PDA

View Full Version : How fast is fast



Just Bill
07-24-2013, 11:31
HB's head down thread inspired me to return the favor, although no insult or sarcasm is intended. Can of worms and all that, but maybe not. I noted several folks posting what I would consider fairly speedy times in that and other threads. So How Fast is Fast? I define hiking speed as your average speed, including breaks over about a 4 hour period, which takes out napping, long lunching, flower sniffing, spell binding views, or other extended non-moving activities. I can hit 4MPH here at home, including breaks. That is (practically) impossible on the AT for any extended period. I consider 3MPH pretty damn fast, and still struggle to hit that. Jennifer Pharr Davis averaged 2.83 MPH on her monumentally speedy hike as a frame of reference. I often hit speeds as blisteringly fast as 1.25 MPH. I truly believe that there is little difference in speed, just hours hiked per day; but you tell me...

Rasty
07-24-2013, 11:35
Anyone faster then me needs to slow down. That's my take on it. I hate getting passed. It happens but I hate it.

Seatbelt
07-24-2013, 11:50
Anyone faster then me needs to slow down. That's my take on it. I hate getting passed. It happens but I hate it.
Good thing I don't feel that way--I'd be full of hate!:)

leaftye
07-24-2013, 11:54
2 mph is plenty fast

Pedaling Fool
07-24-2013, 12:01
This is a very interesting question, because I've actually been thinking about it recently, but not with respect to hiking; rather WRT my cycling and running. Once in a while I ride a bike with other people and they are SLOW, I mean so damn slow. Yet they are killing themselves to keep up with me and my riding is slow so I don't drop them. When you cycle everyday for decades it becomes a part of you and so what's slow for me is a very descent pace for others.

I'm not so good at running, I'm relatively new at it, but I've noticed on the beach that I can sprint like crazy running for a frisbee and notice that others doing the same activity count a simple frisbee game as a workout, but for me it's barely a warmup. Most people don't like to go running vice cycling, so not sure how fast they are, but imagine they wouldn't like it:)

Now WRT hiking I'm somewhat slow and don't even track time given a certain distance, like I do for running/cycling; it's my time to get away. I'd imagine many can hike circles around me.

Hill Ape
07-24-2013, 12:02
there is no speed limit on the trail. sprint if you want, stroll if you want. sit around at night in the shelter and figure your average speed all you want.

this board has a strange obsession with speed hiking, and records. nothing is proved. no awards are given.

i love speed hikers, they get away from me quickly. i love slow hikers too, they don't keep up with me.

hikerboy57
07-24-2013, 12:10
there are times ive been at 3+mph, others ive been half of that.im usually around 2.5 mph, except for rocky stretches, like pa, or after roan mtn, or nh and me or ny or maybe mass, coupla spots in the smokies.

Namtrag
07-24-2013, 12:18
I am an out of shape flat lander, so if I go over 1.5 mph, I consider myself to be speed-hiking.

MuddyWaters
07-24-2013, 12:22
I average 2mph, including normal breaks. Its so accurate its scary.

coach lou
07-24-2013, 12:30
I'm in no hurry, it's my mood of the day that propels me along. Besides, I have short legs!

illabelle
07-24-2013, 12:40
I am an out of shape flat lander, so if I go over 1.5 mph, I consider myself to be speed-hiking.

yep, that's me too! if we manage to hit 2 mph, we are SO proud of ourselves. :rolleyes:

Drybones
07-24-2013, 12:43
I've not been ticketted yet.
22943

Namtrag
07-24-2013, 12:54
yep, that's me too! if we manage to hit 2 mph, we are SO proud of ourselves. :rolleyes:

Even when we hike locally on flat trails with no packs, we only go 2.5-3 mph, and honestly, I am going pretty much as fast as I can comfortably go. I must take short steps or something.

Drybones
07-24-2013, 12:54
It seems no matter what the terrain 2 MPH works for me. I take a mid morning and mid afternoon break and long lunch break. 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. = 16 miles, 6 p.m. = 20 miles. I've had days I hiked a lot faster but only because something unpleasant was forcing me to.

rocketsocks
07-24-2013, 13:01
I'm not fast, but I can go all day...though this only gets me about 20 miles and change. My gait is more like a small step shuffle. I walk a 23 min mile on flat ground, and can pretty much set my watch by this number, and have! On days when I'm feeling really good, I can get that number down to 20 min. per mile or 3 mph, though I've only been able to sustain that for about 4-5 miles after that I tire and throttle it back. All things being equal, I think the person with the longer gait will travel farther for the same amount of input...though this is just a guess.

I once walked around my local track 16 times in one hour...that was 4 miles per hour, but this was 20 years ago, that people can sustain this speed is pretty darn amazing...but they do.

4 mph X 15hrs. = 60 miles
or 5am walk till 8pm...takes some serious dedication

HikerMom58
07-24-2013, 13:06
yep, that's me too! if we manage to hit 2 mph, we are SO proud of ourselves. :rolleyes:

Be proud illabelle- be very proud!!


I've not been ticketted yet.

22943

And this comment is all the more funnier when you look at your avatar right beside it :D.... LOL

Talk to Malto about speed hiking.. that boy can put down the trail miles. He and I were hoping to meet up with each other on the BRP last year, for a minute. I was planning on "throwing" him some TM as he flew by... ;) Right malto? JK... Anyway the meet up never took place b/c they had the BRP closed for some strange reason. He was keeping me informed on his whereabouts & that man did 30+ miles in a day. :eek: I think I need some of that "malto".

My daughter and I did a "5K" on the trail in PA this year. Our best mileage was 3.2 miles in 1 hour 6 minutes. It was kinda rocky too. That's not when I stumbled on the trail and gave myself a shiner.:rolleyes: If I had stumbled while hiking/running that fast, it wouldn't have been pretty. I don't enjoy going that fast at all. Not at all. 2mph is a good speed for me.

illabelle
07-24-2013, 13:20
Even when we hike locally on flat trails with no packs, we only go 2.5-3 mph, and honestly, I am going pretty much as fast as I can comfortably go. I must take short steps or something.

I always hike with my husband, and we stay together, 99% of the time with me in front. I'm 5'6", he's 6'3". Most of the time it works out well with the short-legged one setting the pace. But if he's in a mood, he'll slow down and start dragging those long legs. I'll have to stop and wait for him. And wait for him. But there was one time when he was mad at me and decided to take the lead. That man was a quarter-mile ahead of me lickety-split!

coach lou
07-24-2013, 13:45
I always hike with my husband, and we stay together, 99% of the time with me in front. I'm 5'6", he's 6'3". Most of the time it works out well with the short-legged one setting the pace. But if he's in a mood, he'll slow down and start dragging those long legs. I'll have to stop and wait for him. And wait for him. But there was one time when he was mad at me and decided to take the lead. That man was a quarter-mile ahead of me lickety-split!
That is what happens when HB and I hike together. He stops about every half hour so I can catch up!:D

illabelle
07-24-2013, 13:49
That is what happens when HB and I hike together. He stops about every half hour so I can catch up!:D

What did you do to make HB mad at you?

hikerboy57
07-24-2013, 13:55
What did you do to make HB mad at you?not mad. i wait for him because he has the cheesecake

illabelle
07-24-2013, 13:58
not mad. i wait for him because he has the cheesecake

VERY good reason!

Onedawg
07-24-2013, 14:05
i was up in SNP a couple of week ago and met up with a couple of thru hikers. they said they were lagging behind the bubble because they are slow hikers. i consider myself an average speed hiker, but they left me in their dust. They had been hiking for three months and what they considered slow was too fast for me to keep up with. Speed is just a matter of perspective.

The Solemates
07-24-2013, 14:17
my natural stride if I am not thinking about anything but things in la-la land is 2.75 mph average. I've gone much slower and much faster.

gizzy bear
07-24-2013, 14:23
RCBear and i calculated our pace to be about 2 mph... but if something scares me i become as quick and agile as a cheetah... wearing a gregory pack.... i did clock RCBear doing 4.47 mph when he thought some trail angels were giving away little debbie swiss rolls, up ahead...

Drybones
07-24-2013, 14:42
I always hike with my husband, and we stay together, 99% of the time with me in front. I'm 5'6", he's 6'3". Most of the time it works out well with the short-legged one setting the pace. But if he's in a mood, he'll slow down and start dragging those long legs. I'll have to stop and wait for him. And wait for him. But there was one time when he was mad at me and decided to take the lead. That man was a quarter-mile ahead of me lickety-split!

Men are smarter than women, they believe we're being polite by letting them go first, truth is we want them to clear the spider webs and rattlesnakes for us.

Just Bill
07-24-2013, 15:04
Drybones- It's usually the second hiker who gets hit by the snake you chivalrous fool ;)

illabelle
07-24-2013, 15:04
Men are smarter than women, they believe we're being polite by letting them go first, truth is we want them to clear the spider webs and rattlesnakes for us.

have to admit, i do catch an awful lot of spider webs!

hobbs
07-24-2013, 15:18
my natural stride if I am not thinking about anything but things in la-la land is 2.75 mph average. I've gone much slower and much faster.

Iam either a hit or a miss..Do the same thing it changes on how I feel..

RockDoc
07-24-2013, 15:24
I think that speed should be the last criteria that a hike should be judged by.
How much did you learn? How deep were the friendships? Were you changed as a person, for the better?

There are so many more important questions than how fast did you go...

posted by a fast hiker--sometimes. Hoping to go slower and learn more as I mature.

Pedaling Fool
07-24-2013, 15:35
i was up in SNP a couple of week ago and met up with a couple of thru hikers. they said they were lagging behind the bubble because they are slow hikers. i consider myself an average speed hiker, but they left me in their dust. They had been hiking for three months and what they considered slow was too fast for me to keep up with. Speed is just a matter of perspective.That's exactly right. It's more about perspective and what's natural for you. I consider myself a slow hiker compared to many and probably (in the big picture) probably about average. However, in 2006 after about the first 600 miles of the trail I specifically remember feeling like I was just floating down the trail. And from that point on, whenever I saw dayhikers it was almost as if they were just standing still as I passed them.

And I've been back to Georgia a few times and when I start off with all the wannabe thrus I blow by them, especially on the steppest terrain. But still I'm slower than many of the seasoned hikers.

And it's not really about speed, it's about what's comfortable for you. Just because one can hike, say at 3.5 mph steadily, without really pusing it doesn't mean he's going "fast", that's just his comfortable speed, it may be fast relative to you, but for him not so much.

And when you try and slow down from your comfortable speed it can be just as uncomfortable as speeding up.

jeffmeh
07-24-2013, 15:37
All things being equal, I think the person with the longer gait will travel farther for the same amount of input...though this is just a guess.



It's been a long time, but physics-wise "work" is a function of force, displacement, and the angle of displacement. In this context, doing the same hike, the displacement (distance hiked) and the angle of displacement (terrain) are the same.

The force required increases with the mass displaced (hiker and gear). So all things being equal (same mass), I believe the same amount of work would result in the same distance covered, regardless of the gait.

If all things are not equal, the hiker with greater mass will perform more work to cover the same ground as the one with lesser mass.

If there are any WB physics professors who wish to correct me, I will listen and humbly concede if I got this wrong. :)

Namtrag
07-24-2013, 15:46
Drybones- It's usually the second hiker who gets hit by the snake you chivalrous fool ;)

I thought the first one woke it up, the second one pissed it off, and the third one got bit!!!???

Just Bill
07-24-2013, 16:42
Jeff- you need to be at Backpacking Light for posts like that! I'd be happy to geek out on the subject- but doing my best to leave this thread "open to the public" I'm genuinely curious about it. Namtrag- you got the quote right- I bent it a bit for conversational purposes lol.

moldy
07-24-2013, 17:30
During the grind of a thru-hike. I hike 15 miles per day in 10 hours. That's 1.5 mph. I did notice that for the first 3 hours of the day my speed was more like 2.25 mph. After lunch I start dragging so my speed must be less than something like 1.25mph. Weather did not seem to effect it much but mountains and rocks sure did. I did a bunch of 25 mile days by hiking more hours and made mental efforts to keep up the pace in the afternoon. My opinion is that an average speed of 2.5 mph for the day during the long haul of a thru-hike is fast. More that 2.5 mph in the long run will cause body damage.

Pendragon
07-24-2013, 17:49
I was letting myself go on the moderate downhills and found that a backpack can exceed the forward momentum of my legs easily. After that head plant, which thankfully did not break my neck, I started putting the breaks on with my poles. I think I was doing about 2.5 mph on the flats, but all that "speed" was pretty much cancelled out by the CRAWL on the uphills, interspaced every 30 yards with a 15 second break. The kids were buzzing right past me on those uphills and I only occasionally blew past them on the downs, but at the end of the day it seems we all spent the night at the same shelter.

jeffmeh
07-24-2013, 17:49
Jeff- you need to be at Backpacking Light for posts like that! I'd be happy to geek out on the subject- but doing my best to leave this thread "open to the public" I'm genuinely curious about it. Namtrag- you got the quote right- I bent it a bit for conversational purposes lol.

Nah, we could use some more posts with cerebral content around here, lol. If someone doesn't want to read it, they can skip it easily enough.

I do hit BPL every once in a while when it comes up googling something, generally pertaining to gear.

And regarding my "physics" post, it also explains why you don't see many "buff" distance runners, and why I can often get "smoked" by gymnast-build, dimunitive females when doing squats for time, and by short stocky guys when doing squats for weight. :)

Drybones
07-24-2013, 18:38
Drybones- It's usually the second hiker who gets hit by the snake you chivalrous fool ;)

I believe you may be correct, last year on the Pinhoti the dog went past a 4' rattle snake and my wife was 6" from planting her foot on it but managed to hoop over it, had she not seen it I probably would have gotten bit. I had trouble seeing it even with the wife pointing to it in the middle of the trail...well camoed.
22953

Just Bill
07-24-2013, 18:40
Speed is simple Distance over time- so many folks think- longer stride= faster pace. The physics of this doesn't really work long term though, the effort required to take that next step is too great if you over stride. Your stride length is dictated by height, flexibility, and habits. Runners go a step further by adding Cadence; steps per minute. (S=(Cadence x stride)/Time) Very generally speaking, most long distance runners, Ultra-runners in particular advocate a higher cadence over a longer stride as the most efficient use of energy. For that reason, most folks find a stride that "fits" their body when unmodified by terrain. At that point only cadence becomes the controllable variable. Experienced hikers (generally reflected thus far in this thread) develop an almost eerily clockwork like stride and cadence when unaffected by terrain- an expert modifies their stride and cadence as terrain dictates. Some folks modify their energy input to maintain a given speed, most often by increasing cadence. Intermediate hikers find a stride they like, but also find that they can increase cadence with focus, but often loose that cadence with fatigue, distraction, or out of habit. When ever your preferred speed is altered, you can't hike all day. Some folks develop a speed that is too fast, assuming that's the way to go, and inadvertently reduce their daily mileage by putting too much effort into maintaining a given pace. That covers how you cover distance; back to the physics part- the greater the mass, the greater the force, the greater the work. Now we are into the Hours per day part of the overall equation. Assuming you have found your perfect speed, the only controllable variable becomes weight. As backpackers it's one big package. Cut five pounds from your gut or five pounds from your pack is the same. While this part is fully my opinion, it's an extrapolated opinion from Jardine, Ultrarunners, and even Horace Kephart. Reducing 5 pounds from your mass results in roughly one hour of additional mileage hiked per day. While some folks may find this bothersome- consider every week trip you go out. Most of us resupply, and burn up about 2 pounds of food a day. Most of us find (all else being equal) that you can hike (if you choose) about a half hour a day in addition to your normal rate of travel. My trail miles pretty consistently support this theory, I see a roughly 1 mile per day bump in overall miles as my packweight decreases. My "all day pace" on the AT is 2.25 miles per hour. So an extra half hour a day buys me a mile. When I cut from 40 pounds to 20 pounds- my daily mileage went up about 9 MPD. I have been a lifelong- regular hiker. 20 per day was it. My first at trip I hiked at 2.5/3 MPH, but I could only do it for 8 hours with my 40 pound pack. That was MA-PA. Now at roughly 2.25 MPH I found my pace, I can hold it all day. I have a quick cadence (about 120 steps per minute) and a short stride with a forefoot/midfoot step that lets me keep my head up. A 12 hour day takes me to 27 MPD, no problem, any time, mostly anywhere. A little conscious effort/easier trail puts me at 30. Putting in a 16 hour day puts me at 36- all the sudden- I'm a speed hiker. Not really though any desire to be, just the result of efficient speed and a lighter pack. Guess what- hiking all day led to a lighter body too, my Cadence, and the effort required continues to increase as my mass decreases. My Input has stayed constant; but by varying Mass and Cadence I move FARTHER, not faster. Stide (should be) a relatively fixed item. Terrain is out of your control. The day ticks away the same for us all. Cadence and Mass are all you can really change. Although I prefer a lazier day- I'm 35, so I'm going to explore my relatively newfound distance per day- nature will slow me down. Then again- Jardine was putting up most of his big miles in his fifties and sixties...

Drybones
07-24-2013, 18:43
have to admit, i do catch an awful lot of spider webs!

The webs are bad enough, but getting one of those huge black & grey spiders clamped onto your nose is the real pits, lucky I haven't hurt myself when that happens.

Drybones
07-24-2013, 18:47
Speed is simple Distance over time- so many folks think- longer stride= faster pace. The physics of this doesn't really work long term though, the effort required to take that next step is too great if you over stride. Your stride length is dictated by height, flexibility, and habits. Runners go a step further by adding Cadence; steps per minute. (S=(Cadence x stride)/Time) Very generally speaking, most long distance runners, Ultra-runners in particular advocate a higher cadence over a longer stride as the most efficient use of energy. For that reason, most folks find a stride that "fits" their body when unmodified by terrain. At that point only cadence becomes the controllable variable. Experienced hikers (generally reflected thus far in this thread) develop an almost eerily clockwork like stride and cadence when unaffected by terrain- an expert modifies their stride and cadence as terrain dictates. Some folks modify their energy input to maintain a given speed, most often by increasing cadence. Intermediate hikers find a stride they like, but also find that they can increase cadence with focus, but often loose that cadence with fatigue, distraction, or out of habit. When ever your preferred speed is altered, you can't hike all day. Some folks develop a speed that is too fast, assuming that's the way to go, and inadvertently reduce their daily mileage by putting too much effort into maintaining a given pace. That covers how you cover distance; back to the physics part- the greater the mass, the greater the force, the greater the work. Now we are into the Hours per day part of the overall equation. Assuming you have found your perfect speed, the only controllable variable becomes weight. As backpackers it's one big package. Cut five pounds from your gut or five pounds from your pack is the same. While this part is fully my opinion, it's an extrapolated opinion from Jardine, Ultrarunners, and even Horace Kephart. Reducing 5 pounds from your mass results in roughly one hour of additional mileage hiked per day. While some folks may find this bothersome- consider every week trip you go out. Most of us resupply, and burn up about 2 pounds of food a day. Most of us find (all else being equal) that you can hike (if you choose) about a half hour a day in addition to your normal rate of travel. My trail miles pretty consistently support this theory, I see a roughly 1 mile per day bump in overall miles as my packweight decreases. My "all day pace" on the AT is 2.25 miles per hour. So an extra half hour a day buys me a mile. When I cut from 40 pounds to 20 pounds- my daily mileage went up about 9 MPD. I have been a lifelong- regular hiker. 20 per day was it. My first at trip I hiked at 2.5/3 MPH, but I could only do it for 8 hours with my 40 pound pack. That was MA-PA. Now at roughly 2.25 MPH I found my pace, I can hold it all day. I have a quick cadence (about 120 steps per minute) and a short stride with a forefoot/midfoot step that lets me keep my head up. A 12 hour day takes me to 27 MPD, no problem, any time, mostly anywhere. A little conscious effort/easier trail puts me at 30. Putting in a 16 hour day puts me at 36- all the sudden- I'm a speed hiker. Not really though any desire to be, just the result of efficient speed and a lighter pack. Guess what- hiking all day led to a lighter body too, my Cadence, and the effort required continues to increase as my mass decreases. My Input has stayed constant; but by varying Mass and Cadence I move FARTHER, not faster. Stide (should be) a relatively fixed item. Terrain is out of your control. The day ticks away the same for us all. Cadence and Mass are all you can really change. Although I prefer a lazier day- I'm 35, so I'm going to explore my relatively newfound distance per day- nature will slow me down. Then again- Jardine was putting up most of his big miles in his fifties and sixties...

Damn Bill....you gotta have finger cramps after this post! Not only are you a distance hiker, you're a distance poster...how fast was you going?

leaftye
07-24-2013, 19:32
It seems no matter what the terrain 2 MPH works for me. I take a mid morning and mid afternoon break and long lunch break. 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. = 16 miles, 6 p.m. = 20 miles. I've had days I hiked a lot faster but only because something unpleasant was forcing me to.

That's what I was thinking when I posted my average speed is 2 mph.

Counting my short hourly breaks and a slightly longer break or two to collect water, I'm usually moving for 10 hours a day to get my 20 miles. I'll start earlier and end later if I need to do more miles.

illabelle
07-24-2013, 21:17
The webs are bad enough, but getting one of those huge black & grey spiders clamped onto your nose is the real pits, lucky I haven't hurt myself when that happens.

i've been careful/fortunate enough to NOT experience that!

Just Bill
07-24-2013, 22:19
Damn Bill....you gotta have finger cramps after this post! Not only are you a distance hiker, you're a distance poster...how fast was you going?

There are too many things in my head, and a few too many years in construction management firing off emails. I told Jeff when you geek out you kill a thread...

fredmugs
07-24-2013, 23:30
Anyone faster then me needs to slow down. That's my take on it. I hate getting passed. It happens but I hate it.

Hike SOBO. I doubt I was passed 10 times total. One of them by Miss Pharr Davis herself. If I average over 2.5 MPH for too long my feet hot spot and will eventually blister. I can go over 3 MPH but it never turns out well.

Rasty
07-25-2013, 00:20
Anyone faster then me needs to slow down. That's my take on it. I hate getting passed. It happens but I hate it.

Hike SOBO. I doubt I was passed 10 times total. One of them by Miss Pharr Davis herself. If I average over 2.5 MPH for too long my feet hot spot and will eventually blister. I can go over 3 MPH but it never turns out well.

I'm OK with her passing me.

Mayer
07-25-2013, 01:38
I hike about 2.5 with breaks

rocketsocks
07-25-2013, 02:00
That's exactly right. It's more about perspective and what's natural for you. I consider myself a slow hiker compared to many and probably (in the big picture) probably about average. However, in 2006 after about the first 600 miles of the trail I specifically remember feeling like I was just floating down the trail. And from that point on, whenever I saw dayhikers it was almost as if they were just standing still as I passed them.

And I've been back to Georgia a few times and when I start off with all the wannabe thrus I blow by them, especially on the steppest terrain. But still I'm slower than many of the seasoned hikers.

And it's not really about speed, it's about what's comfortable for you. Just because one can hike, say at 3.5 mph steadily, without really pusing it doesn't mean he's going "fast", that's just his comfortable speed, it may be fast relative to you, but for him not so much.

And when you try and slow down from your comfortable speed it can be just as uncomfortable as speeding up.


It's been a long time, but physics-wise "work" is a function of force, displacement, and the angle of displacement. In this context, doing the same hike, the displacement (distance hiked) and the angle of displacement (terrain) are the same.

The force required increases with the mass displaced (hiker and gear). So all things being equal (same mass), I believe the same amount of work would result in the same distance covered, regardless of the gait.

If all things are not equal, the hiker with greater mass will perform more work to cover the same ground as the one with lesser mass.

If there are any WB physics professors who wish to correct me, I will listen and humbly concede if I got this wrong. :)


Speed is simple Distance over time- so many folks think- longer stride= faster pace. The physics of this doesn't really work long term though, the effort required to take that next step is too great if you over stride. Your stride length is dictated by height, flexibility, and habits. Runners go a step further by adding Cadence; steps per minute. (S=(Cadence x stride)/Time) Very generally speaking, most long distance runners, Ultra-runners in particular advocate a higher cadence over a longer stride as the most efficient use of energy. For that reason, most folks find a stride that "fits" their body when unmodified by terrain. At that point only cadence becomes the controllable variable. Experienced hikers (generally reflected thus far in this thread) develop an almost eerily clockwork like stride and cadence when unaffected by terrain- an expert modifies their stride and cadence as terrain dictates. Some folks modify their energy input to maintain a given speed, most often by increasing cadence. Intermediate hikers find a stride they like, but also find that they can increase cadence with focus, but often loose that cadence with fatigue, distraction, or out of habit. When ever your preferred speed is altered, you can't hike all day. Some folks develop a speed that is too fast, assuming that's the way to go, and inadvertently reduce their daily mileage by putting too much effort into maintaining a given pace. That covers how you cover distance; back to the physics part- the greater the mass, the greater the force, the greater the work. Now we are into the Hours per day part of the overall equation. Assuming you have found your perfect speed, the only controllable variable becomes weight. As backpackers it's one big package. Cut five pounds from your gut or five pounds from your pack is the same. While this part is fully my opinion, it's an extrapolated opinion from Jardine, Ultrarunners, and even Horace Kephart. Reducing 5 pounds from your mass results in roughly one hour of additional mileage hiked per day. While some folks may find this bothersome- consider every week trip you go out. Most of us resupply, and burn up about 2 pounds of food a day. Most of us find (all else being equal) that you can hike (if you choose) about a half hour a day in addition to your normal rate of travel. My trail miles pretty consistently support this theory, I see a roughly 1 mile per day bump in overall miles as my packweight decreases. My "all day pace" on the AT is 2.25 miles per hour. So an extra half hour a day buys me a mile. When I cut from 40 pounds to 20 pounds- my daily mileage went up about 9 MPD. I have been a lifelong- regular hiker. 20 per day was it. My first at trip I hiked at 2.5/3 MPH, but I could only do it for 8 hours with my 40 pound pack. That was MA-PA. Now at roughly 2.25 MPH I found my pace, I can hold it all day. I have a quick cadence (about 120 steps per minute) and a short stride with a forefoot/midfoot step that lets me keep my head up. A 12 hour day takes me to 27 MPD, no problem, any time, mostly anywhere. A little conscious effort/easier trail puts me at 30. Putting in a 16 hour day puts me at 36- all the sudden- I'm a speed hiker. Not really though any desire to be, just the result of efficient speed and a lighter pack. Guess what- hiking all day led to a lighter body too, my Cadence, and the effort required continues to increase as my mass decreases. My Input has stayed constant; but by varying Mass and Cadence I move FARTHER, not faster. Stide (should be) a relatively fixed item. Terrain is out of your control. The day ticks away the same for us all. Cadence and Mass are all you can really change. Although I prefer a lazier day- I'm 35, so I'm going to explore my relatively newfound distance per day- nature will slow me down. Then again- Jardine was putting up most of his big miles in his fifties and sixties...


Very well said, and I'm actually following along. My comfort stride (cadence) leaves me doing a very short but kinda speedy shuffle stride (I'm told it looks funny cause i'm moving fast, but i'm not going anywhere, but this for me is comfortable)...so I guess what I mean to say is (all things being equal) that a person doing their comfort stride, but a longer gait will go farther...feel free to geek it up anytime, I think many will read it and are interested, and if not...they can scroll on by...good postin

Malto
07-25-2013, 09:47
I truly believe that there is little difference in speed, just hours hiked per day; but you tell me...

Have to disagree with you on this one, though I used to be in this camp. I think what you will find is that the folks doing higher mile day generally do have a higher trail speed than most. It's not double or triple but it will be faster. Second, while longer days are important I believe the biggest factor is the consistency of maintaining the pace over an extended period of time. Most people can knock off a 3 mph pace for a couple hour sprint into town. It's a whole different critter to be able to maintain that pace over 10, 12 or in Jens case 16 hour days with very limited breaks. It's that ability to hike that extended duration at normal, natural hiking speed that makes the biggest difference.

Finally, I maintain a 3mph pace for all but worst hiking conditions. This is with a very few short breaks. I have hiked with some of the strongest hikers out there and they are also roughly in this same range. (Jens numbers, Bink's data would indicate this as well.). Often you will see exaggerated claims of being able to hike 3.5mph. I use the word exaggerated because I think it is in cases of short duration, easy terrain and a slow watch.

So bottom line, everyone should find there natural hiking speed that reduces the wear and tear (going too slow will also wear you down.) and if high mile days are their thing, focus on maintaining the same speed in hour ten as they put in during hour one.

Rasty
07-25-2013, 10:05
Get on a treadmill and walk 3.5mph. For me at 5'11" it is that uncomfortable speed which my body is telling me to slow down a bit or start running.

Namtrag
07-25-2013, 10:17
Still amazed at how anyone can hike 3mph on rock, steep terrain. I hike to me what feels like a brisk pace, only to find I am only going 2mph. :( I could not hike any faster without being extremely uncomfortable.

gizzy bear
07-25-2013, 10:36
at some point, doing it too fast, it becomes running... and that is a whole other sport... i think they call it cross country running... they did wheni was in high school.

Malto
07-25-2013, 11:11
Get on a treadmill and walk 3.5mph. For me at 5'11" it is that uncomfortable speed which my body is telling me to slow down a bit or start running.

I am 6'2" and my max comfortable treadmill speed is 4.5mph. But I also found a couple of years ago that you can increase this comfortable speed. I used to do a speed routine where I start at 4.5mph and increase .1mph every minute until I can no longer walk. I was able to get up to 5.5mph but it is intense, much more so than running at this speed. I found that this pushed my natural speed a bit but more importantly it increased the comfort level at walking for longer duration.

Just Bill
07-25-2013, 11:52
Regarding treadmills- I find about a half mile per hour loss when going from treadmill to trail is about right... same for you? At 5'10" I was "stuck" at a flat trail max speed of 3.5MPH. Over the last year and a half though I second Malto's findings. Doing a little jogging has increased my cadence, and increased my walking speed. My stride has actually shortened over the years. Last year I "broke" my natural speed limit and was able to hit and maintain 4MPH, mainly on flat bike paths, although a recent 17 mile hike with 6000' of elevation gain I was able to maintain that speed. But it was pushing it. As Malto said- most of us can hike pretty fast, that's what I mean by there seems to be little difference. Quite correctly the difference is the ability to maintain the speed and if that speed "fits". Malto hit the nail on the head, the name of the game is finding your speed and then being able to do it all day. That said, I find that you can alter, increase, and ultimately change your natural speed. Not easy by any means but possible. I think 3MPH is a realistic speed limit so to speak, and Bink, JPD, Jardine, and many others seem to support that theory. Likely the exaggerated speeds are simply misunderstanding, a 3MPH pace on the day, probably equates to close to 3.5MPH when actually moving, but as a long distance traveler you need to include breaks/stops/rests to truly understand your speed. (Jogging a 15 minute mile pace for a half hour is 4MPH, but taking a thirty minute break after is 2MPH- I think that's really the confusion among folks I've discussed it with.) I think that many of the answers on this thread by experienced hikers show that regardless of your speed, the wisdom of finding an all day pace is universal. Most of those folks communicated their pace in relation to MPD, not MPH. Some of us define our day differently, but we all seem to find it. If you care to; I found that doing run walks was the bigger breakthrough for me in training. Walk a mile, run a half, repeat. Similar to Malto's strategy on the treadmill. I only run at 10-12 min per mile pace, but those short bursts of running have opened me up and increased my natural cadence. Basically a Hiker's version of speedwork. But because I don't run much or hard, I can perform this workout over 10-20 mile distances to help build/maintain all day miles.

Another Kevin
07-25-2013, 14:39
I don't know how fast 'fast' is. Everyone's faster than me, it seems. I joke that my usual hiking speed is 'snail,' although if I really pour on the coal I can kick it up to 'tortoise.'

My personal Naismith Rule is 30 min/mile, add 40 min per 1000 ft of elevation change; longer if there are issues like breaking trail in the snow, dense vegetation, difficult stream crossings or rock climbing. On a steep trail that puts me down close to 1 mph. Off-trail, all bets are off, since there's a certain amount of luck involved in making good time on a bushwhack. Sometimes you find a good place to get up or down a ledge right away, sometimes you don't. (I can think of routes that I could repeat in 1/3 the time that it took me to do them the first time.) I don't have enough recent experience on crampons or snowshoes to have as clear a picture of my winter speed, because I only got back into winter hiking in the last couple of years, and two winters ago, we didn't really have a winter around here.

I can sustain 20 min/mile all day on pavement. But who wants to walk on pavement? I do my usual mile to and from work in 15-16 minutes (carrying a pack - I load up a big day pack with books and a heavy laptop so that I get at least some training time while carrying a pack). But neither of those figures has anything to do with sustained hiking speed on a trail.

If I were in a hurry, I wouldn't be walking.