Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board time to depart

I will be heading up in the AM of Aug 1, it should be a full moon. I would appreciate any and all advice on my plan/questions. I have been to trail camp 2 times previously without any trouble (May and October) and been turned around by snow. I am 38 and pretty fit. I would also like to give mself every chance to make the top. Does it make sense for me to leave close to midnight so that I have the maximum opportunity to make the top on the first day? I have some members of my group who only plan to make trail camp on day one and then go to the the top the next morning. If I make the top on day one and return to trail camp, am I crazy to try a walk back to the top the next morning with the rest of the group?

If you're pretty fit, you shouldn't have to leave at midnight to make the summit. Leaving at 4 or 5am should be more than enough time to summit, go back to trail camp and rest before going back up the next morning.

Ntuit is right. There's no need to leave at midnight if you're fit, unless you just like to hike at that time of night, as some people do. If you don't take too many breaks and are in good shape, 12 hours will do it round-trip.

you'd have to be pretty darn fit and acclimitated to make it up and down in 12 hrs wouldn't u? i hike/walk/run 7 days/week and it took me 9 hrs to do an 18.5 mile hike with about 4k elevation, and only 3300 ft elevation was in a row. it took me 2 hrs 20 min to get up the 3300 ft elevation, but i wouldn't slowed way down if i would have had to continue 7 more miles uphill. it seems hard to figure, especially with altitude, but i'm wondering if i might take us even 15 or more hrs? (we were dragging at the end of the 18.5 miles, but also weren't eating as often as we should, my knees and feet hurt, and my husband's back hurt). my main concern is making it up top before the storms. any good guesses how long it will take us?

Just finished summitting with a group this past weekend. Approx 1/2 summitted the 1st day and spent night in TC. The balance spent night in TC and summitted following day. Those of us who did the latter had much easier time summitting and recovered much more quickly. In fact, this was my most enjoyable summit climb.

Kim,
People always ask how long it will take to do Whitney the first time and it's nearly impossible to say. I always say 12 hours if you don't take long, long rests and don't spend an hour at the summit. Various guidebooks say the "average" day hike time to Whitney is 13 hours for people in good condition. I think that's a very reasonable estimate. Some will take much longer because they stop to take photos, chat, just prefer going slower, others will be faster.

Altitude is also a big "if." When I suggest that 12 hours is a reasonable time, I assume there is no one in the party who will develop signs of AMS and are acclimated to altitude.

Over the years on this board there have many people have written in and said they did Whitney the first time in 14 hours and they did absolutely no aerobic training, running, etc. and only did a couple of prep hikes before hand. (Hey-- maybe they were lying!) :-)

Did anyone ask those people who did Whitney in 14 hours with no previous training or hiking if they could actually walk the next day? I had a friend who was like that. Went out and did a local 20 mile hike with me. She kept up, even managed the trail run part of the hike. Was in great spirits at the end, even though she had only done one hike and that was an 8 miler. She could not move for three days afterwards.

12 hours is not the average time of the population of successful day hikers.

The last time I did White Mtn. Peak I met 2 teenagers who claimed that they made it up in 2:20. They did not even care to look at the view across to the Sierras before starting to hurry back down. Guess they had better scenery in the midwestern state that they were from.

For those into running races, well if you enjoy that go for it. I have done a couple of trips in under 6 hours for the uphill, but have always wound up with a 14-15 hour round trip, spending 45-60 minutes on the summit, doing a Keeler scramble, taking it a little easier on the way down to enjoy the place. A reasonable descent speed could also be less stressful on your knees and feet.

If I want to rush, I'll just stay in L.A. And I would never think of driving all the way back there the same day as the hike.

I stick by what I said, both the Benti and Paul Ritchins Whitney guide books say 12-13 hours is the average time for someone in good shape. The operative words are "good shape." I have no idea whether those who attempt Whitney the first time with no training at 14 hours could walk the next day. Anyone who tackles any long hike without training is a fool in my book unless they're an 18 year old boy, most of whom could accomplish most any physical feat because of their youth.

There will always be the argument here of slow times versus fast times with the slow people invariably chastising the faster ones, "Why go fast? You miss so much!" etc. etc. A four word answer suffices: "Hike your own hike." I wouldn't dream of bagging on a trail runner who can do Whitney in four hours and tell them they saw nothing in the process. Instead I am in awe of their physical prowess in doing the day hike so quickly. More power to them. 12 hours is hardly some incredible time on the main trail, it's about the norm for most people in good shape. Obviously I'm excluding kids, senior citizens, people with physical handicaps or the like.

If people want to "rush" through it and not appreciate scenery, perhaps allow them to hike their own hike without deprecating it as a waste of time and wringing your hands that they are missing out by not going at the pace you think is preferable. :-)

12 hours is not at all unreasonable.

7 hours up (12 miles (rounded up from 11.2 just to be conservative) @ 2mph + 1 hr total of rests along the way), 4 hours down (again, 12 rounded-up miles @ 3mph), and 1 hour enjoying the summit.

I'm with Ca Trail hiker and Candace, 12 hours is average. I'm also in agreement that I'm heartily tired of slower people telling faster people how, when and why to hike. Live and let live. It's not an elitist attitude, if they can do it in 5 hours or 8 hours, tip the hat to them and zip the lip. Personally I think it's all jealousy pure and simple. And no, I'm not a power hiker or speed demon, I do Whitney in about 14 hours and hurt like h--- the next couple days, but I allow others to hike fast and admire 'em for it.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, belittle."

I notice one of the real common questions here is, "how long's it gonna take?" The answers will be subjective because we're giving opinions. Most of 'em are based on personal experiences. I've got no doubt that 12 hours is about the average time. This just means many people, usually trail runners, do it in 6-8 hours and many do it in 16-20 hours. You toss all those times into a computer and average it out and 12-13 would be the average time. I'd not convinced a first timer in less than very good shape is gonna do it in that time, but some do it in much less.

I think the fur flies on this one because people who can't do it in 12 think they are below average in capability and then get defensive; it happens here all the time. So then they start in with the typical stuff, "Well, slow down, smell the roses, would you run through the Louvre? What's the point?" Hey - run your own race, do your own thing and resist whatever temptation you have to bag on the rabbits. If I could do Whitney in 10 hours I'd do it, but with these old knees and bad back, this old guy ain't capable anymore of it any more. I think the "slow down" advice is mucho envy if you wanna know the truth.

I have done the main trail hike a couple of times in the past few years with my son. We took 11+ hours, including over an hour enjoying the summit. I am certainly aware that some folks do it faster -- considerably faster in the case of trail runners. It does not take exceptional fitness to do the hike in 12 hours, especially for someone in his (or her) 20s or 30s. However, in my observation, there simply aren't many of those on Whitney. I would estimate that 90% of the many people we have encounterd on Whitney were going considerably slower than we were (the situation is quite different on a hike like Catcus to Clouds or Iron Mountain). The bottom line is that there simply aren't enough people doing the Whitney hike in under 11-12 hours to bring the average time down to 12 hours. I would advise a reasonably fit and prepared first timer to plan for 12 hours but allow for over 14.

Just to add another thought to this ongoing discussion, over time, I've noticed somewhat of a difference in how people approach this hike, related to whether it's their first time up the mountain, or like Tom, have gone 11 for 11 (soon to be 12 for 12, I would presume). More of the first-timers and one-timers tend to be concerned about the "how long" question -- first-timers for peak bagging accomplishment reasons, and one-timers because it may be their only shot at it. On the other hand, many of the repeat/veteran hikers don't seem to be so concerned about "how long" or even if they make the summit, because that's already under their belt and they can move on to other things like side trips to Keeler Needle, Muir, Russell, etc.

Really, *how* you do your hike depends on *why* you do your hike, and everyone has a slightly different "why".

CaT

AlanK: Your post is interesting, where you say there aren't that many really fit people on the trail or people capable of doing it in 12 hours. I won't dispute this, but I will add a little different perspective: I have done Whitney 16 times, I think, since 1984. I missed a couple of years due to injuries. I have seen some unprepared and out of shape people doing it for sure and I admit I don't check everyone out as they pass me or I pass them. But I'd say there are far fewer Bozo-types on Whitney than there are at other popular day hikes in populated places, hikes like Baldy in So. CA, especially Half Dome or Clouds Rest in Yosemite. Just getting the permit entails a little degree of effort above and beyond what a typical couch potato will put out.

I've seen many folks who do Whitney in 18 or 20 hours and my experience from listening to them over the years is that they suffered. They might not admit it, but that is a LONG time out there. In the flush of finishing they might be exultant, but I can imagine how sore and worn out they must be. I'm not telling people to rush or to slow down, I think anyone who does the mountain for any reason is fine with me. All I'm saying is, there are definite advantages to hurrying along if you're fit enough: less exposure to sun, which can debilitate you after many hours, less water to tote or to filter, less wear/tear on the body.

Mulling it over, I'd say 12 hours for a first timer over 35 would be quite a good time, but 12 hours for a 25 year old with small pack would not be any great shakes. Age factors into it a lot, especially post-40. Just my .0001 cents.

Grand Canyon Hiker -- I have also seen some truly unfit people on the trail, but I was not arguing that they are numerous. Most of the people I've encountered looked like they'd make it. I was merely saying that, on our two trips, we hardly saw anyone moving faster than we were. I am perfectly happy to see people going faster than I am. I do like to keep a stiff pace, relative to my own fitness level, but I am certainly not racing up/down the mountain.

Age is a big factor that is sometimes under-emphasized in these discussions. I hike with my son and I don't think concepts like recovery, soreness, knees etc. really mean anything to him. I did Whitney when I was 19 (a few years back) with no hiking preparation (I am a runner, though) and no altitude experience. I had no trouble at all. A couple of years ago, a couple of guys on a summit were complaining to each other about how they couldn't do things like they could in their younger days. Turned out they were approaching 35. Even though they were undoubtedly correct, I laughed so hard I almost choked.

"Over 35" covers a lot of territory. Fortunately, one great thing in life is that the long, downhill slide is really very slow.

Good point from GCH about the "long day fatigue" - it can also be mental as well as physical fatigue (when you close your eyes later that evening, you may still "see" the lines of the route in front of you, like when you've driven too many miles in one day).

I think that if you consistently maintain fitness, you can continue performing well beyond the age levels where others complain that they're getting "too old for that". My best time for the uphill (5:23) was 3 years ago just before turning 47 (and I decided to start slowing down the next year partly because I felt I probably couldn't better that time, so I'd coast a bit from that point...). I could not have done this hike at 25 or 30, I was overweight/out of shape until I got religion in my mid-30s and started hiking every weekend. But people age differently (I think parenting accelerates aging!); I've been a late bloomer at everything in life. I'd be curious, though, to discover the age of the oldest day hiker - we all know who was the oldest backpacker, but was the achievement of the oldest day hiker lost to history?

AlanK- I am interested in the effects of aging on the hiking body. I am 47 and the thing I notice above all else from the days when I was in my 20's is this: recovery time. I used to do Whitney back to back (on Monday and then Tuesday) and think nothing of it when I was 22. Heck, I wasn't even sore, I could have gone out dancing the night between hikes. There is no way I could do that now, even though I still run 40 miles a week and weigh only 3 pounds more than I did at 25.

My times have remained very consistent and I am not slowing down very much, the difference is: I have to work MUCH harder to maintain a high level. I have to increase what I do every year exercise-wise in order not to decline. It's a mentally fatiguing battle to stay fit past 40, a real drag. But better than the alternative!

Does anyone know any studies about how age and aging affects hiking?

Grand Canyon Hiker -- I understand your comments, believe me (I'm 52). The effect of aging on running performance has gotten a fair amount of attention. That is clearly relevant to hiking. For example,
http://alpha.furman.edu/academics/dept/hes/FIRSTAGING.pdf
http://misweb.cbi.msstate.edu/~rpearson/masters.html

Hiking with my son has been a great motivator over the past several years because I have had to train harder to stay ahead of him. We are reaching the end of that period. He is hitting high school and I doubt that I can sustain the training to stay ahead anymore. But that's ok. I think I've been nice enough to him that he will tolerate waiting for me... at least for a while. :-)

Thank you, AlanK. I found both of those sites very interesting (and a little depressing). I appreciate it!