Two men are trying to become the first person to cross Antarctica alone | Hacker News Reader

Two men are trying to become the first person to cross Antarctica alone

nytimes.com

118 pointssergeant379 comments

Colin Obrady is a close friend of mine. I was visiting him in march of last year when he told me he was considering this journey (The other trip he was considering was a solo unassisted row across the entire pacific ocean).

As someone who has been paying close to attention to this trek, along with quickly chatting with him right before he left, I had no idea that another person would be attempting the crossing at the same time until I read this article. Definitely a interesting plot twist, but hoping for a safe journey for both these courageous athletes.

The closest I've ever come to getting a glimpse of what these two are going through is a 1100 mile trek through the Appalachian mountains one winter. It was fun, but I don't think I ever want to do that again. When the temperature drops below about 0* F, there are only two things you can do: Move, or get in your sleeping bag. After a couple months of 14 hours a day alone in the frigid darkness, you start to lose your sanity a little bit. You start to forget what your body looks like. And when you do get a chance to check yourself when you cross civilization, you look almost unrecognizable from the weight loss.

And this is all in the continental United States, a few hours from civilization. It's almost incomprehensible to me to do what these two are doing.

Hiking and camping in cold weather can be an extremely effective weight loss strategy. If done with good nutrition, enough sleep, proper gear, it can even be a healthy weight loss strategy. I'm surprised no one seems to ever discuss this, with so much of our culture seemingly obsessed with losing weight.

Hiking and camping in cold weather requires a certain fortitude that most people don't have automatically. It's going to take a bit of willpower to subject oneself to cold and misery. haha. It eventually becomes fun though.

I was almost going to not ask this, but I think in a place like this it's more appropriate than inappropriate --

guys, how are the toilet-stuff dealt with? I want to do hiking/camping, but the confusion about this whole thing keeps me away. What's the normal protocol? Any books/guides you can recommend for someone who's never done this before? In particular, I'm interested in hiking an easy mountain in the northeast (I live in Boston)... one that takes somewhere between 3 to 6 days?

For #1- unzip and let it rip

For #2- dig a hole, pull pants down, aim into hole, dispose of paper in hole, refill hole.

The Appalachian trail really is a national monument. As I've hiked other trails over the years, I'm come to appreciate it more and more.

The AT has alpine shelters along the trail, usually ~5-10 miles apart. If you have a good guide book, you can plan your route accordingly. And if you get lucky, there will even be an outhouse along a blue blaze, a quarter mile or so away from the shelter.

If you're not on the AT, then you pretty much just find a place that's not up hill from a water source and go to town. I recommend carrying wet wipes of some kind. Definitely worth the extra weight. If you're on a moderately trafficked trail though, it's very important to "leave no trace." That means you dig a hole, and you hike out any used toilet paper. I usually use a gallon ziploc bag for trash. This becomes especially important when it's below freezing and you can't really dig holes.

Our culture is obsessed with talking about or thinking about losing weight, preferably with no discomfort or sacrifices involved. So the exact opposite of actually doing something really hard that will result in losing weight. That doesn't sell books.

Ha, now I'm imagining this book:

The Frigid Formula: How to Rediscover the Ancient Secret to Rapid Weight Loss

Inside, only one line: "Hike the Appalachian Trail in winter, eating only what you can carry or kill."

Doctors hate this!

I would put it to you that trying to lose weight via diet tips etc is far harder than hiking through beautiful scenery, which is something that many people yearn to one day do 'when they get time off work' - but then maybe I am the kind of person that enjoys hiking and that colurs my opinion.

It's stunning to me just how many calories moving over land in cold weather takes. Once you cross ~20 miles/day, especially on snow or ice, it becomes practically impossible to maintain your weight. 7000+ kilocalories a day, vaporized into raw thermal and kinetic energy.

If you need to be hiking all day for months to lose weight, you are ptobably going to gain it all back once you stop.

That's a rather defeatist outlook.

I'd say that after all that hiking, especially on minimal food, your body would be accustomed to requiring less food decreasing your appetite and making it easier to maintain your weight over time.

> I'd say that after all that hiking, especially on minimal food, your body would be accustomed to requiring less food decreasing your appetite and making it easier to maintain your weight over time.

Well then you'd be wrong. Weight gain is a very real problem for thru hikers after they finish.

The way I managed it after I got off the trail is something that I've since heard called the "warrior diet." Just limit yourself to eating once per day in a very narrow window in the evening. That's it. Your body will be in ketosis most of the day, which it's already used to from thru hiking. Anyway, it worked for me, and I've stuck to it ever since.

Going on a multi-day hike is just not feasible for most people.

In winter conditions? That's probably true. Most people don't have the gear or know how to use it. I'm less convinced that at least a lot of people couldn't do a multi-day hike in decent weather if they wanted to.

Much better order is to loose weight first, train a bit to gain endurance, then try some one-day hikes and only then try multi day hike.

Oh I agree. The claim was that most people couldn’t do a multi-day hike. Not that they’d find it difficult and perhaps not fun.

Depend on hike obviously. You can find easy multi day hike. But it kills the purpose of dping something hard in remote place I think.

And when you are about doing something hard in remote place, it is responsible to be at state where you know you limits before somebody has to carry you because you found them unexpectedly.

People would need to go camping for weeks on end which most of the population is not interested in or able to do because of external obligations.

Probably two reasons for that:

1.) Unless you change livestyle after, it would work the same way as diet - meaning your chance to bounce back to previous weight would be very high.

2.) It would likely lead to many rescue needs. You need to know what you are doing and you need to be reasonably fit before you attempt it. Else you end up in situation where you cant continue due to lack of strength, being frozen and hurt by cold. Whether getting sick or frostbite.

Specifically, in the mountains in the winter every year multiple people dies because he underestimates the situation or lack knowledge. Yes it can be done safely, but you need to know what you are doing.

It's hilarious to me that people are that obsessed with losing weight. I figured it out years ago and right now I'm purposely gaining weight for the winter. Is it really so difficult?

The types of fun seem relevant here.

https://www.tetongravity.com/story/culture/the-three-and-a-h...

I am not trying to say that I was happy, during those weeks of hauling a sledge across an ice-sheet in the dead of winter. I was hungry, overstrained, and often anxious, and it all got worse the longer it went on. I certainly wasn't happy. Happiness has to do with reason, and only reason earns it. What I was given was the thing you can't earn, and can't keep, and often don't even recognize at the time; I mean joy.

—The Left Hand Of Darkness

Related, an excellent long-form New Yorker feature about another recent attempt: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/12/the-white-dark...

That's a very beautiful, though ultimately sad, story. It inspired me to read Endurance which is just an amazing tale. Part of me does wonder if we over valorize these tales of suffering though. Is it worth all the death, injuries, and years separated from families?

You make a good point. Shackleton’s quirks are diminished in most histories. He could be a bit capricious in decision making. Scott was an utter fool, his reputation propped up after his disastrous expedition by the Admiralty and his widdow.

Roland Huntford’s twin biography of Scott and Amundson is a study in contrasts. In Antarctica, there are no preditors and no microbes. The only things that can kill you are bad planning and poor execution. Scott died with his polar party from bad nutrition and poor judgement. Amundson’s polar party got there first, got home again, and gained weight on the trip.

I read this and thought that whoever tries stuff like this is just a moron. There's not really much discovery to be made if any. It's extremely costly and dangerous. The only benefit is vanity.

There is a part of some humans that drives them to do wild, adventurous things that can't be rationalised. Personally I find it quite a romantic notion, ignoring the sensible, boring options and doing something just because it is hard and exciting (and yes, stupid as well).

Vanity is a benefit; it's hardly the only benefit.

We'll spend maybe $100,000 on phone bills in our lives, I wonder would I be happier with a bunch of Instagram alerts, or having crossed the Antarctic alone; what would create fonder memories?

Experiences that have been had by others don't impact you. I can look at a picture of Earth from NASA all I want, it'll never hit my core in the way it would if I went up there.

What if you crossed it alone and didn't tell anyone you'd done it, and vanity wasn't the same sort? Living alone in the woods is one thing, living alone in the woods and posting it all to social media is a little different.

Can you really imagine no benefit to a man doing something to challenge himself? This is no Everest tourist expedition with 1000 other climbers and an enormous support staff of locals, this is daring?

Why should we ever try anything that anyone has ever done before? Should we then just stay home?

Even if it provides nothing to these men, at the barest minimum they have inspired some long thought in others; after all, we're all sitting here thinking about it. I've been thinking about it, and talking to friends about being alone in the wilderness, for the better part of the day now.

The same thing could be said for many costly (in terms of either time or money) journeys: hiking the AT, biking across the world, to name two. In these cases, others have made these voyages thousands of times before, but that doesn't stop people from making these trips.

By the way, I think you're misreading the piece---I don't get the impression that these men are making these trips for vanity.

Biking across the country is rarely a risk to your life. You can escape at any point with a phone call. The Antarctic trek resulted in a slow and costly airlift that was too late. I don't think they think they're doing it for vanity. It's my accusation.

If you have to tell other people about your trips then it is (also) for vanity. Nobody does these extreme trips and doesn't tell about them to anybody.

Artists usually show their pieces to at least some other people, yet many paint for internal contentment - we are fundamentally a social species. A large part of experiencing something is showing it to other people to seek their opinion/approval - especially if it had a large impact on a person. More to the point, beyond simply surviving, why do anything? What is life's goal? I would put it to you that many people like this were raised in such a way that their internal contentment and pride comes from this kind of thing: they judge people and more importantly themselves on the experiences they have had and the joy they get from it. They feel a need to share to get some of this joy - usually with loved ones and friends, but sometimes wider.

This is not a bad thing: People often also have a need to hear about others' experiences - hence books, videos, and you being here on hacker news.

Related: "Ten things no one tells you before an Antarctic expedition" (2015) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/11315994/Ten-things-n...

1. You're going to have to eat a lot of raw butter.

When you are skiing across Antarctica and putting in 12-14 hour days of pulling a sled in minus 40C, you have to keep your calorie count up. A normal man burns about 2,500 calories in a day. We burn between 7,000 to 9,000. That means supplementing your dehydrated food with slabs of butter. In the first few days of the expedition, it tastes revolting, but then your body just craves the fat content and you eat the butter like blocks of cheese.

Let me preface this by saying I don't want to diminish what these guys are doing at all... this is an incredible feat, no matter what.

However, I'm genuinely curious, and I'm sure other people are as well: Looking at the map, the definition of "across" Antarctica seems a little bit squishy to me. Does crossing one small portion of one side of the continent count as going "across" it? Is this the New York Times trying to grab attention with the headline? Is there some known definition among these types of adventurers as to what counts as "across"? Will there be debate later?

I suppose Charles Lindbergh didn't exactly fly across the widest part of the Atlantic either... still, I'm just intrigued.

The journey they are attempting is a known route first attempted by Ernest Shackleton, and is now reffered to as shackletons crossing. It has been attempted several times but never completed. For more backstory on the history of the route, reading David Grann's excellent New Yorker article will fill in a lot of the gaps.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/12/the-white-dark...

I suspect should one of them be successful, the next challenge will be a proper direct crossing.

I just find it really inspiring to know we have the presence of such adventurous explorers. Once we find ways to travel to other stars, we'll need these men to explore once again.

Travelling to other planets will have to suffice for a while.

Agreed. I doubt we'll see interstellar travel until we can affordably make a bunch of sealed tunnels in an asteroid, get it spinning for artificial gravity and turn it into a self-sustaining colony.

Then we'd need to figure out the best way to propel it, and to where, and oh yeah, find a bunch of people who are willing to live the rest of their lives on it and raise a second generation (with an unknown future) there. It would take a lot for that all to come together, and any other plan you could currently devise would probably require fictional technology.

> Once we find ways to travel to other stars, we'll need these men to explore once again.

You'd want an entirely different sort of person if the idea is to travel interstellar distances inside an asteroid, like slfnflctd suggested below.

Inspiring?

Having watched Everest and read Cold: Extreme Adventures at the Lowest Temperatures on Earth my view has changed to that these people are selfish glory seekers who can potentially cause a lot of grief and heartache for the people they leave behind when they screw up. As well as huge expense for rescue operations (which then put other people's life at risk).

I sort of understand your pov, but in this day and age they're literally making up dangerous challenges for themselves and have been for decades now.

"Deliverance From 27,000 Feet" [1] in the New York Times really changed my view in a similar way. While the most successful and visible adventurers are consummate professionals there is an unseen tier of adventurers that take on more than they are trained for seeking glory without the required experience.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/18/sports/everes...

Rescue operations and environmental impact, I see your point. Don't agree, but it's a valid point.

But the point about the grief and heartache for those left behind could be said for anyone who does anything risky. Nothing more dangerous than a gentle stroll unless you're a single childless orphan?

They're 'A' type people that need to push the limit and (for better or worse) don't let things get in their way. The personality type can be very destructive and I agree that things like climbing everest are pointless these days, but it will continue because these people exist, and every so often that drive contributes to something good for humanity.

Those places will be well explored by robots by the time we get around to sending people (assuming we ever do which I have my doubts of).

I followed some of Mike Horn's trip last year. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the differences between these attempts and Horn's trip. Wasn't Horn's trip last year the first unsupported crossing of Antarctica?

> Wasn't Horn's trip last year the first unsupported crossing of Antarctica?

It may depend on the specific definitions ("unsupported" vs "solo unsupported"), but the first unsupported crossing I'm aware of was that by Ranulph Fiennes and Mike Stroud in the Antarctic summer of 1992/1993. It was documented in two books, "Mind Over Matter"[0] by Finnes and "Shadows on the the Wasteland"[1] by Stroud. Both were very entertaining and interesting reads.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Mind-over-Matter-Ranulph-Fiennes/dp/0...

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Wasteland-Crossing-Antarctica...

https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_saunders_skis_to_the_north_pol...

The way I think I have no clue why people take risks like this other than for the obvious fame and fortune. Just the way I am it seems to be either narcissistic or foolish. I am sure others spur them on because what is not to like about being the friend of someone who does something where you don't suffer any large downside (other than you lose them as a friend).

Also there always seems to be a bit of 'watch car racing for the crashes' or 'watch ice hockey for the fights'. It seems to be something that people are interested because there is the chance of interesting devastation or perhaps elation after the fact that nothing happened.

>>The way I think I have no clue why people take risks like this other than for the obvious fame and fortune.

Those are both pretty great motivators. There's always going to be daredevils and explorers who are in it for the thrill as well. Being "The first to..." or "the only to..." is a superlative people feel might be worth the risk. Besides, without people pushing the limits, we never know what might be possible.

And there's some societal value to events like this. Maybe we find out something about survival in hostile environments or mission logistics or how to run a proper search and rescue operation.

> Besides, without people pushing the limits, we never know what might be possible.

Serious question and sorry but who cares exactly? Not like there is a line of people that need to do the same thing, right?

> Maybe we find out something about survival in hostile environments or mission logistics or how to run a proper search and rescue operation.

Ok so that is an upside but that is like trying to justify that it's ok that those kids got lost in the cave so it was cool to take the risk, no?

>>Ok so that is an upside but that is like trying to justify that it's ok that those kids got lost in the cave so it was cool to take the risk, no?

Those were people who did not willingly take on the risk. Specifically citing that example, a bunch of children were basically on a field trip and a tragedy befell them. World of difference between an experienced individual who is (supposed to be) completely prepared and able to face the challenges presented.

Those examples I gave aren't ALL "worst case" scenarios. People like this help to fund the creation of materials that can be useful for important research. Sure, maybe some dude wandering the South Pole for funsies isn't helping us, but the team of scientists taking ice core samples to advance our understanding of polar environments and how they're changing use the same type of tent that are produced for this goofuses are benefiting from idiots with deep pockets.

TL;dr- more wandering idiots help support the market for the materials they use, which benefits the people we should ACTUALLY be championing.

I don't understand the downvotes you're getting.

It might not be as narcissistic as it seems to you: I have been embarking on a couple of adventures, certainly not even close to this Antacrtica crossing, yet my unassisted trips were seen as some as a egoist, narcissistic showoff thing to do. I got a lot of people telling me they assumed I was doing it for likes and follows, only my close friends understood that there's something deep inside you that tells you to go and explore; not for fame, which is shortlived, but for your own good. Without The Life you're struggling, trying to cope with civilization and routine while they eat you from the inside.

More than the "car crash" thing that you mention,I believe people are interested in witnessing success, and happiness. On top of that add the whole "fuck you i'm going" pornography, quitting everything and embarking on a solo trip seems to be a common secret dream that people working 9-5 hide deep inside of their heart.

> I don't understand the downvotes you're getting.

Because popular culture is such that we are brainwashed into thinking this type of thing is GREAT!. Similar to when someone jumps on the railroad tracks to save a complete stranger. They get called a hero. But what (to another replies point) if they get killed and aren't around for their family? Why should you risk your life in that case? How is that smart or even considerate of those around you? What is is: stupid and selfish actually.

> only my close friends understood that there's something deep inside you that tells you to go and explore

Thanks for that. You are the type of person that I would sit down with to explore that entire thinking actually. (I don't feel the same way so I can't easily understand that..)

> quitting everything and embarking on a solo trip seems to be a common secret dream that people working 9-5 hide deep inside of their heart.

Not me. I don't think I could deal with that!

I think it depends. I was talking to the guard at the courthouse last week and he couldn't wait to retire off to the country. But his job has to be boring as fuck <-- sorry. And you know his son he told me was 'really good with programming and had some game author write to him directly for something he was doing'. And the father (the court sheriff guard guy) says 'he says he doesn't want to do programming full time'. What does he want to do? Well he is now a police officer in the most dangerous town in the state (really). This isn't really about the son though. My point is the father is happy standing around all day doing nothing. So of course he can't wait for his vacations and to retire (and do nothing at all most likely). Can you imagine just standing there and doing nothing? I can't.

Because everyone different. To you it might be narcissistic or foolish but for him obviously it is highly important and meaningful.

If I died younger, my parents would suffer a lot. If I died now, my husband and kids would suffer. I would not want my husband to risk that much for trip, because me and kids need him.

It is kind of saying you don't have such people around.

Agree exactly. The thinking does not take into account at all the impact on anyone else. Plus we are not talking about 'well get over it I am not going to not ride the motorcycle because of you Mom'. We are talking about a highly unusual and risky behavior.

Everyone is different, not everyone care about the impact on anyone else. For these people they don't need to take this into account. To you this might seem to be utterly sad, but to them "sad" might not even register. For them not be able to do highly unusual and risky action is probably their definiton of true sadness. For this people, the only thing you can do is to support them.

Did you really meant to say that they are narcissists? Because I think that we can find plenty of explanations that don't boil down to "they don't care about anything except themselves". Because I really really don't think this uncharitable explanation is correct for most of them.

Well, everyone in some degree is selfish and narcissist.

Or it just mean those are not important.

I know we're talking about Antarctica, but this story reminded me of the incredible book from Hampton Sides called, "In The Kingdom of Ice" (https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Ice-Terrible-Voyage-Jeannette...).

It takes in the 1880s, when the general population believed that the North Pole was an open polar sea. The book tells the story of the USS Jeannette, which tries to sail up there.

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Expedition

First? What about the crossing by Cecilie Skog and Ryan Waters in 2010? https://www.explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=19064

They weren't alone.

How to the skis they use differ from classic style cross country skis? In the image they look a little wider than any I've owned.

If they are two men, they aren't alone. They have the presence of each other.

They’re not going together.

The headline is poorly edited (it could use "each" in there), but the meaning is clear if you click through to the story.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.

the current HN title doesn't make any sense: "Two men are trying to become the first person to cross Antarctica alone"

two men can by definition not be alone.

point taken, but they're each trying independently yet at the same time to become the first.

As discussed in the article, two men are independently making the attempt, at the same time. The grammar works out, but it catches your eye, which is often a goal of a headline writer.

Sounds like they'd have a better shot at it if they teamed up :)

I was tempted to post that joke, but decided against it. Still, you've got my upvote.

Maybe read the first line or two of the article and it will enlighten you.

It reads fine to me, just like one can say that Lindberg and Earhart were two people who flew across the Atlantic alone.

I notice NYT later added the caveat "and unsupported". There must be some precedent that made them qualify the original claim, i.e. someone who did it alone but "supported".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com