Why a slow thru is better than a fast thru.

[Blissful]

Sounds like a good idea, Bare Bear. And your knees will love you for it. Just ignore the young ones strolling into the shelter area boasting - Oh man, I did thirty today!

[Blissful]

A lot of folks confuse big mile days with walking fast.

Most folks that I know who hike big mile days don't hike any faster than anyone else, they start earlier in the morning and hike later into the afternoon. They pass by the same trees and see the same things as the folks who tell us (like this thread title) that a "slow" thru is better than a "fast" thru.

Generally, those who opt for a slow thru are walking the same speed, but spending more hours lounging in the sack in the morning and puttering around the shelter, and spending many more hours in the afternoon sitting in a shelter.

Nothing wrong with this if that is what you want, but it hardly makes for a better thru for those who would rather be in the woods than in a shelter most of the day.

Not that anyone is in a position to tell others that, "My way is better than your way," anyway.

Many folks cannot walk really long days because they get injured and many are not in good enough physical condition (especially at the beginning) to walk 12 hours a day and enjoy themselves. Physical limitations limit a hiker, no doubt. But the fit hiker has a choice to spend more hours on the trail or more hours in a shelter. It is up to him to decide, not anyone else, that more hours in a shelter is "better."

I could tell later on the hike when I was walking faster. I would be out the same time and accomplish 14 miles early in the hike for a full day, but later, when I left the same time I did 20. Your legs are stronger, your cardiovascular syustem works more efficiently, you can shed the lactic acid faster so your muscles recover. It all makes for faster walking for longer period of time. But my son loved to lounge around and read a book at road junctions - and why not? He had a great thru doing it the way he wanted. Then he would run down the trail to make it to the shelter before mom worried.

[Wolf - 23000]

I have done some extremely long days in my time and some very easy days. I find rather than worrying about how many miles to do or not to do, I would just take it one day at a time. If I take it easy, I find myself getting restless and wanting to do more. If I push it to hard, I often feel like I’m missing something.

Instead I suggest taken one day at a time. If you feel like taking some extra time at a view or feel like pushing yourself hard, it all boils down to what feels right and doing it.


Wolf

[sloopjonboswell]

if i had to pick, i'd say my two favorite days were a zero and a 36. granted there were a lot more zeros than the one 36.

[superman]

When I was young I was fast. Now I'm only half fast.

[smaaax]

I find the topic of speed and daily mileage to be an interesting one. I cranked miles during my thru-hike when I could. 20 miles/day was my average after Shenandoah. I like that, because I'm more of a hiker than a camper.

I do think that a lot of folks are mistakenly under the impression that you can't enjoy yourself or see things if you're doing big miles. I respectfully disagree, though on this recent hike of the JMT, we did 10 miles/day and camped at many places that I passed by in 2006, and wanted to stay at.

I completely agree with this. I hike fast, and can spend hours at overlooks and take a long lunch break and still have plenty of daylight for 25 miles. I liked to go far, and got bored if I didn't. To each their own.

[mrc237]

I start off slow then after awhile I slow down!

[Ender]

Everything he said

Frosty's got it... it doesn't matter one way or the other, as long as you're enjoying yourself out there. There is no "better way" to hike the trail.

[max patch]

So lets recap.

The OP sets up camp at 5:00 and then then chitchats with other hikers and sits on his a$$ the rest of the evening.

I don't stop at 5:00 but instead hike til dusk -- lets say 8:00ish although its later in June -- and then set up camp.

I really don't care what the OP does, but I don't understand why he thinks his way is "better." To each his own.

Quite frankly, if I stopped at 5:00 I wouldn't know what to do with myself.

[ed bell]

I have done some extremely long days in my time and some very easy days. I find rather than worrying about how many miles to do or not to do, I would just take it one day at a time. If I take it easy, I find myself getting restless and wanting to do more. If I push it to hard, I often feel like I’m missing something.

Instead I suggest taken one day at a time. If you feel like taking some extra time at a view or feel like pushing yourself hard, it all boils down to what feels right and doing it.


Wolf

Great advice from someone who has been around the block a few times.

[NICKTHEGREEK]

I have sectioned the entire AT, and I have thru hiked it. I plan on going again because I did not listen to Model T and others who told me to "Slow down and enjoy it more". I did many massive 25-30 mile days and regretted it. I wanted to stay with younger hikers and friends who had agendas to keep. In 09' I plan on shorter days, longer camp talks, lingering at views more, going less than 15 mile days and letting myself be OK with going slow. I will Hike My Own Hike this time.
And yes I am OK with no one caring or listening to me too.

ok with me, I'll be happy to sign your hall pass Enjoy it to the max.

[wilconow]

The biggest downside of doing less miles for me, is that I'm not tired in camp at the end of the day. So I don't sleep as well. I like to leave it all out on the trail, and walk into camp tuckered out from a day of hiking. Am I crazy, or does anyone else feel that way?

I feel that way as well. My ideal hiking trip is to go all day, but still have time so:

-you don't have to wake up at 530
-you have time to take breaks and check out side trails
-you're not getting to camp right before dark.

This is what happened on my trip out west, due to being too ambitious with daily mile planning. Still, like you, I'm more of a hiker than a camper. Generally I like hiking long days, stumbling in my tent and staring at a book for a few minutes and then passing out. Last trip I got carried away a bit.

[smokymtnsteve]

Am I crazy, or does anyone else feel that way?

your crazy...escape from NYC

[smokymtnsteve]

Well, my friend, using that logic if you've made love the the same women twice it's time for another women?

another great idea from the BJ

[smokymtnsteve]

I measure hikes by hours and days in the woods and mountains, not by miles covered.

Weary

yes weary,,you are sane

[smokymtnsteve]

A lot of folks confuse big mile days with walking fast.

Most folks that I know who hike big mile days don't hike any faster than anyone else, they start earlier in the morning and hike later into the afternoon. They pass by the same trees and see the same things as the folks who tell us (like this thread title) that a "slow" thru is better than a "fast" thru.

Generally, those who opt for a slow thru are walking the same speed, but spending more hours lounging in the sack in the morning and puttering around the shelter, and spending many more hours in the afternoon sitting in a shelter.

Nothing wrong with this if that is what you want, but it hardly makes for a better thru for those who would rather be in the woods than in a shelter most of the day.

Not that anyone is in a position to tell others that, "My way is better than your way," anyway.

Many folks cannot walk really long days because they get injured and many are not in good enough physical condition (especially at the beginning) to walk 12 hours a day and enjoy themselves. Physical limitations limit a hiker, no doubt. But the fit hiker has a choice to spend more hours on the trail or more hours in a shelter. It is up to him to decide, not anyone else, that more hours in a shelter is "better."

you left out the mountain top naps, and the edward abbey reading at overlooks...

[clured]

you left out the mountain top naps, and the edward abbey reading at overlooks...

Haha, Edward Abbey would be horrified, horrified, with all this bossy nonsense about how great it is to be lazy in the great outdoors.

[weary]

Haha, Edward Abbey would be horrified, horrified, with all this bossy nonsense about how great it is to be lazy in the great outdoors.

Slow hikers are not necessarily lazy. Some of us just go as fast as we can, which is slow. Also I like to explore the trail. I try to figure out the names of the flowers and trees, examine the crawly things, try to remember the names of birds and connect a name to their songs.

Weary

[Jason of the Woods]

I have hiked both ways and prefer hiking slowly any day. Since I hurt my back and had surgery I have slowed drastically and noticed so many things that I missed before. I don't think given the choice that I would ever hike fast again unless I am trying to get off of the ridge during a storm.

[Tin Man]

I just finished Franconia to Pinkham. One NOBO thru-hiker had done 15 miles to Lafayette by noon and planned to go 10 or more for the day. Another NOBO'er was happy to do 10 in the Whites. Most others we met fell in between. To each their own.

For me as a section hiker, I found three 9-10 mile days out of our 8 days trip to be plenty to keep busy and tired for the day. One short day into Lake of the Clouds Hut had us with 4 hours to kill before dinner, so we climbed Washington pack-less for fun before packing over it again in the morning.

Everyone's different and it is pointless to say who's way is better, except to say it's better to be out there than here typing about it.