Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Hiking Etiquette

I don't think that hikers should have ROW over bikers. That sounds like a political decision.

I go to sailing, in which the overriding logic is that the more maneuverable gives way to the less maneuverable. A bike that is forced to go at a very slow speed (2mph) is unstable. Do we want to force bikes off a trail, where they do resource damage, while a hiker stepping off the tread does little damage?

I'd enjoy seeing the logic of this heirarchy.

Easy solution----bikes aren't allowed on the Sierra trails anyway, so that makes it easy. BUT, on fireroads, local trails, etc., my 2 cents are that hikers should get out of the way of bikers. It's much easier for a hiker to break their cadence and yield than it is for a biker to break their cadence. BTW, I am an avid biker and hiker.

It's the horses (and the damage they do to the trails) I would rather do without.

As an aside, I hiked the JMT last year, and was repulsed by all the horse traffic, and the resulting damage they did, to the trail. The dust, poop, and torn up trail was horrible for us hikers.......

Tim,


Ideally, it would be great. But then, what's wrong with asking? I do it often, but politely. It gets the job done, and I can't remember anyone ever having taken offense at being politely asked if I could please pass them, which here in Ohio, happens frequently. In actual practice, if a slower hiker doesn't allow me to pass if they know I'm behind them (for whatever reason), I just pass them by going around them off-trail, if feasible, and am then on my way without thinking anything more of it. Most true one-person-wide sections of trail that don't allow for passing usually don't last very long anyway.

CaT

Personally, I don't care one way or the other, because I tend to give everybody I encounter the right of way if they'd like it. It just bugs me when a rule is clearly posted and people blatantly ignore it.

I also tend to give everyone else the right of way, regardless. But I can see pitfalls if bikers "officially" had the right of way. They often come up fast or unexpectedly, and if you're expected to "get out of their way" there will undoubtedly be a few who abuse it, and get irked if you're not quick enough. This puts the burden on them to stay out of others' way, and I think that's how it should be.

Ideally, it would be nice if there were separate trails; hikers and bikers don't mix that well on trails anyway, as they often have different goals. Most mountain bikers seem pretty intense and with the finish line in mind, where to a large number of hikers, intense exercise is unimportant or secondary, with enjoying the journey being of primary importance.

But since there are a lot of shared trails, I think bikers having to yield to hikers is the best compromise. That said, if everyone is willing to give the other person the right of way without making a big deal of it, there's no issue most of the time. I always got out of the way of folks on horseback, just to be polite, way before I ever knew there were "rules" that covered it. And I do the same for bikers, but don't think I'd want to if they started flying around turns and 'demanding' the right of way because that's what the rules said.

Rather than 'shout' or even ask a slower hiker to step aside I find that shuffling my feet as I approach is generally effective and less invasive.

What do you folks do when you meet a biker on a single track trail that does not allow bikes? This happens on Mt. Tamalpais fairly often.

thats why i dont like mt t ... or any peak that has a gravel road leading to the top. used n abused. = )

kristine starn

Adding to burtw...

Likewise you wouldn't want the uphill ox cart barreling down hill in a passing maneuver. Best the uphill stop and wait.

So if the chances of getting out of control are higher, coming down compared to going up, whether for hikers or bikers or ox carts then that's another reason the old rule is best.

Ex Pro: Thank you for that great explanation of the mechanics of hiking. I've never seen that information before. When I was younger I used to give way to anyone who seemed to want to keep going, no matter what direction. Now I'm 70 and I need every bit of help I can get. Maintaining a steady pace going uphill is a help so I am pretty insistent about taking the ROW. Downhill slopes with poor footing (e.g., Ski Hut or Bear Flats trails on Mt. Baldy)are the hardest thing now, because I have to use my muscles to brake my descent where I used to simply do a controlled fall or semi-run. The hips (one artificial) and knees (one post-surgery)don't let me do that anymore. None of this is a complaint. The best I can wish young whippers and snappers is that you're still hiking the mountains when you're 70.

BurtW, Well-said! I hope I'm able to do the same when I'm in my 70s!!! I bet you've got some great stories over the years......

The one thing I didn't see in ExPro's really well-thought out post was power generation during eccentric contractions. This could be related to the amount of tissue damage that occurs during descents. It was my understanding from grad school (physical therapy) that eccentric contractions recruited fewer muscle fibers, so the deceleration action places a much larger load on fewer fibers, which, in turn, would cause more damage. I also know that the initial contact of gait during the descent would cause a spike in quad activity (smaller group of fibers), with the rest of the muscle belly activating as the body moved into the "loading response" phase (shock absorption right after your foot hits the ground). I would hypothesize that these repetitive explosive contractions are what cause the majority of the damage and DOMS that we experience later.

I still agree with everyone about the overall energy expenditure of hiking uphill vs. downhill. I'm strictly talking about power output (explosively).

-L

Well, at the risk of diverging from the thread topic, and boring yet another segment of the forum (although I am always surprised at the scientific dialogue on this forum): Yes, an eccentric load utilizing the same load as when performing a concentric contraction will utilize less muscle fibers; put another way, ascending a trail at a given speed will utilize more muscle fibers within the muscle than descending at the same speed. The primary difference between the two types of contraction is the mechanical nature of the contractions. Shortening or concentric occurs utilizing sort of a ratcheting mechanism, whereas the eccentric or lengthening is actually pulling these attachments apart. So when you step down, your quad muscles lengthen slowly, as the attachments are pulled apart. The amount of microscopic damage that occurs is a function of the force on the fiber and the length the fiber is stretched under tension. Thus, a lighter load will cause less damage, and less stretch (such as taking smaller steps down which causes less bending of the knee) will cause less damage than more stretch (such as those really steep descents that cause more bending at the knee, and thus more stretch). As HikerLaura mentioned, the greater the deceleration force, the greater the force on the fibers, as well as there being a greater likelihood that the knees will be bent more, thus leading to greater lengthening of the quads under tension, in order to absorb the impact in order to decrease the force on the joints. I would hesitate to use explosive to describe negative or eccentric contractions as the power generated in these contractions is influenced more by force than velocity.

Can't people do specific exercises to help with the eccentric contractions used during descent?

I use the sitting leg extensions (where you raise your lower leg and raise weights), but make myself lower the weight slowly, about three times as long as it took to lift the weights. My quad muscles used to quiver as I let the weight down, but over time, they have strengthened and don't quiver now.

I find these exercises are a great preparation for the descent part of a hike.

Absolutely, Steve. That's training specificity at it's finest: perform exercises which mimic the activity in which you will be participating. ExPro, correct me if needed, but a person can make a bit more strength gain by incoporating eccentric training into their regimen. Again, it relates back to the number of muscle fibers actually being engaged at the time of the exercise and the load they are asked to carry.

Another good example would be step-lowering from a stool, block, or stair where the emphasis is absolute slow control of the movement, and watching your technique like a hawk the whole time (don't let the knee fall in, over-pronation of the ankle and foot, internal rotation of the hip, etc.).

Basically, with progressive resistance training, and variations of the workout to force the body to adapt to the stresses, you'll make gains.

-L

Most resistance exercises have an eccentric component to them, as does walking/running. Controlling the lowering or negative portion of the lift will allow a greater eccentric training effect which is very important in developing strength, muscle growth, and stability. I prefer what are termed closed chain types of exercises i.e. those which involve co-contraction of muscles around the joint in order to stabilize it. Examples are squats, lunges, leg presses......and hiking! The specificity is greater in these exercises than say a leg extension, although there are benefits to the leg extension as well. One of the problems with leg extensions is the shear stress across the knee joint, so I tend to be careful when prescribing them. Just something to be aware of. HikerLaura makes some really valid points in terms of the step downs (a closed chain exercise) in terms of technique; each of the issues she mentions represents either a weakness and/or motor control problem. If you have knee or hip problems during hiking, whether uphill, downhill or both, this is a great way to possibly get a handle on some possible biomechanical problems and work towards correcting them.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the leg extension machine, either, mainly because of that shear component and also because of technique issues (like locking out the knee in full extension). But in general I'm not a big fan of "isolation" machines, anyway! It's my sense that since we do not move in isolation of one muscle group, why train that way? I still do traditional lifting (bicep curls, overhead press, etc), but I always try to integrate other areas of my bosy simultaneously. Usually, I'll be standing on a balance board or BOSU ball.

It's actually become my excuse to never have an "abs" day, since balance comes from a stable trunk and those muscles are working the whole time I'm lifting. There's a great article that I'll try to find in my literature about EMG studies showing the trunk musculature firing a split second before an arm or a leg moves, showing the body's attempt at preparing the trunk for the shift in the center of mass. If you attempt to facilitate that initial contraction consciously, you can bolster it's effect with every movement.

The old cookie-cutter exercises (usually lying supine) for trunk stabilization are great for those who are just learning how to move their bodies. I'll prescribe certain ones of those (yes, Ken, depending on the diagnosis!!) initially to get the patient started. But then, I'll move away from those to more standing (closed-chain) and functional activities in order to apply the basic concepts to real-life situations and activities.

OK, now I actually have patients to see...

-L

As a follow-up to the discussion on concentric versus eccentric muscle use and energy used, I personally spoke with Dr. Chang today and contrary to some opinion, he was quoted accurately and does support his assertion. He tried to explain but I am not a physician and do not fully understand the subject. He said the statement was based on studies that revolve around kinetics and muscle entropy. I do believe that ExPro made some comment about DOMS which be related; I'm not sure if it is.

He did say there was not a specific study but results from a myriad of sources. He was not surprised to hear that some would disagree with his quote.

I was not out to discredit or support his opinion but merely wanted to substantiate that he was accurately quoted as well wanted to determine if Backpacker had taken any license with his comments.

I was impressed that he took time out of his schedule to return my call and answer my inquiry. Something that Backpacker has not done as of this writing.

MemoryLapse -- I am not arguing with you because I believe that you quoted the article correctly and appreciate that you followed up with Dr. Chang. I can't help, though, but argue with the statement of his, which you originally quoted (and now verified):

That statement is flat-out wrong. As I mentioned earlier, there have been numerous studies on this subject. They put on a quantitative basis what is intuitively obvious and consistent with all of our experience. It takes more energy to travel uphill than downhill.

I am a physicist, not a physician. I could claim to know something about energy. However, in this case, I don't claim that you should take my word on this. If you are interested in rigor, I refer to an article on this subject which I found valuable: A.E. Minetti et al., "Energy cost of walking and running at extreme uphill and downhill slopes," J. Appl. Physiol. Vol. 93, pp. 1039–1046 (2002). (The article covers flat and moderate slopes as well as extreme ones.)

Energy consumption correlates with heart rate and oxygen uptake, as one would expect. I have lots of data from my own hikes, for example, showing heart rate versus speed, slope angle, etc. Heart rate drops off suddenly as you crest a hill and head down. That's because you are using less energy!

Alan,

Thank you for your response and the reference. I shall read it with great interest. I would much rather read published material where people are going on record.

I don't dispute conventional wisdom but I have had days in the mountains that were primarliy all downhill for the day and found myself far more fatigued than the days I spent going uphill. So any information which may help explain my experience peeks my interest.

Thanks again.