Norman_Clyde

When I was heavily into triathlons once upon a time, and working out something like 4 hours a day most days, my body fat was probably as low as Skykilo and Fence Sitter's is now. It was fine for triathlons, but one thing I noticed was if I wasn't exercising I got COLD very easily, especially when swimming in the ocean, but also doing things like riding in a convertible. I had no insulation at all. Obviously, this is not one hundred per cent adaptive to the mountain environment, though a fabric insulating layer is probably lighter than extra fat, and you can take the clothing off when it's warm. Another consideration is that you might actually need this fat for fuel on a long climb. At this point I seek to use my fat as fuel only in a crisis, since my metabolism converts to fat utilization only by making me miserable, cold, bitchy, shaky and weak for several hours. After that, I'm all right, but I try to avoid that condition in climbing situations. Besides the above, I very much doubt that there are any negative health effects to having too low a body fat percentage. I've never seen any literature to suggest this idea. Body fat percentage is not a measure of overall nourishment status; in the USA at least, where people have access to sufficient calories, in my opinion it correlates more with metabolic rate and how much the person is exercising. The metabolic rate seems to be genetically determined to a great extent, which is why some people stay skinny no matter what and others can't get there no matter what. Exercise is a big factor, however. Besides the fact that my general tendency to hold on to fat increases slightly as I get older, my body fat percentage seems to correlate directly with my exercise output. I exercise more, I eat more, but at the same time I get skinnier. I think this general rule holds true for most people, but what differs is each person's baseline set point on the fat to skinny scale. Fairweather: the most recent studies of diets once again seem to confirm what's been said before. It's not the carbs or fat, it's the calories.

Excellent work!! So, in your opinion, were the snowbdridges solid enough that a solo would be reasonable next weekend? Skykilo, if you can ski the Price on Shuksan like you did in April, you can certainly handle an Olympus one-dayer in August. Next Sunday looks good to me.

I have a tentative plan to join Sketchfest and others on Sept. 20 for a projected 20 to 22 hour round trip. However, if anyone wanted to go faster than that, aiming for 16 hours, send me a pm. Sept. 20 is still a good date for me. I would want to sleep at the Hoh trailhead the night before, depart maybe 4 AM, hope to be back by 8 PM, head back to Seattle that night.

It took me and 2 buddies 9 hours to get to Hazard from Paradise in June 1999. The thousand foot elevation loss down to the Nisqually, which you then have to regain, certainly makes the first day harder. I was surprised to see how many parties made this route into a 3 day, camping down below the Turtle on Wapowety Cleaver. There were quite a few nice sheltered locations for camps there.

I will have to go there someday.

I stopped briefly at Snag Flats on the way down, but saw no bears. Did hear a pileated woodpecker. About par for this "nature" trail. Actually, it's fairly peaceful on a weekday at 6 AM.

6 AM tomorrow. Be there. Aloha.

Mike G. emailed me that a Rainier ranger (no surprise) named Dan Ostrowski did it in just about 24 hours several years ago. He did not recount this as anything like an "official" record, so don't get on him for details. The St. Helens circumnavigation sounds cool. I'd read about it in a trail running guide I have, but was uncertain as to the quality of the scenery. It sounds definitely worth a go.

We got through fine and had a very nice weekend. ChucK, you're so right about the rangers. The website says in one spot, "The Ipsut Creek road is open to high clearance vehicles ONLY" , but if you look for the latest road info, the paragraph says that high clearance vehicles are "suggested". We saw every kind of car in there except low riders. We didn't do much hiking, but spent about an hour playing in the pools below Ipsut Falls. There is a deep pool pretty high up which is hidden from the trail and excellent for skinny-dipping, if you don't mind the cold. Magnificent old growth cedar and hemlock up there, only a moderate number of hikers, about fifty-fifty between the casual weekend campers and the goretex warriors. I got a kick out of seeing one guy come down the trail from Carbon Glacier--the only trail in the entire valley--looking down every few yards at a small object in his hand. Of course, he was consulting his GPS.

Helping this thread to drift a little further... that's an interesting idea, that rock climbing attracts and retains a different sort than you see in traditional high school/ college sports. I was very small for my age, last one picked for the team all through elementary school, and thought of myself as therefore a sub-par athlete. Then in junior high I started to discover I could do things no one else could do in the strength/weight ratio department, like pullups/pushups/wrestling. I didn't pursue any of that seriously, but I suspect my original perceptions of myself as a non-traditional athlete have contributed to my general distaste for the usual team sports. I would bet that there aren't too many football/baseball/basketball/hockey stars who make a transition to climbing and mountaineering later in life. The usual team sports in my opinion promote a mindset that is more suited to...a different sort of life than I have, anyway.

I am hoping to drive to Ipsut Creek tomorrow, in my non-high clearance vehicle, in order to take the family for a car camp in a little less crowded MRNP setting. I have heard that the difficulty of the road is exaggerated, and that a regular vehicle can make it. However, it appears on the map that a ranger is posted at the start of this road. I'm wondering: will the ranger forbid me and my Volvo to enter the park by this route? Will I have to drive a car full of disappointed children two more hours to some plan B campsite instead?

It just means putting the entire digit (i.e. your toe) under local anesthesia by putting the lidocaine right where the nerves go. Unfortunately, it tends to be pretty uncomfortable just to get the medicine in. Now and then people get lightheaded or pass out during the numbing procedure. Regarding leaving it alone vs. intervening: you'll know when something has to be done, once the pain gets so bad that you can't think about anything else. Just be sure you won't have to wait two weeks for an appointment once you get to that stage.

I had this exact problem in May, which was how long it took for my left big toe nail to grow in after I lost it in October. I've lost toenails before, but they had always grown in smoothly. This time, the end started growing under right at the most distal portion. I tried to get it up over the skin again, but it was too deep. After a few attempts at surgery without anesthesia, I considered performing a digital block on myself (numbing the entire toe with lidocaine, the way I do when I fix other people's toenails), but I thought it would be too awkward to fix on my own. So I went to the podiatrist, who gave me a fairly painless digital block and trimmed away the offending portion of the nail in about five seconds. It's grown all the way out now, and feels fine. You should be able to go to a podiatrist or most MDs to get this done. Let me know if you need a reference.

Earlier this season I was thinking about going for it in 24 hours, but after my 50 K run in March I realized how much training mileage that would likely involve, and I put it on a back burner. 48 hours sounds better. 3 mph will get you through it in 30 hours. That leaves 18 hours for sleeping! Except to average 3 mph you need to be at the equivalent of a run on all the uphill parts. I think with a light pack and determination you could do it in 2 days with a bivy and not have to push ALL that hard-- not as hard as you'd need to do it in 24 hours.

We could have rappelled the steepest 15 feet or so, but the holds are all there, so we downclimbed. 30 meters is enough of a rope. KKlimber, we're not hardcore chestbeaters, really. The idea is to have a fun day in the mountains. I was glad for an excuse to climb Olympus in a day last year because I didn't have 3 days to spare at the time. Having done it once, I now like the idea of going for it in a single dawn-to-dusk period because it's a slightly bigger challenge, but does not require a sleepless night beforehand. So far I have no partners volunteering for the 16 hour plan, so I'd have to solo the whole thing if I go for it that way. This raises annoying questions of safety regarding glacier travel. I'm not willing to be the guy who disappeared into a crevasse while soloing Olympus, regardless of what line of reasoning got me there in the first place. The plan of hooking up with another party was one way of getting around the solo glacier travel issue. But it complicates the logistics and the timing, and therefore detracts from the smooth simplicity of a one day solo ascent. Guess you can't have your cake and eat it too, where speed and safety on a glacier are concerned.

Cool! But why do they call it the "Birdroom"?

Join us! Join us! A fast walk is much less punishing than a run. Pack weight is a big factor as well. 17.4 miles from trailhead to Glacier Meadows. About another mile to the glacier from there. Then about 3 to 5 miles of snow travel to the summit, fairly slow across the Blue Glacier and up to the snow dome, then easy low angle to the summit block. One pitch of simulclimbing or solo from there. The only uphill on the return is climbing back up the lateral moraine, about 400 feet of pure dust and misery. Otherwise, good trail all the way.

Ned, Sketch, I will set aside the weekend of the 20th if I possibly can. September weekends are still unsettled work-wise, but I'll probably have to work at least two of them. If I can find the ideal pair of light hikers I might wear those the whole way, but in spite of PP's speculations I still may wear running shoes for the trail portion. Whatever footwear I end up using, I'd like to keep all my toenails this year.

Flying_Ned, I think the answers are: 1)14 hours is the reputed record, as posted by someone in this forum last year. I believe this person was solo. He may also have had some equipment waiting for him at Glacier Meadows. It would be mighty hard to go this fast without those two factors in your favor. 2) Like Pencil Pusher said, 24 hours 30 minutes. PP came in about 30 minutes ahead of me. My feet pretty much gave out with 9 miles to go. PP was able to do some jogging the rest of the way, but a fast walk was all I could manage. 3) I would like to jog at least 12 of the 17 miles up to high camp. The first 9 miles are so flat and easy, with only a few roots for hazards, I think I could manage 4 to 5 miles an hour, maybe get to high camp within 4 hours. Same for the trip back, though the same thing as last year could happen to me again. If I can get the trail done in 4 hours each way, that leaves a reasonable 8 hours to the summit and back from high camp for a 16 hour round trip time. 4)Rope... that's the big unanswered question, mainly whether an undertaking as silly as this one justifies assuming the risk of solo glacier travel. Last year the crevasses on the Snow Dome were of very little concern, but there were a few wide moat crossings, which are only going to be wider this year with the hot weather. I would probably not be inclined to go for the summit solo/unroped. The alternative would be to hook up with an established party at a specified time and place, join them for the climb, then peel off afterward. Pete_A floated this idea to me recently. It's certainly more reasonable from a safety standpoint. Harder to arrange than a solo, but worth it. 5)The trophy exists only in the mind.

Anyone up for a one day excursion this September? This year I'm thinking of camping at the trailhead, 4 AM start, 8 PM return. But my feet will have to get tougher in the next 2 months if I give that a try.

I came down off the snow lake trail this afternoon (one of the most crowded trails in the state of WA, for you Oregonians) and there was a sign leaning against a stump, right at the trailhead, that said "Wilderness Survey". There were a few more lines about how completing the survey would help make the world a better place, etc. etc., so I looked around for a survey to fill out, but there wasn't one. I think the surveyor ended his/her shift and walked off without the sign. If this is the same survey you down in OR have seen, the spread of this thing is about as broad as any investigation of the backcountry community I have seen. Where did they get the funding to pay all these people to spread across the Northwest? Some deep pocket somewhere... makes me wonder if Big Timber or some other nasty global corporation is involved.

Way to go, guys. That threesome has been on my list for two seasons now, but I've still never been to Leroy Creek. Nice to hear it's not only doable, but appealing as well (something I need after our thrash at Perfect Pass last weekend).

Strong work, you guys. I might be willing to go for it with little beta, but I at least want to know: did you rope up and use pro?

My very first use of an ice axe was the W. ridge couloir on Forbidden in October 1989. The main slope angle was about 45 degrees, but the gully was melted out with big wide moats, the slope into each moat more like 60 or 70. The crest was about 4 feet wide. "What kind of belay do we use?" I asked my partner. "No belay," he said. "Just stick your axe in like this and it'll hold you." Right.