Records

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:45 pm

The Iron Mountain thread got sidetracked for a while onto the subject of record times for various hikes. I know that some people care about such things and some don't. I am in the middle somewhere. I often keep track of my times and am interested in the times of others. I have occasionally pushed a bit harder in order to achieve a fast (for me) time. I thought I'd start a thread for those among us who admit to caring about the subject. The existence of this thread also warns away people for whom this is not interesting. And it might drive crazy those who care deeply and pretend they don't.

When it comes to talking about records, I am a bit dubious because the data tend to be rather poor. Also, I don't tend to think of records as meaningful unless a significant group of able people go after them in a serious way. I don't see that happening too much in hiking, and I would not argue that it should.

Speaking of Iron Mountain: I mentioned that my best time up Iron Mountain is 3:18. I was not trying to set a personal record when I did that. I was just out for a good hard hike. On the other hand, if I were to decide to train for a marathon (run) today, 3:18 might be a worthy goal. When I was younger, I was a middle distance runner. I never seriously ran a marathon Yet, 30+ years ago I went out one day and ran a marathon in the 2:30s on a whim. I strongly suspect that I could have done Iron Mountain in a similar time back in those days. But I have no illusions of any of those times being of record quality.

I used to know people who ran marathons in the 2:12 - 2:20 range. I am sure that one of those folks could walk up Iron Mountain in such a time. In fact, I am sure that, should a fit athlete in that class decide to go for a record up Iron Mountain, the record would be well under 2 hours (I'll allow running).

Now, maybe no one wants to set a record on Iron Mountain. But people do occasionally try that on Whitney. I have done the Whitney Main Trail in under 4 hours. I believe that the record is a few minutes over 2 hours. That should give some credibility to the claim that Iron Mountain could be done in under 2 hours. By someone other than me!

I am not trying to encourage record mania. If anything, it should be obvious that I am trying ot encourage the opposite. Still, I like to keep track of my times and am interested in what others do if they like to share such things. And I am impresses as hell with Rick Kent's time!

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:04 pm

Great idea. Those who are interested will show interest and those who aren't will not. Just like any other subject. I suspect anyone who leaves their time on any peak does it not only for themselves but for others to see. I would like to know what is the fastest time for every hike. Especially the major hikes. Anyone know where to find fastest times?

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:18 pm

FIGHT ON wrote:Anyone know where to find fastest times?

That's hard to do even on a hike as popular as Mt. Whitney. Perry Scanlon was interested in trying for a record there a couple of years ago and there was a huge discussion of how one should document it, etc. If you look on Wikipedia, there is a record listed that is held by a person who, shall we say, is associated with many highly controversial record claims (e.g.). It claims that the record is official even though it was never mentioned on the Whitney Portal Store Message Board. The Internet is filled with discussions of cheating of this nature.

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:41 pm

AlanK.
This is crazy. How could this Mt Whitney Trail be here for so long w/o an official fastest time up it? It can't be. It just doesn't make sense. There are races all over the place and official times. You know that. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS

half kidding again. But seriously it's hard to imagine that after all these years that nobody has organized an official timed race up Whitney. I can understand why our local hikes might not have one but thats like a land mark. And again I've heard over the past million years of the Mt. Wilson Trail Race every year.

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:46 pm

I would (agree?) say that the records are meaningless alone, but if put into context have meaning. Times are dependent on when,with who, how many times, and perhaps the most important-weight...and thats assuming a person puts a complete effort into it(for example, not by being able to bag Lookout pk after that). And to compare closely the times to some other route seems very hard.

I always like to hear people reach their goal, knowing that goals play a key role in the motivation of hiking....and if their goal is to get a record then it would be neat to have some score of the accomplishment to beat. My personal opinion is that Iron Mtn has too much of a dependency on the terrain to grade it accurately...this from someone who hasnt even hiked it, but I bet all chips a person who hasnt done it before gets a boost from doing it a second time, and likely a substantial one. I wonder what time also is gained from a cooler temp compared to a blistering 100+ starting at noon(just for myself I could easily see some steep hikes taking me over 100% longer in hot weather).

Other times, knowing the length of time for a hike can be a nice wakeup call to get some extra effort/conditioning in to tackle a tougher route as well.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:04 pm

FIGHT ON wrote:AlanK.
This is crazy. How could this Mt Whitney Trail be here for so long w/o an official fastest time up it? It can't be. It just doesn't make sense. There are races all over the place and official times. You know that. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS half kidding again. But seriously it's hard to imagine that after all these years that nobody has organized an official timed race up Whitney. I can understand why our local hikes might not have one but thats like a land mark. And again I've heard over the past million years of the Mt. Wilson Trail Race every year.

Except that the Mt. Wilson Trail Race goes only halfway up Mt. Wilson. Not many people in the Sierra Madre area even know that! Of course, most people think the Badwater-Mt. Whitney race ends at the summit of Mt. Whitney rather than Whitney Portal. (I agree -- that seems like enough to me, too!!!)

phydeux · Post by **phydeux** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:15 pm

There's a race to the top of Mt Baldy every year around Labor Day. Its the only consistantly 'run to the top' event I know of in Southern California with a pretty consistant route:

http://www.run2top.com/index.lasso

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:49 pm

phydeux. I forgot about that Baldy race. I saw some stuff on YouTube about that.

AlanK. So there is a race that goes up that long long road up to the Portal?? FORGET IT MAN. My car hardly made it up there. That is MORE than enough for me.

I found the Mt Wilson Trail Race http://www.sierramadrenews.net/trail.htm

It goes up to Orchard Camp and turns around and goes back. Look at the monster who won it last year in the white and green.

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:02 pm

AlanK. Look at the times of the first 20 finishers of the Mt Wilson Race 2007. Got to believe every one of those guys could run up Iron Mt. in less than 2 hours. Maybe

That Mt Wilson Trail is pretty flat compared to Iron Mt.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:06 pm

For a discussion of races in the San Gabriels, one need go no further than this very board.

Post by **HikeUp** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:15 pm

The current version of the race is approximately 8.6 miles in length. The exact course has changed over the years due to trail damage caused by erosion, earthquakes and fire. For this reason no official course record is recognized. The present course configuration is considered the most difficult since its revival.

The above quote is from the Mt. Wilson Trail Race website. I think it raises a very pertinent point that AW addressed above.

As soon as anything changes, then the record book is swept clean and you have to start over. Considering trails (as opposed to urban marathon courses, say) are constantly changing, records become very contextual and any comparisons between past and current times can be strained at best.

A lot of marathon times I see are usually followed by some context such as - which city it was in, "that year it was only 60 degrees, raining, etc...", more hills vs. last year, blah blah. Records are not worth comparing unless the 'playing field is level'.

Rick M · Post by **Rick M** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:33 am

As I recall Alan, the Badwater to Whitney race did go to the summit but was lowered to the Portal because of environmental concerns (permits). Just an example of how “records” can be meaningless though the race on the “paved road” now evens the conditions somewhat.

I remember the first time I went up Iron Mt it was basically cross-country but by what I read, Iron Mt is frequently done so I would wonder if a developing route that one can follow would give an advantage in the time it takes to summit. And this would increase as the route becomes used more. Am I wrong on this?

Alan said

When it comes to talking about records, I am a bit dubious because the data tend to be rather poor. Also, I don't tend to think of records as meaningful unless a significant group of able people go after them in a serious way. I don't see that happening too much in hiking, and I would not argue that it should.

I totally agree and also agree that one's individual times are an important measure of their performance and maybe how they compare to others but those who chase after "records"...not my cup of tea.

RV · Post by RV » Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:03 am

This is not a Socal mountain but if you are interested in comparing notes on what some folks can do in the mountains, there is an organized race called the Pikes Peak Marathon that goes up the Barr Trail each summer to the top of Pikes Peak in Colorado. At 14,115 feet elevation, there is some serious altitude work being done here. There are two races: the Ascent, which climbs 7,815 vertical feet to the summit in 13.32 miles and the full marathon which then turns around and heads back down for the full marathon distance of 26.2 miles.

In 1993 Matt Carpenter did the ascent in just over 2 hours with a 2:01:06 and then turned around and ran back down in 1:15:33 (Wow) for a full marathon time of 3:16:39. When I was in what I considered to be fairly good marathon shape and was runing marathons in just over 3 ours, it took me 3:42 to do just the ascent of this course one year. The times that Matt Carpenter did here are mind boggling to me. There are some VERY TALENTED people out there.

RV

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:57 am

Rick M wrote:As I recall Alan, the Badwater to Whitney race did go to the summit but was lowered to the Portal because of environmental concerns (permits). Just an example of how “records” can be meaningless though the race on the “paved road” now evens the conditions somewhat.

And I gather that some contestants can't pass on the opportunity to do the "whole thing" and follow the race with a Whitney day hike. "Glutton for punishment" seems too tame a term!

Rick M wrote:I remember the first time I went up Iron Mt it was basically cross-country but by what I read, Iron Mt is frequently done so I would wonder if a developing route that one can follow would give an advantage in the time it takes to summit. And this would increase as the route becomes used more. Am I wrong on this?

I think you're absolutely right. I first did Iron in 2001 (i.e.., rather recently) and the trail was much harder to follow than it has been the past several years. No one could miss it these days. That is a big advantage if one is in a hurry.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:56 pm

I've been interested in comparing how hikes compare to flat running in terms of energy expenditure by doing some oxygen measurements on a treadmill with different speeds and % incline grades.

Using accumulated elevation gain / mile I estimated an expenditure for going up Iron Mt., and I think its definitely less energy than running a marathon. Of course it should take less time, but that doesn't take into the account being slowed down by the difficulty of the trail in terms of some brush and especially the loose terrain.

I think its hard to properly account for trail variance. If a trail was a consistent slope the whole way up, it would be done faster than huge changes (like part flat to part straight climb up). My 'predictions' say I should be able to do 6000 ft gain in 2 hrs but I don't think I've actually done that.

And I don't really hike for performance, but its interesting to know. I think next time I do Iron I will strap on my heart rate monitor and really measure how intense it is.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:52 pm

On an old discussion of energy and performance, I offered a formula for energy use going uphill:
energy used (in Calories) = 0.6 * weight (in pounds) * distance (in miles) * (1 + 8.8 * grade)
This formula is supported by some published data, but I would like to re-examine it sometime because I am aware of complications. Nevertheless, it suggests that walking 1000' per mile uphill (19% grade) consumes 2.7 times more energy per mile than walking on level ground. (Iron Mountain gains over 7000' in a bit over 7 miles, so 19% is roughly the average grade.) So, going up Iron is worth about 18.7 miles on the flat in terms of energy expenditure.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:49 pm

Ah I didn't know there was a such an interest in this sort of thing!

Well what I did for myself was measure my heartrate and VO2 (oxygen consumption) at different speeds, 6,7,8,9,&10 mph. Then I measured the same for hiking at 3mph, and varying the grade 10,15,20,25.

For both heartrate and VO2, values equated at 7 mph and 3mph + 20%, then at 9mph and 3mph+25%. So I created a formula that calculates hiking based on running, though I don't have it on me at the moment. The reason I created it was to give something to tell people when I post difficulty of hikes, as sometimes people who don't hike (but may or may not be in good shape) have no idea what elevation gain means.

But this is all in the laboratory, if I start collecting heartrate data while hiking (at least for a few hikes), I can really get a sense of exertion and what it equates to. Although it calculates out for me as well that Iron Mountain is about 17,18 miles running, it doesn't feel that way. I've run that distance in 2.5 hrs, and I honestly don't feel the exertion level was touch as Iron, which I think non stop would take me 3 hrs.

Its harder to create a general formula for everyone that predicts hiking time without knowledge of conditioning level. I would take a short steep hike and find my 'best time' and use that to extrapolate.For instance, Brand Park in the Verdugos has a hike of 1400 ft in less than 1.4 miles, and there are stretches of that that are flat...the actually inclined parts are 25% grade for sure. I can do that in a bit under 1/2 hr, so the alleged 3 mile, 3500 ft portion of Iron Mt. would definitely take over an hr, maybe 1hr30min, not considering terrain difficulty.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:18 am

Joseph -- Good analysis!

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:23 pm

JMunaretto wrote:Ah I didn't know there was a such an interest in this sort of thing!

That's what makes these boards so much fun!

JMunaretto wrote:Well what I did for myself was measure my heartrate and VO2 (oxygen consumption) at different speeds, 6,7,8,9,&10 mph. Then I measured the same for hiking at 3mph, and varying the grade 10,15,20,25.

For both heartrate and VO2, values equated at 7 mph and 3mph + 20%, then at 9mph and 3mph+25%.

My formula is equivalent to: power (in Calories/hr) = 0.6 * weight (in pounds) * speed (in mph) * (1 + 8.8 * grade). Thus, 20% and 25% grades at 3 mph are equivalent to 8.3 and 9.6 mph, respectively on a flat surface. You got 7 and 9 mph. I'd call that reasonable agreement. In fact, running burns more calories than walking at a given speed, so your 7 mph running might be equivalent to 8.3 mph walking. In any case, we seem to be in the same ballpark.

By the way, the data on which I based my formula were from treadmill studies (done by others). I like the fact that you can do your own!

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:37 pm

Rick Kent could beat both you guys. WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND HIS BACK!

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:55 pm

FIGHT ON wrote:Rick Kent could beat both you guys. WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND HIS BACK!

This is the kind of thing that keeps these boards from being too much fun.

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:02 pm

Wow. I would never have expected that reaction

AlanK, Please explain? I suspect a misunderstanding.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:12 pm

AlanK wrote: By the way, the data on which I based my formula were from treadmill studies (done by others). I like the fact that you can do your own!

Yeah that matches up pretty well. I think the final thing to do is find how the treadmill compares to reality. I'm guessing reality requires a little more effort than the stats that describe it.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:12 pm

FIGHT ON wrote:Rick Kent could beat both you guys. WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND HIS BACK!

How about one leg?

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:34 pm

JMunaretto wrote:
FIGHT ON wrote:Rick Kent could beat both you guys. WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND HIS BACK!
How about one leg?

AlanK, That's what I was expecting!

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:15 pm

FIGHT ON wrote:AlanK, That's what I was expecting!

I occasionally disappoint and/or defy expectations. Chalk it up tp human frailty. 8)

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:19 pm

its ez to misunderstand just reading typed words. I thought you would have thought that was funny. Sorry for anything other than that.

Post by **Taco** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:59 pm

Good discussion, guys.

And remember, damnit, you only have to be faster than "that other guy", when there's a bear or cougar behind ya!

Sorry, I know, not funny.

Post by **HikeUp** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:13 pm

TacoDelRio wrote:Sorry, I know, not funny.

Sorry, but that is almost always funny!