Hiking the Appalachian Trail

Just finished watching the National Geographic documentary "Hiking the Appalachian Trail". Pretty photography, but there's way too many superlatives used, some barefaced lies, and quite a few examples of stupidity. The worst? Trekking poles. Why am I against trekking poles? They make you tired. They have ONE purpose: to keep you upright in strong current crossing rivers in Patagonia when the water is over your knees. Anywhere else? They just make your arms tired and cause you to burn too many calories, slowing you down and making you take far longer to cover the same ground as an unencumbered hiker who is smart enough to go without such ridiculous attachments. Why do hikers carry them? "Look at me, I'm EXPERIENCED. I've been to Patagonia even though my pole is clearly new and shiny, but I WANT YOU TO LOVE ME because I'm totally a poser!" That's pretty much the thought process there.

I'm sorry if that's mean. I really am, but I've been hiking since I could walk. Less is more, always, when hiking. Serious hikers and backpackers? They don't bother with a full mess kit. They have a trail cup. Eat and drink from the same thing. Only have to wash the one. A spoon, no fork, no knife. Just a big wide spoon. One thing to wash, not three. One thing to carry, less than half the weight. One smelly acrylic teeshirt. One nylon rain jacket. Two pairs of wool or acrylic socks with wicking liners and FOOT POWDER!!, replaced at regular intervals. Comfortable boots with strong soles and a proper heel so your feet don't get bruised. Broken in so they don't give you blisters. Then again, my ankles are strong so I mostly just wear hiking shoes rather than boots. Camp shoes, very light for wearing around camp after the hiking is done. I don't always bother but miles of hiking makes my feet sore and the normal clodhopper boots appropriate for serious rocky terrain aren't very comfy anywhere else. The lightest tent you can get, if you stay in a tent, properly waterproofed and aired out. A serious sleeping pad, big enough to stretch out fully, and a light sleeping bag that's warm enough but not too warm. You won't have blizzards on the AT. Sufficient water bottles, preferably (3) 1.0 L soda bottles since the caps don't leak, and the bottles are puncture resistant, and a water filter if there aren't clean water supplies on the route.

Finally, preposition resupply of your gear in lockers or with services or friends along the way so you can swap stuff out to the appropriate stuff. Send unwanted gear home by mail. Remember that you can eat meals at real restaurants but get a shower FIRST you stinking heathen, and shave! Sheesh.

People backpacking massively underestimate just how many calories they're burning and how much they need to eat. They starve themselves rail thin and its dangerous. Eat lots of fatty foods, lots of carbs, lots of useable protein to rebuild your muscles. Serious hiking, day after day, is very unhealthy and can put you into a dangerous state called "reeating". That's where your body breaks down your muscles to keep your organs alive. People doing that become skeletal and it can kill you. You're not supposed to say that hiking is bad for you, but that's the facts. Soldiers in the field lose a couple pounds a day, every day, till they're pulled out to recover. Most of that loss is muscle and fat, typically muscle and fat they can't afford to lose and remain combat effective.

Healthiest way I ever did serious hiking was in Geology Summer Field course in Montana. We had REAL FOOD for breakfast, serious packed lunches (meat, not just PBJ), and serious dinner. Probably 4000 calories a day. I was FIT by the end of that 6 weeks. Hiking up and down mountains while concentrating hard on your book learning was excellent physical and mental conditioning. Show me a mountain towering 5000 feet over my head, I just considered the sanest ways up there, and whether the conditions would turn dangerous by the time I got there, and if that meant I needed a couple more layers or an extra meal of food with me.

I got the idea watching that documentary on the Appalachian Trail that people go nuts hiking it, obsessed and psychotic. I can't say that's very healthy. I don't see much of that on the Pacific Crest Trail, but then again the southern portion from Mexico border to Yosemite is so hard it kills idiots. Much of it is very high elevation, where altitude sickness is a real threat, and lack of clean water is another problem. Inexperienced naive hikers drink water from streams, not realizing its full of giardia contamination and will give you the Sierra Two-Step till you see a doctor for meds. I once had it for 6 months because I was too stubborn to see the doc. Not fun. The Pacific Crest Trail to the Canada Border is a very hard hike. The AT is not very hard. Most call it boring, unless they go nuts or do drugs. I think I'd enjoy the AT because I know the rocks and would find that interesting, but non geologists get bored there fast.

It looks like few people bother to continue the Pacific Crest trail seriously once they pass Yosemite. I'm sure there's a few, but once you pass Donner and get north of 80, you get into some interesting alpine lakes. Then you cross up to the Sierra Buttes, which I've shown pictures of before, and then the Sierras end and the Cascades begin, and those are volcanoes and mostly not as tall. Mostly. The transition from Granite Sierras to Basalt and Andesite in the Cascades into Oregon and Washington, with a lot more trees and bears, I'm not sure I'd find that to be hilarious fun or not. The smart move for the Pacific Crest is hike the bits you like, not ALL of it. And that seems to be the real secret of the AT. Hiking the whole thing is poor judgement. Hike the best bits. Like the Tourists do.