[victorhooi]

That's a good point.

Kilamanjaro is 5895 metres, and EBC is 5380 metres.

You're correct that in the study, the Kilamanjaro climbers (n=7), most of them came back with normal brain scans. That is definitely encouraging.

Also, I have heard that Kilamanjaro is tougher than EBC, due partly to the rate ascent and people pushing themselves too aggressively - if I was to do EBC, I'm happy to take it slower, to avoid AMS. I'll probably be taking diamox, but I don't know if that makes a difference here.

(I did the Inca Trail to Macchu Picchu with a group, fairly aggressive pace, but it's considerably lower - although I just Googled and apparently the highest point on the trail is 4215 metres, so maybe not that different).

There may be hope yet...haha.

How did you find your trek via Lobuche East? Any ill effects? And you found it easier than Kilimanjaro?

[wooster]

The trekking part of my Nepal trip I found a lot easier (and interesting) than my Kilimanjaro hike. The trek to EBC lends itself to a lot of flex days being built into itineraries (delays of flights between Kathmandu and Lobuche are normal) and some nice side trips that help with the "climb high, sleep low" pattern that helps prevent AMS. Kilimanjaro, on the other hand, is a straight shot up and down, tends to be a much shorter trek, and doesn't have as interesting terrain for side hikes.

Climbing Lobuche East and glacier traverse+rescue training on Cho La glacier were both harder than hiking Kilimanjaro, but were my favorite parts of the trip.

As far as ill effects… there were some injuries, sickness, and minor AMS symptoms among my group on both trips (headache, cough, shortage of breath… nothing serious). We were careful about acclimatization, though.

Of the two, I'd really recommend trekking in Nepal. It's one of those places I find myself missing, and I'd love to go back.