Jens Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 [ HOWEVER, I have yet to see very many people on a first attempt of Denali, for example, go with anything less than 70# (in several carries, maybe, or pulling a sled) -- it just ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. So as Obsydian points out, if you're going to have a 40-50# pack on your back for a climb in the Cascades, train with 60 so 40 feels light. . If you want to go light on Denali, bring a couple of cartons of Marlboros and trade for all your food and fuel at high camps. I've seen people smoke like chimneys and still haul ass on summit day. When they are out, smokes are more valuable than gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 danielpatricksmith said: I disagree with most of the previous posts. Training with a heavy pack trains you to be slow. The mountains you mentioned can all be climbed with a pack no heavier than 20 pounds if you pack carefully. 20 lbs? Yeah you can do that if you want to decrease your safety margin by leaving behind much of the gear most people take. Yeah do Rainier as a day hike. Bring 1 liter water, a jacket, a picket and some pine nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 (edited) In reply to Catbirdseat: If you had read my equipment list, you would know that there is a large margin of safety built in. It is suitable for a multiday trip on Rainier. Carefully substituting lighter mulitfunctional items for heavier ones still leaves a margin of safety. ie, a Northface Mountain parka weighs 3 pounds. Will it keep you six times drier than a 1/2 pound Marmot Precip? Do you need a 10 pound assault tent for camping on Ingraham flats? What about taking a shovel and a bivi sack? Look at my list and tell me what gear I am leaving out that most people would take. Books, cell phone, CD player? Do these increase one's margin of safety? Courtney, I agree that most people carry too much weight, but rather than saying that's just how it is, why not offer suggestions for better, lighter gear? You stated that most people who attempt Denali for the first time have not figured out the tricks of lightweight packing. If one has not figured out how to pack for a climb, should they be attempting Denali? Maybe they should knock around a while and get their systems dialed. This reflects an attitude that has become very prevalant, that all one needs to climb is lots of 'bomber' gear and that will save their asses when when the shit hits. Lightweight gear is often cheaper than the heavy stuff. ie Betamid tent, Stubai crampons, Precip Jacket. My winter bag is a $60 REI special, weighs 2 1/4 pounds, my shell also was $60.00 and weighs 1/2 pound. The BD Ice Sack is $150.00 far cheaper than a Dana Designs. I fully agree that making oneself hard to kill is a good idea (it is my mantra when I get up at 4:30 in the morning to lift weights or do 25 mile trail runs). My point is that you are harder to kill by being fast and being fast comes from a)being fit, b)being light, and c) being strong. I think we both agree in principle. Our difference lies in the means to these goals. I believe running and lifting weights makes one stronger and faster than hiking with a heavy pack. I find it ironic that you would quote Twight yet ignore that most basic premise of his. He never suggested hiking with a heavy pack as good training. Long trail runs ("hour long flat runs gain you nothing") intervals, and weight lifting are his recipe. Edited March 4, 2003 by danielpatricksmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 You equipment list features over $1000 in equipment that many beginners could not afford to assemble. It also took you a long time carefully selecting those items after having much experience weighing your choices. Also most beginners are unable to run 25 miles on trail in one day, much less 10 miles. Your ability to move fast reduces your exposure on the mountain and the need to have extra gear in the first place. All I am saying is that an experienced mountaineer such as yourself should not expect a beginner to be able to get to where you are all at once. I agree that for the big slogs, that cardio fitness is often the deciding factor in success, not leg strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Um, Catbirdseat, DPS's gear list contained mainly cheap gear! PocketRocket is cheap, as stoves go. Precip is cheap as shells go, BD ice pack isn't expensive. Only the FF Vireo is expensive, the rest of the gear is very reasonable. Add waterproof pants (maybe Golite Reed, 6oz), and you will be better prepared than most climbers on these mountains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Courtenay Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 DPS wrote: <<I believe running and lifting weights makes one stronger and faster than hiking with a heavy pack. I find it ironic that you would quote Twight yet ignore that most basic premise of his. He never suggested hiking with a heavy pack as good training. Long trail runs ("hour long flat runs gain you nothing") intervals, and weight lifting are his recipe. >> I think we're dealing with semantics here; I actually totally agree with the statement above (weight training, intervals and appropriate cardio -- maybe not running per se given a person's structure, mass and knee history), but the fact that Twight doesn't suggest carrying a heavy pack as training doesn't exclude the fact that it works -- it does for me and others I know -- I believe there are several ways of getting to the end result: fast, strong ascents. I agree 100% with you (and Twight) about the importance of being strong (I too lift and have done so for nearly 20 years) and cardiovascularly fit (whether that has to include "running" in the strictest sense, I disagree -- EFX, hiking, step aerobics, biking (YES, biking, folks!) and so forth are all adequate substitutions if someone prefers less jarring impact activities). I guess the point I'm trying to make is IF someone IS NOT LIFTING WEIGHTS (as I see to be the case, unfortunately, more often than not when climbers get too busy) THEN one way of getting stronger legs is to load them functionally BY CARRYING A HEAVY PACK ON SOME OUTINGS-killing two birds with one stone if you will. I'd FAR prefer that they do their workouts that include squats, deadlifts, cleans, jerks and the like in the gym, BUT if they AREN'T, and they can get some strength endurance in the mountains, then that's what I'm going to have them do. I DO think we're on pretty much the same page here, I just hope you can understand what I end up seeing most of the time -- the first thing people tend to drop is intervals and hard strength training. They're both tough workouts if done at a level that's going to be beneficial. And furthermore, if I can move 65# up the mountain and keep up with everyone else carrying a lot less, then by golly I'm going to have absolutely no worries when I have to carry 30# when it counts. Make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Courtenay Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 And one other statement you (DPS) make is very valid -- about not knowing how to pack properly. I agree, if you're going to do something tough, learn how to go as light as you can. BUT HAVE THE STRENGTH BEYOND YOUR OWN PACK WEIGHT so that if you need it, you have it, and more to spare for emergencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 He never suggested hiking with a heavy pack as good training. It's evident he firmly believes in NOTHING more than you need. I think he would smirk at the suggestion of a heavy pack in training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric8 Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Catbirdseat, part of the light and fast theory is that you are actually increasing your safety margin by spending less time subject to avalache danger rockfall etc. You do make a good point that most people who are just starting out don't pay a lot of attention to lightweight gear when they first start out. I'm in the process of making much of my gear lighter. That said if i where to climb rainer via non techincal route with the gear i have right now i estimate my pack would weigh around 25lbs. Thats carrying a 4lb sleeping bag, 3.5lb pack, 5lb tent, which would stay in camp on summit day. Since the orginal post was for training hikes, how about stuart via cascade coloiur and del campo. Theres a lot more out there but I have enjoyed both those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Everything is a day hike until you bivy unplanned. Only your fitness and experience will determine it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 yes and you can have a multi-day epic on outer space too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Courtenay Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Caveman, I think my comment came across wrong -- <<BUT HAVE THE STRENGTH BEYOND YOUR OWN PACK WEIGHT so that if you need it, you have it, and more to spare for emergencies. >> I wasn't suggesting carrying more than you need on your climbs, what I WAS suggesting is carrying more weight on pre-season conditioners SO THAT if you need to draw on extra strength (NOT extra stuff) you HAVE extra strength (NOT stuff) and more strength (NOT stuff!!) to spare in emergencies on your climbs. Hopefully that clears up any confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.