PCT vs AT

[Rush13]

Howdy all!!

I was looking for a little advice on which long distance hike I should tackle first. In a perfect world I would like to complete both but who knows when I will have time to do so. I'm graduating college in the spring and I'm hoping to tackle either the PCT or the AT in summer 2010 or 2011. My original plan was to do the AT but after doing some research I stumbled across the PCT and it really began to pique my interest.

I've never done anything more than a day hike (I've done many of these) and I was curious as to which one everyone recommends. From what I've been reading it seems as if most people have done the AT before they do the PCT but the interesting part is that the hikes are vastly different so does anyone foresee any problems of going straight for the PCT? I'm from New Hampshire so I've only done East Coast mountains (part of the reason I had been thinking AT) but the West Coast has really caught my attention.

An important thing to note is that I'm a distance runner that typically runs about 80-100 miles a week. So I'm not kidding myself thinking I can just jump right from the couch to the PCT. I also thought the PCT would be a better fit for me as its more lightweight hiking (I'm a distance runner, I'm skinny )

Also on the more wishful thinking side...feasability of completing the PCT in 90 days? I realize that would be averaging 30 miles with zero rest days. I think it would be entirely doable (I've done more 20 mile runs then I'd want to count). Is this wishful thinking, am I giving myself too much credit here thinking my distance running will convert well to the PCT? I wont take offense to anybody bringing me down to earth on this one

[Red Beard]

I have not yet thru-hiked the AT, but I have done two-week long hikes at a time. Since I'm such a fat guy, personally I'm taking on the AT first. I hear that the PCT requires a lot more miles/day with less time to do it.

In short, if you're in poor shape like me, I'd opt for the AT first. Just 2-cents from the fat-guy peanut gallery.

[Yahtzee]

PCT. If you do the PCT first and then the AT, all the AT hikers will think you are so cool. Despite the AT being the "original" 2000 miles long distance trail, I found that most AT hikers had an inferiority complex when it came to PCT. Don't know why.

[Red Beard]

PCT. If you do the PCT first and then the AT, all the AT hikers will think you are so cool. Despite the AT being the "original" 2000 miles long distance trail, I found that most AT hikers had an inferiority complex when it came to PCT. Don't know why.

I'd be one of them

[Mags]

This thread may be useful:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/show...&highlight=PCT

The short hand description is, in general, the PCT is logistically more difficult and the AT is physically more challenging. I'll add to this nugget that this thought is generally true for people new to long distance hiking.

I think that the AT is perceived as physically more difficult is that because many people new to long distance hiking are carrying heavier gear, are not in the best physical or mental shape for ld hiking and do not have the experience that veterans of long trails may have. So the first long trail is perceived at the most difficult physically.

Parts of the AT are indeed more physically more difficult than the PCT (the Whites and the Mahoosucs come to mind), but overall I think the AT is not that much more difficult than the PCT imo.

If you are the type of hiker who is not mentally geared for doing more than 15 MPD and likes frequent town stops (and likes to get in 'trail shape' on the trail), then the AT is perhaps the better trail. Frequent towns and very conducive to a 12 MPD or so pace.

Based on your posting, you are probably in better shape than most people starting a long trail. I do not know how much experience you have outside of weekend backpacks, so you may want to do a two week backpack somewhere to get used to the mind set of thru-hiking. Resupplying, being out in all conditions, pacing, etc. The Long Trail in Vermont is a good trail to try out ld hiking (if with harder grades over alll than any of the trails I've done). If you want a challenge that is local, try the Cohos Trail. (At 160 miles, perhaps fits your schedule more, too)

FWIW, many people say the PCT is, in some ways, a better first trail. Well graded trail, good views, logistics aren't too bad if you are willing to change the "more camping, less hiking" mindset that is common to backpacking.


As for a 90 days pace....difficult, but not unheard of. You may want to read Suge's journal for what a hike of this pace entails. Most, but not all, hikers on this pace have done a long trail of some sort previously.

Finally, light gear is not just for tall, skinny guys. It is also for lazy guys like myself who are built more like a dockworker than a distance runner. I can haul ~50 pounds of food, wine and gear to a hut on skis. Doesn't mean I want to do it for 4 mos.

[Rush13]

PCT. If you do the PCT first and then the AT, all the AT hikers will think you are so cool. Despite the AT being the "original" 2000 miles long distance trail, I found that most AT hikers had an inferiority complex when it came to PCT. Don't know why.

Have you hiked both?

[Rush13]

This thread may be useful:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/show...&highlight=PCT

The short hand description is, in general, the PCT is logistically more difficult and the AT is physically more challenging. I'll add to this nugget that this thought is generally true for people new to long distance hiking.

I think that the AT is perceived as physically more difficult is that because many people new to long distance hiking are carrying heavier gear, are not in the best physical or mental shape for ld hiking and do not have the experience that veterans of long trails may have. So the first long trail is perceived at the most difficult physically.

Parts of the AT are indeed more physically more difficult than the PCT (the Whites and the Mahoosucs come to mind), but overall I think the AT is not that much more difficult than the PCT imo.

If you are the type of hiker who is not mentally geared for doing more than 15 MPD and likes frequent town stops (and likes to get in 'trail shape' on the trail), then the AT is perhaps the better trail. Frequent towns and very conducive to a 12 MPD or so pace.

Based on your posting, you are probably in better shape than most people starting a long trail. I do not know how much experience you have outside of weekend backpacks, so you may want to do a two week backpack somewhere to get used to the mind set of thru-hiking. Resupplying, being out in all conditions, pacing, etc. The Long Trail in Vermont is a good trail to try out ld hiking (if with harder grades over alll than any of the trails I've done). If you want a challenge that is local, try the Cohos Trail. (At 160 miles, perhaps fits your schedule more, too)

FWIW, many people say the PCT is, in some ways, a better first trail. Well graded trail, good views, logistics aren't too bad if you are willing to change the "more camping, less hiking" mindset that is common to backpacking.


As for a 90 days pace....difficult, but not unheard of. You may want to read Suge's journal for what a hike of this pace entails. Most, but not all, hikers on this pace have done a long trail of some sort previously.

Finally, light gear is not just for tall, skinny guys. It is also for lazy guys like myself who are built more like a dockworker than a distance runner. I can haul ~50 pounds of food, wine and gear to a hut on skis. Doesn't mean I want to do it for 4 mos.

Thanks Mags, I was hoping you would pop in here because I read your PCT handout and it was one of the most helpful things I have come across thus far. As I said I've never even done an overnight hike. I've only hiked mountains over here in New England like Mt Washington, Franconia Ridge Trail, Mt Katahdin (yeah I know I ruined the ending to the AT but it was before I had plans to do it) etc. I've enjoyed all of them and didn't seem too challenging.

Logistics is the one thing I'm not looking forward to! I'd rather just get out there into the outdoors (as I'm sure everyone would). But I realize it's a necessary evil and I wouldn't have a problem organizing that once I commit myself to it. I'll have to check out Suge's journal when I get a chance. Would you say the views are better during the PCT? If I'm going to be hiking for 3+ months I'd love to see a bit of the world. Seems as if the AT has a lot of just woods, which is nice but can get monotonous. Plus living in NH my whole life I've had my fair dose of woods.

And yes I don't think anybody enjoys carrying 50+ lbs on their back

[Many Walks]

We did the AT on 07 and plan to thru the PCT in 2011. Meanwhile we hike most every weekend and have done several sections of the PCT.

A few things to consider IMO.

AT is shorter, but generally the terrain is more difficult. The PCT trails are graded for horses in many areas and are generally in better shape. A 5 mo. hike on the AT will equate to a 4 mo. hike on the PCT.

The highest point on the AT is just over 6K' while many sections of the PCT are over 6K' going up to around 11K' or higher creating issues with reduced oxygen, snow pack, and UV. If you are not used to the elevations your hiking time will be increased.

Some sections in the higher elevations will have snow through July with cold overnight temps, so you'll need some warmer clothes. This will add to your pack weight in some sections.

Both trails share common critters like rattlesnakes, etc, but in a few sections of both the AT and PCT black bears are exceptionally aggressive. The NPS requires an approved food container in a few sections of the PCT. Permits are required in some sections as well, so plan accordingly.

The PCT has an abundance of poison oak, which IMO is worse than poison ivy. Personal experience having had both.

Resupply on the AT is much easier than the PCT with fewer towns that are further from the trail.

Both trails have some sections where water can be scarce, so planning is required.

AT has lots of shelters, generally with water and a privy, while the PCT has none.

You'll most likely meet fewer hikers on the PCT, except in concentrated areas with high day use.

IMO attempting to do either trail in 90 days (especially the PCT) without resupply help would be not only difficult, but would negate the entire purpose of thru hiking such beautiful country, unless you're strictly into it for the praise and accomplishment. I believe if you have the opportunity to thru hike you should enjoy it and try to set records elsewhere, but HYOH!

There are several books available about both trails. I bought the latest edition of the Pacific Crest Trail Atlas from Erik the Black and love it. It's worth considering if you decide to hike the PCT.

Enjoy your hike!

[Mags]

As I said I've never even done an overnight hike. I've only hiked mountains over here in New England like Mt Washington, Franconia Ridge Trail, Mt Katahdin (yeah I know I ruined the ending to the AT but it was before I had plans to do it) etc. I've enjoyed all of them and didn't seem too challenging.

That's the crux. A long day hike is doable by just about anyone. Doing it day after day is another story (with a pack) The year I hiked the PCT, Chuckie V (any triathletes will know this guy) was quite shocked how his professional athlete body was beat up by the day after day grind of hiking every day with a full pack. (He adjusted..it was just A LOT more difficult than he expected).


I did not realize you had done no backpacking.

Seriously, get yourself out there and commit to a longer hike to see how your body handles running vs, hiking.

I've seen marathon runners and triathletes in my own circle fade after just one day of backpacking. Different muscles. Different mindset. This article may be useful.



Would you say the views are better during the PCT?

More wide open for sure. The "long green tunnel" definitely has an intimate, more subtle beauty..but not many wide open views. The PCT has more of those overall.


And yes I don't think anybody enjoys carrying 50+ lbs on their back

You haven't been on this site long enough. There are some mucho macho hotdogs on this site who believe anyone who does not carry a 50+ pound pack is missing the point of the outdoors. I kid you not.


Many walks said:

IMO attempting to do either trail in 90 days (especially the PCT) without resupply help would be not only difficult, but would negate the entire purpose of thru hiking such beautiful country, unless you're strictly into it for the praise and accomplishment.

For you perhaps.

Or, to put your philosopy and others more succinctly: Hike My Hike, Damn it!

But some people simply like to , and can, walk all day. Suge walked the PCT in about 90 days and called it "A Beautiful Thing".

As I like to say, just because you like chocolate ice cream, that does not mean vanilla ice cream sucks.

[summermike]

Thanks Mags, I was hoping you would pop in here because I read your PCT handout and it was one of the most helpful things I have come across thus far.

Is there a link to this PCT handout? I'd like to read it.

[A-Train]

Rush:

I've hiked both. Both are great trails and you can't really go wrong. The AT has the social aspect, the history and the trail culture. The PCT has the scenary, the ease (in terrain) and still a great trail community, just smaller.

I always tell people picking a favorite would be like picking a favorite child or sibling.

But the truth is that overall I'd recommend the PCT. Maybe it was being 4 years older, a bit more mature and comfortable with myself and my abilities, but I felt more free on the PCT. The AT can be somewhat confining if you let it: shelters, hostels, groups of friends, etc lead me in a very group-oriented, herd mentality. The PCT had great people around, but hiking until dusk and setting up camp wherever felt empowering. I grew to look forward to the solitude more than the social aspect and felt as if there was greater potential for me to truly do my own thing, a less paint-by-numbers adventure.

More or less either trail is what you make of it. You can be solo-minded on both or enjoy friends, or a combination of the two.

If you will do both, I'd start with the AT, but if it was just one, the views in the first 50 miles of the PCT will blow almost anything on the AT away.

Hike on, and enjoy every minute!

[Mags]

Is there a link to this PCT handout? I'd like to read it.

http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.ph.../PCT-Info.html

[Sly]

Rush, if you're look for thrills, hike the PCT. (pun intended)

[Jester2000]

Many Walk's post above was a good one, but just two clarifications: Your PCT Permit is the only permit you'll need to get. It covers the whole trail. You can find the info at PCTA.org

Also, while there are very, very few shelters, they do exist.

. . .

And yes I don't think anybody enjoys carrying 50+ lbs on their back

You haven't been on this site long enough. There are some mucho macho hotdogs on this site who believe anyone who does not carry a 50+ pound pack is missing the point of the outdoors. I kid you not. . .

Anyone who has met me will tell you that I am one of the most macho people they've ever met. Machismo oozes out of my pores. I do enjoy carrying a 50+ pound pack, but I never try to convince other people to do so, 'cause if everyone did it, I wouldn't be so freakin' cool.

Anyway, they're very different trails, both enjoyable for different reasons. You may find in poking around that the PCT fits you better, particularly in regards to views and mileage per day. But you should heed Mags' warnings regarding running not necessarily translating well -- you may have done more 20 mile runs than you can count, but have you done more 20 mile runs in the mountains for more days in a row than you can count?

The current unassisted sopeed record is 71 days, 2 hours, and 41 minutes, unless Scott Williamson has beaten it by now (he was aiming for sub-66 days this year), so 90 days is doable. But as mentioned, Scott and Tattoo Joe (the speed record holders) were experienced thru-hikers before they set the record. Just so you know, they don't run the trail, either. They just walk. I suspect that Tattoo Joe might not actually be able to run.

There's plenty of info out there, particularly in journals. Good luck, and have a great hike, regardless of which trail you choose. I like them both.

Jester

PS -- A-Train had to learn to enjoy solitude 'cause nobody likes him.

[Mags]

I do enjoy carrying a 50+ pound pack, but I never try to convince other people to do so, 'cause if everyone did it, I wouldn't be so freakin' cool.

You obviously do not subscribe to the HIKE MY HIKE, DAMN IT! philosophy and think people can enjoy their hike their own way. Obviously a heretic.

Anyway, they're very different trails, both enjoyable for different reasons.

Ain't that the truth. I loved my times on all the trails.

When I went back to the southeast Appalachians this past February, I was reminded of just how beautiful those mountains can be. Not the grand sweep of the Sierra perhaps, but seeing moss covered trees in a tunnel of fog was eerily beautiful.

Good luck, and have a great hike, regardless of which trail you choose. I like them both.

In the end..Jester is correct (as usual..don't tell him I said that). Enjoy the hike above all else..no matter which trail you do and no matter how you decide to travel on the trail.

[neighbor dave]

the p.c.t.

[Rush13]

Rush:
But the truth is that overall I'd recommend the PCT. Maybe it was being 4 years older, a bit more mature and comfortable with myself and my abilities, but I felt more free on the PCT. The AT can be somewhat confining if you let it: shelters, hostels, groups of friends, etc lead me in a very group-oriented, herd mentality. The PCT had great people around, but hiking until dusk and setting up camp wherever felt empowering. I grew to look forward to the solitude more than the social aspect and felt as if there was greater potential for me to truly do my own thing, a less paint-by-numbers adventure.

More or less either trail is what you make of it. You can be solo-minded on both or enjoy friends, or a combination of the two.

Hike on, and enjoy every minute!

I'm def leaning towards the PCT, as I dont know when I'll have another opportunity to take such a tremendous amount of time out of my everyday life. I like the idea of being a bit freer on the PCT, less people, less confinement, basically less structure. I will most likely be hiking with 1 or 2 friends so I wont be going at it totally alone. One of the down sides I noticed with the AT is that certain parts seem to be restrictive of how much you hike each day because you are kind of confined by the distance between shelters.

AT is shorter, but generally the terrain is more difficult. The PCT trails are graded for horses in many areas and are generally in better shape. A 5 mo. hike on the AT will equate to a 4 mo. hike on the PCT.

IMO attempting to do either trail in 90 days (especially the PCT) without resupply help would be not only difficult, but would negate the entire purpose of thru hiking such beautiful country, unless you're strictly into it for the praise and accomplishment. I believe if you have the opportunity to thru hike you should enjoy it and try to set records elsewhere, but HYOH!

There are several books available about both trails. I bought the latest edition of the Pacific Crest Trail Atlas from Erik the Black and love it. It's worth considering if you decide to hike the PCT.

Enjoy your hike!

Thanks for all the info. I wouldn't say I'm in it for praise but part of my motivation is most certainly personal accomplishment. Another reason for the 90 day time frame is a fellow runner is contemplating joining myself and one of my friends but he is still in college. We would actually have about 100 day time frame but I was giving us a little wiggle room. Thats why I was curious on everybody's thoughts of how doable 90 days were.

That's the crux. A long day hike is doable by just about anyone. Doing it day after day is another story (with a pack) The year I hiked the PCT, Chuckie V (any triathletes will know this guy) was quite shocked how his professional athlete body was beat up by the day after day grind of hiking every day with a full pack. (He adjusted..it was just A LOT more difficult than he expected).


I did not realize you had done no backpacking.

Seriously, get yourself out there and commit to a longer hike to see how your body handles running vs, hiking.

I've seen marathon runners and triathletes in my own circle fade after just one day of backpacking. Different muscles. Different mindset. This article may be useful.



Would you say the views are better during the PCT?

More wide open for sure. The "long green tunnel" definitely has an intimate, more subtle beauty..but not many wide open views. The PCT has more of those overall.


Many walks said:

IMO attempting to do either trail in 90 days (especially the PCT) without resupply help would be not only difficult, but would negate the entire purpose of thru hiking such beautiful country, unless you're strictly into it for the praise and accomplishment.

For you perhaps.

Or, to put your philosopy and others more succinctly: Hike My Hike, Damn it!

But some people simply like to , and can, walk all day. Suge walked the PCT in about 90 days and called it "A Beautiful Thing".

As I like to say, just because you like chocolate ice cream, that does not mean vanilla ice cream sucks.

Thanks for all the great info once again Mags...you appear to be a wealth of knowledge. And yes I have done no backpacking, just love to hike and I thought why the hell not just go for months at a time haha. I also stumbled across that you did a little hiking through NH recently. I just recently did the Franconia Ridge myself, pretty nice view up there huh? Unfortunately it was really cloudy when I was at the top of Lafayette but it cleared up as I was walking across the top of the ridge (thank goodness)

[Dogwood]

Being from New Hampshire and hiking the PCT first means you will have to adapt to desert hiking real fast while crossing the Mojave Desert and elvations of 13.000 + ft in the Sierras as well as hiking a trail that is logistically more complicated than the AT. PCT really lends itself well to someone who has experience in resuppling, lightening their load, and being intimately familar with their gear and what gear is needed in different sections. You will also see more people on the AT, which is not ncessarily a bad thing, considering your new to long distance hiking. You will learn alot from those on the AT that will put you in that much better of a place should you consider a thru-hike of the PCT. Both trails are beautiful in their own right. What I can promise you is that no matter what trail you decide to hike after completing a thru-hike you will never be the same person again. Happy hiking!

[neighbor dave]

Being from New Hampshire and hiking the PCT first means you will have to adapt to desert hiking real fast while crossing the Mojave Desert and elvations of 13.000 + ft in the Sierras as well as hiking a trail that is logistically more complicated than the AT.

hey d'wood!!
i did it! twernt nuffin but adventure

[Mags]

I And yes I have done no backpacking, just love to hike and I thought why the hell not just go for months at a time haha.

Hey..that's not the worse reason and probably one of the better reasons to do any long trail.

Can't hurt to get some backpacking miles under those shoes. A little different than a day hike or a supported run. Plus it is lots of fun!



Good luck..and happy trails!