Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Question for overweight hikers

I don't think it's a stupid or disrespectful question. I'm no power hiker but understand why fast people are bugged by slowpokes or people who don't stand aside. Trail etiquette is getting worse and worse. What's the big friggin' deal about politely giving way to people who want to go faster? No biggie here, I move over. I also get over for uphill hikers and expect the same courtesy when I'm hauling my butt uphill.

I am 6'2 and weigh 175 pounds. I used to weigh 220 and considered myself fat. I couldn't hike nearly as far or as fast or as comfortably when I was a porker and would be the 1st to admit it. Fit people probably have a certain arrogance about them but they've earned it. It's a pain in the butt to stay fit much after the age of 35. You gotta work at it! And I'd agree many thin people are NOT fit, look at models, who are strung out on heroin but are as skinny as beanpoles. But come on, does anyone really think a fat person has stronger legs from carrying around all that excess weight? What's you guys smoking?

I was just at the Grand Canyon two weeks ago. I saw a number of people going down to Phantom Ranch with day packs, many of whom looked like they had never hiked before in their lives. It's not their waistlines that are telling; it's how they walk, how they use their gear, and sometimes their choice of gear. I think they just take it slow. Temperatures were in the triple digits by 11am, so it must have been tough for those who were out of shape or unaccustomed to hiking.

The two people who looked most like accidents-waiting-to-happen were thin. Two park employees (bus drivers named Wayne and Travis -- I'm NOT making this up) started down south kaibab after catching the same hikers' shuttle. They each had "four pints of water" and no food, but their "pints" were 12oz each. I drank 3 liters on the way down (I had a full pack), and going with 1 1/2 quarts or so seemed terribly foolish. I finally moved past these yokels and left them behind on the trail.

Later when I went for a lemonade at the canteen at Phantom Ranch Wayne and Travis had arrived, and they were drinking beer. At 2pm, 100 degrees or so, a couple of beers under their belts and still no food, they headed up the south bright angel trail. I didn't hear about any rescues, so I guess they made it. If you go to the South Rim, they are the bus drivers who are explaining to Japanese tourists how to hike the canyon. Tell them I said hi.

Sipako: Good story!

Mark: If it's a bad question, why are you answering? I mean, really.

The more I think about it, the more amazed I am that not just large hikers, but dumb hikers, like Sipako described, survive Grand Canyon hikes ot Whitney hikes.

The suffering factor has gotta be huge for large hikers. They know nothing else. If you miraculoulsy took weight off them, then they would know what enjoyable hiking it like. At least I'd imagine so.

> Someone in the thread questioned the statement,
> "overweight people simply can't be cardio fit,"
> contending, "It would be like saying that people
> who carry overweight packs can't be fit."
>
> I disagree with this analogy. How many obese
> people have you ever seen win a competitive
> 10,000 meter race, or a marathon? Can you name
> any obese world-class athlete in tennis, soccer,
> basketball, swimming, mountain climbing? This
> isn't being judgmental, it's merely stating a
> fact. While it's possible that someone like
> Chris Farley or John Candy was fitter than some
> thin people, it wouldn't be the norm. I think we
> can all agree to that. :-)

Er, I don't agree. While you may never have seen a severely overweight person win a marathon, I'd like to point out that there are many thin people who've never won a marathon either. It's an advantage to be lean to be on the leading edge of some sports, but you can be fit and healthy -- healthier than some skinny folks -- and still carry some extra pounds. Curt Schilling carries extra weight, and he pitches with the big boys. I caught an NBA game the other day, and I noticed that Shaquille O'Neal (spelling?) is pretty big around the girth, even when taking his height into account.

Futhermore, I was in a lecture once by a registered nurse who coached people on walking fitness. She said something to the effect that a person who walks a couple of brisk miles a day and elevates their heart rate has the same cardiovascular fitness as someone who jogs a few miles. That is, their heart and lungs are just as healthy even though they are slower.

Curt Schilling and Shaq aren't obese and baseball is hardly a big cardiovascular sport. As for marathons, no one even remotely overweight competes in the higher eschelon. There are no exceptions. I don't get this, the entire American culture revolves around being thin. It's healthier, it looks better. How can anyone deny this, unless you're defensive because you're fat? I don't want to be the one who disintegrates this thread into criticism, but I just reread it all and am blown away. It's as plain as the nose on ones face that elite athletes are 99.9% thin. I never saw a chubby gymnast or high hurdler. I never saw someone with a spare tire run a 30 minute 10 K. I never saw anyone fat do Whitney in 10 hours. That's all fine, maybe they don't aspire to it, that's their choice, I can hang with that.

I don't think anyone on this thread originally suggested that *thin* people couldn't be out of shape. No one said this. What was said was asked was: how do chubby hikers make it? How do chubby hikers complete difficult hikes? The answers seems to be, they do it slowly and are happy doing it at a slow pace. That's their right, but it's also the right of faster people who are in better shape to wonder about how they do it at all. This isn't kvetching, it seems reasonable to a critical coot like me.

All of the arm-chair liberal thinking in this world cannot change the fact that Whitney is a challenging hike. Obesity is a huge handicap for this particular endeavor.

I am 6'4" and have been up the trail at age 20 and 172 pounds (great shape), age 35 and 235 pounds (OK shape) and age 40 and 205 pounds (good shape).

Here are some important variables for Whitney:

WEIGHT- Hauling a spare tire to the top is exactly that. I've seen some flab at the top, but never 50 pounds over ideal weight.

AGE- The hike gets harder for me every year. However, age sometimes seems to favor the sixty-five-year-olds.

PACE- I've seen marathon runners hit a wall and turn back at Trailcrest while plush-bottoms plod on to the top. Day hikers should plan for a full 16 hours of hiking. Rushing to the top can make you very sick, unable to recover and forcing you to turn back.

WATER CONSUMPTION

FOOD CONSUMPTION

DETERMINATION/ WILL- This is probably the most important factor.

TOLERANCE OF THIN AIR

Having just returned from Iraq, I can say that liberal thinking doesn't change the reality of the Middle East any more that it does that of Mt. Whitney. A male sand niqqer that won't shoot you in the back at the first opportunity is as common as 300+ pounders at the summit of Whitney. Now that my son is being deployed over there, I'd be in favor of nuking the whole place before he gets a scratch.

Someone in the thread questioned the statement, "overweight people simply can't be cardio fit," contending, "It would be like saying that people who carry overweight packs can't be fit."

I disagree with this analogy. How many obese people have you ever seen win a competitive 10,000 meter race, or a marathon? Can you name any obese world-class athlete in tennis, soccer, basketball, swimming, mountain climbing? This isn't being judgmental, it's merely stating a fact.
=====================

Pardon me. I have never considered climbing Whitney, backpacking, or hiking to be a competitive sport. So if you are nit picking analogies, then I would pick a nit with your analolgy.
You are attempting to use the elite of competitive sports as a measure of fitness. Alright, what percent of the world record is your best 100 mile race time? How come you can't do the John Muir Trail in the five days that trail runners can do it?
Not a fair analysis? My point exactly.

You have asked your questions: "How do they do it"
You have gotten a number of answers that basically say "more slowly".
"Why do they do it?" because they enjoy doing it.

"apparently" "they" have a higher pain tolerance than thinner people, who can't imagine dealing with the pain, and effort.
Clear enough?

I am inclined to disagree with Scotty. I will admit that I am a slight 145lb 5'9" male, so I can't speak from the perspective of any of the "overweight" people, but using those select elite athletes as examples of what fitness is, is not fair. I believe that when you are looking at cardiovascular fitness one cannot factor those elite athletes into the equation. It would be more practical to look at the general population, such as the average person who hikes up Whitney. In every endevor there will be a select few elite athletes in a class of their own, and even as a thin individual I have no hope of ever competing with those elite athletes. I agree with many others that cardiovascular fitness comes more from life style than size. I've seen many a thin hiker, very out of shape, huffing up a trail.
Also I would like to add that I think the racist comment made by Bones has no place on this board, or anywhere. It is unacceptable and very close minded.
"A male sand niqqer that won't shoot you in the back at the first opportunity is as common as 300+ pounders at the summit of Whitney."
Eric J Lee

It’s by drawing comparisons, that we describe how things are done. By this thread showing that thin people are both in and out of shape – and showing that “fat” people are both in and out of shape, and everything else that has been said, we are all teaching and learning – that weight does not have everything to do with fitness or cardio – but also, that you must be thinner to excel in certain sports (exceptions, bodybuilding and sumo – no I’m not really thinking that those are healthy sports). Obesity eventually leads to health problems and anorexic is unhealthy. But no one can know by mere appearance if a somewhat overweight person is healthier than a somewhat underweight person. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with the goal of trying to look and feel as good as you can, and certainly less than 1% of 1% have maintained that ideal for just a small portion of their lives. Of course, more important than health and weight is love for our human brothers and sisters worldwide (not intending to change the subject - just chafing at that ugly remark above).

And, fish395, my brother – I commend you for your achievement – and thank you for your offer which I accept – in fact, I am already designing a pack that will carry your 35 pounds and me – When do you want to do this?

Well,I've been very interested in all the twists and turns this subject has been through in the last day and I must say its been a treat.There is no defining answer to it.When I'm going up Mt.Whitney trail in a few weeks,hopefully without Talus Scree on my back,maybe I'll do a survey on how people feel about overweight hikers on the trail.At the same time I'll take one on ugly hikers,maybe even hikers who think they know everything,or hikers with warts on there nekcs.And if I happen to vaporlock on the trail and drop dead,all I ask of someone is to roll me off the side so I can spend the rest of eternity,or at least til the animals and insects eat my eyes out of my head,admiring the beauty that inspires me to do these things.Have a nice day.

hey bones,

first of all let me say that we should be proud that both you, and your son, have or are doing your time on the country's behalf in one heckuva rotten place to be in right now. that said, I feel compelled to write to ask you if this is truly the appropriate forum to drop incendiary language -- like a grenade -- in a thread on overweight hikers.

i did my cup of coffee in the infantry as an army ranger and though it was post vietnam peacetime service, i certainly got close enough to understand sherman's expression that "war is hell." for that reason, I can understand the vividness of your experiences and the lingering "tell it like it is" tone of your post.

but the implication i get is that all iraqis are like that. no way.

maybe someday, some local socal iraqi will be your right-hand man at work. or might pull you from a burning car after an accident. and maybe an iraqi in his home country will help your son in a time of his most dire need. there are some great and compassionate people in that country, and ours.

your language is plain offensive outside the arena in which you recently left. even inside it for that matter, but in the military environment sad to say, that's just the way it is.

as for us, we can't feel it, we can't smell it, we don't live it. this is a great forum and for some, it's spoiled by offensive language.

please think about that. thanks for understanding and keep the faith. I got two older teens myself and if they were overseas, i don't know how i would cope. i know i speak for everyone on this board when i sincerely wish for your's son safety and speedy return.

as for the original topic, i'm heading up whitney in july and hope i see a lot 300+ pounders doing their thing, just like me.

mike mcnair

Why do you climb a mountain? Because it is there.

Speaking up for the skinny people here, I think they have a tougher time on Whitney than the heavier ones. I can't tell you how many times, when dividing up the load with a group for a multi-day climb, I see the lighter folks carrying almost a third of their body weight in their pack while the heavier ones ones only carry lees than a quarter of their weight. If your legs are used to carrying 200 pounds, a fifty pound pack is a much smaller addition to you than a 150 pound person.

In addition, skinny folks don't carry around the extra reserve of calories that heavier ones do. After all, fat is just your body's way of storing extra energy/calories in a very efficient form. So skinny folks burn through their reserves very quickly on the mountain and either need to eat more (always tough up high) or start burning protein. All in all, I'm more impressed when I see a rail thin person standing on the summit than an overweight one, though it's an accomplishment for all.

Sorry, Sam. Your story about extra calorie storage would be nice if only it were true. However, the fact is that a single pound of fat contains enough calories to get you all the way up Whitney. All the rest of those extra pounds of fat are just dead weight. And that thick layer of fat under the skin does not represent efficient storage of readily-available energy. A skinny person is much better off because he/she can replenish carbohydrates, which provide energy much more readily. That's one reason why the people who win ultramarathon races like the Death Valley to Whitney are abnormally thin -- exactly the opposite of what you argue for.

"Your story about extra calorie storage would be nice if only it were true. However, the fact is that a single pound of fat contains enough calories to get you all the way up Whitney."

AlanK- you may want to argue, but we are saying the same thing. Fat is a very efficient way to store energy as you point out. However, fat is 'only' about 4000 Calories per pound, so it takes far more than a pound of it to power anyone up Whitney. More like 5 - 10 pounds.

"And that thick layer of fat under the skin does not represent efficient storage of readily-available energy." Depends what you mean by readily available. I agree that it is not available in the sense that glucose or glycogen is – within minutes. However, in the context of a multi-day mountain climb it is certainly available and that fat will be burned for energy if glycogen is depleted (which it typically is on big mountains). It really only takes a few hours of calorie deficit to turn on fat catabolism. A simple experiment will prove my point – take an overweight person on a long trek in the Himalayas with only 1000 calories per day of food. Do you have any doubt that they will come back many pounds lighter and with far less fat?

"A skinny person is much better off because he/she can replenish carbohydrates" You are wrong - anyone can replenish carbohydrates, regardless of their weight. In addition, I have seen no evidence that skinny people can consume and absorb carbohydrates faster that heavy people. If anything, the opposite may be true.

"That's one reason why the people who win ultramarathon races like the Death Valley to Whitney are abnormally thin -- exactly the opposite of what you argue for. " Nice try. I was specifically talking about people carrying heavy loads and going slow, not carrying no load and going fast like a marathon runner. I also never said that heavier hikers would be faster, just that I was more impressed with skinny folks at the summit.

Sam, you may weigh 5 to 10 lbs less after hiking Whitney, but you certainly didn't burn that much fat! Alan is right: one pound of fat provides enough fuel for you to hike at least 25 miles.

Altair-

please show me how you get to that conclusion. Are you suggesting that a 25 mile hike at high altitude (or even low) only burns 4000 Calories? No way!

General rule of thumb is that walking or running burns roughly 100 calories per mile for a 150-lb person. Of course, hiking uphill with even a small pack will increase that significantly. Here's a link (http://www.diabetic-lifestyle.com/articles/jun98_burni_1.htm) that says a 150-lb person carrying 20 lbs, hiking at 2-miles per hour burns about 150 calories per mile. Surely you don't think that high altitude will increase that ten-fold.

I hike to look at the flora and fauna and vistas. I do Whitney because it's fun but the crowds and the experience have little to do with why I backpack. Other people's weight has little to do with it and I really don't think much about it. I'm 6'3" and 210 and can carry much more than anyone I know, fat or thin. I happen to have huge legs and am skin and bones up top which works well for a pack mule. After I turned 40 I learned to slow down and appreciate getting there is 1/2 the fun. If I see a fat guy at a summit i give him the same high five i give the skinny guy. I know plenty of skinny guys that have only hiked with me once because they can't do the hikes I enjoy. My best hiking buddies are 2 middle aged fat guys that have learned that slow and steady is more enjoyable and allows us to be up at dawn and on the trail feeling good the next day while the skinny guys are shivering in their tent trying to warm themselves up. Backpacking is much more than miles covered in a day. Comparing Whitney to an elite sport is a lame analogy. Smell the roses and see what you are missing. Watch out for my pits though as I leave the deoderant behind in favor of lightweight to make up for my extra girth.

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings - even if you are fat. John Muir

Sam -- other folks addressed the "how many calories" question. They are correct. A pound of fat represents more than enough energy to get you up Whitney.

Of course, I agree that anyone can replenish carbohydrates, not just skinny folks. A thinner person is better able to make use of them, which is why skinny people win even multiday races.

An overweight person has no advantage in carrying a large load, although a large person does. A large, non-overweight person can certainly carry more than a skinny ultramarathon type. However, a skinny person can carry more than the same person packing many excess pounds of fat. Extra pounds of fat do not help in any way in carrying big loads. Do not confuse "large," "strong," and "overweight."

I have seen people of all shapes and sized do Whitney. I agree that one can't judge by build or body type alone. For the record, I am much larger than an ultramarathoner and much smaller than a linebacker. Fortunately, I do not carry a noticeable quantity of extra weight. That is partly by accident of birth but mostly because I consciously expend the calories I take in. That is good advide for anyone, regardless of build.