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!!!!
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.
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)
We're all section hikers since the IAT has opened.
I've always respected the hikers on the "20-year plan". That sounds hard.
"Throw a loaf of bread and a pound of tea in an old sack and jump over the back fence." John Muir on expedition planning
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.For now, I think a thru is "easier" hiking wise, but harder (maybe) mentally.
Curse you Perry the Platypus!
dont want to beat a dead horse, but thought you werent coming back?Originally Posted by Lilred
Agreements were made. All is well.
If people spent less time being offended and more time actually living, we'd all be a whole lot happier!
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.
If people spent less time being offended and more time actually living, we'd all be a whole lot happier!
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
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.
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.
Anything's within walking distance if you've got the time.
GA-ME 03, LT 04/06, PCT 07'
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
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.
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.
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.
Just Curious...
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.....
Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love..... 1 Corinthians 16:13-14
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
