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

I certainly agree that downhill can be hard on the legs -- at least steep downhill. But, as far as my energy level goes, downhill is much easier. Going down Iron Mountain beats me up because my legs get sore from doing braking at a level that I'm not used to. On the other hand, I have been on top of San Gorgonio after 18 miles of hard, mostly uphill and level hiking, and looked at the last 10+ miles (from the summit to the Momyer parking lot) as adding almost nothing to the effort. It's just a breeze -- all easy downhill. I have never felt that way about any 10+ mile uphill stretch.

To continue on with the quote from the "Backpacker" article: "To wit, a 2007 study in the "Journal of Sports Sciences" showed that 3 days after one 30-minute downhill run, subjects had shorter strides, less range of motion, and muscle damage." This is all the result of DOMS, ie microtrauma to the muscle fiber and the subsequent inflammatory and healing reaction. That damage results from downhill running is old news; in fact, it is a model used to study muscle damage from eccentric contractions in research. Unfortunately, Dr. Chang has made the mistake of correlating this muscle damage with energy usage during the activity. The very fact that it is delayed speaks to the fact that any energy used to allow the muscle to recover will be used in the days following the exercise bout. Now it has been shown that this recovery energy can be fairly substantial, but, again, we are talking about the energy used during performance of the exercise bout itself. I could put you through a 30 minute weight workout on legs that would so damage your muscles that you would not be able to walk properly for a week, and no 15 mile downhill hike would come close to the muscle pain and duration of recovery you would face from that workout. Does that mean that you are burning more calories in those 30 minutes than you are during the 15 mile downhill hike? No, not even close; that should be fairly obvious.

AlanK has posted a great article from an extremely reputable, peer-reviewed journal. If I may quote from another article that used it as a reference in order to simplify the findings, "Minetti et al. (2002) reported that uphill treadmill running can increase the energy cost of running by over five fold, and downhill running can reduce the energy cost of running by nearly a half."

Now, to an explanation of Memory Lapse's fatigue during downhill hiking: Downhill hiking requires more coordination than uphill hiking, and for very steep downhills, particularly those with a potentially injurious or lethal fall potential, this can be quite a bit more. As the stepping down requires a controlled drop, whereas stepping up just requires lifting your foot, there is a greater need to be sure not only of proper coordination of the muscles on landing, in order to avoid twisting an ankle, hyperextending a knee, or slipping, but also proper placement of the foot ie where should I place the foot that will make the most stable landing possible? Think about it; how many times do you worry about falling on an uphill trail? The concentration required during these downhills can lead to a fatique of the nervous system that is different than metabolic fatigue. In addition, adrenaline released as anticipatory during particularly hurried or risky descents can cause fatigue due to overstimulation of the adrenal glands, resulting in depleted stores; think hiking down a peak after dark! Anybody who has been in an accident or had a near miss of some sort or other can vouch for the fatigue that occurs after the initial excitement is over. This is a consequence of the "fight or flight" response. Thus, the fatigue can feel every bit as debilitating as the metabolic fatigue associated with uphill hikes. When we train athletes, we look for signs of these various types of fatigue in order to avoid an overtrained state.

Hopefully this gives some insight into some of the various fatigue mechanisms.

When I first read the article I was assuming the statement applied to the energy use over the duration of the exercise/hiking event as well. However, based on everything said here and Dr. Chang's comments about muscle entropy (damage), I am now believing he is referring to the total energy used to include that used to repair tissue damage.

He also made another comment (on the phone) that the intent was to draw attention to the need to develop the muscles for the eccentric motions to limit muscle entropy.

If the above is true then the quote could have been better stated.

This entire discussion reminds me of the debate over corn based ethanol. Ethanol is a great substitute for fossil fuels if only looked at from the perspective of it's benefits during comsumption. But when a wholistic view is taken, such as what it takes to produce it, the benefits are far less than they appear on the surface.

Thank you, ExPro. I have never seen a better description of what I experience doing steep downhills on ugly surfaces where you constantly have to watch your footing. I am mentally exhausted as well as physically tired after coming off Baldy. I also agree that downhills on reasonable grades and surfaces, like the Dry Lake and Dollar Lake routes off SG, are not the same problem even when they're very long. I can use most of my energy going up SG and still come down 11 - 13 miles just putting one foot in front of the other and not thinking about it. The same is true coming down the MMWT. It's long and I want it to be over, but I don't feel any special concern once I get below the switchbacks.

This has been an amazing discussion starting from a simple question about ROW. Thanks to all who have participated.

I have found the comments by ExPro and others on fatigue mechanisms, muscle damage, etc. to be very educational. The loose end in this discussion at this point is the suggestion (based on interpreting of Dr. Chang's original quote) that it takes a lot of energy to repair damaged fibers, perhaps more than the exercise itself.

We know that it takes on the order of 100 calories per hour to keep a 150 pound person going about everyday activities. That's a couple of thousand calories per day.

I have used, as a rule of thumb, the following figures for hiking. A 150 lb person consumes about 100 Calories per mile of horizontal running plus another 150 Calories per 1000 feet of elevation gain. Walking takes less energy than running, but it's in the same ballpark. Going downhill (on a gentle slope) takes roughly the same amount of energy as walking on level ground. I should correct these figures based on the article I cited above, but we just need to be in the right ballpark here.

So, hiking the MMWT requires on the order of 3000 Calories (2200 for 22 miles plus 900 for 6000' of elevation gain). This is more than the person's typical energy consumption on a quiet day.

I think we's all agree that revovery from that hike makes, at most, a small perturbation on one's energy consumption on a quiet day. Even if we allow several days for recovery, the energy expenditure involved is not going to approach the energy used on doing the original hike.

THis really is a great discussion on this topic. I'll have to look up some of the research Alan mentioned (maybe he'll be really cool and send me a direct link/copy??? ) to help with prep for this summer. I actually have a HR monitor (POLAR) that measures approximate caloric output, so maybe I'll take that with me (wait a minute, MORE gear??) when I do the HST this summer. Especially since I am planning on going against the flow (E-->W), and will potentially put in a huge first day post-Whitney. The elevations profiles show about 20 miles of "downhill". Hmmm... personal research!

Thanks, guys!

-L

Alan - I need clarification on your calory figures. Last year I gave out about 1/2 between Trail Crest and the summit due to being totally depleted. I was doing fine up to there and then suddenly crashed. I had eaten lightly the day before and very little on the trail. (No comments about stupidity are necessary. I've already made them all to myself.) After that I started looking for info on calory needs for a dayhike up the MMWT and came up with a figure of close to 6,000 for my 170 pound body. Your estimate of 3,000 is so much lower I feel confused. Seeing that a person gets up in the morning, eats breakfast, drives to the TH, drives back to the motel from the TH after hiking, showers (we hope), and goes to dinner, all activities in addition to the hike, is your 3K to be added to a normal day's 2K calory need? That would about close the gap. Thanks.

"Flyin' Brian" Robinson, who completed the triple crown (PCT, CDT, and AP) in 2001, said he had to consume 6,000 calories a day. I estimate that he is about 5'10'' and weighs between 155 and 165 lbs. A common meal was a box of instant mash potatoes seasoned with a cup of olive oil. Doing the PCT, he averaged over 30 miles a day!

A few months ago I read an interview with a recently retired world class bike racer, who had competed in several Tours de France. One reason for his retirement was he was tired of eating so much food, 6000 calories daily during training. I consume approximately 2,000 calories daily, which maintains my weight of 137, and I can't imagine consuming three times as much.

If I walk for one hour on my treadmill at 3% grade and 3.0 miles per hour, my treadmill comptuer tells me I am burning about 320 calories per hour. I am 59 years old and weigh about 210 lb.

I hope that Dxxx thing isn't lying to me after all these years of intimate walks together.

Memory Lapse:

1 Calorie - 1 kcal = 1000 calories, but I am being pedantic.

Your computer is in the right ballpark. Walking is more efficient than running (fewer Calories). You burn more 40% Calories at 210 lb than does a 150 lb man. I'd need to look up the numbers for walking, but it seems to me that your computer may be underestimating your energy consumption by a bit. Is it programmed for 210 lb?

Burt -- My figures were for total energy consumption during exercise, but you certainly burn calories all day while you're not hiking. In addition, you consume more calories when carrying a load. If you weigh 170 and carry a 20 lb pack, you'd get a better estimate by multiplying by 190/150. So your daily usage is well over 3000 Cal.

Since this is migrating into a counting Calories topic, I have always wondered about setting up treadmills with an incline.

Even though you have a steep incline, you are not lifting your body against gravity. Your body mass is staying in place, as if you were walking on the level. Granted, there will be a little more Calory use since your legs are working against the incline to hold your weight at the same elevation, but I don't think it burns anything even close to the number of Calories burned actually walking up a hill or stairs. Am I wrong?

I never liked treadmills! You get nowhere!

When you run on a treadmill, your stride is basically the same as it is on real ground. If it is inclined, your foot lands higher and the same extra work is done. Your body's energy in the Earth's gravitational field goes down as the belt slides you downward, but your cells do not get back the stored energy they burned on that step. So you still burn the extra calories to go uphill without gaining any altitude.

Which is why I don't like treadmills!

But they are convenient for scientists like the ones that wrote the article I cited.

Without getting into the realm of Ground Reaction Forces, there are a few differences between walking outside and walking on a treadmill. A treadmill is already moving in the opposite direction of your travel, therefore what you are doing is somewhat similar to running in place. When walking or running outside, you are actually pushing off on the earth to move forward. Granted, according to Newtonian physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so when you are pushing back on the earth, you are actually pushing it in the opposite direction. Now, because of the difference in mass between you and the earth, this movement is not even measurable with current technology. However, a treadmill belt is much smaller, but since it is already moving in the opposite direction, some of the force that you are using to push it backwards is dissipated; this will mean less work for you, and thus less calories burned. This may also decrease the calorie usage even more when inclined, since you now have the help of gravity pulling the belt down in addition to the motor. Another factor is the effects of wind resistance when you move forward, which can be pretty substantial in the mountains, and is almost non-existent on an indoor treadmill.

A few years ago we had a symposium on the Tour de France at the American College of Sports Medicine Annual Conference. For the cyclists whose caloric expenditure was measured, the average for the days during the race that were studied was 9000 calories! However, the average human body of that size is only able to absorb 7000 calories, so for a good part of the study they were in a caloric deficit and there was nothing nutritionally they could do about it.

As for the question of caloric usage to repair muscles following eccentrically induced damage........EPOC, or Exercise Post-Oxygen Consumption had been studied for a number of years, primarily following aerobic type activities. The study of EPOC following resistance exercise, which creates the most muscle damage, is relatively recent, and fairly difficult to study in that we are talking about anywhere up to 3-4 days after exercise, but at a relatively low rate, whereas EPOC for aerobic exercise exists on the order of hours, depending on duration and intensity. Recent studies have shown EPOC for resistance exercise to be more substantial than previously thought, but the work is ongoing as it is difficult to control the variables for such an extended amount of time. As far as aerobic exercise such as running, which has an eccentric component, the evidence is pretty equivocal that it does not approach anything close to the calories utilized during the actual exercise itself.

I fully understand the reasons why some folks don't like treadmills and I also understand that they for the most part do not replace the effects of exercising outdoors.

But I will point out that you can work up a very good sweat and get your heartrate going as rapid as you need to. After all they use treadmills to conduct cardio stress exams.

Treadmills have their place but they are not suited to everyone's interests.

I think that treadmills are a great invention. I just don't enjoy them personally. A quirk. If I'm stuck in a hotel, I resort to the stationary bike. But, as we all know, th ereal thing is much better in any case!

Re Ex Pro: "A treadmill is already moving in the opposite direction of your travel, therefore what you are doing is somewhat similar to running in place."

Re AlanK: "When you run on a treadmill, your stride is basically the same as it is on real ground."

AlanK has it right, i.e. running on a level treadmill is the same workout as running on level ground. It's a matter of frame of reference. Also, you can feel that running in place is different than running on a treadmill or running on ground. And your muscles' effort running on a treadmill feels the same as running on the ground.

Consider the case of a moving sidewalk that you might see in an airport terminal. If you walk on the moving sidewalk, either in the same direction of the moving sidewalk or the opposite direction and walk in both cases with the same speed relative to the moving sidewalk, it's the same muscular motion and energy expenditure that you would have if you were walking on a regular sidewalk for the same amount of time and at the same speed relative to the sidewalk. (Note that the moving sidewalk is a treadmill.)

Another example would be walking in a train. It doesn't matter whether or not the train is moving, it's the same use of your walking muscles.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Re Steve C: "Even though you have a steep incline, you are not lifting your body against gravity. Your body mass is staying in place, as if you were walking on the level."

Re AlanK: "If it is inclined, your foot lands higher and the same extra work is done."

AlanK has it right, i.e. walking on an inclined treadmill is the same workout as walking up a hill. But there is a small loose end that should be tied up. When you go up a hill some of the energy that you have expended has gone into increasing your gravitational potential energy, i.e. you get higher up the hill. When you walk on an inclined treadmill where does the energy that would have gone into gravitational potential energy go? It is absorbed by the treadmill machinery by friction, or less energy that the treadmill motor expends to move the treadmill, or like the case of a modern exercycle it might even generate electricity.

Yes, that is true; I guess the running in place analogy wasn't the best one to use-probably should have quantified "somewhat!" The mechanics of running on the treadmill are similar to running on real ground, as was mentioned; what I was trying to get across is there is a decrease in force needed to push off the treadmill due to it's movement as opposed to pushing off the ground. The effect is fairly minimal, but it does exist. The greater effect is from wind resistance. In research specific equations that factor these in are used to calculate energy usage on treadmills, as opposed to walking or running on ground.

Why are you running on Mt. Whitney? I just walk, take pictures, walk, take more pictures, who cares how long you're on the trail. People are way too caught up in this training stuff. I've never trained for that hike and have summited twice, to be three times barring t-storms in mid-July. I couldn't care less about a PR. Just hike, take pictures, leave footprints. Some of you are way too obsessed with this. Calm down.

Hi The next level, a few deep breaths exhale and see your body do the exercise, repeat at night just before going to sleep tell yourself what you want to acheive and allow that to happen, the mind/ body could care less about all the chatter, If you need to test this ,see yourself at a place that you have visited , have someone close to you call you, or set a wakeup time with out an alarm clock. Thanks Doug

I was always taught that the uphill hiker yields to the downhill hiker because it is harder for the downhill hiker to stop once they get their momentum going.