2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

by **chugach mtn boy** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:02 am

Vitaliy M. wrote:
ExcitableBoy wrote: ...That's about 4,100 feet elevation gain per hour, certainly doable by a very fit and acclimatized athlete under ideal conditions I would think.

Yea but you have to be VERY acclimated to that altitude and an AMAZING (like top of the line) athlete (or I am just a sack of crap compared to them)...

4100 fph is cruising speed for middle-of-the-pack mountain runners at lower altitudes, and you see it done over very large elevation gains on the uphill legs of things like the Matanuska Peak Challenge http://www.adn.com/2008/08/03/482611/matanuska-peak-challenge.html. So the Shasta record is impressive, but altitude at the upper end is the only thing that makes it impressive. You'd have to be an animal to do it, but it's definitely doable by the right kind of animal!

by **lcarreau** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:13 am

chugach mtn boy wrote: You'd have to be an animal to do it, but it's definitely doable by the right kind of animal!

The following user would like to thank lcarreau for this post
chugach mtn boy

by **Vitaliy M.** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:22 am

chugach mtn boy wrote:
Vitaliy M. wrote:
ExcitableBoy wrote: ...That's about 4,100 feet elevation gain per hour, certainly doable by a very fit and acclimatized athlete under ideal conditions I would think.

Yea but you have to be VERY acclimated to that altitude and an AMAZING (like top of the line) athlete (or I am just a sack of crap compared to them)...

4100 fph is cruising speed for middle-of-the-pack mountain runners at lower altitudes, and you see it done over very large elevation gains on the uphill legs of things like the Matanuska Peak Challenge http://www.adn.com/2008/08/03/482611/matanuska-peak-challenge.html. So the Shasta record is impressive, but altitude at the upper end is the only thing that makes it impressive. You'd have to be an animal to do it, but it's definitely doable by the right kind of animal!

3 hours, 4 minutes, 6 seconds.
With 9,100 feet of climbing over 14 mountainous miles

So that is right about 3000ft per hour for the guy who won this race 5 years in a row, in relatively low elevations. Especially compared to Shasta. Sometimes I do 2200ft over 3 miles runs (than back down and up again hiking with a heavy pack. that gives me 12 miles and 4400ft of elevation gain/loss after work. Although I do not do it much anymore. Probably should get back to it.). My best time so far was 34 mins. No way in hell I would be able to go up Shasta even in 3:30 hours from the parking lot on my best day. Altitude is a big deal, and that mountain is no easy trail run. You will need to wear heavy boots with crampons and bring clothes in case shit hits+water+ice axe+food.

by **chugach mtn boy** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:36 am

Vitaliy M. wrote:3 hours, 4 minutes, 6 seconds.
With 9,100 feet of climbing over 14 mountainous miles

So that is right about 3000ft per hour for the guy who won this race 5 years in a row, in relatively low elevations.

No, no, no, he had to go back down 9100 feet as part of that time too, and Mat Peak is not that fast to descend. His climb rate was certainly over 4100 for the uphill portions. Even the guys who finished the whole race in 4-5 hours and change were hitting the top of Lazy Mountain (the first 3050 feet) in 45 minutes, which is over 4000 fph.

Yes, the elevation is lower (6100' max) but remember, the dude is over 50. Your Shasta guy was probably younger than that. And I'd wager he didn't carry any gear at all (a buddy carried it up ahead), and he used pre-stomped steps, and wore lightweight footwear, which makes a huge, huge difference.

by **Vitaliy M.** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:39 am

chugach mtn boy wrote:
Vitaliy M. wrote:3 hours, 4 minutes, 6 seconds.
With 9,100 feet of climbing over 14 mountainous miles

So that is right about 3000ft per hour for the guy who won this race 5 years in a row, in relatively low elevations.

No, no, no, he had to go back down 9100 feet as part of that time too, and Mat Peak is not that fast to descend. His climb rate was certainly over 4100 for the uphill portions. Even the guys who finished the whole race in 4-5 hours and change were hitting the top of Lazy Mountain (the first 3050 feet) in 45 minutes, which is over 4000 fph.

Yes, the elevation is lower (6100' max) but remember, the dude is over 50. Your Shasta guy was probably younger than that. And I'd wager he didn't carry any gear at all (a buddy carried it up ahead), and he used pre-stomped steps, and wore lightweight footwear, which makes a huge, huge difference.

I see what you mean. Interesting stuff. Seems like a bit too much effort for a record on Shasta, but it does make sense. Although would have to stomp out steps through the whole mountains or wear some kind of soccer cleats with metal spikes or something...way too much work. If I can get my time down to 4 hours (with all the safety/dayhiking gear and water) this spring, I will be happy. lol

by **Ben Beckerich** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:24 am

i'm happy just to get up it...

by **lcarreau** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:58 pm

bkb0000 wrote:i'm happy just to get up it...

I'm happy just to GET IT UP !!!

:lol:

by **ExcitableBoy** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:02 pm

For me the outstanding question is how far does prior acclimatization go towards mitigating the effects of altitude. Can one effectively acclimate enough so that one can move as fast at 14k as 1k?

by **mconnell** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:45 am

chugach mtn boy wrote:
Vitaliy M. wrote:
ExcitableBoy wrote: ...That's about 4,100 feet elevation gain per hour, certainly doable by a very fit and acclimatized athlete under ideal conditions I would think.

Yea but you have to be VERY acclimated to that altitude and an AMAZING (like top of the line) athlete (or I am just a sack of crap compared to them)...

4100 fph is cruising speed for middle-of-the-pack mountain runners at lower altitudes, and you see it done over very large elevation gains on the uphill legs of things like the Matanuska Peak Challenge http://www.adn.com/2008/08/03/482611/matanuska-peak-challenge.html. So the Shasta record is impressive, but altitude at the upper end is the only thing that makes it impressive. You'd have to be an animal to do it, but it's definitely doable by the right kind of animal!

Many world class, very acclimatised athletes compete in the Pikes Peak race every year. The record for the ascent is slightly over 2 hours for 7700 feet elevation gain. Given that Pikes isn't very steep (average about 10-11%), I don't think that 4100'/hr is unreasonable on a steeper hill for a couple of people in the world.

by **Damien Gildea** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:05 am

ExcitableBoy wrote: Can one effectively acclimate enough so that one can move as fast at 14k as 1k?

In theory, yes. In practice? Not sure it's been done. It takes months of living continuously at altitude (simulated) to fully acclimatise. ie. get to how you would be at sea-level. You could get somewhat acclimatised in a couple of weeks and feel OK, but in terms of full athletic performance you would still be quite a way off.

People's experiences on mountaineering expeditions really have nothing to do with this - they're too short duration, the dietary and hygiene conditions are abnormal, compared to normal life, and they're probably going and messing themselves up by physically pushing hard to 7000m or 8000m or whatever. It's a very uncontrolled environment, which is partly why we understand so little about altitude issues, compared to other medical issues.

I remember the Bolivia climbing guidbook author Yossi Brain telling me that he only felt fully normal and acclimatised after three continuous months in La Paz, at or around 3600m / 11,800ft. In 1979 the famous French alpinist Dr. Nicholas Jaeger spent 70 days high up on Huascaran (6768m) to study the medical effects. Not sure what he learned, but again, that is a very un-clinical environment, no doubt affected by diet and other factors. There are not many places where you could conduct suitable clinical trials (removing the dietary, hygiene and other issues) without simulation. Very few people live permanently above 4000m, and those that do are in relatively 'basic' living conditions.

I guess you would have to take a group of people, test them over a variety of exercises at sea-level, after weeks of similar diet etc, then take them to the facility you have set up in LaPaz or Lhasa and test them regularly on the exercises, on the same diet, and see how they progressed, or not, over several months. I'm not sure anyone has done that.

The following user would like to thank Damien Gildea for this post
Vitaliy M.

by **dskoon** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:44 pm

ExcitableBoy wrote:For me the outstanding question is how far does prior acclimatization go towards mitigating the effects of altitude. Can one effectively acclimate enough so that one can move as fast at 14k as 1k?

Well, logically it would seem to help those tagging the records on Rainier. Professional guides, most of them, I think, who are up on the mountain all the time.
I read where Mark Twight, and partners, went from 14,000 to the summit on Denali in one push, skipping the normal camping at 17,000, and thereby shocking fellow climbers.
I think it has to do with certainly being very fit, but also being very acclimated to those heights.

by **Vitaliy M.** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:50 pm

I read where Mark Twight, and partners, went from 14,000 to the summit on Denali in one push, skipping the normal camping at 17,000, and thereby shocking fellow climbers.

Not at all uncommon for strong and confident climbers.

by **ExcitableBoy** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:00 pm

Vitaliy M. wrote:
I read where Mark Twight, and partners, went from 14,000 to the summit on Denali in one push, skipping the normal camping at 17,000, and thereby shocking fellow climbers.

Not at all uncommon for strong and confident climbers.

We camped next to John Varco and Cameron Lawson. Cameron went from 14k to the summit and back in something like 8-10 hours.

by **Vitaliy M.** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:44 pm

When we were there my partner and I thought it would be a lot better to go from 14 and back, but since our team was established before, other guys would not want to do that, and we had a pre set agreement we went to 17K camp. On the summit day my partner and I passed a bunch of people and only people that were going with us were an Italian couple (both of them were mountain guides back in Italy). Amazingly nice people. They started from 14K camp. We were barely keeping up with them. The guy was in front, strong like a horse. They got to the top about a minute earlier and were pretty surprised that we were able to keep up. We were first people up there that day, it was awesome. After we came down from that summit ridge there was a LINE of people coming up to football field.
Now I realize how many good memories I have to look back at. Being there was awesome and meeting some of those pros. Also met guys who did the fastest ascent of Cassin ridge (we took their butter), and your friend Colin, who wanted to get the fastest Cassin ascent but did not get the weather conditions. Met a lot of other interesting people too.....eh, need to get strong and go back to that range some day.

2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Re: 2003 Denali hoax? 1906 Denali hoax Dr. Fred Cook

Who is online