Correct ascent figure ?

[maxie23]

Just a little query.
What is the proper ascent figure to enter on a walk.
My Garmin gives me a lowest and highest point on a walk. Should I just subtract the lower figure from the higher one and enter this.

It also gives me a total ascent and total descent figure, which should be the same number if you are staring and finishing at the same place, within a few metres. Should I enter the ascent number from this, which is usually a larger number than the first total, unless you go straight up to one top and straight back down again the same way.

Doing more than one top obviously covers a lot more ascent distance than simply a difference in height between highest and lowest points.

Any thoughts ?

[al78]

Subtracting lowest from highest will underestimate the total ascent in some cases. If you are going over secondary tops on your way to the true summit, those extra ups and downs all count, and your legs have to carry you up and over them. What you want is the cumulative ascent which is a better representation of the work required against gravity to reach a summit.

For example, if you start at the Caiorngorm ski center, climb Cairn Gorm, Cairn Lochan, Ben Macdui then go on to Carn a Mhaim, then decide to come back over Ben Macdui to get back to the ski centre, your total ascent will be much larger than your highest (Ben Macdui) - lowest (Ski centre) point.

[JohnSound]

Total ascent number. It gives a better indication as to what the walk was like, how difficult it may have been, and how long it might take someone to do the same walk given their own fitness and capabilities. Particularly if your walk included at least two tops - a really high ascent number suggests a significant descent and reascent between tops.

[maxie23]

Total ascent number. It gives a better indication as to what the walk was like, how difficult it may have been, and how long it might take someone to do the same walk given their own fitness and capabilities. Particularly if your walk included at least two tops - a really high ascent number suggests a significant descent and reascent between tops.

Subtracting lowest from highest will underestimate the total ascent in some cases. If you are going over secondary tops on your way to the true summit, those extra ups and downs all count, and your legs have to carry you up and over them. What you want is the cumulative ascent which is a better representation of the work required against gravity to reach a summit.

For example, if you start at the Caiorngorm ski center, climb Cairn Gorm, Cairn Lochan, Ben Macdui then go on to Carn a Mhaim, then decide to come back over Ben Macdui to get back to the ski centre, your total ascent will be much larger than your highest (Ben Macdui) - lowest (Ski centre) point.

Thanks al78 and JohnSound.

I agree with your points of view, total ascent reflects the effort involved and energy expended