thread but I wanted to add our experience since there's not much info out there:

We took our daughter up to Guanella Pass Campground when she was around 3 months old. While I was bouldering my wife noticed she was sleeping really deep in the carrier and wasn't really responsive.

Later when getting ready for the first night's sleep, she seemed really drowsy, just laying on her back and staring, and eventually just fell asleep on her own, which was all pretty unusual for her. She slept so deep that she basically didn't even move when we tried waking her.

We weren't sure if it was the altitude or she was just really chill from being outside all day, but we were too scared to go to sleep so we packed our stuff and drove back home that night to Boulder. It did seem like she got more responsive when we got to lower altitudes, so we're pretty sure it was the altitude.

Recently, at 5 months we went back to Guanella Pass, but beforehand spent a day at 9000 ft and we slept in Georgetown instead of the campground. She was completely fine, we even did a hike to 12000 ft which didn't seem to have any effect.

our baby was always fine going up to 9 or 10k as an infant. 

But take sun protection very very seriously up high. We got advice that sunscreen is bad for babies less than 6 months. But I never saw any evidence that that's true. Or at least, that it's worse than a nasty sunburn. If I had it to do over again, I would have put sunscreen on her if we were going to be out midday up high - especially if it's hazy.

Long story short, the baby died.