View Full Version : What's Harder: Thru hiking or Section hiking?
fredmugs
03-23-2009, 02:41
So I'm sitting at Uncle Johnny's taking a whiz and this guy asks me if I'm a thru hiker and I told him I was doing a 172 mile section. He told me that section hiking was harder which I didn't agree with when he said it but then he said that a section hiker had to re-dedicate themselves every year to going back onto the trail.
150 - 170 miles is about all I want to do at once so I think it would be harder for me personally to do a thru hike.
What do you think is harder: Hiking the whole thing in 4 - 6 months or taking 5 or more years to get it done?
drastic_quench
03-23-2009, 02:57
Thru. Lot's of little things, both on and off trail, could end your hike. And thrus had to wrangle that 4 - 6 months off. Sections can go bad too, but you just come back next time. That's to say nothing of the physical toll half a year of continuous hiking takes. There's nothing to stop a section hiker from finishing fat and happy. I think both are equally valid and awesome adventures though. Just because one may be more difficult in my opinion, I'm not going to think any less of that person or their dedication.
Pokey2006
03-23-2009, 02:59
Depends on your definition of "harder." There are a lot of different things that make a hike more difficult:
Spending time away from family: thru-hiking is harder.
Finances: thru-hiking.
Physical demands: section hiking, because you have to get in shape all over again every year.
Adjusting to trail life and routine: section hiking.
Mentally: depends on the person. For some, short trips are a disappointment, for others, spending months at a time on the trail can be a challenge.
fiddlehead
03-23-2009, 03:34
Ask a thru hiker, and he'll probably say a thru is harder.
Ask a section hiker, and he'd most likely say a section hike is harder.
Personally i think it's a lot easier to thru-hike. You suffer the pains of getting in shape only once, not every year or every time out. You get into a rhythm and get stronger as you go.
It's one of those questions that has no right or wrong answer IMO.
Cookerhiker
03-23-2009, 07:05
Ask a thru hiker, and he'll probably say a thru is harder.
Ask a section hiker, and he'd most likely say a section hike is harder.
Personally i think it's a lot easier to thru-hike. You suffer the pains of getting in shape only once, not every year or every time out. You get into a rhythm and get stronger as you go.
It's one of those questions that has no right or wrong answer IMO.
Not necessarily. I section-hiked the whole trail over many years; my sections ranged from single-day outings to hiking all of Maine in one section. I think thru-hiking is more challenging for the simple reason that 2,175 miles requires more effort and planning than day or week or even month long sections. In the old days before I used trekking poles, my knees were pretty sore after my section hikes; no way could I have hiked over 2,000 miles.
I have never done a thru - 300 miles is my longest hike. I was going to give a slam dunk 'thru hike is harder' answer until I read fiddlehead's answer. He raises a good point. Day 3-4, even if you're in good shape hitting the trail, is pretty bad. You hurt in places you didn't know you had places. Then by day 5 you turn the corner and by day 6-7 you have your 'trail legs.' At least that's what I've always experienced. People who only weekend hike or never do more than 4-5 days never get to that 'in shape and totally enjoying it' phase. It's like people who hate running, but have never attained the physical conditioning that allows them to reach that 'runner's high' where everything kinda goes numb and you can just run and run and run.
The other side of the coin though is that a thru (I think because I haven't done one) can play on your mind. Everyone's circumstances, family situation, etc. is different, but what you left behind can start to weigh on your mind and give you excuses or reasons to quit. Or you can simply just lose the passion and get bored. I think a 'thru' introduces a unique mind challenge in this regard that section hiking doesn't.
Lone Wolf
03-23-2009, 07:49
thru-walkin is much easier than section walkin
They are both hard enough to be worth doing if you have the time.
this is a great question.
I was sure the "usual suspects" would take the stance that through over all was bible.
You guys always surprise me!
I , as a section hiker, have to agree that day three is a bitch and then , all to soon, it's over.
this year, for the first time, I'm going out for two weeks.
we shall see what that does for these old legs
Pedaling Fool
03-23-2009, 08:32
Section hiking the AT is tougher than hiking it in one shot.
With section hiking you have the whole logistics problem. And it's expensive every year getting to and from the trail. However, there isn't the time crunch most throughs have and I've never had the 'I've got to keep going to get to Katahdin' worry. If I want to take 5 zeros in Damascus, I do. I have a good month to hike every summer, and can go at my own pace.
Plus, I've only gotten my trail legs once. I don't know what summit is talking about cause it takes me a good 4 weeks to get my trail legs. So physically, it's more difficult in that respect.
Pedaling Fool
03-23-2009, 09:19
...Plus, I've only gotten my trail legs once. I don't know what summit is talking about cause it takes me a good 4 weeks to get my trail legs. So physically, it's more difficult in that respect.
It does take a while to get your trail legs. And when you got them you glide over the trail. I don't think most section hikers get this feeling.
i thought it was interesting that the assumption in most posts seems to be that section hikes take place only once a year. making section hiking (or just hiking) a way of life means you always stay in shape... not just for the six months of a thru. year round. i don't think there's any doubt that "walkin" often is the healthiest way to be obsessed with the AT. having the discipline to do that is different than having the discipline to walk for six months. different, but also hard. and also really wonderful.
neighbor dave
03-23-2009, 09:29
it's all in yer head. both are easy
ARambler
03-23-2009, 09:31
Thru hiking is much harder. In a decade, a section hiker may only hike 2000 mi, while a thru hiker will hike over 20000 mi.
Now being a future thru hiker for a year and a former thru hiker for 8 years, is really easy. Many people on whiteblaze can do that.
Rambler
Lone Wolf
03-23-2009, 09:33
while a thru hiker will hike over 20000 mi.
how you figure that? :-?
neighbor dave
03-23-2009, 09:34
life is a thru-hike, is it easier to go straight thru or in sections:D
Lone Wolf
03-23-2009, 09:36
i been blue-blazin' life
Thru hiking is much harder. In a decade, a section hiker may only hike 2000 mi, while a thru hiker will hike over 20000 mi.
Now being a future thru hiker for a year and a former thru hiker for 8 years, is really easy. Many people on whiteblaze can do that.
Rambler
Far from it. My brother is a 06 thru hiker and I hike more then he does now. He does join me for some states but I am out a lot more then he and some of his thru hiking buddies so how does a thru hiker put on more miles than me after their thru?
buff_jeff
03-23-2009, 09:46
Who cares? For the sake of brevity let's just say they're both on par.
Pedaling Fool
03-23-2009, 09:46
Hiking is like jumping in a pool. It seems easier to stick you toe in and slowly acclimate to the cold water, but in reality it's easier to just jump in and get it over with.
A section hiker gets to look forward every year to a new experience and they are usually motivated to stay in shape for the next hiking season.:)
Most important, a section hiker gets the cure for Springer fever every year.
Is it easier or harder.....who cares!!!!
Blissful
03-23-2009, 09:59
Having done both, I think section hiker is tougher physically. You never truly get your trail legs being out there for a week or two at a time. You always feel you are starting from scratch with muscles, blisters, pack discomfort, etc. After a week in SNP this fall I wanted to keep going knowing I'd already gone through the hard stuff of getting acclimated to the trail, but alas, had to return to work.
But mentally it would have to be thru hiking.
G. Rabbit
03-23-2009, 10:25
It seems most of this discusion assumes section hiker means 1-2 weeks. But how do yall figure in long section hikers into this mess of a question?
I did the first 600+ and only a few I met on the trail intended to go all the way (it was at the very tail end of nobo thru hiker season) Some went 400+, 900+, 1000+ and a few further than that. That makes us all section hikers, but after a month or so out there you get into the same hiking mentality as a thru would. We all had had our trail legs for a while, had made a habit of living outside and always dealing with some sort of pain, got totally used to smelling ourselves and being seated in the back corner of restaurants, and privys were not nearly so repulsive. Most of those I hiked with had quit their jobs or were doing a career change and had no idea what they were going back to after their 2-4 months, just like a thru hiker.
And what about a thru who went off the trail because of an injury or something and comes back to finish it later that season or the next? Are they still considered thru hikers or just section hikers again?
Looking back at the mileage of my hiker buddies, we went much further than most intending a thru hike ever will (based on the statistics)
Pedaling Fool
03-23-2009, 10:29
We're all section hikers since the IAT has opened.:D
garlic08
03-23-2009, 10:49
I've always respected the hikers on the "20-year plan". That sounds hard.
I have only section hiked, so my opinion is limited to that.
I agree that "Harder" is based on perspective.
SO, why sectioning is harder, for me at least:
More travel expenses. The closest the AT comes to my home is 400 miles, so each trip is at least a 600 mile drive.
As mentioned above: I have to commit each time I start. AND I can't keep hiking if I'm having a great hike but my time is almost up.
A "rule of thumb" i subscribe to is: For a 20 year old in good shape, it takes 3 weeks to get their "trail legs", add 1 week for every decade above 20. SO, even after 3 weeks sectioning, I still don't fully have my trail legs. nearly everyone passes me. The "Hard" part is, I can feel that I'm getting near having "trail Legs" Then I have to stop, then wait an average of 2 years to start over again.
Even when I can section every year, I'm still a year older, and I still don't have my trail legs.
Sectioners don't usually have the on trail support group that most thru's have. So sometimes it's harder to go on, and easier to quit.
Someday I would like to be able to compare sectioning with a thru hike. :p For now, I think a thru is "easier" hiking wise, but harder (maybe) mentally.
The Solemates
03-23-2009, 17:34
With section hiking you have the whole logistics problem. And it's expensive every year getting to and from the trail. However, there isn't the time crunch most throughs have and I've never had the 'I've got to keep going to get to Katahdin' worry. If I want to take 5 zeros in Damascus, I do. I have a good month to hike every summer, and can go at my own pace.
Plus, I've only gotten my trail legs once. I don't know what summit is talking about cause it takes me a good 4 weeks to get my trail legs. So physically, it's more difficult in that respect.
dont want to beat a dead horse, but thought you werent coming back?
dont want to beat a dead horse, but thought you werent coming back?
Agreements were made. All is well.
Do you like arranging shuttles and strings of constant logistics and dealing with the soreness of getting back into good trail condition every year? If not, you may find section hiking harder.
Do you like pushing yourself by an outside schedule based on weather and park schedules, with high-mileage days often being a necessity, and the mental burnout that often comes with doing it for months on end? If not, you may find thru-hiking harder.
For me personally, I'm glad I completed the AT as a thru-hike. I have done 2-week sections (my favorite parts) over previous summers, and I enjoyed them. But I think I might drive myself nuts trying to do the whole trail two weeks at a time.
So for me, I think section hiking the whole trail would be harder than my thru-hike.
section hiking has convinced me i don't want to thru
blue-blazing has convinced me that springer and katahdin are just points on a map
leeki pole
03-23-2009, 17:52
To quote a hiker here, "it's just walkin." Of course I'm only a lowly section hiker, so what do I know. I still get wet and cold and hot and stinky, though.
I don't know what summit is talking about cause it takes me a good 4 weeks to get my trail legs.Well, there's probably 'green belt' trail legs and 'black belt.' After about 5 days my legs are doing a lot better than day 2-3-4. The longest I've gone is a month and I don't recall my legs getting progressively better after two weeks. So I'm sure it varies with individuals, but I felt pretty lean n' mean by the end of three weeks for sure. How long it takes I'm sure also depends on how much body weight you are carrying, especially if well over one's ideal weight. The time I did a month trek I came back below ideal weight and started only slightly higher than ideal weight, losing about 20 lbs. I'd speculate that if a person is over 30 lbs over their maximum ideal weight, the 'trail legs' attainment could well take longer than 3-4 weeks.
Good points made by all. I would think section hiking for all the logistics that are needed (getting to the trail AND the shuttles from point B to A). You only have to carve the time out for a thru once, unless you do it again :)
The psychological factor works both ways. A thru-hiker will inevitably go through some duldrums or some days when they don't feel like walking and if they are commited to finishing, "must" stick it out.
But on the flip side, a thru-hiker who is not feeling like hiknig can go take the day off or do something else if it is raining and cold. A guy out for 7-10 probably needs to make the most of his time and get to his shuttle.
my long sections were easiest after 2 weeks break in- thru's told me I was not as worn down and beat up as them-if I get an injury on a section I just go home early but the thru's often need to battle the injury on the trail... a few more factors
wrongway_08
03-23-2009, 20:18
I liked thru-hiking because of the community you get wrapped up in. The fun of jumping foward and then falling behind your group, getting to know more people and then enjoyn hearing about your buddies finishing the trail!!
I like section hiking - thanks to Sasquatch, i am slowly doing a section hike!! - because it breaks up the year, it is fun to try and get the miles in on weekends. Great break away from work. And you get to catch up with everyone a few times a year, around the camp fire.
Vote for hardest one would be a section hike. Just because I like to finish goals in one shot.
Lone Wolf
03-23-2009, 20:22
i've been hiking the damascus section every day for the past 2 weeks both NOBO and SOBO with some blue-blazin' in there
Both hike the same trail therefore the physical demands are the same. The only difference is the section hiker spends much more money on staging himself/herself for each hike. It gets more expensive the further you hike from home. I live in Georgia and to move further up the trail each year is more and more expensive.
Pedaling Fool
03-24-2009, 08:42
Well, there's probably 'green belt' trail legs and 'black belt.' After about 5 days my legs are doing a lot better than day 2-3-4. The longest I've gone is a month and I don't recall my legs getting progressively better after two weeks....
True, but I know what Lilred was saying, there's a big difference between strong legs after hiking a couple weeks and "trail legs". How long it takes to get trail legs (which has a lot more to do with the total body than just the legs) varies between people. For me it was about the 600-700 mile point. I already had stong legs by this point, but after this point I remember having an incredible feeling of effortless walking, that's how I define trail legs.
Christus Cowboy
03-24-2009, 09:13
Since I've never done a thru I'm not sure what criteria would be used to determine difficulty however I do wonder what the completion percentage of thru-hikers are in relation to section-hikers... It seems to me that the numbers on thrus each year are readily available but I'm not sure if such numbers are published on those completing the AT using the section hiking approach.
If completion rates are generally accepted as a criteria of difficulty for the two approaches then the comparison could shed some light on the answer.....
Cookerhiker
03-24-2009, 10:09
Since I've never done a thru I'm not sure what criteria would be used to determine difficulty however I do wonder what the completion percentage of thru-hikers are in relation to section-hikers... It seems to me that the numbers on thrus each year are readily available but I'm not sure if such numbers are published on those completing the AT using the section hiking approach.
If completion rates are generally accepted as a criteria of difficulty for the two approaches then the comparison could shed some light on the answer.....
One difference is that by definition, thruhikers aspire to finish the whole trail whereas that is not necessarily the case with sectioners. Yes, some sectioners are on the "20 year plan" or have similar intentions with specific milestones but some just go out and hike portions of the Trail when they can. They might even hike the same sections over again e.g. those section near wher they live or those they particularly like.
Furthermore some section hikers may start out not necessarily planning to hike the whole trail and subsequently, perhaps years later, decide to try to cover all of it; that was what I did.
So it's hard to empirically come up with an apples-and-apples comparison.
dont want to beat a dead horse, but thought you werent coming back?
ATTroll asked me to come back and continue moderating. Some things have changed for the better, so I agreed.
True, but I know what Lilred was saying, there's a big difference between strong legs after hiking a couple weeks and "trail legs". How long it takes to get trail legs (which has a lot more to do with the total body than just the legs) varies between people. For me it was about the 600-700 mile point. I already had stong legs by this point, but after this point I remember having an incredible feeling of effortless walking, that's how I define trail legs.
Exactly john, the only time I got my trail legs, I literally felt like my torso was detached from my legs. As if my legs were carrying me, but was so effortless, it was like they weren't a part of me. Very strange, but very cool feeling.
I always thought that if someone were defining themselves as a section hiker, then their intention was to complete the whole trail in sections. Otherwise, it's just a backpacking trip. 1`
i've been hiking the damascus section every day for the past 2 weeks both NOBO and SOBO with some blue-blazin' in there
Yo Yo :p
wystiria
03-24-2009, 12:19
I am in the process of doing both - Thru hiked in 98' got to NH and then had to go back to school. NOW I am married and my DH wants to section hike the trail. He made a deal with me that we will go and do ME once he has completed WV North.
Both are hard -
Thru hiking was easier for me though - 1 time planning. less over-all cash, and in general I was in WAY better shape lol but mentaly it was tough, not gonna lie I don't like being on the trail for more than 2 months.
Section hiking is costly lol - still cheaper than vacations though ;) its constant planning and shuttling etc. and you're never in as good of shape as you wish to be. BUT the upside is you can do what you want when you want. and mentaly its a lot easier in my mind.
Soooooooo when i am done I will have hiked the trail twice lol I will have to do ME twice in a section to pull it off....but I think I will just have to do that.
Darwin again
03-24-2009, 12:24
They're not.
Sectioning is harder.
True, but I know what Lilred was saying, there's a big difference between strong legs after hiking a couple weeks and "trail legs". How long it takes to get trail legs (which has a lot more to do with the total body than just the legs) varies between people. For me it was about the 600-700 mile point. I already had stong legs by this point, but after this point I remember having an incredible feeling of effortless walking, that's how I define trail legs.Apparently a level of 'super-legs' I've never reached. Interesting . . . makes me want to quit my job and test it out! :)
bigcranky
03-24-2009, 14:29
I'm a section hiker. I do intend to eventually complete the trail. I have about 700 miles done, all south of Harper's Ferry.
For me, the hard part of section hiking is the rigid schedule. If I am out for a week, or even two weeks, my hiking schedule is carved in stone -- hike XX miles today, XX miles tomorrow, etc., so I can be back at the car on XX date so I can be back at work on the following Monday.
There is no room at all for serendipity. No room in the schedule for an unplanned short day, a half day in an interesting town, stopping early to camp on a bald. I have my hike planned out, and I have to stick to the plan. I envy the thru-hiker who has the flexibility to make decisions on the spur of the moment. (I know some thru-hikers have tight schedules due to school or work commitments. But there are many who just have to finish "this year.")
As I work further north, I'll need to do longer sections to justify the driving time. I'm hoping that a month-long section will free me from the rigid schedule. We'll see.
I'm a section hiker. I do intend to eventually complete the trail. I have about 700 miles done, all south of Harper's Ferry.
For me, the hard part of section hiking is the rigid schedule. If I am out for a week, or even two weeks, my hiking schedule is carved in stone -- hike XX miles today, XX miles tomorrow, etc., so I can be back at the car on XX date so I can be back at work on the following Monday.
There is no room at all for serendipity. No room in the schedule for an unplanned short day, a half day in an interesting town, stopping early to camp on a bald. I have my hike planned out, and I have to stick to the plan. I envy the thru-hiker who has the flexibility to make decisions on the spur of the moment. (I know some thru-hikers have tight schedules due to school or work commitments. But there are many who just have to finish "this year.")
As I work further north, I'll need to do longer sections to justify the driving time. I'm hoping that a month-long section will free me from the rigid schedule. We'll see.
I think I am batting .500 reaching my car on schedule. I always carry a shuttle phone number or six after getting stuck once.
bigcranky
03-24-2009, 15:14
I think I am batting .500 reaching my car on schedule. I always carry a shuttle phone number or six after getting stuck once.
Me too. I just hate paying for a second shuttle. (I'll take my motivation anywhere I can get it.)
Sir-P-Alot
03-24-2009, 15:21
This is really a weird question...It's like asking whether a 6 month vacation is harder that a short vacation every year for 5 years. I guess it depends on what your goals are?
Me too. I just hate paying for a second shuttle. (I'll take my motivation anywhere I can get it.)
I hear ya. I've been getting better at keeping to the schedule. Twice I stopped short on account of weather, only to return another time... to worse weather. :datz
As I work further north, I'll need to do longer sections to justify the driving time. I'm hoping that a month-long section will free me from the rigid schedule. We'll see.
It will, I hike with a month or more and don't have to stick to any schedule and it is very freeing. You'll like it.
I've always entertained the idea of hiking the AT in sections, going out and back to my car. That way I will have hiked the AT twice, once NB and once SB.
Physically, section hiking is probably harder. A lot of it really depends on one's status in life as a whole but overall, it's gotta be thru hiking. I'm 4 years into a 28 year plan to section hike the whole thing. I can see myself doing a section or two per year for a long time, but no way could I see myself being mentally able to leave my 7 & 3 y/o kids for 6 months, right now. Maybe in 20 years, but not now. Simple deduction: section hiking is doable, thru hiking is not, so section hiking is harder. And while I am not speaking for the 22 y/o recent college grad, I am speaking for the 36 y/o career family man.
Physically, section hiking is probably harder. A lot of it really depends on one's status in life as a whole but overall, it's gotta be thru hiking. I'm 4 years into a 28 year plan to section hike the whole thing. I can see myself doing a section or two per year for a long time, but no way could I see myself being mentally able to leave my 7 & 3 y/o kids for 6 months, right now. Maybe in 20 years, but not now. Simple deduction: section hiking is doable, thru hiking is not, so section hiking is harder. And while I am not speaking for the 22 y/o recent college grad, I am speaking for the 36 y/o career family man.
welcome to the club. 8 years, 450 miles, going over the 500 mile mark this year. everyone does what works for them. fun is had by all.
Cookerhiker
03-24-2009, 18:30
Physically, section hiking is probably harder. A lot of it really depends on one's status in life as a whole but overall, it's gotta be thru hiking. I'm 4 years into a 28 year plan to section hike the whole thing. I can see myself doing a section or two per year for a long time, but no way could I see myself being mentally able to leave my 7 & 3 y/o kids for 6 months, right now. Maybe in 20 years, but not now. Simple deduction: section hiking is doable, thru hiking is not, so section hiking is harder. And while I am not speaking for the 22 y/o recent college grad, I am speaking for the 36 y/o career family man.
You are almost exactly where I was when I was your age. At the time, my kids were 5 and 3. Even the "plan" is similar - my hiking extended from 1977 to 2005: 28 years! I took off some time for AT section hiking but never more than 4 nights/50 miles. And not all my vacatin timed was spent AT hiking; I often went west with the family for camping in the National Parks. I thought I'd never finish the whole trail and I couldn't imagine myself hiking 100 or miles at a clip. But I started keeping a spreadsheet of my trail sections just in case.
At retirement in May 2003, I had only covered 800 miles so finishing the whole AT still seemed insurmountable. To make a long story short, 28 months later, I stood on Katahdin (http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?trailname=2875). So don't get discouraged; if I can do it, so can you.
sticks&stones
03-24-2009, 18:40
section harder, except when within 175mls of either terminus.
Shadowman
03-24-2009, 19:21
Having done both I still am not sure but I am leaning toward the position that it is harder as a section hiker do to the reconditioning each time. I was a longer section hiker: Springer to Harpers, Harpers to Hanover, Hanover to Katahdin and could not really see much difference. I saw many other kinds of section hikers, those that do a week a year, state a year, month a year, etc. and I suspect the answer varies. There was a lot less logistics to thru hiking as to getting to the trail and back and thus less expense per mile perhaps it you look at it that way.
Section hiking is about the reconditioning. The reconditioning is about discovering, over and over the joy of hiking and the reasons that we keep going back. I come south twice a year for three to four weeks at a time.
My first few days journal invariably contains comments such as: "Who the Hell thought that this was a good idea" or "I am too old for this". As the entries progress there is a feeling of growing strength, recomittment and rediscovering why I am there. I never fail to look forward to the transition process. Going down to the trail throughout the year, allows me to be experiencing the trail all year either physically or contemplatively.
The added bonus, is that being from Canada....the drive to my section gets shorter each time
Mistyped. Simple deduction=thru hiking is harder.
Lone Wolf
03-24-2009, 20:49
thru- hiking is way easy
CrumbSnatcher
03-24-2009, 21:12
IMO section hiking tougher overall.
IMO section hiking tougher overall.
dude, pm me if need anything when you reach CT this year.
CrumbSnatcher
03-24-2009, 21:39
dude, pm me if need anything when you reach CT this year.
that would be cool! :D thanks Tin Man
MedicineMan
03-24-2009, 22:32
plan a day after, before, or during the section to engage the local community(s)...When doing the section before Boiling Springs we heard thunder but it wasn't thunder...cannon fire during the re-enactment...2 days later we toured Gettysburg. Same with the next section with a day at Antietam and after Duncannon a day at Hershey. Now I'm looking forward to the next section with a visit to Yeunglings(sp?), and the Molly McGuire sight. There is a lot of historical or just interesting areas close to the trail.
that would be cool! :D thanks Tin Man
anytime
Thru-hiking is physically easier, unless you have a serious injury and try to walk through it. But IMHO thru-hiking is mentally/emotionally harder.
Section-hiking is physically more difficult for anyone who doesn't hike regularly during the time between those sections, because you have to get into trail shape almost every time you tackle a section. Section-hiking is also more difficult logistically because you have to get to the trail, get to your section's start point, then get home each time. That also gets very expensive compared to a traditional thru-hike. But IMHO section-hiking is usually easier mentally/emotionally than thru-hiking.
Good thread.