Comment by hsitz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hsitz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

""One thing that stuck out with me is that they only hiked for 8 hours/day. That seems like a light day! compared to these races,"

Actually, this is probably true. 8 hours a day, averaging 18 miles per day for 486 miles over 29 days is not that much. I don't see where they say they had 20kg packs, which is quite high weight for a thru-hiker. (EDIT: See now where he says he had 40 pound pack, which is probably at heaviest point with full load of food, still high for thru-hiking and maybe a reason they logged less miles/day.) 18 miles/day is probably right around average for thru-hikers, who are mostly out for enjoyment and sense of accomplishment, not for speed. You have to be in decent shape, but it's not a high-intensity endeavor.

There is a fairly sizeable subset of thru-hikers who do go for speed, though. Many average well over 40 miles per day for several months and over 2000 miles. (They're definitely not carrying 40 pound packs.) They accomplish this mostly by hiking for longer hours each day, not by moving faster, since going faster breaks their bodies down. E.g., see this article:

http://www.adventuresnw.com/heather-anish-anderson-speed-que...

18 miles can be quite an effort if there's over 7,000' of elevation gain. We're not told the grade of the trail but I imagine it's not flat.

The CT is about 500 miles long and has about 90,000 feet of accumulated elevation gain, which averages out to 3,200 feet over each 18 miles. That's not especially much for mountain hiking. One thing that makes the CT a bit harder is that it lies mostly at altitudes over 10,000 feet, where the air is thinner. Hiking 18 miles/day is quite an effort in any case, but still doing it on a hike like the CT is something the average person can do if they set their mind to it and train a bit for it.

"One thing that makes the CT a bit harder is that it lies mostly at altitudes over 10,000 feet, where the air is thinner. Hiking 18 miles/day is quite an effort in any case, "

Altitude would stop a lot of people. How long to acclimatise living at sea level?

As long as you aren't in the 5% of people who get Acute Mountain Sickness, probably just chill for 1-3 days at 6K-8K ft, and then "Hike High-Sleep Low".

I haven't spent much time at 10k but I routinely go to 8k and have never thought twice about it. Wake up, drive to 8k, do a trail race, go home.

" 8 hours a day, averaging 18 miles per day for 486 miles over 29 days is not that much."

Have you done this?

No, although I've done many days of more than 18 miles in the mountains, including 50 mile single-day mountain races. (The elite runners complete those in around 6 to 7 hours, over terrain of similar difficulty to Colorado Trail.) I don't mean to downplay their achievement, but the article is about a pair of average thru-hikers, out for a relatively short thru-hike. It is something that the average person can do, if they set their mind to it.

It doesn't really make sense to compare that effort to a race of any kind, let alone a mountain bike race -- since the thru-hikers we're talking about were not doing it as a race. Of course their effort was done at a lower level of intensity. For some perspective, a fellow recently set the Colorado Trail record with a time of 9 days 12 hours, almost three times as fast as the thru-hikers in the article: http://johnzahorian.com/coloradotrailfkt

For anyone interested, here's a youtube video documenting the record effort. The guy is kind of a celebrity in hiking circles, in large part because of high-quality videos he makes of his adventures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk6CrWJdRto

(Zahorian's effort set the "unsupported" record, which means he carried everything, including all his food, from the start, and didn't stop at any towns along the way to resupply. Most hikers carry only enough food for 3 to 5 days at a time, and resupply along the way -- understandable because it's much easier than carrying everything from the start.)

"No, although I've done many days of more than 18 miles in the mountains, including 50 mile single-day mountain races."

With a pack? I ask because running over this terrain is hard. Hats off hard. But with a pack, things are different. You don't move as fast. Thanks @hsitz for the video.

"Most hikers carry only enough food for 3 to 5 days at a time, and resupply along the way"

Unsupported. I did't see if the original was unsupported - can't imagine carrying 30 days food. Even the PR1M I've used is pretty heavy. [0] Possible but you'd strip out all but the useful food. With re-supplies, do they have access to water?

"lower level of intensity."

Totally agree with this. Still hard yards.

Reference

[0] https://flickr.com/photos/bootload/4549780731

But 2.25 miles per hour is not fast. And you get 16hours to rest.

btw @hsitz I ask this question not to be rude, but to work out if overconfidence is driving the answer cf: ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13620745

No worries about offending me. To give you some idea of where I'm coming from, I run, hike, and backpack over 3,000 miles per year, much of it in the mountains, and I'm in my fifties. I have good amount of personal and theoretical understanding of human physiology and psychology in endurance events.

Yes, some people are overconfident. I would suggest that the main problem in the context of endurance activities, though, is that people tend to be underconfident. People never get started because they think they can't do it, or that it would be too hard for them. They hear about people doing something like a thru-hike and they think these people must be gifted, special, or athletic in some way that they aren't.

That thought is almost entirely misguided. Certainly everyone has different abilities. But the vast majority of people out there doing these things have fairly average physical abilities. (For perspective, 2,000+ mile thru-hikes have been completed by children under 10 and people over 80.) They do probably have more motivation and dedication than most people, which are by far bigger determinants of success in these kinds of endurance endeavors than physical ability. But part of getting this motivation and commitment hinges on believing that they have the physical ability to do it (and/or that they can build themselves into physical shape to do it). Hence my post.

BTW, this is pretty much borne out by the guy who wrote the original article we're talking about. He didn't claim to be in great physical shape or have special physical ability, saying:

"Before the hike, I was fit but not training for anything. I ran five miles a couple times a week, went mountain biking about once a week, and periodically lifted weights. Like most Americans, much of my day was spent in front of a computer. I was 35 years old, 5'9" tall, and 150 pounds, with a BMI of 22.2 and body fat composition of about 13 percent."

thanks for the great reply @hsitz. One thing I did notice that as a fitness marker was the authors heart-rate (BPM). His resting heart rate measured at 48bpm. This is unusual and is in the range of ^endurance athletes^. In fact, soldiers are tested on carefully for this marker. It indicates no matter how fit you may be, resting heart-rate is an indicator of ^endurance^ capability. That resting heart rate means he can push a lot further, longer than most people.

I'm a thru-hiker. I'm done PCT/CDT & others.

8 hrs & 18 miles/day is pretty slow and short day. This is a novice thru hiker pace, but I doubt they were trying to set any records--

Average walking speed is 3 miles per hour. You're averaging that or greater, through trails / mountains, for 8 hours straight?

I took Boy Scouts to Isle Royale (on Lake Superior). Its very rough and challenging. Average hiking speed for visitors is under 2mph.

We averaged 3.5. Carrying heavy packs, every day for a week. All it takes is practice, motivation and youth.

Yes 3mph is the pace for slightly rough trail. On flat/smooth ground it is slightly faster. Up at altitude & scrambling the pace will drop, but the CT doesn't have much of that. The CT is high altitude but overall fairly easy grade(the CDT has much more challenging sections).

8 hrs is nothing, once you have trail legs many thru hikers will basically walk the entire day. 3*15 = 45 miles per day give or take. In CO it will be slower generally as CO is not the easiest hiking, but still 18 miles/day is very chill pace.

The CT is also only 450 miles, so when they finished, they were just starting to get in shape really. On a longer trail is it generally considered that around 500 miles is where people start to observe really obvious improvements.

"many thru hikers will basically walk the entire day. 3*15 = 45 miles per day give or take. "

Yes on the many "hike all day" thing, but regarding mileage this is starting to shade off into hyperbole. E.g., when Scott Jurek set the (then) AT speed record in 2015, he averaged 49.2 miles/day, and that was with support (van carrying food, gear, and meeting him for sleeping spot each night, people helping with massage, etc.). And Jurek is (or once was) a world-class athlete.

Heather Anderson set the "unsupported" (she had nobody helping her carry anything and no help with camping or resupplies) AT record, also in 2015, and she averaged just 42 miles/day.

The speed records on PCT are a little faster in terms of miles/day, but not much. So I would not say that "many" thru-hikers are averaging "45 miles/day give or take", although I agree that 18 miles/day is pretty average. A lot of people may hit a 45 mile day somewhere along their hike, but it's exaggerating to suggest that more than a handful average anywhere near that over the entire hike.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com