Confidence

A question I've had from a lot of people is "Why do you think you'll manage it?" and, truth be told, I'm not actually sure I can manage it.  But I'll give a jolly good go at it.  I've read about and listened to people about and researched the trail and as far as I can see it's absolutely awful, difficult and no one should do it.

...and yet...

People do.  I'll try to.

So why do I think I have a chance?
Well, I'm fairly young and fit so that's a bonus but that doesn't guarantee anything.  I've previous hiking experience, though obviously nothing this long.  The longest I've been backpacking or hiking for is nearly three weeks in Greenland, but that isn't really the same deal anyway as we often made basecamps and rarely had to haul everything from A to B. Over summer I attempted the West Highland Way, but before I could finish was poisoned! caught Noro virus.  It's an unpleasant, disgusting disease that I'll let other people research; and only ended that attempt because I was on a strict schedule.  The AT will be much more flexible about being delayed a day or two by an icky diseases, that I hopefully won't catch again.

All of that adds up to not the best odds in the world, but certainly not the worst.  I could do some maths, but statistics are the work of the devil; instead I'll just guess with blind confidence that I'm somewhere on the good side of the bell-curve for chance to succeed.  And with that I'll give the hike a go!

What's the worst that could possibly happen?








That said..
There are some rules and tricks to make it easier, but the only thing hiking such a long trail can be compared to is... hiking one of the many other long trails.  There are quite few of them, I've linked the other two that comprise the Triple Crown Of America, which is definitely not something I also want to do in the future nope, and the European Long-distance Paths; but there are many others.
The most common tip I've come across is 'Don't quit on a bad day'.  Don't decide to stop because the weather is miserable, it's raining, everything's wet and nothing is comfortable.  Only quit on a good day so you know that you want to quit, not just that you want out of the cold.
Another common tip is to think of it not as one impossibly long hike.  You go back to town once every few days to resupply, so maybe think of it as lots of smaller hikes for a week or so.  That you just do over and over and over and over and over and over [....] and over.

Why am I taking a hammock?

 As i've said before, I'm taking a hammock.
But why?

There are a few reasons.  Firstly, the floor is dirty.  It can also be wet.  Worst of all it can be both.  I'll be hiking for, hopefully, several months through wind and rain.  The ground will, at times, be absolutely horrible; it might be difficult to set a tent up or the tent itself might get washed out or soaked even with a waterproof bottom.  Instead I'll comfortably hang above the dirty, wet, muddy floor.  This also means I don't have to worry about finding a flat spot devoid of rocks and roots, that I'd otherwise hunt for to lay down on.  Instead I just need any two trees the right distance apart and I'll be in a frikking huge wood.  There's a lot of trees.  I'll actually have an easier time setting up my hammock than I will a tent.

There are some drawbacks though....
Weight is maybe one of them, maybe not.  We'll discuss that later on.  The drawbacks I will mention right now though are it can be more expensive or harder to get warm.  Instead of a rollmat and thermarest, plus a sleeping bag, I'll be taking two very expensive (very fluffy) down quilts.  One goes over and one goes under.

So this is a rather unconventional approach to camping but it isn't unknown anymore!  And with the some great hammock resources online (like Hammockforums and the hammock subreddits), and on youtube (looking at you, Shug); there's a lot of help in working out how to tackle this less conventional camping.

One last issue is that some people don't like the lack of structure.  Not counting my tarp, I won't have walls.  Even with my tarp, there's a lot to flap around in the wind unless I really cinch everything in tight.  Subjectively some people might feel a little less secure in a hammock set-up.

What's about the ground though?
The ground is the default for a reason.  It's the traditional method of camping and there are tonnes of options for everything you need on the ground.  Subjectively it can feel more structurally sound and that can be beneficial for peace of mind.  I'm not too much of a fan of this for my hike, as it does give me fewer options on where I could camp but it won't be hard to pick up a tent whilst I'm out there if I were to change my mind.

But let's talk about weight. 
Ground systems are lighter.  But....  These very light ground options might be sacrificing a lot.  They're often thin, maybe missing walls, require hiking poles to use, and so on.  Some of the lightest options are barely recognisable as tents.  My tent is heavier than my hammock; but mine isn't the lightest of tents, though my hammock isn't the lightest either.  For me, the extra weight reduction from the ground systems isn't worth it compared to the benefits of being in the air.

Boots vs trail runners

A common debate amongst hiker nowadays is what type of footwear to take.  The traditional boot still has a lot of support, but there are growing factions championing lighter options.   The main competition for the trusty boot are trail runners.  These are much lighter, less durable, and More breathable but often not waterproof.  They also have less ankle support, although that varies from boot to boot as well.  Some people go even further and argue for less sturdy shoes or even barefoot(!), but I've no experience with that so I won't talk about it.

The main arguments for trail runners are generally about weight.  They are much, much lighter than boots.  And there's the saying that a pound on your feet is worth two on your back.  The argument goes that  these lighter shoes are thus easier to hike in because of the weight but also how breathable they are.  There's a far smaller chance of one's feet over heating.  The lack of support and low durability are also sometimes presented as advantages.  They don't need to be broken in as much as boots, if at all, and help develop strong ankles.  I'm a little sceptical about that last part, but not needing to be broken in is definitely a plus - especially as they're likely to be replaced more often.  Trail runners will be replaced maybe twice as often as boots.  As to how waterproof they aren't, people often say that the feet are going to get wet anyway - especially if rivers needed to be waded.  I'm not entirely convinced by that, especially here in Britain.  I've found every pair I've owned to be very comfortable, with no downside for short hikes.  But I wouldn't want to take them for more than a couple of days.

Boots are the traditional mainstay of hikers.  Sometimes big and clunky, sometimes less so, they provide excellent grip and support, with waterproof options and will last a while.  I love mine, and I think they're very comfortable as is.  I'm sure everyone already knows the benefits of boots, and I personally don't see a need to swap them for something else. 

NoBo or SoBo

What do NoBo or SoBo even mean?  And what about GaMe or MeGa?
These are actually fairly simple concepts, they're all just acronyms that say which direction people are hiking in.  Northbound or Southbound are what they sound like, the other two are the start or ending state: Gerogia to Maine or vice versa.  What's the fuss about then, it's the same trail after all?
Well, it is but they have slightly different challenges.  The most common and perhaps traditional direction is starting at Georgia - and this is what I plan to do - and ending in Maine.
Common wisdom has it that this way is 'easier', the hike starts off nice and simple and by the time you get to the hard stuff, you've done a lot of hiking and can breeze through it.  The scary White Mountains are far away, the mud of Vermont is far away, and the boot-eating rocks of Pennsylvania is far away.
Northbound also has much more of a 'hiker bubble'.  Lots of people start around the same time starting from the same area, which means it's easy to find hiking buddies though it can be avoided if people really want to be alone.  The camaraderie is often touted as being part of the experience, and you can easily pick up a 'Tramily' or 'Trail Family' - a group of people you hike because your hiking plans all line up near enough.  If you're there for the social experience, Northbound is the way to go.
Bill Bryson went this way (until he gave up).
I think he did better in the film. (Which was great by the way.  It has a brilliant soundtrack.)

Southbound has its own perks too.  It's perhaps more environmentally friendly as there are less people in the area ta once, so the trail isn't worn as badly.  Some people would rather do the hard bits first so that the easier bits are for when you're exhausted, but - as the saying goes - your mileage may vary.  Southbound also doesn't have a seasonal time limit.  Baxter State Park, the end point of a northbound hike, will be shut for winter by the 15th of October.  A slow northbound hiker might end up missing out on their thruhike because of seasonal weather, but a southbounder can keep hiking into winter and out the other side to spring if they really want.  Arguable, southbounders get a nicer time with the weather.  Starting in Georgia can be unpleasantly cold from March all the way through April.  Snow isn't unheard of.  And then you're against the clock to get to Baxter State Park before winter gets there.  Meanwhile starting in Maine and heading south lets you start after the snows and chills have gone, and aim to finish in Autumn before the next set of chilly weather.
The film Southbounders is about a few people going this way.  It was also great and has a fairly catchy song too.