> I haven't looked for any recent studies, so if anyone can find them, please do give some links.
I Googled a little deeper into the Gingko studies out there. There are conflicting studies. Again, I think its due to the small sample size in most of these studies. One study claims that the differences in results are due to differences in the source of the Gingko. Standardization of dosage and ingredients is one of the troubles with herbal solutions.
Besides the two studies mentioned in my post above, the French did a 3rd study which also showed benefit using Gingko, but again, a small number of people. I can't find a link to the actual study, just reports of the study (maybe it was never translated).
The only study I've found with a large sample size of people was on Mt Everest, reported in the
British Medical Journal. This one showed no benefit to taking Gingko. The study used results from 487 people but the ascent circumstances were very different than climbing Mt Whitney. The people came from the airport at 9,200 ft and hiked up to 14,300 ft where the study began. So basically, the participants were already at about the same elevation as Whitney to start. From there, they took Gingko or Diamox or placebo and then climbed up to 16,200 ft and were checked for AMS. Not only did the Ginkgo not help under these circumstances, the group that combined Gingko with Diamox did slightly worse than the Diamox only group. The study notes, "these results may not be generalisable to other high altitude trekking environments where ascent rates and baseline elevation or final elevation may be different."
The one thing that all the studies have in common is that Diamox consistently works for many people. I plan to try it for the first time on Shasta this spring.
