High Speed Backpacking – why

My ideal day of backpacking would be a ten mile day with reasonable elevation gain, sweeping views, beautiful lakes, and some cool wildlife encounters. Sometimes, though, it's just fun to see how much I can do.

Trail running is a blast. It's great exercise, and I love getting views from three different peaks in a half hour's time. It's also challenging, and being a competitive person, it just appeals to me. I like going for a morning run and trying to beat the previous day's time.

As a result of becoming more fit from my trail runs, I began to wonder how many miles I could cover in a day. There is a 116 mile trail that runs right by my house, and I began to think about the possibilities. If I could do it in three days, I could through-hike the entire thing without taking any paid time off and I'd still have a rest day at the end of it. Why not try?

So now I'm working my butt off training for a three day, 116 mile hike. And you know what? I'm loving it!

I don't necessarily feel like I walk quickly, I just have longer legs than some people and it seems like I'm going fast :P

In all seriousness, if I manage to get 2 days in a row off I'm having a great week. And if I can use that time to hike I want to make the most of it. My jobs are pretty sedentary and it feels great to move at what I consider a "normal pace." My naturally long gait, short amount of time off, and inability to distinguish one rock/flower/tree from the next mean I often just rack up miles. You'll never catch me window-shopping at a mall, I know where I'm going and not much will make me deviate from that goal. I don't just move fast out of necessity, I have to move fast because that's how I'm wired. I do too much sitting, ambling, and reading in the "real" world, hitting the trail is my escape from all of that.

A lighter pack makes walking much more enjoyable too. It feels great to move down the trail and not feel like you're carrying a boat anchor. I know that puts a little extra spring in my step :D

Adam

@ David and Eugene:

What did I mean by mature? Uhhhh, well you know, wiser :) I didn't at all mean 'older and slower' either as there are so many members of BPL who are twice my age, have logged thousands of miles over the years and could probably hike laps around me for days, not that backpacking is in any way a competition. I'm both young in years and young in experience and eager to learn and enjoy more time outdoors.

I've always been fast walker, all the time! I can't do under 20 if i tried… I think I need help…

@ Eugene, I meant nothing at all. :)

I can see the appeal in covering 30 miles a day. I'd actually like to try it at some point.

But, I'm usually too engrossed in my immediate environment to want to pass it by at that pace. I like lounging in camp, I like taking a dip in a lake, and I like exploring what's over that next hill.

But, that's me. WAHOOH!! (We All Hike Our Own HIkes)

>Then a good friend gave me some really great information that helped me slow down a lot: those nicotine patches? They go on your arm, they're not suppositories…..

Now I know what to do when I'm late for work and don't have time to make coffee….

@ Eugene

Oh, I know you didn't mean anything, I just figured it couldn't hurt to clarify since I'm among good company. The 'Eugenes' of BPL have to stick together, we're a dying breed and few and far between ;)

I agree with much of what has already been said. I'll add one thing: permits.

In places like Glacier, during the height of summer, scarce permits make choice loops hard to do. Being able to start at 11am and still hike 30+ mile let me do what turned out to be one of the best trips I did all last summer. And have a primo campsite all to myself during the height of flower season.

Eugene S.

I'm itching for the days when I can "stop and smell the flowers" and have the time to take a long midday nap next to an alpine lake, read a book at camp, maybe take up fly fishing, engage in photography specific trips.

What about segmenting a day, so you can combine things you want to do? Really move fast/long part of the day, and do one or more of those things as well?

Perhaps make it your goal to cover 25-30 miles, get in by supper time, and have a nice evening fly fishing and some nice end-of-day photography?

— MV

Time was when I would backpack 25-30 miles a day with non-ul kit. Then one fateful night I regained consciousness hung in a tree above a smashed motorcycle with a broken spine. The car driver had fled the scene.

Six months later I walked about 20 miles across the Sierra de las Nieves in Spain with a 35 pound pack. It was a blue-sky February day and it took me from dawn to dusk to get there.

I realised I had to lighten the load and regain some fitness.

Buying and making lightweight kit has eased my aches and pains a lot. And I've recovered well enough from the spinal injury to be able to do 28 miles in 11 hours with 5000 fet of ascent. Next day 10 miles will be enough though.

I'm very tall and have a long stride, so my natural pace is fast by others standards. Kath calls me 'Stormin' Norman' when I forget she is trying to pace me and I slip into my natural gait. "Where's the fire?" she calls out from behind. It's tiring to try to deliberately walk slower to suit someone else, so I move at my own pace, then stop frequently to take photos while she catches up and takes a breath with me.

The thing we love about backpacking is that we have the capability to stop pretty much anywhere, built a little house, set up a little kitchen, and enjoy the sunset before turning in for the night. We don't use regular campsites, so the world is our oyster and our schedule… what schedule? If we find ourseles up a mountain too late to descend, we bivouac. If we miss that bus, we find something to do in the local area until the next one, or stick a thumb out, or change our ever-changing plan again.

For us, that's the essence of backpacking. Freedom from schedules and goals and fixed plans. Freedom to take time out to explore an unexpected place of interest. Freedom to enjoy what the world has to offer us at the pace we feel happy with at the time. Sure, sometimes we push ourselves to reach a destination by nightfall, but if the moon is bright, we might stop and cook at dusk, rest an hour, and then continue our walk under the moon. Variety truly is the spice of life.

I'm over 50, have a few health issues (back, knee, ect), and live at 700ft above sea level. Limited time to train long miles means adapting on the trail. In 2008 in Wind-rivers WY. there was a forest fire. I had already hiked in 10 miles when I noticed an orange cloud in the sky and smelled smoke. I had just decided to turn around when rangers on horseback came along, informed of the fire and explained that I could proceed past the danger point 5 miles further and camp at Summit lake. This was my first trip of the season with only 3 days acclimatization at 8000 ft and the altitude at the time was 10,000 ft. So I was pleased that on my first day out I could travel 15 miles, 2000 ft lost then gained 2000 ft, And I felt good at the end of the day. Going light affords the benefit of flexibility, comfort, and safety on my trips. On that particular trip I became so tired of the ash and smell of the fire over two days that I cut my trip short and logged 20 miles out on the last day. I never traveled that far with a pack before and it was satisfying to know that I could with comfort. I did forty five miles in 3 days, it was fun eventful, and I had time to tackle another trail that week. Sorry about the long rant, but I an still amazed at the ease and comfort of my trips as a result of going light.

I would probably be considered one of the "faster" hikers out there. But in reality I go my natural pace which is just over 3.0mph and I hike with few breaks from "can see till can't see" Why?

1) I was/am ADD so I never just sit around anyway.
2) Logistics. I usually have 2 or 3 day weekends to hike in the Sierra. There were places I wanted to go in Yosemite and I need big mileage days to get there. Likewise, I couldn't take three weeks to hike the JMT so my son and I did it in under 10 days. Not to prove something but to enable a trip with time constraints. My goal is to hike the PCT the summer after next. I don't want to wait till I'm retired yet I have family responsibilities that prevents me from losing my income for 5 months. Solution: hike it in 100 days.
3) I love the fitness aspect. I hate running running yet I have run two marathons. Why, the physical challenge?

My hiking style certainly isn't for everyone, in fact I almost only hike solo because it's hard to find people with a) the ability or b) the desire to do "fast" or long days. Because of this conversation isn't a problem. I can talk to everyone on the hike.

That's my hike!

Eugene wrote, "I'm itching for the days when I can "stop and smell the flowers" and have the time to take a long midday nap next to an alpine lake, read a book at camp, maybe take up fly fishing, engage in photography specific trips".

I think it's clear Eugene gets most of his excitement from high speed backpacking. But IMO, just as bad as an old geezer set in his ways is a young 'un set in his ways! Eugene, if you have written that slow hiking bores you, then that would be the end of it — stick to high speed. But given what you wrote, I would encourage you to diversify out: hike fast most of the time, but devote a trip or two once in a while to hiking slow. It's an altogether different experience — and enjoying your sport from different angles and levels can be a good thing too.

Chocolate ice cream is my favorite flavor by far, but imagine if that's all I ever eat — all the time overruling my own "itch" to try new flavors! Sorry for the preachy tone, but when you have an itch, I say 'scratch it'! Ahhh. :)

i hike fast when im behind and medium when im not behind. I stop if something interests me, be it falls, overlooks or whatnot. I stop to eat lunch, which means rehydrating food and not pot cleaning so i don't have to stop for 30 minutes at a time. I stop to go to the bathroom too. I like to go at a moderate pace because im out there to enjoy the outdoors, i have nothing to prove to myself by going 20 miles a day. I get up at the crack of dawn to see the sunrise so i have plenty of time to hike. To not stop for views/explore interesting places would be a waste of valuable hiking time. It seems like some people who like to put the petal to the metal are trying to prove to themselves they can do it, i would hate to have to carry around that extra weight in the backcountry.

It seems to me that can be as much a matter of endurance as speed, at least in the summer. I don't think most people think of 2 mph as all that fast — 3 mph may be fast, and >= 4 mph definitely is fast.

In the summer you can travel for 10 hours without going dawn-to-dark, at least if you are somewhat efficient about it. In that 10 hours, you can cover 20 miles. The problem is having the endurance to maintain 2 mph for 10 hours — easier said than done for many folks.

The other endurance issue is that, if you want to cover a lot of ground, you must maintain a reasonable pace up hills. If you fail to do that, you cannot make up the difference on the downhills.

— MV

I like to hike far. You do not have to hike fast to go far. You can hike a 30 mile day at 2.5 miles an hour easily. Just start early and go late.

I regularly hike as fast as I possibly can, which I'm sure is slower than some of the younger guys on this list. Still, I am usually the only person who ever actually literally stops to smell a flower.

Most people are totally oblivious to their surroundings and it seems to me the slowest are the most oblivious of all. I am one of the fastest hikers in the group I go with and I'm the only one who can tell you what flower that is, where that side trail goes, what kind of rock that is, what kind of tree that is, etc.

People who say they like to go slow to smell the roses are really just making an excuse, thinking they're in a race with me or that I'm in a race with them. I'm not racing anybody. This is my natural pace. I am happy to wait if we're hiking together. Hiking fast lets me be lazy and rest a lot longer than hiking slow.

I prefer to keep up a good pace because I always want to know what's around the next bend. Going too slow keeps me from covering new territory. There's only so much time but there's so much trail yet to explore.

I understand why people want to take their time hiking. When I’m out with my wife we move rather slowly. Sometimes not even making our destination, a definite “it the journey not the destination” experience. I personally like to hike fast. I’m not interested in the views, flowers or even lying around in camp. If I don’t feel the need to puke at least once in a hike I kind of feel cheated. There are two things that make this “type” of hiking worth it. 1: Afterwards a cheeseburger and a beer never tasted so good. 2: Even though you feel like someone $#!% in your Cheerios afterwards. Give it a few days and you’ll be jonesing to do it again.

"if you want to cover a lot of ground, you must maintain a reasonable pace up hills. If you fail to do that, you cannot make up the difference on the downhills."

Well, yes. And this is where the difference is between people who want to get fitter, and those who are happy to amble at an easy pace within their comfort zone. I push it up hills to improve my respiration rate and muscle tone, as well as to get to the top of the next bit sooner! Then I take my time over savouring the view, scouring the hillsides around me with my eyes for potential future off-piste routes, taking in the colours and shapes, sensing the weather trend, spotting birds and deer.

"I personally like to hike fast. I’m not interested in the views, flowers or even lying around in camp. If I don’t feel the need to puke at least once in a hike I kind of feel cheated."

Why not just enter one of those Sri Chinmoy 24 hour runs conducted on a 1/4 mile track? You'd save a lot of gear and gas money, there'd be lots of opportunities to puke(lots of company, too), and cheeseburgers and beer would never be more that 5-10 minutes away.

+1

I would never consider myself a "speed" hiker, but I can do 30 miles if need be. Those are usually hikes in areas I am familar with, and with a time constraint.

I don't have the problem "stopping to smell the roses," but have problems in unfamilar areas where I find the need to take side trips to interesting places. I am a sucker for side canyons.

So each trip is different. But speed in itself is not a goal.

"if you want to cover a lot of ground, you must maintain a reasonable pace up hills. If you fail to do that, you cannot make up the difference on the downhills."

As a low level ultra runner, I can tell you the above statement is definitely NOT true.
My uphills are very sub par, but my downhills are better than most.
Doing downhills is a skill that can and should be trained.
There is a definite technique involved, shorts steps, rapid cadence, forward lean from the ankles (not the waist).

If you train properly you can gently cruise the uphills to save valuable energy, then burn the downhills to gain time.

also,
for the purpose of this thread, I'd say the definition of speed hiking is not pace in mph, but rather covering a set amount of miles in a set amount of time. This involves much more than pace … efficiency, nutrition, etc. are all equally importan elements.
.

"If you train properly you can gently cruise the uphills to save valuable energy, then burn the downhills to gain time."

Descending quickly and safely (flexed knees) relies a lot on developing muscle strength in the areas you improve by pushing uphill in my experience. Particularly thighs and lower back.

Maybe this is where the "train properly" bit comes in? ;-)

actually the muscles work differently when going uphill v.s. downhill. one does not train the other.

To train for downhill you need to do downhill.

an exercise expert can explain it much better than I can.

also, Re. technique
most people who do not specifically train for downhill break way too much with their legs, needlessly tiring them.
The idea is to basically fall downhill while constantly moving your feet and breaking as little as possible.

Rog just brought up a good point that applies to fast walking and running, how to go downhill without stressing your knees (so much).

On my first trek into the Khumbu region of Nepal, many American trekkers were having knee trouble because they were walking downhill with typical American impatience, so they were extending each knee fully before the heel strike. As a result, the full impact was transmitted directly through the knee joint. After a few days of that, your knees can become swollen and very sore.

So, a wise Sherpa mountain guide told them what to do. Walk like a Sherpa. (1) shorten your stride length, but quicken it, (2) widen your stride, and let your toes point outward slightly for balance, (3) lower your center of gravity slightly by flexing your knees slightly. This causes the impact of the heel strike to be carried by your quadriceps, not by the knee joint. At the worst, this will cause your quadriceps to be tired, but muscles don't normally swell up like a bad knee joint can.

Then you have to practice this a bit. At first, it doesn't seem natural. After practicing, you can "slip" into this gait for the downhills, and you can do it to the degree that is necessary for downhill steepness. Try it.
–B.G.–

+1 you have to practice.

If you watch elite road racers and cross country runners, they are passing people on the down hills. It takes practice. You actually increase your speed but you have to change your mechanics and relieve your fear of gravity.