True, people do adapt over time to lower oxygen levels at high altitude.  Children born at high altitude develop to maximise their oxygen efficiency. The typically grow to smaller stature, with a much larger heart, and their cells contain more mitochondria. Blood vessel proliferation is notable, and is linked to expression of genes that are sensitive to cellular oxygen levels.

Adaption to higher altitude also causes different gentic responses and genes are believed to be involved in the reduced pulmonary vasoconstriction response to hypoxia found in Tibetan natives . Individuals who possess this blunted response have been found to have higher than normal NO levels in their lungs, despite the low oxygen levels. NO is associated with reduced pulmonary hypertension, and it is believed that populations adapted to life at very high altitude have an altered form of an NO synthase enzyme which is more efficient.

I would however, point out that Tibetans consume fairly substantial amounts of animal protein and grains as well as dairy products.  Perhaps it is what we do to those items in Western civilization that causes the acidosis.

DQ

We are rehashing an old argument here (as you and I have been known to do ).  I am not saying that lack of cellular oxygen cannot cause cancer in and of itself, but rather that lack of cellular oxygen is part of a pleomorphic progression in the formation of cancer which normally begins with prolonged inflammation due to exposure to carcinogens and other toxins and causes of irritation.  At any rate, we agree that endeavoring to keep your cells properly oxygenated will prevent cancer, so no matter where we place lack of cellular oxygen in the cause and effect progression, the solution is the same.

It is nice, and a bit unusual, to be able to disagree on something here and both sides be right where it really counts.

How is the weather in your neck of the woods?  It is butt cold here!  Our yankee friends might laugh at us, but temperatures in the 20's are cold to us southern sun lovers.  I have the fireplace blazing!

All the best,

DQ

 though the consensus of opinion is that cellular hypoxia normally arises at the site of tumors,


I don't see the connection here DQ ! If its a tumor its old cancerous cells!

Not all tumors are malignant. A wart is tumor, but it is benign. So are keloids, lipomas.......

This does not account for the morphing event that turns normal young aerobic cells into anaerobic cancerous cells! Cancerous cells by their very makeup prove its the lack of oxygen that created it!

No it does not.  Cancer is not caused from hypoxia. The most common cause of cancer is viruses. Other pathogens have also been implicated, but to a much lesser extent. If hypoxia caused cancer then why don't all COPD patients have cancer? Why don't endurance athletes who are in hypoxic states for extended periods of time all have cancer? Why doesn't increasing oxygen levels, such as through hyperbaric oxygen cure cancer? There is a simple answer to all these questions. Hypoxia DOES NOT cause cancer.

The problem is that Otto Warburg has been misquoted so many times that the misconception of a lack of oxygen causing cancer has become a standard mantra in the alternative community. What Warburg really stated was that cancer uses fermentation as a measn of energy production REGARDLESS of whether oxygen is present. It is the same as active yeast that ferments regardless if oxygen is provided.