I have recently retired, and as someone who loves history / archaeology / hiking / nature / landscape photography / and the early Indiana Jones movies, Machu Picchu is of course on my bucket list. And I'd always sort of assumed I would do the Inca Trail when I went. But on reading the itinerary for a Road Scholar trip (appropriately named, "Hiking the Inca Trail", https://www.roadscholar.org/find-an-...chu/itinerary/) that would enable me to cross off this item, it's hard not to be a little concerned by its very careful description of what the trip entails. In terms of the basic details, that breaks down as follows:

First Day: 8 miles / 7 hours / 9,800 feet maximum altitude.

Second Day: 5.5 miles / 7 hours / 13.880 feet maximum altitude.

Third Day: 5 miles / 7 hours / 12,800 feet maximum altitude.

Fourth Day: 7 miles / 5 hours / 2,000 steps down / maximum altitude 11,800 feet.

Obviously, going with an experienced tour operator that provides porters makes a huge difference. I'm in pretty good shape for my age, only carrying about an extra 20 pounds on a six-foot-plus frame, and as recently as last Saturday I spent a full day hiking around Sintra in Portugal and covered 8 miles and the equivalent of 70 flights of steps. On the other hand, hiking the "Path of the Gods" on the Amalfi Coast just about finished my wife and I in 2023, and that's barely 5 miles and maybe a thousand feet up. 12,000 -14,000 feet of altitude adds another element entirely, especially since most of my days where I live are spent between sea level and 700 feet.

Hence, I would very much appreciate hearing from others in a similar age bracket who have tackled the Inca Trail about their experience.

I can't answer your specific question because I skipped the Inca Trail, but I did see Machu Picchu -- magnificent! -- and a lot of other Peruvian sites. As general advice, I'd encourage you to check the CDC website to see if you need any special preventative health measures and I'd make sure your plan for visiting Machu Picchu allows plenty of time to acclimate to altitude.

I see that you've topped ToujoursVoyager's report. I also recommend the one Colduphere:
The Inca Trail - It's a Long Way Down

FWIW, the section of my trip report that covers Machu Picchu starts with post # 94.
Praise for Peru – A report of my solo month in this amazing country

I am in a similar age group and have done many hikes in Peru , both around Cusco and further north in the Cordillera Blanca. I chose not to do the "standard" Inca Trail as it does get very crowded and the trail has suffered as a result. Some love it though and it is most definitely one those "once in a lifetime experiences". Alternatives include the Saltankay and Lares treks though those will not have you entering MP via the sun gate. Instead you would end in Ollantaytambo and get the train from there.

Acclimatising to high altitude
You are right to be concerned about the altitude issues. It does need to be taken seriously and planned for. It takes time to adjust. Many trek operators will suggest a minimum of two nights in Cusco prior to a trek. The reality is that it takes much longer to truly acclimatise - the more time at altitude before the trek, the better. More info @ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/altitude-sickness/ or the equivalent US CDC site.
By far the best way is to ascend gradually which, in Peru and if short on time, is easier said than done! You will arrive in Lima at sea level and then fly to Cusco at 3400m which is where you will feel the altitude immediately. You do have the option of travelling to the lower altitudes of Ollantaytambo or Urumbamba (2800m) for a few days and then back to Cusco.

It is worth paying a visit to your GP to check for any medical conditions which may be relevant - check your vaccinations at the same time same as many South American countries are now insisting on a yellow fever vaccine certificate. NB you may be considered over the age limit for the YF vaccine and may require a doctors letter to that effect. There is also the option of drugs for altitude e.g. acetazolamide. It is available from pharmacies in Lima but definitely ask your doc first. It needs to be taken prior to ascending and a few days after. I found it really helped when I had no choice but to head to altitude for a trek with little time for acclimatising normally
Fitness

Regardless of the altitude, the fitter you are , the more enjoyable the trek will be. Cusco is all hills, as is the trek. Aerobic fitness will make this easier especially at altitude. IME leg strength is important too . I make a point of resistance type leg exercises for a few weeks before to strengthen knees and ankles - even taking the stairs will help

Essentially plenty of people in their 60s and 70s manage just fine. good trek operators will look after their guests very well and will not pressure older trekkers to keep up with the groups. There are many good, bad and indifferent operators in Cusco so do your due diligence and choose one that suits and voice your concerns. There is evidence to suggest that older hikers cope better with altitude than younger people and that has certainly been my experience. As I have gotten older, I cope much better (one of the few benefits!)

Thanks so much for these two helpful responses, kja (always good to hear from you) and Catch23!

I have always been a very fit person and I hiked the Inca Trail at age 44. I have to admit that I struggled with it. Even if you are a fit person, you really don't know how your body will react to that kind of altitude. One problem for me is that on Day 2 (the highest altitude) I found it impossible to eat more that about 4 bites of food at breakfast. Loss of appetite is a problem for some people with altitude sickness, and that's the day it affected me. Of course, when you can't eat, you don't have as much energy as you need for such a difficult hike.

Another thing I struggled with was walking down a lot of steps. I have always found walking down steps without railing to be very scary. I'm OK going up, but when I walk down, I'm looking down.

I agree that seeing a doctor first is a good idea. Keep in mind that you can do the abbreviated hike, which is just days 3 and 4. Day 3 was by far the most scenic and you don't have to cross Dead Woman's Pass. I think that would be a great alternative if you don't want to do all 4 days.

I'm glad to have the bragging rights for completing the 4 day hike, but I won't be doing it again.

Good luck with your decision.

OP JG,
Your original question is a very valid one, as many of us here are more or less in the same age bracket. I've been throughout Peru but never on that particular trail.
Lonely Planet used to publish travel story compilations in addition to their famed guidebooks. In one of those collections, a widow described following in the footsteps of her late husband who had apparently just done the high-profile 'W' hike down in Patagonia. She'd warned him about attempting to complete that trail on his own at his age (same as you and I), but he had waved off her concerns. Then he had died of a heart attack during the hike. Heartbreaking.

My wife is several years older than us. She now has a bum knee after our recent hikes in Aragon. We'd already begun to avoid hikes that we saw as overly-ambitious for us i.e. we skipped your Path of the Gods and instead walked The Path of the Lemons.
As a fellow archaeology buff, I can assure you that challenging hikes are def not necessary for one to enjoy Peru's famed sights. Mapi, Pisac and Ollantaytambo are close to each other and do not require challenging hikes.

I hope that you get many more responses here to inform your decision-making.
cheers
I am done. the end

zebec's story is heartbreaking, indeed! Tragic.

I don't know what "Mapi" is, but I agree that Pisac and Ollantaytambo, which are near Machu Picchu, are worth visiting. Both are in the Sacred Valley, which has a number of sites of interest. And I'll underscore the point that one can visit Machu Picchu without hiking.

Oh, MAchu PIcchu ... MAPI... Duh.

There is a high chance you will have no problem considering you are in decent health and regularly active with past hiking. Your guides probably won't mind if you don't walk at top speed. There isn't necessarily such thing as being too old to hike at high altitudes. I have been to running races: The ages were spread out between about 20 and a few over 70. Age related slowdown is not a noticeable thing if you have been consistently active. I am 42 and in average to decent health. I didn't sign up for a long hiking and camping trip in Peru but my trip will still involve a lot of "normal" walking in Machu Picchu, Ollantaytambo, Cusco, Sacred valley area ruins, small museums, and so on. I didn't feel any problem due to the elevation in Mexico City. Mexico city is over 7 thousand feel. I figure another 4 thousand feet won't cause me much problem. My great-grandfather with my same last name had a heart-attack and dropped dead 6-weeks before he would have turned 40. My grandfather on my dad's side survived to ninety-six-1/2 (even though he had knee and hip replacement surgery when he was about 85 and surgery to replace a valve in his heart when he was 88 and then developed diabetes and chronic kidney disease). My brother is 4 years and 5 month younger than me but about 30 pounds overweight, eats junk food, and can't or doesn't jog.

Michaelpianko, I realize we are all different and I am in no position to say the OP should or should not hike the Inca Trail. You said you're OK at 7,000 feet, so you don't think an additional 4,000 feet will make a difference. I've always been OK at 7,000 feet, but an additional 4,000 feet does make a difference for me and many other people. Additionally, the highest point on the Inca Trail is Dead Woman's Pass, at 13,828 feet, so that's an almost double the 7,000 feet you mentioned.

You are correct in saying the guides don't expect you to walk at top speed. I certainly wasn't the fastest person on the trail, especially going up and down Dead Woman's Pass.

I'm only posting this so the OP can make an informed decision.

Look carefully at my reply and notice whether or not I wrote the word "should"... It is common for people to post questions in forums to be told what to do and its common for repliers to try making the appearance of being helpful while simultaneously trying to block the replier's ability to appear to be "responsible" for "telling the poster what he "should" do". You should always tell somebody what they should do and they will do it if part of their brain was looking for an excuse to do it, or they will do something different or the opposite of what you tell them they should do do. So what?

I'm with P_M on this one. Sorry, michaelpianko, but you are simply 100% wrong about that extra 4,000 feet, 7,000-11,000', let alone above 13,000'.

OP, sounds like you have the right expectations and my $0.02 is go for it. I would only suggest that you fitness train beforehand, and spend as much time as possible in the higher elevations of the Sacred Valley and Cuzco before you start the trek. A few days at minimum, a week would be even better. Good luck.

I never said you were telling to OP what they should do, and I wasn't trying to stir up trouble. I was simply pointing out that not everyone who is OK at 7,000 feet will be OK at 11,000 feet. And having done this myself, I can tell you that almost 14K can be very challenging, even for people who can handle 7,000 feet.

I was fine at 7,000 feet above sea level; I had trouble at 9,000. With medication and time to acclimate, I was OK, but gosh, that first day at 9K was a struggle! And that was just walking around largely flat streets of downtown Ayacucho. Trying to hike a trail? No way!

But each of us is different....

jeffergray - Please bear in mind that altitude affects everyone differently. Whether a particular individual is ok at this altitude, but badly affected at that altitude is largely irrelevant, especially where those comments reflect only one or a small number of experiences. I have been fine on some trip but not on others. Over the years I have hiked at altitude many, many times. What I have noticed is that acclimatisation has become easier as the years have passed. I have no way of knowing whether this is because my body has become used to it because of multiple trips at altitude, or whether it is because of my age. Some surveys have shown some empirical evidence that the latter is the case (good news for you).

As I believe I mentioned, the only way to deal with altitude effectively is to increase altitude gradually. In the case of MP this means flying into Cusco and straight to Ollantaytambo (2800m/9000ft) for a couple of days and then a couple of days in Cusco (3400m/11000ft) before your trek. (NB most responsible trek operators will insist on 2 nts min in Cusco before a trek. NB. IMO this is the absolute minimum. The more time you spend acclimatising, the easier and more enjoyable the trek will be.

An even more conservative plan would be to visit Arequipa (2400m) before heading to the Sacred Valley . Plus it is a really nice city in which to spend a few days!

In my experience of spending a lot of time in the region, few people will experience any problems in Ollantaytambo which is generally considered the perfect altitude to acclimatise (it is pretty much the same as the air pressure you will experience on the plane flying to Peru.

A few people are affected quite badly on arrival in Cusco if they stay overnight (myself included on one occasion ) On the treks, whether it be the Inca trail or any others , you will hit altitudes of >4000m/1400ft and will be walking uphill. You will most definitely, feel the altitude. The only question is how much. On hikes, it is essential to listen to your own body and not push it. Rest when breathless, keep hydrated, eat well etc..

I have met many people in their sixties doing these hikes and most importantly, enjoying them. To reiterate my comments, check in with your doctor before travel, consider altitude meds, take time to acclimatise gradually and for as long as is practicable and get comprehensive travel insurance that covers you for hiking at those altitudes.

Thanks for all these thoughtful replies. I have an appointment with my GP tomorrow, so I can discuss this with her at that time. In light of all these responses, I will study the itineraries of the various tours closely to see how much acclimatization time they give you. When I traveled to Tibet many years ago, altitude sickness flattened me the first day, but I felt fine on the second and had no further issues. And I am given some encouragement by the fact that most of these distances are relatively short: e.g., 5 miles in 7 hours on days 2 and 3, which appear to be the most demanding.

The extrapolated oxygen percentage of the air drops with altitude. It's 20.9% at sea level and 15.4% at 8000 feet and 12.3% at 14000 feet. I am about the same age as the OP and I swim 1000 yards 3 days a week and bike 45 minutes once a week and do weights twice a week. I am not overweight. My resting 02 sat in Cusco was 94%. I had no problems with MP but found climbing the mountain behind it quite difficult. I would not try the Inca trail. I think the type of 60-70 yo old folks who could do the trail are those who bike 50 miles a week or run 5 miles regularly. Those are the type of older people I met in Patagonia and Peru who were doing more difficult hikes. I do not think 1% of people from the USA in the age range of 60-70 could do the trail.

Maybe things are different here in the UK and people are a lot fitter than those in the USA but I somehow doubt it. I am in that age group , am reasonably fit but certainly not in the top one percent and could do the Inca Trail. Fitness and the ability to acclimatise to altitude are not closely correlated. Indeed there is research to show that the ability to cope with altitude actually increases with age. My wife and I once climbed Mt Kinabalu in Borneo accompanied by a group of friend of varying ages, some 20-25 years younger. It was the younger ones who were falling by the wayside and failed to reach the summit.

Clearly fitness will always help but age alone, should not be a barrier to most people enjoying the hike. Many 60 and 70 plus people do the every year. Some trek companies may have age limits (mostly minimum) or ask for a doctors letter to cover themselves. Always get good travel insurance covering hiking up to those altitudes.

Agree with catch23 on this. FWIW, I've also done a number of higher elevation treks and climbs in my 50's through early 70's (so far). Same experience: young people falling by the wayside as we cruised past them. In fact, I was one of the fallen decades ago.

I think part of the reason is older folks tend to move slower, naturally, and this is a key to success at higher elevations. One is wise to listen to the wisdom of Sherpas ("bistari, bistari"), and Kilimanjaro mountain guides ("pole, pole") in this regard.

For fun, some Googling turns this up as oldest ages:
Mount Everest: Yuichiro Miura, 80
Denali: Tom Choate, 78
Kilimanjaro: Anne Lorimor, 89
Mount Whitney: Hulda Crooks, 91
Longs Peak: Rev. William "Col. Billy" Butler, 85
Inca Trail: Gary Bybee, 86

Doesn't mean anything for anyone else, of course, but there you have it.

I walked the Inca Trail at 66, and it is definitely feasible. You just need to take a few days to acclimatize, perhaps in Cusco or in Ollantaytambo. Use trekking poles and take your time - due to the altitude and endless stone steps, the altitude and the steps to keep your balance are more than the distance itself. A good operator like Road Scholar will put you in good hands, and the views make it all worthwhile!

Really! You look more like 26 in your profile photo!