HikeArizona.COM

You're working your way up a flaking shelf with hints of large pieces looking to take their plunge... or worse, you're walking under a brittle overhang, looking at the large volume of jumbled rock scattered all around... Do you ignore the potentials, thinking that the chances of you happening to be standing in the wrong spot at the wrong time just make too little sense, thinking in Geologic timeframes... or... do you tend to move faster, scuttling on out and away from any potential crashing and crushing? I've found myself taking both perspectives, but of late, I tend to walk more outside the fall line. Sign of aging?

imike wrote:Sign of aging?

Yes, and the ridiculous, sky rocketing costs of our health care which make me think twice about riskyness! :bdh:

I do scuttle. I love geology, but know not enough about it.

Botany, too: There is a particular very dead, very large leaning Ponderosa Pine trunk on the South Fork Trail near here. It leans right over the trail at a pretty scary angle. I recollect taking the photo of a backpacker standing under it, pretending it was actually falling. We did a posed photo of her looking up at the falling tree, as if in shock and terror. That photo was taken in 2001. Last time I walked by it, it was still standing, or rather, leaning, at the same angle. I still scuttle when I walk by it!

When it comes to dismantling a mountain, geologic time isn't all that slower than human time. One thing that always gets me in alpine areas is laying in my tent at night, listening to the rocks fall. It's enough to make me consider potential rockfalls in site selection.

I have a deeper appreciation of rock falls after this episode:

http://www.arizonahikers.com/forum/modu ... _album.php

Another time, in the Wind Rivers, as the morning sun warmed the granite mountain near camp, we could hear the rock falls but didn't see them, because they were a ways a way and the rocks had stopped by the time we heard them.

One of my geology professors has a story about a friend of his who was backpacking in Canyon de Chelly about 10 years ago with her boyfriend. While she was sleeping next to him in the tent that night, a boulder dislodged from a canyon wall, fell on their tent, killing the boyfriend but sparing her life. Talk about freaky.

hippiepunkpirate wrote:a boulder dislodged from a canyon wall, fell on their tent, killing the boyfriend but sparing her life. Talk about freaky.

Crazy!

Okay... maybe I'll start walking even a wider loop from these imposing overhangs!

South Fork leaning tree:

A valley fire fighter was killed while camping just recently when a tree fell on him, his buddy was spared.

That thing has been like that for at least a decade. I can't wait to see how this winter has affected it! (Well, there is only one place for it to go, right?) I would go up there in the next few days just to have a look, but that trail gets very muddy at this time of year.

A slightly different "aging" issue: at what age does our hiking performance really have to begin diminishing? In the book, Younger Next Year, they imply an interesting aging curve wherein you can continue to improve for ten to fifteen years beyond age 50... and then plateau and hold level for another ten plus years after that. Given the body's propensity to respond to demand, and the lack thereof, it would suggest that our earlier declines might be self induced... we do less (demand less) and the body gives us less.

Last year a 77 year old scaled Everest... the potential in all of us? Even after a very poor 2010/2011, I feel as if I could, with motivation, still out perform any of my prior year's efforts. I'm about to begin my 63rd year. I could be wrong, but I think that potential suggested in YNY is correct. It is a very interesting theory to put to the test.

A 100-year-old guy finished a marathon recently, according to a newsmagazine I read.

imike wrote:A slightly different "aging" issue: at what age does our hiking performance really have to begin diminishing?

Unfortunately, there is some good data on this topic pertaining to distance runners. Staying in shape helps, but there is definitely an ever-lowering ceiling. Regarding azbackpackr's comments, it's worth noting that very few of the age-group record holders were elite runners in their youth, and the oldest record holders started running competitively latest in life. The data shows a fairly limited competitive span, regardless of when one starts, which does not seem capable of being prolonged.

Yeah, that 100-year-old didn't even start running until he was 89! At least, that is what the article said.

Hiking is a lower-impact activity than running, and I think that although you may have to slow down and take it a bit easier as you age, I don't think you are going to have the kinds of injuries that runners get. My knees bug me, but I keep at it, and I find it actually helps to be more fit than less fit. If I sit around for a couple of weeks, then it takes quite a few hikes before my knees start to feel less achy. The knees worry me, since I want to keep doing this until I'm 90 or so, and hike a lot more of the Canyon, and the Sierras, etc. Being a sedentary student, as I am some of the time, really does not help the situation.

I have hiked with a lot of 70+ year-old hikers over the years. Some actually had knee or hip replacements. The best hikers at that age seem to be these scrawny little guys and gals with no body fat and not much upper body development. And "little." A lot of the hikers who make it to 80 and older, still hiking, seem to be on the short side. That's just an anecdotal observation, though.

I wish I could lose about 20 pounds of flab, but it doesn't want to leave. I am short, so maybe I can get scrawny one of these days.