If you're talking about total elevation gain (I don't live near tall enough mountains for much more than 1500m net gain), I can do 3000m in a very long day, but don't ask me to do anything the next day.
Example:
Adirondack Great Range

The record for that one is about six hours:
Fastest Known Time: Great Range Traverse

Diego Sahagún wrote:For me:

Gain = SUM of all slopes in ascent

Total descended = SUM of all slopes in descent

I would agree with that if it wasn't so hard to measure

The biggest elevation difference I made was almost 2,000m here in Bosnia on a mountain called Cvrsnica.
Starting point was at 160m and then up to the summit of Veliki Vilinac at 2,118m.

Very long day, almost 14 hours of walking and scrambling... Great hike and beautiful weather conditions!

WouterB wrote:

Diego Sahagún wrote:For me:

Gain = SUM of all slopes in ascent

Total descended = SUM of all slopes in descent

I would agree with that if it wasn't so hard to measure

Take an altimeter or GPS with you

Buz Groshong wrote:I prefer net gain, but then net gain is high point minus low point not finish minus start. Total gain is for type A freaks.

Do you try ridge traverses or multi-summit days? It's good to estimate accumulated gain beforehand, so you won't get pooped out and surprised on the way. and will pace properly. I went over 2 DPS peaks last Sunday; Palmer and Grapevine. By the net method, that would be 2000'. The true accumulated gain is about 6500'. Each summit requires multiple ups and downs.

For this hike, the net is about 1300'. The accumulated is over 7000'.

The most I can remember doing in a single day with a full backpack was the Mt. Whitney trail (California, Sierra Nevada Mtns), from the 8500 ft trailhead to the 14500 ft Mt. Whitney summit where we spent the night. That's about 1850m. Also hiked up to a campsite on Mt. Williamson (near Mt. Whitney) that involved about the same elevation gain. I regularly do one-day hikes of 5000 ft/1500m elevation gain (and loss). Also done the one-day round trip hike to the summit of Chimborazo (Ecuador) from the Whymper hut; 16,000 ft/4880m to 20,700 ft/6300m

Its also relative to where you start; hiking up 1500m from sea level will be much easier than starting at 2000m and hiking up 1500m.

MoapaPk wrote:

Buz Groshong wrote:I prefer net gain, but then net gain is high point minus low point not finish minus start. Total gain is for type A freaks.

Do you try ridge traverses or multi-summit days? It's good to estimate accumulated gain beforehand, so you won't get pooped out and surprised on the way. and will pace properly. I went over 2 DPS peaks last Sunday; Palmer and Grapevine. By the net method, that would be 2000'. The true accumulated gain is about 6500'. Each summit requires multiple ups and downs.

For this hike, the net is about 1300'. The accumulated is over 7000'.

Yep, and I use to estimate the accumulated gain before the whole thing then. Now, I want to totally recover from my cervical hernia as you know Moapa...

About 7000' on several occasions is the most I've done walking in a day.

If your going by the Chief method of mechanical methods, I've done a little over 30,000' in a day. I rode the lift up, and skied down. Several times. (I guess I've probably doubled that if you count an airplane.)

For me, I guess the biggest one day push would have to be Mt. Adams, where I did approx. 6,600+ ft. in 5.7mi. one way. So, 13,000' and eleven and a half mi. RT. Good, long day.

Back when I was about 18 i climbed Pizzo di Claro from the Leventina Vally (Zwitzerland),
which comes down to a 2500m vertical gain and a 2500 vertical meter descent.
So a total of 5000 meters in one day.
But I could hardly walk the next day.....and the day after that

I have done 8,500' to 9,000' vertical in a day numerous times, it seems to be my wall. I suppose I could do more, but it would cost me.

Whoa, we are now adding descent to gain?

MoapaPk wrote:Whoa, we are now adding descent to gain?

Imho since we almost always get back to the starting point, adding the descent is nonsense. mentioning the descended amount is only worth if the destination is different than the start.

visentin wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:Whoa, we are now adding descent to gain?

Imho since we almost always get back to the starting point, adding the descent is nonsense. mentioning the descended amount is only worth if the destination is different than the start.

I only mentioned mine as RT, because I saw others mention it as well. You guys are right though; a bit redundant. The title of the post is "altitude gain."

Diego Sahagún wrote:

WouterB wrote:

Diego Sahagún wrote:For me:

Gain = SUM of all slopes in ascent

Total descended = SUM of all slopes in descent

I would agree with that if it wasn't so hard to measure

Take an altimeter or GPS with you

I use a Garmin 60CSx GPS, and I don't know why but they usually overestimate elevation gain. What I usually do is take the recorded gain and subtract 1,000-2,000 ft. to get a more accurate estimate, which can be confirmed via TOPO maping software.