PDA

View Full Version : Health Needs of Hikers: Scientific Results



Newb
03-09-2005, 11:03
I found this article on the web, I don't know if it's been posted here before. It's self explanatory, but really quite fascinating. It's from the Journal of Family Medicine.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n5_v36/ai_13928819

Snippets:

"The duration of the hike for the thru hikers averaged 163 days with a range of 82 of 252 days. On average, the section hikers completed the Trail over 8.8 years, with a range of 2 to 42 years. Backpackers reported an effect on body weight. The thru hikers reported the largest average weight loss (18 lb) during the course of their trek. The section hikers also tended to lose weight, averaging a weight loss of 11.8 lb over the duration of the hike. The weight of the packs carried ranged from 28 to 98 lb, the average being 45.6 lb. The pack weight was the same for the thru hikers and the section hikers.
Correlations between pack weight and frequency of injury or duration of lost hiking time because of injury were not significant. This was also the case when hiker size was considered and the ratio of pack weight to body weight was used in place of pack weight"

...very interesting...

"Backpacking, hiking, running, and jogging were the primary forms of physical conditioning employed before hiking. For conditioning the feet, the major method was merely wearing one's boots ahead of time. The results from discriminate analysis indicated that no form of conditioning resulted in significantly less injury or fewer foot problems."

and this:

"Sixty-three percent (63%) of the hikers experienced diarrhea at least one time during the course of their hiking. In 58% of these cases, the duration of the diarrhea was only 1 to 2 days. Only 7% drank exclusively from protected water during their travels, while the majority admitted consuming unprotected or untreated water approximately once a month. The majority used some form of treatment for their water supply such as filtering, boiling, or chemical sterilization of the water. There were no significant differences in the frequency of diarrhea between those who drank untreated water and those who treated their water."

Dainon
03-09-2005, 11:22
98 lbs??? 98 POUNDS???!!! that has to be a record in terms of pack weight...

JP
03-09-2005, 13:30
98 pounds ? Judging from my former Marine son, it was probably a former Marine.

MOWGLI
03-09-2005, 13:40
98 lbs??? 98 POUNDS???!!! that has to be a record in terms of pack weight...


Not by a long shot. House started ay Amicalola Falls SP in 2000 with 110 pounds.

Dainon
03-09-2005, 14:33
110 pounds is truly remarkable. i did a search for 'house' on trailjournals, but nothing is there. is there a list somewhere of exactly what he carried? i didn't even know a pack was made that could carry that kind of weight. my knees feel like they have gutter nails in them when carrying 25 lbs -- i can't imagine 110.

Jack Tarlin
03-09-2005, 14:50
While I think there's some valid information in this article, it should be noted that it was published in 1993 and based on data from folks who hiked in '87 and '88.

The Trail has changed greatly in that time, which was more than fifteen years ago. People should consider taking a large grain of salt when they're considering information/data that is that old.

*Things are lots easier for hikers today: They are carrying less weight from the outset, have better and more efficient gear and clothing, are wearing better shoes, etc.

*They are better fed, as "Trail Food" options are a lot better, and potentially, a lot healthier, than they were years ago. A good diet is essential to good health.

*There are more facilities/service providers along the way, meaning hikers are better rested, better fed, better off psychologically (more contact with friends, families, etc.), and most importantly, they are out on the trail for shorter periods of time. In the old days, hikers would often be out from 7 to 10 or more days at a stretch and this just doesn't happen anymore. There is now a town or hiker facility every three or four days.....thru-hikers now take 15 to 30 non-hiking days on their trips; this wasn't the case years ago.

*Hikers are better informed from the outset of their trips, i.e., they have a better idea of what's ahead of them, where they can rest, where they can bail out if things get tough or go wrong, where the Outfitters are, where they can call for help, where they can lay up for days at a time if hurt, trapped by bad weather, etc. In the old days, hikers didn't have these options, or if they did, they didn't have them every three days.

In short, folks that hiked years ago had it LOTS tougher than today's hikers, and that should be remembered when reading articles like the one cited.

MOWGLI
03-09-2005, 15:05
110 pounds is truly remarkable. i did a search for 'house' on trailjournals, but nothing is there. is there a list somewhere of exactly what he carried? i didn't even know a pack was made that could carry that kind of weight. my knees feel like they have gutter nails in them when carrying 25 lbs -- i can't imagine 110.

Other than the 12-pack and fifth of booze, he had an extra pair of boots, clothes for every day of the week, dozens of cans of soup, pots and pans that you find in a kitchen, and on & on. He was a nice guy who went to Wal Mart to buy most of his gear.

Gonzo!
03-10-2005, 09:35
I hiked thru in '83 and some of what Jack mentions sounds like my hike. Can't say for sure how it compares with trail life today, but I hope to find out in the next few years when I set out to do the trail again! then I will let you all know how it has changed.
Gonzo!

Nightwalker
03-11-2005, 10:28
I hiked thru in '83 and some of what Jack mentions sounds like my hike. Can't say for sure how it compares with trail life today, but I hope to find out in the next few years when I set out to do the trail again! then I will let you all know how it has changed.
Gonzo!I like your journal site. Nicely done.

I believe that You'll like long hiking at 45. I know that I certainly do!

:D