View Full Version : 100 Days or Less
spfleisig
07-13-2018, 07:22
What percent of thru-hikers do you think do their AT hike in 100 days or less? Just curious.
Gambit McCrae
07-13-2018, 08:17
If a person did not take any zeros, their average MPD would be 22. In order to keep your average at 22 and take 1 zero, a person would have to do 3 30 mile days to make up for the zero. To take 1 zero a week, a person would have to do 43, 30 mile days during their trip. My uneducated guess would be less than or equal to 5%.
I have only met in person 1 successful consistently big mile days hiker and that was Tatu Jo. Who did 26+ mile days all the way thru the AT before setting out the same year to complete the CDT with 26+ mile days as well. I don't think he took any zeros on the AT. What people will find is the more pressure you put on finishing in a certain number of days, or getting a certain AMPD the less successful your trip will be.
My greatest trip I have taken I have 16 days to walk as far as I could south from Salisbury, CT. We woke up every day and had a plan for that day, would just walk until dark and set up camp. I feel like it was the easiest going trip I have been on, and we took it 1 day at a time. We planned 212 miles and ended up with 237.
I've done a study of NOBO thru-hikers keeping journals at trailjournals.com from 2001 to 2010. Of the 240 journals in that database (thru-hikers who did a very thorough job of documenting every day of their hikes), two are for hikers completing in less than 100 days (around 1%).
Here's a link to that study: https://whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php/44-AT-Hiking-Rates-Section-by-Section
Here's a crude histogram showing the distribution of hikers when it comes to how many days it took them to complete their hikes:
ILLUSTRATION 1 -- Days to Complete AT
080-089 (01): X
090-099 (01): X
100-109 (05): XXXXX
110-119 (07): XXXXXXX
120-129 (06): XXXXXX
130-139 (09): XXXXXXXXX
140-149 (23): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
150-159 (25): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
160-169 (39): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
170-179 (40): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
180-189 (28): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
190-199 (31): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
200-209 (18): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
210-219 (04): XXXX
220-229 (01): X
230-239 (01): X
282 (1)
That is very cool, Mapman.
Edit: Because this is in straight forward
nsherry61
07-13-2018, 11:28
I've done a study. . .
I lover nerds! Thanks for a great answer and some great data tallying.
https://youtu.be/N59BCHn-8n4
Followbigfoot on YouTube did a pretty good video on how he did it. Hes really experienced and grinded out tons of miles night hiking, spent very little time in towns, and didn't take many (any?) Zeroes. I'd guess somewhere along the lines of 1-5%.
https://youtu.be/N59BCHn-8n4
. I'd guess somewhere along the lines of 1-5%.
2 out of 240 is less than 1%
but this is the finishers
so 100 day finishers vs intended thru starters would be more than 1/4 of 1%
If a person did not take any zeros, their average MPD would be 22. In order to keep your average at 22 and take 1 zero, a person would have to do 3 30 mile days to make up for the zero. To take 1 zero a week, a person would have to do 43, 30 mile days during their trip. My uneducated guess would be less than or equal to 5%.
I have only met in person 1 successful consistently big mile days hiker and that was Tatu Jo. Who did 26+ mile days all the way thru the AT before setting out the same year to complete the CDT with 26+ mile days as well. I don't think he took any zeros on the AT. What people will find is the more pressure you put on finishing in a certain number of days, or getting a certain AMPD the less successful your trip will be.
My greatest trip I have taken I have 16 days to walk as far as I could south from Salisbury, CT. We woke up every day and had a plan for that day, would just walk until dark and set up camp. I feel like it was the easiest going trip I have been on, and we took it 1 day at a time. We planned 212 miles and ended up with 237.
while i agree with your final summation your logic on what one needs to do to finish the trail in 100 days is sort of.... odd.
i'd look at a proposed 100 day hike something like this-
10 sets of 10 days, so 220 miles every 10 days.
one day off every 10 days, so hiking 9 out of 10 days (the first weirdness in your reasoning is not figuring that obviously a hike that fast would likely mean less days off than "normal").
220 miles/9 is a hair under 24.5 miles per day. thats a whole lot of an easier swallow than your "youd have to do 30 MPD 43 times" logic.
really not sure why anyone trying to do the trail in 100 days would hike 3 30 mile days in a week but only hike 22 on the other 3 days.
the real issue if one were seriously considering this is you probably cant do 24.5 miles in a number of places, though some can. thats where the need to bang out a few 30 might come in, but not 43 of them.
Slo-go'en
07-13-2018, 20:03
The problem with these hypothetical "you just have to hike XX miles a day" arguments is you can't consistently do XX miles a day. Terrain, weather, resupply locations and camping options all factor into it. It's a lot easier to loose miles then it is to make them up later. The recent FKT attempt starkly shows that.
A sub 100 day thru hike takes a very high level of endurance, both physical and mental. Mapman's data shows only a handful of hikers have done a sub 100 day thru hike. But we don't know how many tried and failed. It could be only a handful have tried and the success ratio is pretty good. Or it could be many have tried and failed, and the success ratio is pretty bad.
The problem with these hypothetical "you just have to hike XX miles a day" arguments is you can't consistently do XX miles a day. Terrain, weather, resupply locations and camping options all factor into it. It's a lot easier to loose miles then it is to make them up later. The recent FKT attempt starkly shows that.
A sub 100 day thru hike takes a very high level of endurance, both physical and mental. Mapman's data shows only a handful of hikers have done a sub 100 day thru hike. But we don't know how many tried and failed. It could be only a handful have tried and the success ratio is pretty good. Or it could be many have tried and failed, and the success ratio is pretty bad.
oh i wasnt attempting to suggest it was anything approaching easy, was just breaking it down in a more sensical manner.
the thing is, i know they are rare, and maybe most of the people i'm thinking of are more like 110 days and not 100, but the people i have run across who were knocking out that sort of mileage have been multiple and are the ones i mostly remember meeting and hiking with (albeit briefly). the rest of them are mostly just a big crowd of white noise. if i had to guess its because they and i have something very important in common- we're out there to hike and all the other things that go (good and bad) on hold little to no appeal to us.
garlic08
07-14-2018, 07:36
I've done a study of NOBO thru-hikers keeping journals at trailjournals.com from 2001 to 2010. Of the 240 journals in that database (thru-hikers who did a very thorough job of documenting every day of their hikes), two are for hikers completing in less than 100 days (around 1%)....
I was tempted to respond with a guess (in the sub-1% range) yesterday morning, but then I realized (and hoped) map man would probably respond with one of his great studies. Good stuff! And thanks for not letting us down.
I had a student do it NoBo in 100 days. It was between graduation and when he had to start his new job. He was young (22) and in great shape to start with (recently ran half marathon) and took my advice about minimizing zeroes and time spent in town.
Many others had told him he couldn't do it, and for many others without his focus, they probably would have been right.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
That is a great chart mapman but I think if one was using it to assign probabilities to the odds of doing in 100 days or less it might be understated by a bit. Outside of 1 young man who had a commitment of some sort (start of school?), most of the thru hikers I met were not trying to hit that specific of a target either. So the data may be a bit skewed in that regard. I was near the mean but could have hiked it in far fewer days if that had been an objective. (Not saying I could do it in 100 days). So I suspect maybe some of the hikers in the first quartile could have hit 100 days if so motivated.
But I do think the chart answers the OP's question though - it is a fair representation of those who DO (not COULD) finish in 100 days or less.
So I suspect maybe some of the hikers in the first quartile could have hit 100 days if so motivated.
But I do think the chart answers the OP's question though - it is a fair representation of those who DO (not COULD) finish in 100 days or less.
i think things like that are a factor too. i feel like there are plenty of hikers who hit their stride soewhere along the line and finish up maintaining a pace that could easily finish in 100 days if kept up over the whole trail. and as theyve kept it up for more than half the trail it seems high likely the could keep it up for the entire trail. they dont make 100 days mostly because of how they start.
it'd be interesting to know what percentage of nobos are able to finish, lets say the northern most 1500 miles of trail in less than 70 days. i think its likely higher than 1%
Slo-go'en
07-15-2018, 12:40
it'd be interesting to know what percentage of nobos are able to finish, lets say the northern most 1500 miles of trail in less than 70 days. i think its likely higher than 1%
The little thru hiker tags the ATC gives out should have a RFID chip installed so hikers progress could be tracked. Then we could get hard data on how long it takes hikers to get to someplace.
If you want to finish in 100 days or less than you need to complete the first 1500 miles NoBo in less than 70 days. There is absolutely no comparison between the first 1800 miles and the last 400.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
certainly a strong start is a better strategy than catching up
nsherry61
07-15-2018, 14:25
The little thru hiker tags the ATC gives out should have a RFID chip installed so hikers progress could be tracked. Then we could get hard data on how long it takes hikers to get to someplace.
That would be kinda fun. You would need to set up RFID readers somewhere along the route. Maybe at grocery stores or post offices or hostels. I wonder what size battery it would take to maintain a trailhead RFID reader?
But I do think the chart answers the OP's question though - it is a fair representation of those who DO (not COULD) finish in 100 days or less.
At least among those that have the energy and inclination to post complete histories on trailjournals.com
As Astro started saying, my next question would also be what was the character, experience level, and how to execution of those that do it...do it.
I'll venture less than .005 %, that's 1/2 of 1 %, of first time "thru hikers" doing an unsupported thru hike of 2000+ miles will get it done in less than 100 days. What one can do and will do are two different things.
I'll venture less than .005 %, that's 1/2 of 1 %, of first time "thru hikers" doing an unsupported thru hike of 2000+ miles will get it done in less than 100 days. What one can do and will do are two different things.
You may be correct but the OP's question didn't ask for the % by experience level. Again, there are absolutely no hikers that I met (or even heard of) that had a specific target (in number of days) to complete the trail. Quite a few had a specific deadline to be off the trail (start of school, plane ticket. job start date, visa, etc.) but they simply worked backwards from that date and made some sort of calculation, with an ample margin of error built in. But I don't recall anyone saying they were striving to hit a goal of "X" days. In a way, it seems counter-intuitive to want to rush through what many on here refer to as a "long vacation".
As to rickb's point, it is indeed mathematically correct. Mapman's data is accurate based on the assumption that the probability that people who do the trail journal stuff (I didn't nor do I look at other's) is equally distributed among all the categories (ranges) in his histogram. I have no way of knowing if that assumption is correct or not.
You may be correct but the OP's question didn't ask for the % by experience level. Again, there are absolutely no hikers that I met (or even heard of) that had a specific target (in number of days) to complete the trail. Quite a few had a specific deadline to be off the trail (start of school, plane ticket. job start date, visa, etc.) but they simply worked backwards from that date and made some sort of calculation, with an ample margin of error built in. But I don't recall anyone saying they were striving to hit a goal of "X" days. In a way, it seems counter-intuitive to want to rush through what many on here refer to as a "long vacation".
As to rickb's point, it is indeed mathematically correct. Mapman's data is accurate based on the assumption that the probability that people who do the trail journal stuff (I didn't nor do I look at other's) is equally distributed among all the categories (ranges) in his histogram. I have no way of knowing if that assumption is correct or not.
met up with a guy in NJ who had a 100 goal and was on track - went by " 13 " given to him for his early base wt
he did not start with the goal - got it on the way
I did 13 with him on a rainy day and stopped - he went another 11