I'm very new to going /out/. I wanted to try climbing one

Did a loop around Marcy last summer; hike he Haystacks, March, Grey, and skylight.

There is nothing technical about it. There are portions of the trail where rocks make it very uneven and if it's muddy you'll have a tough time; but it is what it is. The trails up any high peak are pretty direct to the summit, no switch backs or offsets from the elevation; so in one sense they can be more difficult than a 14er in the Rockies.

Which route are you coming in from? Are you going to do it as a day hike or are you going to camp out at a lean-to?

You really don't need anything more than a fanny pack with water and snacks if you don't plan on spending the night. Trekking poles might help you keep your posture / protect your knees.

Any of the peaks are doable for a beginner; but if you're not in shape they can take a bit out of you. Some people take a full 12 hrs to just go to march and back; some trail runners do it in 3-4.

If you're a beginner you'll probably have some issues with your feet getting beat to shit if you jump right into a 15mi day hike. That's probably a more likely issue than cardiovascular endurance.

>>1059136
Was planning on parking at the Adirondack Loj and going from the trailhead there. Are you familiar with any other good options? I was split over whether or not I should do a day hike or spend the night. It'd either be a solo day hike for me or an easy two-day trip with some less physically-apt family members. That's cool that it can be done lightweight and cheap for a day hike.
>>1059139
I've been running 5-8km 4 days a week which is far less than the hike, for sure, but probably higher-impact.
Would hiking shoes help much?

>>1059136

>in one sense they can be more difficult than a 14er in the Rockies.

Your inferiority complex is showing

>>1059158
The high peaks do not have switchbacks; the trails are straight attacks to the summit. Comparing the slopes the high peaks have some routes that put more strain on the hiker based on simple physics.

>>1059157
Parking at garden can be very crowded. I went during the weak in mid August; got there just before 8am and the lot was full. I wound up going to Elk Lake and Panther gorge to the south. I'm not familiar with coming down from the lodge.

Most people who are doing a day hike come from lodge; so if you and your family got an early start you should be fine to summit and get back.

>>1059182
>It's harder because there is less elevation gain and less distance

I sense you are a dumbo

File: force diagram.jpg (33KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x365px

>>1059260
there can be more of a challenge because it happens over a steeper angle; requiring the hiker to put out more work per step.

>>1059282
Take smaller steps if you are that out if shape

>>1059355
I don't have a problem hiking either range, I'm just pointing out that basic mathematics support my argument.

The issue won't be solved by "taking smaller steps" either. Going up a steeper grade will require more calories burned no matter the size of the steps because your total work against gravity has not changed based on the length of your stride; you still have to move your total mass upwards.

let's say you have one mountain that over a 1mi linear displacement gains 2000ft upwards at a steady rate; a constant let's say 60 degrees horizontal.

on another mt you have the same 2000ft gained, but with switchbacks you are only moving upwards at 25 degrees above horizontal; your total distance travelled to reach the summit will be longer than the first mountain, but the energy required per step will be less. over the same distance travelled the person on the first summit will have used more energy that the person on the switchbacks.

>>1059369
Is suppose you can keep changing the scenario until it makes sense but didn't you earlier say that a 5000 foot mountain was harder than a 14,000 foot mountain?

>>1059382
jesus fucking christ does it matter?

>>1059382
No

What matters is distance travelled over sigma (angle)


The higher sigma is; the more work per stride the hiker must do per step.

So for the ADKs when you summit a peak with a steep slope you will expend more energy per step even though it's a lower elevation summit (over the same distance hikes) than if you had used switch backs.

What may be confusing you is that because the total mileage to summit a 14er is greater (let's say 10mi trail for the 14er vs a 1.5 mi trail for a 5000ft peak ) the energy needed for the total hike in the Rockies is greater. But over that 1.5 mi the hiker on the steeper climb will use more energy than the first 1.5 mi the 14er travels (in fact the total energy over the steep 1.5 won't be equaled for a couple more miles of switch backs.)

>>1059446
isn't theta the convention

>>1059446

Do you have diabetes or a metabolic disorder where you have to carefully monitor your energy per step?

>>1059534
No, it's autism that forces me to respond to obvious trolls

>>1059560
Explain again how 5000 foot mountains are harder than 14K

>>1059621
not him but we count vertical feet. For instance I live near the highest 14-er in Colorado. You start the hike at about 11k feet though. So you've only got 3k to climb. This is made more difficult by the altitude, but there's no way it's harder than climbing say a 5k peak from sea level. Because it's almost half the distance up.

>>1059626
>3000 is less than 5000

Good job

>>1059382
>5000 foot mountain was harder than a 14,000 foot mountain?
You only walk up a couple thousand feet on one of the glorified hills in CO

>>1059631
I mean it seems obvious, but some people don't understand.

Mt. Elbert is almost as high as Mt. Rainier, but there's no way they compare as far as difficulty goes. Mt. Elbert is a leisurely morning walk, Rainier takes days and may well kill you.