[at-l] AT mileage

[Slyatpct@aol.com (Slyatpct@aol.com)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Hey Marcia,

Welcome to the at-l!

I think you'll find the AT a lot more physical, overall, than either the CDT
or PCT.  From what I understand both the western trails have approximately
330,000 feet of elevation gain while the AT is well over 400,000.  The trail
may be 500 miles shorter, but don't ask your knees, just be prepared to take
lots of Ibuprofen.  It's also very hot and humid in the summer months.  Of
course, it's much easier to follow, there'll the white blaze every few
hundred feet, so it's pretty much a no brainier.  Typically, a 20 mile day on
the western trails translates into 15 mile day on the AT.

I think you'll find the AT a fantastic trail.  It's great hiking.  The beauty
is much more subtle than the western trails with mostly deciduous forest and
the people and infrastructure are wonderful, almost to a fault.

When you're in the southern Appalachians, let me know and I'll come out and
visit.

Sly

kdpo@pacbell.net writes:

> We're considering the AT for 2003 and are in exploratory stages. Does a
> hiker hike the same daily mileage on the AT that he or she hiked on the PCT
> or CDT? I think I've read that all the up and down lessens mileage. The CDT
> had days of a vertical mile gain as we followed the divide in little
> 300-800' gains and losses. I also understand that the AT has rough tread in
> places but it seems to me that any tread at all is easier than the
> roughness
> of no tread, not to mention the time factor in route finding. I know that
> each trail is different but we wanted a comparison rule of thumb for
> figuring daily distance and resupply.