View Full Version : average times
Jonas Winslo
08-24-2012, 17:43
I've always had in my head that it takes six months to hike the AT. But reading trail journals and browsing here it seems as though a lot of people are doing it faster, without neccessarily killing themselves or racking up strings of mega-mile days.
For those of you who thru-hiked in under five months, would you go that fast if you had it to do over? Do you wish you had had more time to see the sights and relax? Were you moving quickly because you were in a groove or because you had a deadline at the far end and needed to make a schedule?
Odd Man Out
08-24-2012, 18:36
You might find this classic article useful.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php?44
One finding is that people tend to hike the same rate for the whole trail.
HikerMom58
08-24-2012, 18:37
Well, I'm not exactly sure but I think you'll find that it's been a big debate on here, in the past, whether to hike slow or fast. Or just what is considered hiking slow or fast. Are you thinking of hiking a thru-hike yourself? Or are you just curious? Oh Hey... looks like you just became a member... Welcome! :)
Kryptonite
08-24-2012, 19:20
You might find this classic article useful.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php?44
One finding is that people tend to hike the same rate for the whole trail.
This is one of the best articles EVER!!
my thru was 150 days on the money - - when I do it again, I'll likely go a little faster - - I've heard that the average is about 170 days which is 5 1/2 months. Remeber that you have two main groups of people thru-hiking:
1) College Aged people (18-25 or so) that become very fit with amazing trail legs and do 30 mile days often - these people skew the average time down toward the 4 month mark
3) Early retired people that have stayed in good shape and always wanted to thru-hike (50-70+yrs old) - these folks typically take their time and work the "average higher" up toward the 6+ month mark
there are plenty of exceptions - 50 year old speed hikers, 20 year old slow walkers but you get the idea.
If you plan on 140-160 days, you probably won't be too far off.
fiddlehead
08-24-2012, 20:44
Best to just go with the flow (of your body/friends/circumstances) and enjoy every day.
Don't look at your watch and say "I have to get in 8 more miles today to get to Maine (or Springer) by a certain date.
If you want to stop, STOP!
If you want to continue walking past 5 PM, DO IT.
Why worry about the time?
All your life you are probably tied to a time schedule. Now you will be able to forget about time and get up and go to bed with the sun.
It's a good feeling.
I think the perfect setup for a NOBO thru would be to start May 1st, hike 23 miles a day and take a 0 every 7 days. That'd put you on a just about a 20 mpd schedule and allow 1 day a week to rest.
Starting May 1st you could pack light and finishing in less than 4 months would put you on Katahdin around the end of August so you could avoid having to switch out to cold weather gear.
But I'll be lookin' for 8 when they pull that gate
And I hope that judge ain't blind.
Stretch it out as long as you can. It'll be something you'll treasure the rest of your life.
Datto
Took me 140 hiking days and I'm old;)
Moose2001
08-24-2012, 21:15
Start at a moderate pace and let your body tell you how many miles to do. Too many hikers have a "schedule" to keep and end up doing big miles too early and get injured.
18 miles/day ~ 4 months
15 miles/day ~ 5 months
12 miles/day ~ 6 months
checkout AWOL's website for sample hiking plans for each of those
like 10K says, the faster you hike, the less food you have to pack between resupply points, and a lighter pack makes it a lot more enjoyable.
I'm blushing because Odd Man Out has conferred "classic" status on my article and Kryptonite calls it one of the best articles "EVER":o.
What I found is that typical AT-completing thorough journal keepers at Trailjournals.com averaged about 10 miles per hiking day in the earliest days of their northbound hike, steadilly built that up to around 17 miles per hiking day at their peak, slowed down to 11-13 miles per day in the rugged parts of New Hampshire and Maine, before finally speeding back up to around 15 miles per day in the last bit.
About 80 percent of these folks took between 4.5 and 6.5 months to complete a NOBO thru-hike. About 10 percent hiked faster. About 10 percent hiked slower. A typical Whiteblaze thread addressing this question usually brings out an inordinate number of responders at the extremes -- that is, a lot who advocate a speedier hike like the fastest 10 percent and a lot who advocate a "smell-the-roses" hike like the slowest 10 percent. But most real life thru-hikers are in the 4.5 to 6.5 month moderate middle.
Honestly, it's taking the amorous affections of a beautiful woman and trying to get it over with early. Why would you want to do that? Wouldn't you wish to caress every curve and engage the silk of every stroke of you hand and mind? Capture and enjoy the essence of her will and desire for as long as humanly possible?
I don't get the idea of trying to speed this up -- this is something you want to make last, to savor the pleasure in -- not something to get done and cross off the to-do list.
Datto
garlic08
08-25-2012, 00:59
I hiked my AT thru hike in 3.5 months. If I were to hike the AT again I would attempt to pick up the pace a little and would even think about attempting a yo-yo (round trip). But with so many other different things to do in the world, that probably won't happen.
I loved hiking the AT at that pace, which worked out to 20 miles per day. That, coincidentally, was the same pace I kept on the PCT and CDT before I hiked the AT, so it's obviously the right pace for me. I had no schedule, no deadline, it's just the way I like to walk--about 2 mph for about 10 hours per day.
Talking with slower hikers, I found that I actually saw more, took more side trips, than many did. Some hikers were kind of slogging along painfully, 10 miles per day, and that 1 mile side trip was a big percentage of their day, so they didn't take it. I saw plenty of viewpoints, waterfalls, historical monuments that many missed. I was out there longer, too, from sunrise to sunset on most days, and I got to see a lot of pretty cool stuff while many were in camp or in sitting in a lean-to.
I believe I would be bored silly if I slowed down very much. Or I need a different definition of "hiking".
max patch
08-25-2012, 09:23
If you want to stop, STOP!
If you want to continue walking past 5 PM, DO IT.
Why worry about the time?
All your life you are probably tied to a time schedule. Now you will be able to forget about time and get up and go to bed with the sun.
It's a good feeling.
This is an excellent point.
After a couple months on the trail it hit me that one of the best things about the hike was the total freedom I had re how I spent the day. Start at 6 or start at 10 - my choice. Hike til 3 or hike til dark - my choice. No place I needed to be or no one I had to do something for. Total freedom.
To comment on the original question, you're going to see the same sights no matter how fast you hike. The difference between 2 mph (average) and 4 mph (super fast) is insignificant. I generally liked to hike til dusk as - for me - stopping at 5 and hanging out was totally boring.
What I found is that typical AT-completing thorough journal keepers at Trailjournals.com averaged about 10 miles per hiking day in the earliest days of their northbound hike, steadilly built that up to around 17 miles per hiking day at their peak, slowed down to 11-13 miles per day in the rugged parts of New Hampshire and Maine, before finally speeding back up to around 15 miles per day in the last bit.
That describes my hike to a T. I think I had 150 days of hiking and 20 zero days (give or take a few days in each). I wanted to enjoy the trail experience so my plan worked well for me. The zero's were mostly for pleasure and certainly not a necessity to have that many. And I certainly did not hike from dawn to dusk - I liked to stop about 2 hours before dark to cook,setup/relax. As the other post suggest, you'll find your own pace and plan. The freedom to do exactly what you want when you want to do it is the appeal of the trail as others have stated - it's a respite from the regime and the responsibilties of the "real" world.
As so often, I'm with Garlic here. I didn't hike the AT (nor I imagine the other trails) as fast as he did, but for someone that doesn't spend a lot of time in town, keeps the pack light, and enjoys walking, coming in with an "above average" hike time isn't really all that above average.
To the OP's specific questions:
"would you go that fast if you had it to do over? Do you wish you had had more time to see the sights and relax? Were you moving quickly because you were in a groove or because you had a deadline at the far end and needed to make a schedule?"
I would go about as fast if I had to do it over. A couple of friends were hiking the southern half of Oregon so I hiked this with them this month, about 260 miles. They're great guys, but walk at a more typical section hiker pace and style, which drove me a bit nuts. The PCT in Oregon is pretty easy walking, so I got my trail legs pretty fast, and so hiked each day at my pace and then snoozed for literally 2 - 3 hours, sometimes more waiting for them.
More time to see the sights and relax: overall I was walking the pace I wanted to. I might do alternates if hiking the same area a second time; I'm not sure about "sights", depending on the specifics.
I think of a thru-hike as a kind of a survey. I get a pretty rapid, hasty read on a variety of areas and while I enjoy seeing so very much as I pass through, I'll also keep in mind places I want to go back to. So for example, my wife and I are hiking the JMT next month (a bit of a different experience I expect going SOBO in September rather than NOBO in June).
"Were you moving quickly because you were in a groove or because you had a deadline at the far end and needed to make a schedule?"
Mostly the former. Where the latter has been a factor it's been kind of subsumed by the former and so not an issue.
To be clear, I have known thru-hikers pushing themselves hard due to schedule constraints ("already have my flight home booked", etc), and that can indeed suck. I've been pretty careful not to put myself in that position.
Odd Man Out
08-25-2012, 12:42
I'm blushing because Odd Man Out has conferred "classic" status on my article and Kryptonite calls it one of the best articles "EVER":o.
Be proud. It's a great bit of work. Besides, I'm a numbers sort of person too. I have found the article relevant to quite a few new comers' questions and am always pleased to reference it, hence the classic status.
I spent 4 months hiking only 850 miles. Everybody passed me. With only a couple of exceptions, I seldom hiked with the same group of people for more than a few days. This gave me a pretty unique experience...I never got to know people well enough to stop liking them.
WingedMonkey
08-25-2012, 17:52
For those of you who thru-hiked in under five months, would you go that fast if you had it to do over?
Because my hike doesn't fit into those parameters, I will refrain form giving any advice.
In 2005 I planned on a 6 month hike and did it in 4 months and a week. The farther you go the stronger you get. As I look back on some of my miles per day, I could have easily hiked many more miles on most days. I'm planning on my 2013 hike to be about 104 to 109 days. I am a slow hiker and only average 2.5 miles per hour. My experience says most hikers underestimate what they can do.
cabbagehead
09-22-2012, 20:25
I've walked about 1,000 miles on the AT in the past 2 years (including repeat sections). I took 1 summer off, and a portion of another summer off. Sometime I want to do a hike from Springer to Hanover NH, and then do some PCT stuff.
Lots of people can hike the entire AT in a short period of time (5 to 2.5 months) if they have money to spend on lightweight gear. With the most advanced fabrics and metals, as well as the fluffiest insulation, it wouldn't be hard to have a 15 lb pack. You would end up walking farther without much effort, and you would have time to spare at the places you like most.
swjohnsey
09-22-2012, 22:26
Schaffer and Espey hiked the trail in four months carrying 45 pounds . . . but they were young
BobTheBuilder
09-22-2012, 22:43
Honestly, it's taking the amorous affections of a beautiful woman and trying to get it over with early. Why would you want to do that? Wouldn't you wish to caress every curve and engage the silk of every stroke of you hand and mind? Capture and enjoy the essence of her will and desire for as long as humanly possible?
Datto
That's just a little too creepy. dude. I suspect you are one of those guys that makes female hikers move on to the next shelter.
evyck da fleet
09-22-2012, 22:53
Yes I would do it the same and fast is a relative term. Several times I hiked with 20 year olds who hiked at 3mphs while I was usually around 2.5. They spent a lot of time in towns and at camp whereas I got up at dawn and hiked all day. Needless to say I finished several weeks ahead of them even though they were faster. The key was endurance not speed. I don't think I missed out on sights, In fact most of the deer, moose and bears I saw were because I got up early, hiked alone and snuck up on them.
What I missed out on was hanging around camp until 11am, drinking in town at night and getting a late start the next day. I also found I took less pictures and missed out on sights being too focused on the conversations I was having when hiking with others.
I'm not bashing 20 somethings or anyone who hike that way. In fact I think that a lot of the people who take 5 or 5 1/2 months to hike could easily finish in 4 or 4 1/2 months but the social aspect slows them down.
I've always had in my head that it takes six months to hike the AT. But reading trail journals and browsing here it seems as though a lot of people are doing it faster, without neccessarily killing themselves or racking up strings of mega-mile days.
For those of you who thru-hiked in under five months, would you go that fast if you had it to do over? Do you wish you had had more time to see the sights and relax? Were you moving quickly because you were in a groove or because you had a deadline at the far end and needed to make a schedule?
bear bag hanger
09-24-2012, 02:35
I did my thru 2004 AT hike in six and a half months, so maybe you don't want my advice, but here it is. I attempted a thru in 1997, but fell way short (240 miles) partly because I got so depressed when I wasn't able to make the 18 to 20 miles a day a book had told me to expect. Don't let other people plan your hike or tell you how fast you have to hike. Figure out your own pace, then you'll be able to figure out how long it will take.