View Full Version : Lower limit for a speed hike??
Kind of odd that my post somehow disappeared between last night and this morning.
The current record is 47 days 13 hours 31 minutes.
That is an average of 45.6 miles per day.
How low can it go?
Weather is always a factor and just how much can the human body and mind withstand?
Alligator
10-04-2005, 12:32
You mean this one?
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10508
If you have lost one of your own threads, try clicking on your own user profile. Then you can call up all the threads you have started.:datz
Lion King
10-04-2005, 15:03
Speed hiking only impresses the one who is doing it.
What do you see? Pain
What do you experiance? Maybe a hallucenation, which is kinda cool from exhaustion, but nothing else.
Who do you spend time talking/laughing with? Yourself, again, if the exhaustion hallucenation is good enough
What could you get out of it? You learn that you need to learn patience amoungst all things, but to each his/her own I guess.
I never understood the need to hike it so fast, but it is someones goal for some reason or the other, and it goes along with all the arguments...the end answer is HYOH, you dont have to like or agree with it, as I, in this sense, but hey man, its your thing, do what you wanna do.
I wanna set the record for must miles done in the least amount of time, while Blue, Yellow, Aqua, Pink and Tan blazing the whole time, yet I dont think I will tell anyone...Ill let those who disagree with it do that...that always seems to work best. :D:jump
I knew somebody would respond in the way you did. Why post if you just intend to be negative!
HYOH
if one questions speed hiking, why not ask why poeple do other things? why race cars? why climb everest? why hike the whole AT? why run a triathlon? why run a 100 yard dash? to see what you can do.
i don't like sports much, 'cept hockey. i wrestled in HS, i hike mostly alone. when i lost every match my first year, pinned 8 of 10 times, the final two matches where i didn't get pinned were major victories for me... the next year, i only got pinned once, and i won my last couple matches... point of all that is that i got better and better at it... but it wasn't something i gloated over, or went out and beat up other people in public to prove... jesse owen, roger bannister, and jerry rice didn't do their best to compare themselves to me... they did it for themselves.
some people run a sewing machine, make cabinets or bend sheet metal for a living, and hate it. i sew, make cabinets, and turn sheet metal/cans into stoves for a hobby... same work, different attitudes...
if a speed hiker wants to ''set a record'', that's his business... as long as he isn't rude to me on his way past, it's his hike... let him hike it... and if he doens't enjoy it, i'm not going to worry about it...
I'm for HYOH and all, but I am curious about just HOW quickly it's even feasible to hike the AT. It used to be that people declared that no man could run a mile in less than four minutes - now it's relatively common-place. (Not for me!)
If we estimate that the top average speed is maybe 4 mph and that one could sustain this average speed for 14 hours a day, that makes 56 miles/day. At that rate, one could hike 2175 miles in about 39 days. (Assuming no zeros and minimal time spent in town.)
I think is doable only by going ultra-light, possibly supported so that one needn't waste time going to post-offices.
As far as the mind and body goes - I'm sure someone somewhere is physically fit enough to keep it up, barring significant injury. It would take an incredible amount of focus, determination, and luck. I think the goal for that hiker would have to be the record, not the journey/community for which AT thru-hikes are usually noted.
Definitely not for me personally, but it's an interesting thought.
justusryans
10-04-2005, 18:52
I don't know about a speed hike, but we are planning just the opposite. We are going to do a slow down and smell the roses kind of hike. Afterall, the quicker we are done, the quicker I have to go back to work!
Whistler
10-04-2005, 21:58
I think under 40 days is possible, but not much more than that without some kind of revolution in fitness or technique... like cyborgs or drug-induced motivation, some kind of 'something else' to put you over the edge.
It would be cool to see how fast a group could do a relay, maybe a 20-person team. That would be fun to be a part of. Run a bit, then crew some of the guys later down the line. [Actually, now that I mention it...]
-Mark
smokymtnsteve
10-04-2005, 22:13
took me TWO WEEKS just to do the smokies back in Oct 1999!!! :eek:
Gray Blazer
10-05-2005, 07:56
I agree with The Lionking. If you want to speed hike, why not take advantage of the Interstate system. You could hike all of I-70. Seriously, why would you want to add wear to the AT? It's too beautiful just to run up and down it and not take time to notice the incredible sights. You could see how long it takes you to runn 2000+ miles on the High School track near your house.
Whistler
10-05-2005, 08:14
If you want to speed hike, why not take advantage of the Interstate system. You could hike all of I-70. Seriously, why would you want to add wear to the AT? It's too beautiful just to run up and down it and not take time to notice the incredible sights. You could see how long it takes you to runn 2000+ miles on the High School track near your house.Give me a break. If you don't see the difference between running on a lovely trail v. running on an interstate or on a "high school track"... then you are beyond hope. Camping is wonderful. Hiking is wonderful. Running is wonderful. It's all good.
-Mark
KS_Rockstar
10-05-2005, 09:01
i think under 40 is about the max for an aided hike or "run"
that perticular number doesnt interest me much but i have nothing against sombody that it does interest.
im perticularly interested in the fastest un-aided hike. my best understanding is that it's 60 days? im going to try and break that record in 2006.
people have been trying to go faster, longer, higher, et since the beginning of time. it's the nature of a human to try and improve and do better. it doesnt mean that one persons goals and satisfactions need to matter to another person. but as were all here on the planet together, we should make an effort to respect each other.
as for why one would try to do the trail in a certain amount of time, ask why try to do it at all? if your going to say, "to be with nature, to explor the world, et." you could do that at yellowstone. the very fact that you are on this forum dictates that you have some measure of desire to do something that very few people have ever done. that may not be your primary focus but if you intend to (or already have) through hiked the trail then i submit you are just like sombody that is interested in doing the trail in a given amount of time. you just have a different set of goals.
personally, my first motivation is to spend 2 months in the woods. second, to test my self and see what im made of (which i suspect is on some level anybody who through hikes the at's motivation). third is to feed my ego. i'm not ashamed to admit that i would happily realte to anybody that was interested at say a dinner party that i infact hold the record for the fastest un-aided crossing of the at..... much like anybody that has through hiked the trail would say just about the fact that they did the whole thing.
..........back on topic.............
i think even with all the support in the world and the benifit of the best food and drugs money can buy, the time/speed limitations of even the fastest human would make anything much less than 40 days near impossible.
Gray Blazer
10-05-2005, 09:26
Whistler, you're right, it's all good. Your also right,I'm beyond hope because I'm a gay, jewish, cripple from Africa. By the way, how's your mother?
Gray Blazer
10-05-2005, 11:21
I'm glad for anyone who walks or runs on the trail, but, here is one thought to keep in mind. It might be much better to walk up on a bear or a cougar than to all of a sudden run up on one.:datz
Lone Wolf
10-05-2005, 11:24
I've run up on 3 different bears in the past 3 weeks on the AT south of Damascus, 1 had cubs and they all ran like a mutha away from me. No biggie.
Lone Wolf,
Didn't Maineak walk like 16 hours a day during that 1991 speed hike attempt while Horton walked and ran both and spent 11 hours on the trail each day. I remember something about you and Maineak falling asleep walking and one of you banging into a tree.
Folks seem to have the impression that it's a trail run each day, but there is lots of walking involved. Thus, speed hikers get to see the sights. Also, they usually are moving during the early morning and just before dark hours so they get to see more wildlife.
Not sure how much Andrew Thompson ran compared to walking in setting the new record or whether he had to change strategies from his previous 3 attempts.
Any thoughts on the toll running takes on the body compared to the benefits of getting more sleep and rest at the end of the day when you jog and finish early.
Also, I have heard people say that at a north to south attempt is easier and Thompson's success may seem to show that. Opinion?
Gray Blazer
10-05-2005, 12:01
I've walked up on bears before. When they didn't leave, I started shouting at them. Both times they looked at me as if to say, "You idiot", before turning around and loping away. I would hate to be "running" and come up on them sudden like before they had a chance to see me. I used to run on the Florida Trail (don't tell Whistler or his mother) and I ran up on a wild boar. We bothed scared the bejeezus out of each other. By the way, LW, I enjoyed reading your's and other's posts on the dope smoking hippies this morning.
KS_Rockstar
10-05-2005, 14:01
for speed i can see the benifit of the north to south rout.... you do the hardest part when your the freshest not when your body is toast after 2 months of hard core hiking (or running).......
also, from an athletic stand (not a pure hiker's stand), a slower pace with more hours of hiking per day should be more efficiant. also, instead of one 8 to 10 hour sleep/rest session per day i think several shorter (1-2 hour) breaks will be more efficiant.
my plan is to attempt to average 40 miles per day but not hike much faster than 2 to 2.5 miles per hour. i will have to do 18 hours a day (which means some dark hiking) but 4 or 5 one to two hour naps. the body actually gets the most benifit from the first hour or so of sleep in terms of bang for your sleeping buck. same thing with food. ten to twelve "snacks" per day is > 2 or 3 meals.....
thoughts about sleep, food and hiking in the dark?
Gray Blazer
10-05-2005, 14:33
Rockstar, this is probably a big "duh..." But if you do your hike/run near the summer soltace, you will have longer days. If you plan around the full moon, it would be easier to night walk/run (I would hate to sprain my ankle at night or any other time).You may not believe this but Thompson, the new record holder, passed me and my son at Burningtown Gap in the Nantahalas on August 30. He shouted back the info he was Trail Dog and going for the new record and had been out 43 days. He was kind of running and walking. He had no gear and no poles, no canteen, but, he did have some sort of packbelt around his waist. It wasn't very big.
dougmeredith
10-05-2005, 15:37
the body actually gets the most benifit from the first hour or so of sleep in terms of bang for your sleeping buck.
I thought that you got the most benefit from REM sleep which doesn't even begin for an hour or two after you get to sleep. I could have this wrong...
Doug
KS_Rockstar
10-05-2005, 15:44
@.......bear bate, good point..... also, as im only trying to average 2 to 2.5 miles per day, ill be going slow.
@.......doug, ive been experimenting with it. there is clinical testing that makes a case for both schools. ill see if i can find a link to the doctor that's doing the research... also, both sides agree that the sleep benifit ratio is different for each person. some can start their best sleep/rest time in as little as 15 minutes and some take as much as 2 hours......
KS_Rockstar
10-05-2005, 16:03
the link, interesting read..........
http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200504/sleep-training_1.html
I believe Doug is correct.
Whistler
10-05-2005, 17:23
Thanks KS, that was a cool article. I think I'm more of the owl/flexible sleeper type. I hate sleeping, really. I would rather not have to do it. Maybe I'll try out some of those sleeping patterns and see how I feel.
I do think the sleep thing would be tricky on a long hike. You definitely have to be in control. I bet that's one of the ways that 'handlers' are such an asset--they would keep you from indulging too much. Just chalk it up as another welcome challenge for an unsupported hike. Good stuff.
-Mark
I thought that you got the most benefit from REM sleep which doesn't even begin for an hour or two after you get to sleep. I could have this wrong... Doug
having spent a few years getting just an hour or two of sleep at a time for several weeks at a stretch, (hope that makes sense...) i can say that i personally liked getting one long 2-3 hour stretch over 2 or 3 one hour naps...