This is for all you arm chair adventurers, just like me. There are a few age old questions that seems to boil up to the surface every once in awhile, questions that leave people divided. The culture and social aspects of professional outdoor adventure of all kinds has given rise to a new generation of super athletes, and average folk, looking for the next mountain to climb.

So, what is the question that to some is important and to others nothing more then a passing thought? O's. Oxygen. That invisible stuff you need so much of when climbing mountains, especially in today's age of high altitude competition.

Anyone who has spend anytime reading books by the greats like Ed Viesturs, and the plethora of other professional high altitude climbers, has probably read so much about the use of bottle O's (oxygen), that you feel like an expert.

It is strange how much of a difference bottled oxygen can make in the performance and ability of a climber to handle the conditions and terrain of any peak in the Himalayas, for example.

Photo by calumr

It is clear that some people could not ever dream of stepping on top of Everest with out bottled oxygen every step of the way.

It is also a sure thing that some people, call them purist if you like, refuse to take a free gulp of O's on their own summit attempts and assaults throughout their carrier. To them the only pure way to tackle and declare victory is to climb in most ways unaided. Which is strange in some sense to refuse to use bottled oxygen, but to use fixed lines placed by sherpas.

It seems most mountaineers like Ed Viesturs, themselves, don't seem to care either way whether their colleagues use bottled O's or not. Most of the arguments come from the peanut gallery these days. Arm chair adventurers like myself who call foul on those who use, and raise those who don't onto pedestals. Is this right?

If someone spends their life devoted to their pursuit of summits, expeditions, and the like, have they accomplished something less by the use of bottled oxygen?

It is clear that many people have lost their life because of the lack of oxygen on the world's tallest mountains, the effects on their body and mind when the bottle on their back runs out is amazing. Does this mean that then someone using O's should not attempt such a feat knowing this is the case? This would probably disqualify 90% or more of the highly publicized climbing community.

What is the answer? To use or not to use, that is the question.

Does it really even matter? Should people care about who can use bottle oxygen to complete assents of the world's biggest peaks. Is there a big difference in those athletes that do and do not use the bottled O?

Every account or book that is read or recorded about a major high altitude expedition these days is riddled and saturated with accounts about bottled oxygen. Who needs how much, when, where, how it gets from here to there. The list goes on. No one can deny the huge part that bottled O's play in today's high stakes game of fast alpine style attacks on enormous peaks.

But, let's be honest, bottled oxygen makes something that is impossible for most, possible. Should we look at it like a necessary evil? Should we treat it like any other piece of mountaineering gear that has advanced the sport in the last decades?

The truth is few are called to climb to the top of Everest, K2, Annapurna. Even fewer are called to do such feats of athleticism without the help of bottled oxygen.

What does this all mean? Should the question of using bottled oxygen even come up in a discussion? Is it purer in any way to climbing without this aid?