As someone who has led many high hazard outdoor trips for beginners, poor clothing choices from participants often ruin the day. The guide isn't trying to be elitist, he has likely experienced all of the following:
1) It starts to rain or gets windy and a client was not wearing appropriate clothes and gets very cold in a potentially dangerous situation.
2) A client has worn something extremely uncomfortable and chafes or does not have the freedom of motion to move around properly which ruins the day or slows it down.
3) The client damages their nice clothing and is annoyed.
Enforcing proper clothes for an outdoors trip is a cover-your-ass technique which is necessary when you have been guiding for long enough. I have sent people home because they have not followed the instructions and brought appropriate clothing.
Sure it's just a metaphor but it's extremely triggering for anyone who has been in the guide's situation and makes poor basis for an article on building.
I think posting a few pictures of what chafing looks like would clarify the danger: potentially large red burn typically in the groin area, will take weeks to fully heal and be very painful. Or maybe if the hiker really pushed through the pain, it's all that, plus bleeding...
Having one member of the hike, that may not be the lightest, needing to be carried for miles, or maybe hope you can get an helicopter ride...
So that leaves us with the following approximate advice, "Skip anything extra that's uncessary, unless it is actually necessary, and make sure to know the difference."
Ya, this is the scenario that I think is easy to conflate with the general advice wrt hiking or as a metaphor. It's your job as a guide to set the whole thing up appropriately, and if someone just disregards that it's going to be a liability, especially in a group setting. Everyone needs to respect that what they're in for could be quite demanding and risky.
The hike around the base of Mount Rainier is a multi-day endeavor. Since the author mentions a guide, I’d guess this is what they mean. It requires preparations like shipping supplies in advance- jeans would be a poor choice.
Author here... I edited "around the base" to "at the base." It was indeed a day hike. I originally said "around" as in "putzing around," not "circling around."
If you show up to my 140 km multi day trip in jeans you get left at the car and not permitted to come to another one. If it's a long day hike you get left at the car but a second chance. If it's a short day hike (but still worthy of a guide) you put on the spare pants in my car.
But jeans are terrible in the extreme situations that could happen while hiking, and can worsen the risk of hypothermia if you end up in such a situation, potentially causing death when you might otherwise have endured.
Thats why people tell you not to hike in jeans, you don't need 'special' pants, just 'not jeans (or any other pants made from similar wet-trapping materials)'.
There are pants that look like jeans and feel a little bit like them - athleisure - that probably don't have this limitation.
I had a pair. I wish I knew how to identify them because searching for athleisure jeans is turning up traditional jeans as well, including slim fit which would be worse. Maybe non-denim jeans.
Edit: I think the brand was Prana. Maybe they were denim, but "performance denim". Is all denim unwieldly in extreme situations? My jeans like this felt different, to where I might like them significantly more or significantly less based on what sort of pants I felt like wearing on a given day. They seemed a lot more like pants and less like jeans. https://www.prana.com/men/bottoms/denim.html?srsltid=AfmBOoq...
It's not that it's unwieldy, it's that cotton absorbs and holds onto water, so if you fall in water on a hike, or get soaked from a downpour, you're going to be stuck in cold, wet, pants.
It is, however, possible to coat the fibres with something to make them not do this, perhaps that's what the 'performance denim' did.
Basically, if you have a chance to be stuck far from indoors with soaked clothes, you want them to be made of a material that doesn't hold water as cotton and wool do, it's fairly easy to find nylon, acrylic or polyester pants.
I think they were thinner and lighter so they would probably absorb less water even if fully soaked. I think they prevented absorbing water with some kind of a coating too, though.
This is an optimization though, when you just get started, start with what you got. In situations where someone is just starting and doesn't have gear, AND it's actually an ambitious day, my only requirement is some kind of grippy shoes and a headlamp. Anything below an ambitious, unpredictable day, and you can probably just roll with basics. Couple hours is nbd and I do most days in jeans. Comfort is usually more important.
That said, definitely some situations I'd have preferred not to have jeans
People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. They are roughly equal.
So if you were really that concerned, you’d be wearing hiking pants everywhere, even when not hiking.
What? I’m a lot more likely to get cold and wet with no access to dry shelter 3 days into a 7 day thru hike in the Sierras than when I’m within a 15 minute walk of my car in the city.
Not GP, but hypothermia strikes more people in summer than winter. In winter, folks know to prepare for it. In summer, they wonder how they could possibly get hypothermia. Then a thunderstorm drenches them and washes out a bridge.
It doesn't even have to be that cold to die of hypothermia. Just cold enough that your body can't maintain above 82°F. If immobile, like due to injury, that can happen at 50°F. Quite possible in the mountains, esp with windchill.
Sure, there are a lot of ifs in that scenario. But it does happen. And it is usually easy enough to buy polypro pants.
The situation the author describes sounds like a summer day hike in subalpine terrain at Rainier. I’d do that in a cotton hoodie and jeans, and I recreate in that part of the cascades 12 months a year. Our forecasts are some of the best in the world, and even if they missed the solution to getting rained on in July on a day hike is to walk back to your car a little damp and disgruntled.
Your example actually makes his point almost exactly. The 7 day thru hike is akin to when hiring a data engineering team and investing super heavily makes sense, the day hike is when you’re chatting with users and figuring out the domain. The “wrong” tools are less consequential at the start and when the stakes are lower.
I’m not trying to respond to the article, overall I agree with the advice. just replying to this silly comment saying I’m more likely to need hiking pants in everyday life than when I’m on a hike, and that my estimation of risk of those activities and locations is off.
> People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. They are roughly equal.
They are roughly equal in absolute terms, say 0.000001% and 0.00001%, but not in relative terms (10x). These are made-up numbers, but I think they convey the idea behind the numbers accurately.
The reason for the wide disparity is not really about the situation. Our ancestors spent every day of their lives walking miles on rough unpaved trails in the wilderness. It's about experience. Most people, even fairly avid hikers, simply don't spent anywhere near as much time hiking as they spend doing other things.
Inexperience radically increases risk. Clear evidence for this is that every single high stakes profession places an extreme emphasis on training and practice.
If you're doing an activity that you aren't an expert at, it behooves you to increase your level of caution to compensate. If that activity happens to take place in a setting where consequences are more dire (in the wilderness, far from access to healthcare), then increase your level of caution to compensate for that too.
> So if you were really that concerned, you’d be wearing hiking pants everywhere, even when not hiking.
I mean, they do appear to be a Seattleite, so that wouldn't exactly be unusual around here...
Similarly, Kevin Kelly says "Buying tools? Start with buying the absolute cheapest tools you can find. Upgrade the ones that you use a lot. If you wind up using something as a tool for a job, buy the very best you can afford."
I'm currently in the process of deciding how cheap I want to buy a new tool.
I'm seriously considering buying an airbrush. I still have hundreds on unpainted miniatures lying around (mostly from a Reaper Bones kickstarter many years ago), and although I've had a few painting sessions and got some colour on some of them, there's too many of them to put a serious dent in them. But I keep reading how airbrushing can speed up the process while improving the quality. At least for primer and base coat, and once you're good and you get a really expensive airbrush, also for detail.
But even basic beginner airbrushes can cost $100 for just the airbrush, and another $100 or more for the compressor. But there are also airbrush sets with compressor included for just $25. Crap no doubt, but maybe good enough to try some basic priming? Using it might give me a better idea of what I want in an airbrush and tell me whether it's for me, or it might give me a bad experience and turn me off it completely when a more expensive one would have given me a much better experience. If I'm not sure, $25 is an easy decision to make, while $200 is serious commitment. But a bad experience for $25 might also discourage me from the better solution that would have worked for me.
A good compromise might be renting or reselling the more expensive version when you're done. I often forget about the ongoing costs of keeping a tool that I don't use all that frequently once the initial batch of work is done.
I've taken a similar approach to the literal problem. Look I've backpacked in Peru and Iceland and spent enough time mountain biking and hiking and stuff. I'm an adequate hiker.
There's probably not one sport where I haven't been shown up by someone in jeans or payless shoes.
Peru is a great example because when you are hiking the Inca trail to dead womans pass in all your fancy gear there are quite literally locals in jeans and payless shoes with a mattress on their back jogging past you.
I'm all for safety but the truth is there's a lot of "safety theater" with the pattagucci crowd. Signed: someone who doesn't wear jeans, just gets schooled frequently by those who do.
I didn't wear cleats until I was almost 14 playing baseball.. I just used tennis shoes.. some of my friends gave me a hard time about it. I could hit dingers all day so no big deal.
But you know what. I wore a helmet at every at bat. Did I really need it for every at bat?? No; But I had it.
There's a long list of dead people who went into the wilderness or hiking under prepared. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean the same outcome for others.. I know this is supposed to be a metaphor for when to buy and upgrade the tools you have. But safety should always come first.
Obviously your idea of safety coming first is based on your exact specifications, which are unclear and known only by yourself, which isn’t actually very useful
Know how many 9 year olds I’ve seen hit in the head with a baseball, while at bat? (Many. One kid on my sons team was hit in the head for four consecutive tournaments last fall.)
Always wear a helmet when you’ve got a bat in your hand.
Safety first doesn't mean "don't do anything unsafe," it has a broad meaning. With your interpretation I suppose it could mean if you're going to do something, be sure to consider your safety tradeoffs first.
I think “safety first” generally means that you should put safety first when you’re doing something but that I should consider the safety trade offs first when I’m doing something.
I agree with you completely. My country has an out-of-control safety culture that has many unintended effects. For example we are one of only a handful of countries on earth with a cycling helmet law. As a result, fewer people cycle and drivers take less care around cyclists. Lots of studies have shown that at a population level it's quite possible helmet laws have a negative impact on health and safety. I am currently travelling Japan and I have seen thousands of cyclists and not a single helmet (and very little in the way of dedicated cycling infrastructure). To my knowledge Japan doesn't have an epidemic of head injuries.
I've never experienced any deaths on hikes, but I have experienced folks suffering the initial stages of hypothermia (and not realizing it) when wearing jeans on a multi-day excursion when the weather went from dry and sunny to rainy, to icey-rain to sleet.
Unwaxed cotton absorbs water, stays wet, and shrinks when wet to make close contact with skin--three properties that one does not want when its wet and cold.
It seems to happen for most things online. It's probably many things about online discourse that make it so, but for hobbies it's probably because you have super passionate people, and people who are too busy being online to have actually done much of the thing, talking with identical authority on the topic. That leaves the median people drowned out, if they're online at all.
The incremental chances of dying from hiking in jeans are probably small, but those of having a bad time are non-negligible (and I say that as somebody who’s hiked quite a bit in jeans due to not knowing better). And why would you want to have a bad time?
It doesn’t need to be high tech activewear: Running shorts (weather permitting) can do just fine.
Getting into the weeds here, but being inexperienced in the outdoors and in running shorts vs jeans in North America could easily result in Lyme disease
The moral: know everything I do and be safe in the way I find acceptable
In my university days I climbed Mt Fuji at night for the sunrise in jeans, running shoes and a little tiny pen light. At the top there were people with small oxygen tanks (understandable, there are legitimate medical concerns for some). I'd do it differently today. :)
I'm ignoring the point of the article, but I'm currently in a country with a strong hiking culture. Everyone is decked out with every piece of hiking gear imaginable for a short trek up a hill (2 hour round trip?). It's a bit of a status thing. Well... maybe there is a connection to the article. Do we sometimes avoid simple tools in startups because of ego/status concerns?
But a gentler answer is that if you don't know what you need to do the hike, you ask around for best practices and probably end up following some that are overengineered.
The people like you during your hike, in my experience, fall into two groups. Either they've had so much experience that they know exactly what works and what doesn't work for the conditions or they kind of got lucky.
I wonder what reasons the guide gave for not wearing jeans. I don't wear them when hiking for several reasons because they are usually tighter than many other pants and this can lead to chaffing on long walks, especially so if they get damp or wet. Then, as others have mentioned, if they get waterlogged they take seemingly forever to dry out.
My usual remedy is to wear army BD cargo pants, they're roomy and comfortable (one's less prone to chaffing), they've big deep pockets so things don't get lost as easily and they're rugged and take a lot of rough treatment. Moreover, they're only a fraction of the cost of spoofy/fashionable hiking attire (or at least the ones I use are).
That said, these army BD pants are cotton and like jeans will hold water although for some reason they dry much quicker than jeans even though the fabric weight is similar. To overcome the water/dampness problem I also carry a spare pair of pants made of lightweight synthetic quick-drying fabric. These I roll up cylinder-like and put in a watertight plastic bag at the bottom on my pack (the fabric is so light and flexible they takes up very little space). I also do the same with a spare shirt/T-shirt.
There are many tips I could give those who are thinking of taking up hiking but I'll limit it to one—for safety's sake don't hike alone.
second hand army gear was always my goto for hikes and traveling in general. no need to verify whether the clothing was suitable, because, while there may be even better gear out there i can trust that army gear is most certainly not unsuitable. it's cheap and also already worn in so you avoid issues that you sometimes get with brand new clothing
Even if not optimal for every condition, army clothes are designed to be a pretty good all-round compromise, they have to be for obvious reasons so considerable thought goes into their design.
Incidentally, some years ago I bought between 40 and 50 pairs of army pants at a military/disposals auction, some were brand new the others in very good condition (they're of Vietnam vintage). At the time it wasn't my intention to buy them but they were bundled together on a pallet with what I actually wanted, namely 50V telephone exchange type power supplies—and I had to take the lot. Seems, as is so often the Army's wont, pants and power supplies begin with 'P' so 'logic?' dictated they should be auctioned together!
At the time I was a bit pissed off at being landed with dozens of pants that I didn't want to be seen dead in (having been drafted some years earlier and being forced to wear them). Anyway, my reticence eventually faded and I wore them for everything, fixing the car, hiking, etc., etc.
In the end it turned out to be a bargain purchase, a really good deal. I've now just about worn the lot out, perhaps there's a half dozen good pairs left. Now I wish I had more.
Reminds me of sailing. I learned to sail at scouting. Every Saturday in spring and summer, kids in heavy steel sailing boats, wearing jeans and blue scouting shirts. If it rained you put on your cheap AGU rain suit and a life jacket (always a life jacket when wearing a rain coat!).
Later, during my student days, I started seeing people sail in specialized sailing outfits with extra high pants that cost a couple of hundred bucks. I always thought that was completely unnecessary. I'm not made of sugar! I can take a bit of water, regular clothes are fine, no need for expensive, specialized gear. In fact, I developed a bit of a habit of sailing in seemingly unsuitable gear. Army boots to bare feet. It all works fine for me.
But here's the thing: at scouting, we only sailed for a couple of hours. If it rained all day, you would still be home dry in the evening. And we were young. You can take a lot of discomfort when you're young. But when you're sailing for a couple of days, maybe on larger bodies of water with higher waves, clothes that are guaranteed to keep you dry are really, really nice. And some people really do need flexible shoes with extra grip on deck.
Chances are, your first hike won't be under circumstances where it's dangerous to wear jeans or have the wrong gear. Also, the drawbacks of jeans can be experienced just going for a walk or being outdoors year-round.
I hiked in jeans or shorts until I was about 50. Today, I wear hiking pants instead of jeans for everyday life. The benefits are noticeable. They last a lot longer, don't take stains as easily (bike chain gunk), and being quick drying means I don't have to worry as much about getting wet when I'm out.
Don't go on a long dangerous hike as the first thing you ever do outdoors.
Being synthetic, they also release microplastics into our freshwater when you wash them. I do my mountainbike trailriding in jeans. Have never experienced much of a downside. Also, big plus: jeans look rad when you patch and mend and dirty them!
A pair of trail pants that lasts you 20 years compared to a pair of jeans that lasts 4 and has to be replaced 5 times is probably a net win for microplastics when you factor in the amount of plastic used when manufacturing and shipping both items.
I disagree: setting yourself up for a miserable experience might cause you to lose interest, in the case of hiking. Surely you have something else than a jeans? That's the single worst thing to wear for being active.
How would you know, though? Not jeans specifically, but there are countless gotchas with most hobbies, and for skill based hobbies you'll almost always be bad at it first.
That's essentially the advice here, get started instead of getting stuck researching and preparing.
I think preparing your mindset for setbacks and being open minded to learning from them is more practical than being overly prepared. Since you are new, you won't be able to account for all possible misery. Chalk off the easy preparation first then get out the door.
I like the spirit behind this metaphor a lot: Make do with what you have until you know you need something better. Aggressively reduce activation energy.
At the same time, I shy away from the specific metaphor they chose. Hiking pants are a safety feature. Cotton will get wet and cold and increase the risk of hypothermia if you get lost or stuck. They will waterlog and make it hard to swim if you fall in water.
When it comes to safety items, I err on the side of prepared-ness because you may not get a chance to do it better next time.
Exactly, lowest entry fee is the best, if you find you're into for more than new years resolution month, spend a bit more and have a nice winter. I usually rent skates and have only not purchased some because my leg alignment is slightly too wonky to do it enough.
Same goes for snowboarding or anything that has rentals, let the discovery process happen in the least committal way possible.
Jeans were almost invented for this kind of thing. I'll always cringe at the idea of wearing them wet though—
"Looking to provide its sailors with durable clothing that could be worn wet or dry, the navy began in the 16th century to equip sailors with Genoese-produced denim jeans, and in doing so became one of the driving forces behind the adoption of the clothing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_navy
I'm not even sure I needed to read the article, I agreed with title in terms of the specific application to hiking, and any other tenuous analogies one could come up with.
Want to start going to the gym? Do it in jeans until they're too uncomfortable, then buy something that helps you keep the momentum going.
How about running? Yep, jeans.
Swimming? Maybe not honestly.
Climbing/bouldering? Yep, although you might be looking for an alternative quickly.
I don't think gyms let you wear jeans. Something about friction with the seats or something.
That said, appropriate gym wear is readily available at Wal-Mart. T-shirts, sweats, cotton athletic shorts. Ladies are going to want a sports bra, and may wish for leggings which my wife picks up for $5 a pair at Old Navy all the time.
I forgot about that, and had this issue for a while, it varies, but now I just go to a gym that doesn't care. Otherwise ya some cheap shorts or whatever can be easy to come by.
But certain specialized tools (and knowledge of how to use them) like say AI, will make your job much easier.
Another example. We just remodeled our house. Workers with specialized tools and know how were able to get the job done much faster and with a better final product.
Lots of opposition to jeans here. I have plenty of synthetics and I've done some of the hardest trails. But honestly jeans are great in the fall in many places. Sure you don't want to be wet and lost in them. But that all depends on the hike, and that's the point of this article. When you're taking on hikes where you might find yourself wet and lost, start thinking about another solution. But you don't necessarily need another solution for baby steps.
By the way, I have been wearing darn tough socks for years and they are SO MUCH better than socks with cotton. Even soaking wet feet feel warm and dry.
They are merino wool, and they are better than even other "merino wool" socks.
I bought a pair 2 years ago. This morning I poked a hole through one when I was putting it on. I've already printed their lifetime warranty claim form and plan to see what their service is actually like. I have high expectations.
Preach! Three years ago I bulk-replaced every non-dress sock I own with Darn Toughs and haven't looked back. They hold up well too--even my thin & short lifting socks.
This might not be the best analogy. Wearing any other set of synthetic fabric pants you have or can quickly buy might be a good move for a hike. Likewise, you can run your marketing strategy by your friend with marketing experience before talking to a customer about it. The main thing is to not waste time. Don’t put that on hold for a week while they find time in their schedule. But some things are easy improvements. Do those immediately.
The author is blatantly wrong wrt "jeans and hiking", but otherwise firstly doing the "discount" version of a thing to learn the thing is the right approach.
> The author is blatantly wrong wrt "jeans and hiking", but otherwise firstly doing the "discount" version of a thing to learn the thing is the right approach.
Wildly disagree, but I suspect when they mention hiking, you get a specific idea or degree of what that means based on the type or terrain you regularly experience. While there are pieces of gear I wouldn't go into certain situations without, what those situations are and what that inventory looks like are pretty variable.
To anyone who'd like to try, jeans are fine, sometimes they're inadequate, sus out the trail and the conditions, don't let a lack of non-jeans prevent you from trying, but also proceed with sensible caution and learn to know your surroundings. DO NOT RELY ON GOOGLE MAPS EVER EVER, get something else or an actual map, and don't expect to have cell service.
If you have no fitness at all, start small (1-3hrs, flat or a few hundred meters of elevation gain), bring at least a liter of water, do it with someone or tell someone where you're going, go early during the summer. I'd advise that the most generally applicable requirement in terms of gear are shoes with grip of some kind (I use relatively inexpensive trailrunners, boots aren't as nimble but can be better depending on variables), then a basic headlamp unless you're in the north in summer, compass maybe, a lighter, and calories, everything else either depends on environment or other variables and you get a sense for it over time. A 20L day pack is helpful, but a regular backpack is just fine as well.
For pants, it's not rare for me to just bring breathable shorts from Lulu and normal Levi's jeans, switching between them as necessary, but sometimes just one or the other, and nearly always in a basic-ass cotton shirt that I just take off because I can't be bothered. The only people who mention my attire are the ones who never do it. Your mileage may vary.
Lastly, I personally never bring headphones, don't listen to anything, and keep the phone off or in low-power mode with GPS on. I'll check in at a halfway point if it's a long day, but when I'm in nature I'm in nature, and I'd recommend the same. It's empowering to learn to be capable in nature and with nothing but your own thoughts.
Edit: Mentioned by someone else, a guided adventure as an inexperienced outdoors person is not the time to deploy my advice, respect their requirements, they know more than you whether it is or isn't ultimately necessary. My advice applies outside that context, where you're not someone's else's liability. Read my advice as analogous to "you don't need cleats to play soccer, unless you're joining a team, especially as a noob, so get out there and kick a ball around"
Cotton is generally a great fabric if you sweat, because it wicks moisture and breathes. Denim started its life as workwear. However, if you're building up moisture too fast or you just get a bit wet from weather, and you have a lot of friction from walking, your thighs can get chafed to hell. I think it's odd that chafing wasn't mentioned once in the post.
I have had it happen before on a day trip in a very humid climate and it was awful. That doesn't mean I don't ever wear jeans.
As someone who has led many high hazard outdoor trips for beginners, poor clothing choices from participants often ruin the day. The guide isn't trying to be elitist, he has likely experienced all of the following:
1) It starts to rain or gets windy and a client was not wearing appropriate clothes and gets very cold in a potentially dangerous situation. 2) A client has worn something extremely uncomfortable and chafes or does not have the freedom of motion to move around properly which ruins the day or slows it down. 3) The client damages their nice clothing and is annoyed.
Enforcing proper clothes for an outdoors trip is a cover-your-ass technique which is necessary when you have been guiding for long enough. I have sent people home because they have not followed the instructions and brought appropriate clothing.
Sure it's just a metaphor but it's extremely triggering for anyone who has been in the guide's situation and makes poor basis for an article on building.
I think posting a few pictures of what chafing looks like would clarify the danger: potentially large red burn typically in the groin area, will take weeks to fully heal and be very painful. Or maybe if the hiker really pushed through the pain, it's all that, plus bleeding...
Having one member of the hike, that may not be the lightest, needing to be carried for miles, or maybe hope you can get an helicopter ride...
Don't hike for a day in jeans!
So that leaves us with the following approximate advice, "Skip anything extra that's uncessary, unless it is actually necessary, and make sure to know the difference."
Easy!
I would argue that knowing what is necessary and what isn't is the fundamental claim of engineering and isn't reducible to a pithy aphorism.
Ya, this is the scenario that I think is easy to conflate with the general advice wrt hiking or as a metaphor. It's your job as a guide to set the whole thing up appropriately, and if someone just disregards that it's going to be a liability, especially in a group setting. Everyone needs to respect that what they're in for could be quite demanding and risky.
For hiking? I can imagine this applying if you are climbing Everest. Not to taking a walk in the forest.
The hike around the base of Mount Rainier is a multi-day endeavor. Since the author mentions a guide, I’d guess this is what they mean. It requires preparations like shipping supplies in advance- jeans would be a poor choice.
https://www.alltrails.com/trail/us/washington/the-wonderland...
Author here... I edited "around the base" to "at the base." It was indeed a day hike. I originally said "around" as in "putzing around," not "circling around."
Understood! Then yeah, jeans are probably fine.
If you show up to my 140 km multi day trip in jeans you get left at the car and not permitted to come to another one. If it's a long day hike you get left at the car but a second chance. If it's a short day hike (but still worthy of a guide) you put on the spare pants in my car.
But jeans are terrible in the extreme situations that could happen while hiking, and can worsen the risk of hypothermia if you end up in such a situation, potentially causing death when you might otherwise have endured.
Thats why people tell you not to hike in jeans, you don't need 'special' pants, just 'not jeans (or any other pants made from similar wet-trapping materials)'.
There are pants that look like jeans and feel a little bit like them - athleisure - that probably don't have this limitation.
I had a pair. I wish I knew how to identify them because searching for athleisure jeans is turning up traditional jeans as well, including slim fit which would be worse. Maybe non-denim jeans.
Edit: I think the brand was Prana. Maybe they were denim, but "performance denim". Is all denim unwieldly in extreme situations? My jeans like this felt different, to where I might like them significantly more or significantly less based on what sort of pants I felt like wearing on a given day. They seemed a lot more like pants and less like jeans. https://www.prana.com/men/bottoms/denim.html?srsltid=AfmBOoq...
It's not that it's unwieldy, it's that cotton absorbs and holds onto water, so if you fall in water on a hike, or get soaked from a downpour, you're going to be stuck in cold, wet, pants.
It is, however, possible to coat the fibres with something to make them not do this, perhaps that's what the 'performance denim' did.
Basically, if you have a chance to be stuck far from indoors with soaked clothes, you want them to be made of a material that doesn't hold water as cotton and wool do, it's fairly easy to find nylon, acrylic or polyester pants.
I think they were thinner and lighter so they would probably absorb less water even if fully soaked. I think they prevented absorbing water with some kind of a coating too, though.
Maybe the Prana Brion pants? They look and feel like athleisure to me, and I wear them for hiking or under my ski gear.
They were in a blue jean style, with gold stitches. This was a few years ago. Maybe they were cotton jeans.
This is an optimization though, when you just get started, start with what you got. In situations where someone is just starting and doesn't have gear, AND it's actually an ambitious day, my only requirement is some kind of grippy shoes and a headlamp. Anything below an ambitious, unpredictable day, and you can probably just roll with basics. Couple hours is nbd and I do most days in jeans. Comfort is usually more important.
That said, definitely some situations I'd have preferred not to have jeans
People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. They are roughly equal.
So if you were really that concerned, you’d be wearing hiking pants everywhere, even when not hiking.
What? I’m a lot more likely to get cold and wet with no access to dry shelter 3 days into a 7 day thru hike in the Sierras than when I’m within a 15 minute walk of my car in the city.
sure, but the "do it first" hikes probably shouldn't be 7 day hikes through a mountain range.
Not GP, but hypothermia strikes more people in summer than winter. In winter, folks know to prepare for it. In summer, they wonder how they could possibly get hypothermia. Then a thunderstorm drenches them and washes out a bridge.
It doesn't even have to be that cold to die of hypothermia. Just cold enough that your body can't maintain above 82°F. If immobile, like due to injury, that can happen at 50°F. Quite possible in the mountains, esp with windchill.
Sure, there are a lot of ifs in that scenario. But it does happen. And it is usually easy enough to buy polypro pants.
In the situation you describe you’re dead even with the right pants
The situation the author describes sounds like a summer day hike in subalpine terrain at Rainier. I’d do that in a cotton hoodie and jeans, and I recreate in that part of the cascades 12 months a year. Our forecasts are some of the best in the world, and even if they missed the solution to getting rained on in July on a day hike is to walk back to your car a little damp and disgruntled.
Your example actually makes his point almost exactly. The 7 day thru hike is akin to when hiring a data engineering team and investing super heavily makes sense, the day hike is when you’re chatting with users and figuring out the domain. The “wrong” tools are less consequential at the start and when the stakes are lower.
I’m not trying to respond to the article, overall I agree with the advice. just replying to this silly comment saying I’m more likely to need hiking pants in everyday life than when I’m on a hike, and that my estimation of risk of those activities and locations is off.
or in London.
> People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. They are roughly equal.
They are roughly equal in absolute terms, say 0.000001% and 0.00001%, but not in relative terms (10x). These are made-up numbers, but I think they convey the idea behind the numbers accurately.
The reason for the wide disparity is not really about the situation. Our ancestors spent every day of their lives walking miles on rough unpaved trails in the wilderness. It's about experience. Most people, even fairly avid hikers, simply don't spent anywhere near as much time hiking as they spend doing other things.
Inexperience radically increases risk. Clear evidence for this is that every single high stakes profession places an extreme emphasis on training and practice.
If you're doing an activity that you aren't an expert at, it behooves you to increase your level of caution to compensate. If that activity happens to take place in a setting where consequences are more dire (in the wilderness, far from access to healthcare), then increase your level of caution to compensate for that too.
> So if you were really that concerned, you’d be wearing hiking pants everywhere, even when not hiking.
I mean, they do appear to be a Seattleite, so that wouldn't exactly be unusual around here...
Similarly, Kevin Kelly says "Buying tools? Start with buying the absolute cheapest tools you can find. Upgrade the ones that you use a lot. If you wind up using something as a tool for a job, buy the very best you can afford."
https://www.neil.blog/full-speech-transcript/68-bits-of-unso...
I'm currently in the process of deciding how cheap I want to buy a new tool.
I'm seriously considering buying an airbrush. I still have hundreds on unpainted miniatures lying around (mostly from a Reaper Bones kickstarter many years ago), and although I've had a few painting sessions and got some colour on some of them, there's too many of them to put a serious dent in them. But I keep reading how airbrushing can speed up the process while improving the quality. At least for primer and base coat, and once you're good and you get a really expensive airbrush, also for detail.
But even basic beginner airbrushes can cost $100 for just the airbrush, and another $100 or more for the compressor. But there are also airbrush sets with compressor included for just $25. Crap no doubt, but maybe good enough to try some basic priming? Using it might give me a better idea of what I want in an airbrush and tell me whether it's for me, or it might give me a bad experience and turn me off it completely when a more expensive one would have given me a much better experience. If I'm not sure, $25 is an easy decision to make, while $200 is serious commitment. But a bad experience for $25 might also discourage me from the better solution that would have worked for me.
A good compromise might be renting or reselling the more expensive version when you're done. I often forget about the ongoing costs of keeping a tool that I don't use all that frequently once the initial batch of work is done.
I've taken a similar approach to the literal problem. Look I've backpacked in Peru and Iceland and spent enough time mountain biking and hiking and stuff. I'm an adequate hiker.
There's probably not one sport where I haven't been shown up by someone in jeans or payless shoes.
Peru is a great example because when you are hiking the Inca trail to dead womans pass in all your fancy gear there are quite literally locals in jeans and payless shoes with a mattress on their back jogging past you.
I'm all for safety but the truth is there's a lot of "safety theater" with the pattagucci crowd. Signed: someone who doesn't wear jeans, just gets schooled frequently by those who do.
I didn't wear cleats until I was almost 14 playing baseball.. I just used tennis shoes.. some of my friends gave me a hard time about it. I could hit dingers all day so no big deal.
But you know what. I wore a helmet at every at bat. Did I really need it for every at bat?? No; But I had it.
There's a long list of dead people who went into the wilderness or hiking under prepared. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean the same outcome for others.. I know this is supposed to be a metaphor for when to buy and upgrade the tools you have. But safety should always come first.
Obviously your idea of safety coming first is based on your exact specifications, which are unclear and known only by yourself, which isn’t actually very useful
Know how many 9 year olds I’ve seen hit in the head with a baseball, while at bat? (Many. One kid on my sons team was hit in the head for four consecutive tournaments last fall.)
Always wear a helmet when you’ve got a bat in your hand.
But how many people died even though they had the ‘right’ gear?
> But safety should always come first.
No it shouldn’t.
Safety is almost always a trade off of real (or perceived) risk and reward.
If safety came first, you’d never swim, hike, or drive a car.
Safety first doesn't mean "don't do anything unsafe," it has a broad meaning. With your interpretation I suppose it could mean if you're going to do something, be sure to consider your safety tradeoffs first.
I think “safety first” generally means that you should put safety first when you’re doing something but that I should consider the safety trade offs first when I’m doing something.
Used to raid 25 man World of Warcraft dungeons with a Death Knight tank. His slogan was: "Safety first, then teamwork." That really stuck with me.
From the pilot's world: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate
I agree with you completely. My country has an out-of-control safety culture that has many unintended effects. For example we are one of only a handful of countries on earth with a cycling helmet law. As a result, fewer people cycle and drivers take less care around cyclists. Lots of studies have shown that at a population level it's quite possible helmet laws have a negative impact on health and safety. I am currently travelling Japan and I have seen thousands of cyclists and not a single helmet (and very little in the way of dedicated cycling infrastructure). To my knowledge Japan doesn't have an epidemic of head injuries.
Soccer players would benefit from wearing helmets though, but they don’t.
Sorry can you explain the situation where jeans lead to the death of a hiker? I don't buy it.
I've never experienced any deaths on hikes, but I have experienced folks suffering the initial stages of hypothermia (and not realizing it) when wearing jeans on a multi-day excursion when the weather went from dry and sunny to rainy, to icey-rain to sleet.
Unwaxed cotton absorbs water, stays wet, and shrinks when wet to make close contact with skin--three properties that one does not want when its wet and cold.
So taking your pants off would work? Seems superior to wet clingy cold pants anyway.
In the cold?
Why does it seem like everyone on the internet is an extreme safety ranger nowadays?
Everything you do must follow the exact best practices and maximum safety protocols
Someone in this very thread is saying OP could die from wearing jeans hiking
Its honestly ridiculous the exaggeration that goes on in internet hobby forums
And the risk acceptance is arbitrary anyway
You can argue that wearing jeans hiking is taking a risk
Then I can 1-up and ask why don't you wear a full 1-piece high-vis yellow suit and wear a helmet at all times whenever you leave your house?
You could get hit by a car?
Why would you take that risk?
It seems to happen for most things online. It's probably many things about online discourse that make it so, but for hobbies it's probably because you have super passionate people, and people who are too busy being online to have actually done much of the thing, talking with identical authority on the topic. That leaves the median people drowned out, if they're online at all.
The incremental chances of dying from hiking in jeans are probably small, but those of having a bad time are non-negligible (and I say that as somebody who’s hiked quite a bit in jeans due to not knowing better). And why would you want to have a bad time?
It doesn’t need to be high tech activewear: Running shorts (weather permitting) can do just fine.
Getting into the weeds here, but being inexperienced in the outdoors and in running shorts vs jeans in North America could easily result in Lyme disease
The moral: know everything I do and be safe in the way I find acceptable
What makes you think it's limited to the internet?
In my university days I climbed Mt Fuji at night for the sunrise in jeans, running shoes and a little tiny pen light. At the top there were people with small oxygen tanks (understandable, there are legitimate medical concerns for some). I'd do it differently today. :)
I'm ignoring the point of the article, but I'm currently in a country with a strong hiking culture. Everyone is decked out with every piece of hiking gear imaginable for a short trek up a hill (2 hour round trip?). It's a bit of a status thing. Well... maybe there is a connection to the article. Do we sometimes avoid simple tools in startups because of ego/status concerns?
I think you are right.
But a gentler answer is that if you don't know what you need to do the hike, you ask around for best practices and probably end up following some that are overengineered.
The people like you during your hike, in my experience, fall into two groups. Either they've had so much experience that they know exactly what works and what doesn't work for the conditions or they kind of got lucky.
Thank you for the gentler perspective, and I do think it plays a role.
I wonder what reasons the guide gave for not wearing jeans. I don't wear them when hiking for several reasons because they are usually tighter than many other pants and this can lead to chaffing on long walks, especially so if they get damp or wet. Then, as others have mentioned, if they get waterlogged they take seemingly forever to dry out.
My usual remedy is to wear army BD cargo pants, they're roomy and comfortable (one's less prone to chaffing), they've big deep pockets so things don't get lost as easily and they're rugged and take a lot of rough treatment. Moreover, they're only a fraction of the cost of spoofy/fashionable hiking attire (or at least the ones I use are).
That said, these army BD pants are cotton and like jeans will hold water although for some reason they dry much quicker than jeans even though the fabric weight is similar. To overcome the water/dampness problem I also carry a spare pair of pants made of lightweight synthetic quick-drying fabric. These I roll up cylinder-like and put in a watertight plastic bag at the bottom on my pack (the fabric is so light and flexible they takes up very little space). I also do the same with a spare shirt/T-shirt.
There are many tips I could give those who are thinking of taking up hiking but I'll limit it to one—for safety's sake don't hike alone.
second hand army gear was always my goto for hikes and traveling in general. no need to verify whether the clothing was suitable, because, while there may be even better gear out there i can trust that army gear is most certainly not unsuitable. it's cheap and also already worn in so you avoid issues that you sometimes get with brand new clothing
Even if not optimal for every condition, army clothes are designed to be a pretty good all-round compromise, they have to be for obvious reasons so considerable thought goes into their design.
Incidentally, some years ago I bought between 40 and 50 pairs of army pants at a military/disposals auction, some were brand new the others in very good condition (they're of Vietnam vintage). At the time it wasn't my intention to buy them but they were bundled together on a pallet with what I actually wanted, namely 50V telephone exchange type power supplies—and I had to take the lot. Seems, as is so often the Army's wont, pants and power supplies begin with 'P' so 'logic?' dictated they should be auctioned together!
At the time I was a bit pissed off at being landed with dozens of pants that I didn't want to be seen dead in (having been drafted some years earlier and being forced to wear them). Anyway, my reticence eventually faded and I wore them for everything, fixing the car, hiking, etc., etc.
In the end it turned out to be a bargain purchase, a really good deal. I've now just about worn the lot out, perhaps there's a half dozen good pairs left. Now I wish I had more.
“I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes” - Thoreau
Thoreau was a phony who’s mom washed his clothes
Reminds me of sailing. I learned to sail at scouting. Every Saturday in spring and summer, kids in heavy steel sailing boats, wearing jeans and blue scouting shirts. If it rained you put on your cheap AGU rain suit and a life jacket (always a life jacket when wearing a rain coat!).
Later, during my student days, I started seeing people sail in specialized sailing outfits with extra high pants that cost a couple of hundred bucks. I always thought that was completely unnecessary. I'm not made of sugar! I can take a bit of water, regular clothes are fine, no need for expensive, specialized gear. In fact, I developed a bit of a habit of sailing in seemingly unsuitable gear. Army boots to bare feet. It all works fine for me.
But here's the thing: at scouting, we only sailed for a couple of hours. If it rained all day, you would still be home dry in the evening. And we were young. You can take a lot of discomfort when you're young. But when you're sailing for a couple of days, maybe on larger bodies of water with higher waves, clothes that are guaranteed to keep you dry are really, really nice. And some people really do need flexible shoes with extra grip on deck.
Chances are, your first hike won't be under circumstances where it's dangerous to wear jeans or have the wrong gear. Also, the drawbacks of jeans can be experienced just going for a walk or being outdoors year-round.
I hiked in jeans or shorts until I was about 50. Today, I wear hiking pants instead of jeans for everyday life. The benefits are noticeable. They last a lot longer, don't take stains as easily (bike chain gunk), and being quick drying means I don't have to worry as much about getting wet when I'm out.
Don't go on a long dangerous hike as the first thing you ever do outdoors.
Being synthetic, they also release microplastics into our freshwater when you wash them. I do my mountainbike trailriding in jeans. Have never experienced much of a downside. Also, big plus: jeans look rad when you patch and mend and dirty them!
A pair of trail pants that lasts you 20 years compared to a pair of jeans that lasts 4 and has to be replaced 5 times is probably a net win for microplastics when you factor in the amount of plastic used when manufacturing and shipping both items.
And whatever goes into stretch denim, which I can't stand.
Elastane. And yeah, it's kinda garbage, wears out and results in the fabric ripping.
They last a lot longer? What hiking pants do you use?
So far, just basic REI and LLBean store brand. Non stretch fabrics -- I'm too old to look good in tight pants.
I disagree: setting yourself up for a miserable experience might cause you to lose interest, in the case of hiking. Surely you have something else than a jeans? That's the single worst thing to wear for being active.
How would you know, though? Not jeans specifically, but there are countless gotchas with most hobbies, and for skill based hobbies you'll almost always be bad at it first.
That's essentially the advice here, get started instead of getting stuck researching and preparing.
I think preparing your mindset for setbacks and being open minded to learning from them is more practical than being overly prepared. Since you are new, you won't be able to account for all possible misery. Chalk off the easy preparation first then get out the door.
I like the spirit behind this metaphor a lot: Make do with what you have until you know you need something better. Aggressively reduce activation energy.
At the same time, I shy away from the specific metaphor they chose. Hiking pants are a safety feature. Cotton will get wet and cold and increase the risk of hypothermia if you get lost or stuck. They will waterlog and make it hard to swim if you fall in water.
When it comes to safety items, I err on the side of prepared-ness because you may not get a chance to do it better next time.
doing the same thing right now - learning to skate.
I got a cheap pair of skates from goodwill, well on my way into week 2 now.
Once I know I got the chops down, I'm gonna go buy a nicer pair - but until then, can't beat a pair of $10 skates!
Exactly, lowest entry fee is the best, if you find you're into for more than new years resolution month, spend a bit more and have a nice winter. I usually rent skates and have only not purchased some because my leg alignment is slightly too wonky to do it enough.
Same goes for snowboarding or anything that has rentals, let the discovery process happen in the least committal way possible.
Nothing improves skating more than getting them sharpened if you haven't already.
Jeans were almost invented for this kind of thing. I'll always cringe at the idea of wearing them wet though—
"Looking to provide its sailors with durable clothing that could be worn wet or dry, the navy began in the 16th century to equip sailors with Genoese-produced denim jeans, and in doing so became one of the driving forces behind the adoption of the clothing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_navy
well, it was better than chainmail...
I'm not even sure I needed to read the article, I agreed with title in terms of the specific application to hiking, and any other tenuous analogies one could come up with.
Want to start going to the gym? Do it in jeans until they're too uncomfortable, then buy something that helps you keep the momentum going.
How about running? Yep, jeans.
Swimming? Maybe not honestly.
Climbing/bouldering? Yep, although you might be looking for an alternative quickly.
Climbing works great in jeans if they are a bit stretchy. Especially good for knee bars - almost as good as a knee pad and 1100% more stylish
Agreed, a lack of a bit of stretch is the only limiting factor for my jeans, otherwise I might prefer them
I don't think gyms let you wear jeans. Something about friction with the seats or something.
That said, appropriate gym wear is readily available at Wal-Mart. T-shirts, sweats, cotton athletic shorts. Ladies are going to want a sports bra, and may wish for leggings which my wife picks up for $5 a pair at Old Navy all the time.
I forgot about that, and had this issue for a while, it varies, but now I just go to a gym that doesn't care. Otherwise ya some cheap shorts or whatever can be easy to come by.
I bike in jeans all the time...
But certain specialized tools (and knowledge of how to use them) like say AI, will make your job much easier.
Another example. We just remodeled our house. Workers with specialized tools and know how were able to get the job done much faster and with a better final product.
Lots of opposition to jeans here. I have plenty of synthetics and I've done some of the hardest trails. But honestly jeans are great in the fall in many places. Sure you don't want to be wet and lost in them. But that all depends on the hike, and that's the point of this article. When you're taking on hikes where you might find yourself wet and lost, start thinking about another solution. But you don't necessarily need another solution for baby steps.
Aka “let’s do it all in Excel”
This is an impressively high sick-burns-to-words ratio, well done!
“I don't need to make an LLC” also pings way too hard here.
I mean… yeah? Why wouldn't you do it all in Excel first?
> Do It in Jeans First
... then learn from your experience.
By the way, I have been wearing darn tough socks for years and they are SO MUCH better than socks with cotton. Even soaking wet feet feel warm and dry.
They are merino wool, and they are better than even other "merino wool" socks.
I bought a pair 2 years ago. This morning I poked a hole through one when I was putting it on. I've already printed their lifetime warranty claim form and plan to see what their service is actually like. I have high expectations.
Preach! Three years ago I bulk-replaced every non-dress sock I own with Darn Toughs and haven't looked back. They hold up well too--even my thin & short lifting socks.
This might not be the best analogy. Wearing any other set of synthetic fabric pants you have or can quickly buy might be a good move for a hike. Likewise, you can run your marketing strategy by your friend with marketing experience before talking to a customer about it. The main thing is to not waste time. Don’t put that on hold for a week while they find time in their schedule. But some things are easy improvements. Do those immediately.
The author is blatantly wrong wrt "jeans and hiking", but otherwise firstly doing the "discount" version of a thing to learn the thing is the right approach.
Specifically to product usability, as much as Jakob Nielsen is an iconoclast in certain circles, his Discount Usability Engineering principles are timeless: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/web-discount-usability/
> The author is blatantly wrong wrt "jeans and hiking", but otherwise firstly doing the "discount" version of a thing to learn the thing is the right approach.
Wildly disagree, but I suspect when they mention hiking, you get a specific idea or degree of what that means based on the type or terrain you regularly experience. While there are pieces of gear I wouldn't go into certain situations without, what those situations are and what that inventory looks like are pretty variable.
To anyone who'd like to try, jeans are fine, sometimes they're inadequate, sus out the trail and the conditions, don't let a lack of non-jeans prevent you from trying, but also proceed with sensible caution and learn to know your surroundings. DO NOT RELY ON GOOGLE MAPS EVER EVER, get something else or an actual map, and don't expect to have cell service.
If you have no fitness at all, start small (1-3hrs, flat or a few hundred meters of elevation gain), bring at least a liter of water, do it with someone or tell someone where you're going, go early during the summer. I'd advise that the most generally applicable requirement in terms of gear are shoes with grip of some kind (I use relatively inexpensive trailrunners, boots aren't as nimble but can be better depending on variables), then a basic headlamp unless you're in the north in summer, compass maybe, a lighter, and calories, everything else either depends on environment or other variables and you get a sense for it over time. A 20L day pack is helpful, but a regular backpack is just fine as well.
For pants, it's not rare for me to just bring breathable shorts from Lulu and normal Levi's jeans, switching between them as necessary, but sometimes just one or the other, and nearly always in a basic-ass cotton shirt that I just take off because I can't be bothered. The only people who mention my attire are the ones who never do it. Your mileage may vary.
Lastly, I personally never bring headphones, don't listen to anything, and keep the phone off or in low-power mode with GPS on. I'll check in at a halfway point if it's a long day, but when I'm in nature I'm in nature, and I'd recommend the same. It's empowering to learn to be capable in nature and with nothing but your own thoughts.
Edit: Mentioned by someone else, a guided adventure as an inexperienced outdoors person is not the time to deploy my advice, respect their requirements, they know more than you whether it is or isn't ultimately necessary. My advice applies outside that context, where you're not someone's else's liability. Read my advice as analogous to "you don't need cleats to play soccer, unless you're joining a team, especially as a noob, so get out there and kick a ball around"
I would hate to hike in jeans. I'd be way too hot. Ick.
Yes, and you know that from experience.
I sweat a lot and hiking with jeans would feel disgusting.
So why would you ever wear them?
Cotton is generally a great fabric if you sweat, because it wicks moisture and breathes. Denim started its life as workwear. However, if you're building up moisture too fast or you just get a bit wet from weather, and you have a lot of friction from walking, your thighs can get chafed to hell. I think it's odd that chafing wasn't mentioned once in the post.
I have had it happen before on a day trip in a very humid climate and it was awful. That doesn't mean I don't ever wear jeans.
[dead]
[dead]