Just realized taking the high route in the Smokies saved me 3 miles but added 2 hours of climbing. Is shorter always better?

2 comments

2 Comments

Buddy of mine tried to power through a shorter climb up Old Rag in Virginia last spring. He figured he'd save time but hit this brutal rock scramble that added almost 90 minutes of waiting behind slower hikers. By the time he got to the top his legs were shaking so bad he could barely stand for a picture. Meanwhile I took the longer winding route around and cruised up with way less effort and still beat him to the summit by 20 minutes. What he saved in distance he lost in dumb variables like crowds and technical sections. Sometimes shorter just means more stress crammed into less space.

the_max9d ago

Is it weird that I actually prefer the longer climbs now? I used to think shorter was always better too but honestly your leg muscles get way more work in on that steep stuff. I did a trail last month that was 2 miles shorter but had like 1500 feet more gain and it wrecked me but my cardio improved so much after a few weeks. The thing nobody talks about is how the steep sections force you into that perfect hiking rhythm where you're breathing hard but not gasping. Plus you get way better views on the climb versus just cruising through flat woods. I've started seeking out those harder routes on purpose, feels like getting more bang for your buck even if it takes longer.