High Speed Backpacking – why

I'm hardly a fast/elite trailrunner, but I'll certainly vouch for the fact that downhill is way harder, at least in form, than uphill. On the uphill I can just settle into a rhythm and cruise. Downhill you're fighting not to become a burning wreck on the mountainside…

If you have the brakes on too much, you'll quickly end up with blown knees/patellar tendinitis. On the other hand, you're trying not to fall on your face…a delicate balance.
Tricky form indeed. I'd love to get a coach out with me to work on this.

"Born to Run" by Christopher McDougall is an interesting read, and, among other things, looks a distance running and foot strike.

"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.

The importance of uphill performance to overall speed was an interesting concept the first time I ran across it. The actual real-world effect depends on how slow you are on the uphill, and how much downhill there is. As is often true, considering a limiting case may help understand.

Assume that (a) you want to average a certain speed, (b) there is the same amount of downhill that there is uphill, and (c) no flat terrain. If your speed uphill drops to 1/2 the intended average speed, you can never make your goal — you will have used up all of your time going up hill, and will need to go downhill in zero time (infinite speed).

I would suggest that for a lot of hikers (not racers) dropping to half-speed on the uphills (including rest stops) can easily happen.

When you stop and think about the math, what is going on is that distance covered is time-related (d=r*t) and if you use too much time on the up hills, there is too little left for the downhills to be feasible.

— MV

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.

Eh? (set amount of miles) / (set amount of time) is your average speed.

I agree that focusing on those other things you mention, rather than your pace, is key but once you define required distance and required time, you have also defined you average speed.

— MV

I think coming up with truisms and formulas about uphill pace is impossible.
It's obvious that the faster the overall pace, including uphill, the faster you finish.

But one must also keep energy conservation in mind. Too high of an uphill pace can come back to wipe your race out, especially in distance/ultras. If you push too hard uphill you can easily and unwittingly blow your race right there…only you won't know it for many more hours/miles until the overall fatigue or bonk gets you. Sure, you got to the top faster…but if that translates into shaking legs and vomiting two hours later….

So to say there's some absolute formula…no.

Simply push when you know you can, lay off and walk when you're feeling wasted- only you can know when to do this. This is where experience comes in: knowing your body and all the subtle feedback it's giving you.

Some good points coming out here. For me, having been throug a few bike crashes, it's about pacing it so my one and only pair of knee joints I'll ever get will last the rest of my life.

I don't run with a pack on. Though I may have both feet of the ground when moving fast downhill. Does that make sense?

I keep my knees flexed on the downhill.

I'll still make it to the pub before closing time.

"Too high of an uphill pace can come back to wipe your race out, especially in distance/ultras."

Actually this is true in about any race from 800 meters and up. I have seen many good runners lose a race because they went out too fast and faded in the end. For example in a mile or 1500 meter race, running the first half faster than the 2nd half is called a negative split. Usually negative splits do not result in great times. I cannot remember any mile or 1500m world record that was accomplished with a negative split, but there are probably a few.

And as Craig stated,

"Simply push when you know you can, lay off and walk when you're feeling wasted- only you can know when to do this. This is where experience comes in: knowing your body and all the subtle feedback it's giving you."

maybe a clarification on my early 2 posts on this.
In any distance event the goal is "consistant intensity" from start to finish.
You should "feel" like you are pushing equally hard on both the uphill and downhill.
For many who aren't used to the concept, this means holding back a bit on the uphill, and forcing it a bit more on the downhill.

An even intensity level from start to finish is the most efficient and therefor ultimatley the fastest pace.

The original subject was "High Speed Backpacking". Recent comments have been more about racing.

Would the comments be any different if backpacking-oriented, or do people believe that distance racing and long days backpacking are very similar in their requirements / how-to / etc?

— MV

I think "high speed backpacking" is racing, or something close to it.
I do it solo, racing against the terrain, mileage, myself, and the clock.
But I still think racing strategies apply; if I come out too fast, I'll suffer later and not make my goal pace/time/distance.

I just watched a documentary on BBC about Eddie Izzard, a chubby transvestite comedian, who decided to run 42 26 mile marathon's in 46 days to raise money for charity.

His best time was 5 hours.

He didn't carry a pack though, and had an ice cream van following him around.

"Actually this is true in about any race from 800 meters and up. I have seen many good runners lose a race because they went out too fast and faded in the end.
For example in a mile or 1500 meter race, running the first half faster than the 2nd half is called a negative split."

I think you've got it backward, Nick. Running negative splits refers to running the last half of a race faster than the first. Your point holds, though, as a rule of thumb. That said, it depends on an individual runner's capabilities and psychology. In cross country, where getting hung up in the pack can ruin a top runner's chance of victory, he will often go out fast and try to hang on
as others try to reel him in. Some folks are comfortable running from the front, others will hang back and try to reel a front runner in in the latter stages of a race. Others still will make their move on hills if that plays to their strength. Lots of tactical approaches to running a race. The nature of the course will have an impact as well;
hills, temperature, humidity all have an impact on a runner's tactics.

Tom,

Brain fart on my part :)

I was a miler in the day, and my son is finishing up 4 years of distance running at Cal Poly SLO, so running has been near and dear for many decades.

"He didn't carry a pack though, and had an ice cream van following him around."

This comment reminded me of a cool little DVD I purchased online called "The Runner" (by Journey Film, only available online I think).

It chronicles David Horton's 2005 record breaking run of the PCT.
At one point along the PCT David had his crew backpack in to him ice cream packed in dry ice.

This is a great DVD even if you're not a runner, and offers some good insite into the PCT.

p.s.
for those who ask "Why", this is a must see film. After watching this film you'll really ask WHY.

Another way I look at this:

We don't hunt anymore, at least not in the traditional sense (I must assume that taking an elk at 250 yards with a .300 magnum is a bit different than running it down with an atlatl or spear).

Male or female, with the exception of our military, we don't have a warrior class either. We don't fight. We really have no reason to ever have to try to do anything at maximum physical capacity. There are no consequences, social or physical, for not being able to physically rise to a challenge.

Nobody HAS to climb or run anymore. If you do, it's a game.

Yet I think our bodies are hardwired for these activities, for struggle, and for the adrenaline rush.

But in 2010, it's pretty safe to say that the majority of citizens in wealthy countries are completely disconnected from their biology. They live vicariously through books, TV, movies, etc., getting their danger and adventure through surrogates.

Others, we invent physical games.
Rock climbing. Whitewater kayaking. Free diving. Ultrarunning. There's no real reason for these activities, at least no direct benefit to society in them. Yet some of us, our bodies and brains still crave struggle and the greatest thrills we experience are those that come after adrenaline surges or long periods of physical effort. It makes us feel alive, like we're doing what our bodies were MEANT to be doing.

It seems that the majority of people out there either resist these urges and go back to bed, talk themselves out of them with seemingly practical "it might be dangerous" arguments, or are altogether oblivious to them.

I say keep struggling, it's what we were made for.

+1 Craig

And since most developed countries are disconnected from their biology (esp the US), the result is an overweight and out of shape populace resulting in increased health care, social problems, and disfunction individuals (i.e. TV will be the demise of western civilization).

good post craig

Craig – Nice Post.

>>It makes us feel alive

Craig, great post!

Reminded me of one of my favorite quotes:

The real work of men was hunting meat. The invention of agriculture was a giant step in the wrong direction, leading to serfdom, cities, and empire. From a race of hunters, artists, warriors, and tamers of horses, we degraded ourselves to what we are now: clerks, functionaries, laborers, entertainers, processors of information.

– Edward Abbey

That's a beautiful Abbey quote.

Well, this is getting philosophical. Great post Craig.
Running after deer with a spear in the UK will get you arrested, so I force myself to trap the occasional rabbit and skin and cook it. To be honest I have a slight revulsion about killing anything bigger than a mosquito, but I do it anyway to keep myself ready to survive tough times if I need to.

It's one of those activities which will prevent me from breaking any running records on long distance treks. Well, that and not being fit or fast enough. :-)

"The real work of men was hunting meat"

actually wasn't the "Real" work of men running from the meat :-)

I'm not sure we've devolved, as long as we have the wisdom to deal with our circumstance in a well thought out way.

I'd much rather be running for fun than running for my life, no matter how exhilerating that used to be :-)

Hunting is a waiting game, even with bows and spears. In fact even more so because you have to get closer. You would probably need to sprint every once in a while. Walking long distances would be more normal.
I, like a lot of people do not think ultrarunning is healthy and I certainly don't think its natural.

I'd differ with you on the necessity of running when hunting as well as ultrarunning not being healthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo

Humans are a formidable running creature- we forget this because we lost it. Pit me against a dog on a summer day and I could probably run it to death- literally. The Western States 100 was originally a horse race…until humans started doing better than horses.

I'm reading more and more about persistence hunting being the key to human survival in many regions- and quite possibly part of the reason that the Neanderthal hit a dead end. Stocky, thick people are not well adapted to chasing game on the plains…they're far better at cornering and clubbing mega fauna to death.

As for ultrarunning not being healthy…Why? What's this assumption based off of?

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ACC/19091
Here is just one article. It not really "proven" but there is evidence. It seems to me that marathons are about managing damage to a body breaking down more than a way to build the body up.

As for hunting, hunting is not "chasing" around animals. You would not take 2 steps at a gazelle before its long out of range for any spear.
Hunting is about planning and intelligence. Those things make us human. We are clumsy and sloooow. Lions and tigers are sprinters too: they are pretty good hunters.
Good hunters wait and hide until prey is in range and strike before they know whats going on- they do not run into a field chasing animals for 20 miles. In fact the case could be made that trapping is far more productive. Natives often spooked herds into corners or off cliffs. Modern day people who live off the land probably get more food from there traps than hunting, and of caorse there is fishing: no marathon running required.