Unsupported/Unresupplied/Thru-Hikes

Ron Moak provided an analysis of the AT surface as compared to the PCT and CDT which was collaborated by Ryan… thanks Ron and Ryan. This valuable input resulted in me updating the version .2 AT Simulation Model surface characterization. The Version 1 results, previously posted, should still be valid for the PCT or CDT.

Ignore the first name field following the simulation time. I forgot to update this information between runs. The correct name is found in the last field for each simulation summary.

The .2 model shows that only the Artic 1000 participants or a hiker with comparable conditioning or better, could hike the AT in three segments (2 re-supplies).

Ron posed a question about whether the average hiker description in the model actually matched the average hiker who would attempt an AT hike. The ISO 8996 specs for the average female and male is an International standard. Based on antidotal evidence from the US trade press, I assume that the average US hiker would both be heavier and have a lower VO2max.

If this were an Olympic event the record would be 891.6 miles. The Artic 1000 team would achieve 790.7 miles. The International average male would achieve 642 miles. The International average female would achieve 651.2. A female partner on this hike would not be a record liability. Bill Fornshell, an elite cardiovascular conditioning example of the retired age category, would achieve 685.9 miles.

I introduced this thread and the idea of 3 to 5 resupplies to do a AT Thru-Hike to WhiteBlaze.net.

AT Thru-Hike with only 3 to 5 resupplies?

In less than 24 hours the thread got 31 replies. Some were, well, I will not go into a any detail about them. There were some good comments and a couple of good questions or thoughts.

There was one interesting thought. I have put it in the form of a question.

Question: “if you get 3 to 5 resupplies does the stuff you start off with count as one of them”?

If we use the term “resupply” that does seem to imply that you would start your hike with a full pack and then resupply 3 times – or 5 times??

If we do it that way then the food necessary etc would divide by 6, not 5. I start off at Springer with a load and then resupply 5 times or 3 times – what ever??

Two thoughts:

1) “resupply” is NOT the initial supply. this is how i would normally interpret the English word “resupply” (note the “re-” prefix).

2) IIRC, Richard broke the AT into three ~700 mile “legs”. Hence, your initial starting supply (70lb pack) and then only two resupplies returning the pack to its starting weight.

PJ,
I think Richard was responding to Ryan’s thought about a 700 mile unsuported hike x 3.

Ron mentioned 4 or 5 “resupplies” in his early post.

Bill,

Right you are. Thanks for the link over at WhiteBlaze. Interesting Thread you started over there. I saw there that you were considering a five section/[re-]supply hike and not three.

Some theoretical subtleties of long distance hiking efficiency

On 11/16/06 Roman Dial said in part, “…It needs somebody small with big feet and a low metabolism…”

The Version .2 AT model now seems, to me, to be in the general realm of real world probable results. I decided to use it to test Roman’s hypothesis about optimal body size and feet size. Regarding Roman’s point about body size, the simulation model agrees with him. I had the model test every combination of weight, height, age, and VO2max to determine the characteristics of an Olympian which would yield the longest hiking distance. Much to my surprise, the optimum body weight was 163.7 lbs which is indeed a small person compared to the professional football player like proportions I expected to see as a result.

On Roman’s second point the model disagrees. The model shows that someone with small feet will be able to travel further than someone with larger feet. For example, the model showed that the Artic 1000 team should be able to travel 790.2 miles without a re-supply if they had size 9 feet and wore Montrail Vitesse shoes at 26 oz. When I changed the Montrail Vitesse shoe size to 12, at 29.4 oz, the maximum distance dropped to 781.1 miles.

Taking the feet issue one step further, I tested a range of shoe options that an Artic 1000 participant with a nominal size 12 foot might select. If they wore Montrail Torre GTX boots, for example, their max distance would drop from 781.1 to 712 miles. For every oz added to the size 12 feet, the maximum AT distance dropped ~1.97 miles.

Different studies have reported foot versus torso weight ratios as high as 6 to 1. The existing .2 model uses the most conservative foot weight ratio in determining total Calories burned.

I then tested the model to see what impact on distance, different base weights would have. For every oz added to the base weight the maximum AT distance dropped ~.70 miles.

PJ,

My comments on WB were more in the line of “how to” not “I will be”. I will be on the AT someplace NOBO or SOBO in 2007 to try and do it all.

I have two plans, one that would put me in Maine the first of January 2007 and one that would put me in Georgia the first of January. For now I am watching the weather around the NH / ME area close.

This AT hike will not be a 5 resupply hike though. I want this hike to be with a pack weight never more than about 20 pounds worth of food till after I am into the hike by 300 to 400 miles or so.

If there was a good reason I believe that once I got near Virginia I could do a 700 mile section Unsupported/Unresupplied.

I think of all the AT the State of Virginia and enough north or south of VA is an area where a 700 mile section could be done. VA is about 550 miles and then just add 150 more miles north or south and you would have it.

======

Richard,

You just keep on amazing me.

For years I wore a size 9 shoe. Then with different sock combinations I went to a size 10 then a 10.5 and the last few pair have been a size 11. I use a The North Face Ultra 102 (28.3 oz) – 103 XCR (36.3 oz) and I just got a new pair – TNF Hedgehog XRC’s ( 36.4 oz). My feet like these shoes and for me that says it all. The XCR adds 4 ounces per shoe that I hope in cold weather is worth the weight.

My base pack weight should be lower than the planning weight you use for me. I will carry no fuel as I do not cook my food. My pack alone – weight will be at or less than 2 pounds with my new external frame pack. I would guess my total would be more like 8 or 9 ounces where it is now 14.9. I think my food weight would be 45 pounds not 60.1. My calories while hiking may be as low as 2825 with a daily total of 3800 calories. I can not see any way I could eat 5564 calories a day. In theory the math may show I need that much but I don’t think I could get that many calories down. I figure my food weight per day at 22.9 ounces.

Richard,

First off, that’s a great modeling tool you’ve got there. It must have taken some time to put it together. Good job and many thanks for sharing with us.

I would have thought Roman might been thinking of a smaller person than ~163lb or female – lower food requirements due to body weight (and basal metabolic level in the case of many females).

Though at some point the trade-off b/t physical strenghth to carry a heavy pack and food reaches a limit and it goes the other way (i.e., counterproductive). I guess your model predicts this point to be ~163lb.

Second, we should ask Roman Dial “Why did you say large feet?”

When i read his words, i very tentatively thought (since his words provided no clue to what he was thinking when he “penned” those words):

a) balance (helps with a heavy pack, though trekking poles work even better by providing a wider base with more “legs”/supports – nearly always two or three in contact with the ground at any point in time).

b) larger surface/contact area needed for a heavy pack (65-70lb) in order to reduce pressure on very soft and muddy trail surfaces to avoid sinking in as deeply.

c) perhaps he noticed tussock spacing in the Artic and was thinking of a larger foot spanning the gaps b/t tussocks, thus making walking easier???

d) was it solely the sum cumulative effect of the linear distance covered by each stride and the energy expended to take a step (not merely leg length, but the distance from heel plant to ball-of-the-foot lift-off with – a couple of inches with every step could really add up over ~2160miles or so)?

Many thanks,
pj

Bill,

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.

I’ll be cheering for you all the way.

Bill,

I popped over to Whiteblaze and read your thread over there. While I frequently disagree with people like Jack Tarlin or Lone Wolf I do respect that they each have in excess of 10 thru-hikes on the AT so are still quite knowledgeable and whose opinions shouldn’t be summarily dismissed.

>> I have two plans, one that would put me in Maine the first of January 2007 and one that would put me in Georgia the first of January. For now I am watching the weather around the NH / ME area close.

This AT hike will not be a 5 resupply hike though. I want this hike to be with a pack weight never more than about 20 pounds worth of food till after I am into the hike by 300 to 400 miles or so. << If I’m reading the above statement correctly, then I have extreme doubts about your level of understanding about the hike you’re planning on undertaking. Don’t get me wrong, I thoroughly respect the level of work you’ve done over the last few years in getting your gear pared down to the absolute minimum. I’m also well aware that there is frequently a gap between our expectations and reality. Which is why that of the thousands of people who attempt the AT each year, as much as a third drop out in the first 100 miles. One of the downsides of dwelling on theory is that it frequently draws us further away from reality. This is primarily because when dealing with theories, it’s extremely difficult to include all of the additional factors that need to be included in forming a realistic projection. Hiking the AT in New England in January, if not impossible, would be extremely difficult. It’s certainly not something to be done with an SUL pack. Even hiking the southern AT at that time of the year is not something to be toyed with. You should expect to carry and use snow shoes for at least some of the hiking. If you want to know what you’re getting into, I’d read Brian Robinsons journals (http://royrobinson.homestead.com/TrailLogs_Jan.html). On his hike even Brian had to abandon hiking on the AT due to 10 deep snows in Vermont and that was in March.

I realize this post will come across as just another negative naysayer. But I am concerned that you approach the AT with as much of a realistic view as possible. I will also admit that while I know much about your skills at making gear, my knowledge of your hiking skills is severely lacking. Have you done a 2000 mile trail before? Have you hiked hundreds of miles in deep snow and cold? What is the temperature range of your insulation gear? Will it support daytime temps in the 20’s and nighttime temps of 0 degrees? Will your diet support the additional calories needed to combat the additional cold and hiking difficulty?

Perhaps a separate thread should be created. Their you can outline your plans and expectations and request feedback.

Ron

> I realize this post will come across
> as just another negative naysayer.

Ron –

Postive as well as negative feedback is what makes decisions. You’re a respected member of the backpacking community and the points you make are all valid.

We can certainly make remark after remark about gear and weights and other physical attributes of this hike but we certainly need to consider the individual who would attempt this. They would need an iron will and physical and mental preparedness of the highest dedication.

To chime in on what Ron said, a winter hike of the southern AT can be brutal. So many hikers assume that because it’s the south, the trail will be reasonably mild in January.

You can get lucky and find it to be that way on a short trip. I once hiked the AT in the Smokies in January and enjoyed 60 degree days in the afternoon.

Or you can get unlucky as folks found out last week. An ice storm hit the higher portions of the park. There are lots of downed trees at this point, and little likelihood they’ll be cleared before spring. The main road through Newfound Gap was closed to all except emergency vehicles for a while, and there were folks who needed to be rescued.

I’ve walked the “glass” trail myself, the condition when feet pack down the trail, it melts, then freezes hard again. I was glad to have lightweight CMI instep crampons.

Because of the elevation, the AT in the Smokies is more akin climatewise to Vermont at sea level. Even the Georgia gets considerably colder snowier weather than the Georgia lowlands.

On my 99 through-hike, I started on March 24. I was lucky to only have gotten about 4 inches of snow in north Georgia. But that same snow dropped over a foot in the Smokies. It never got reported in the papers, because the towns in the low-lying areas only got rain.

A through-hike starting in January IS doable. It has been done successfully by a number of NOBO’s, including two I work with. Just be aware that it is still not the mellow walk through the south many think it will be.

P. S. Just realized “Bill Fornshell” meant “Gardenville”. Haven’t heard from you in a while over on the other site. But good luck. It helps knowing your background a bit better. Just be careful. The shelter system on the AT really allows you an extra margin of safety, but better you than me to head out with a SUL pack in winter.

BF is a cancer survivor and ex-Army lifer. I believe that he has the iron will and resolve to push himself until he can physically go no further. I don’t think that he will “give up” mentally, though he may make a wise decision and bail if safety warrants such a decision. One thing he appears to be from his Posts, besides being very creative, is that he is NO fool.

Even the most amazing genetic specimen of an Olympic athelete has physical limitations.

However, i too, in some of my prev. posts, have questioned the wisdom of even a slightly later start, particularly a SOBO attempt. I would be very happy to have Bill provde me wrong.

To Ron and Others:
I want to reply to some of Ron’s concerns. I do appreciate Ron’s concern and the fact that he took the time to outline them.

====

Bill,
I popped over to Whiteblaze and read your thread over there. While I frequently disagree with people like Jack Tarlin or Lone Wolf I do respect that they each have in excess of 10 thru-hikes on the AT so are still quite knowledgeable and whose opinions shouldn’t be summarily dismissed.

>> I have two plans, one that would put me in Maine the first of January 2007 and one that would put me in Georgia the first of January. For now I am watching the weather around the NH / ME area close.

This AT hike will not be a 5 resupply hike though.

Reply:

I want this hike to be with a pack weight never more than about 20 pounds worth of food till after I am into the hike by 300 to 400 miles or so. << Reply: [20 pounds of food would give me up to 13 days worth of food or less days and more food per day.] [This does not include my gear – the weight of which is more or less dependent on the weather at the time.] [After 300 to 400 miles or for the Virginia area I might try a really long section or at least all of VA in one resupply.] ==== If I’m reading the above statement correctly, then I have extreme doubts about your level of understanding about the hike you’re planning on undertaking. Don’t get me wrong, I thoroughly respect the level of work you’ve done over the last few years in getting your gear pared down to the absolute minimum. I’m also well aware that there is frequently a gap between our expectations and reality. Which is why that of the thousands of people who attempt the AT each year, as much as a third drop out in the first 100 miles. Reply:

Reply; [When you climb Mt Katahdin in the winter Baxter State Park requires you to use an approved Guide Service. I have investagated the use of a guide services through the White Mt’s as well but it is all dependent on the snow level and if the trail is packed down enough to tell where it goes.]

Reply:

Reply:

Reply: [Good idea.]

Ah, Bill, you never cease to amaze!

All that Army training going to good use with the planning of “Operation SOBO7” and the Recons (or “Reckies” [sp???] as the Brits would say).

Glad you understood my convoluted negative logical wording properly (i.e. “is NOT a fool.”).

I have great hopes that you will prove my fears wrong and that you will succeed.

Best wishes for much success,
pj

Bill,

I’m glad you’ve got a firm grasp on challenges facing you. I hope you’ll be able to find time to update us as your trip progresses.

Since I gather you’ll still be attempting to push the envelope on UL techniques in winter, it’ll be interesting to see how well things translate between your expectations and trail reality.

Good Luck,

Ron

Richard and PJ,
I have been busy with some other projects and haven’t been reading here until tonight — But you guys just don’t know how excited I am about this thread — I have been waiting literally 20 years to hear other people’s thougths about this topic.

Richard, thanks for running the simulations! Very cool and fun to think about and look at. It’s neat how many important variables you take into consideration and how close your numbers are to what could actually be done.

However, Richard, I hesitate to say this and spoil the mystique I have so carefully cultured but I am not an elite athelete (can’t hardly spell the word even).

I am a middle aged, thinning haired, mouth breathing, sway-back — but I am persistent and I have been pushing my body for a long time to see what it can do — and pushing other people and watching them push themselves — to the point that I have an idea of what works and doesn’t work, for me.

While big feet do indeed require heavier shoes and every ounce on your foot has to vertically travel about five times the distance of an ounce on your back, the big feet do spread weight over a larger area — it does seem that light weight people with big feet have fewer foot problems than heavier people with small feet (I have smallish feet and weigh about 167).

My experience tends to corroborate with Ryan’s: hard packed trails are hard on the feet and legs. While wilderness walking requires more attention, it may actually be a bit easier on the old feet.

When I reached the gravel pipeline Haul Road at the end of the Arctic 1000, I didn’t walk much more than a mile, because the road started hurting my feet! Can you imagine that….also, back in my old adventure racing days, I loathed any fast paced travel on dirt roads or even hard packed trails because it just blew out my feet.

When I say blow out my feet I mean blisters on the balls of my feet generally.

Roman

I’ve been following this thread, and the one started by Bill at whiteblaze.net, and wanted to say how much I’ve learned by the exchange of ideas. The tables and calculations are fasinating. Sort of to recap my initial thoughts, it seems based on the info, personal reports and Roman’s last post on being a non super human athlete (but super focused and determined!) that a fairly quick AT thru hike of around 60-65 days with a base pack weight of around 7lbs and only five “full” resupplies (gathering any easy to get (super close to trail) extra food in between and never carring more than about 30 lbs is doable physically by a good number of people with good pre hike training. In our demanding time crunched world, I could see this style speedier model of thru hiking increasing. Certainly better equipment, food types, information, etc. is avialble vs even 5 years ago that would help this a lot. Students could more easily commit to the challenge as well as many folks that could swing 8-10 weeks off work vs 20. In a time compressed hike, maybe the same sleeping bag, clothes set, etc. could be used to save initial investment. Section hikers could do the entire trail in two or three blocks in two years using regular work vacation. Of course, there is no best way and each person has to “hike thier own hike.” In my mind, thats what SUL is all about, creating options for folks to choose from to fit them and getting more peole out there: Hopefully creating a more determined enviormental mind set that would translate to protectionist action.

What’s up with the cranky folk at whiteblaze?

If those are the type of people hiking the AT, I wouldn’t want to test my limits there!

But then, that’s the reason many of us left the east coast a lifetime ago anyway…..

> hard packed trails are hard on the feet and legs. While wilderness walking requires more attention, it may actually be a bit easier on the old feet.

I certainly agree with you Roman. I can go for days on end off-trail with comfortable feet and no problems. I get tired feet on hard roads.

But I would point out that one does travel a fair bit faster on those hard surfaces, so there may be a bit more to it.

Roman, amen to that; the guys at whiteblaze don’t seem to get the reasons for going light and fast. Im no expert at UL yet, but I see the logic.
As I like to say on other subjects. “If I have to explain, you wouldn’t understand”. Some of those posters make the AT sound like the dirt strips between convenience stores- I mean why woudn’t you stop at each?? oh brother..

I’m one of those who can’t do a 100 day through hike even if I can swing the time off work/between jobs etc. My wife is tolerant of trips but I fear 60 days is probably the limit of what I would ask for in the near future. That would be 2 months of a 3 month summer already but at least it’s not the whole thing.

While she and I may someday do through hikes together on shorter trails (not AT/CDT/PCT) I still have somewhat of a desire to hike the long trails myself.

Anyway I love to push my limits and while right now that focuses a lot on cycling that may change in the future. This thread is really interesting in that regard.

I’ve really enjoyed this thread. I’m excited by the thought that UL/SUL techniques could let someone such as myself, i.e. good but non-superhuman shape but determined, hike a long trail (my current dream is the PCT) fairly quickly while staying on the trail as much as possible. Currently, I’m not interested in resupplying as little as possible as a way to push my limits (although I completely respect and understand why someone would want to do that and can see myself wanting to do it in the not-too-distant future). Rather, I want the focus of my thru-hike to be on the trail without ignoring small outposts located directly on or very near the trail: no hitchhiking, no hiking more than around .5 miles off the trail, but utilizing small shops and restaurants that are within sight and a few minutes’ walk away. In particular, Ron Bell’s comments have really opened up a whole new way of thinking about my plans for a thru-hike of the PCT. An average of 3mph for 12 hours/day, never carrying more than about 30lbs (the exception for me being desert sections that would require carrying up to 2 gallons of water), base weight of 7lbs (though I’d prefer under 5), six “full” resupplies (one more for an extra 500 miles seems fair enough) with extra food and calories being gathered on and very close to the trail, with an overall trip length of less than 90 days = great for a graduate student/Fulbright scholar who wants to hike long trails in the summers and stay within .5 miles of the trail at all times.

Cudos to the BPL community for the great discussion and an open interest in exploring new ways of appreciating the beautiful world we find ourselves in.

This thread got me all worked up again to do a long hike.

I even looked on the Arctic 1000 mileage to see how it increased with pack-lightening, then worked on figuring out how much farther it might be possible to go…and my wife said, “Enough!

“You’re going to the Arctic with me next summer and we are going to watch animals and birds, and then do a hike *I* want to do — and it’s not not gonna be a 783 mile trip in 33 days carrying 1.9 pounds of food per day with a 10 pound base weight!! Period”

Luckily, she is into lightweight and beside our spartan and lightweight fabric/materials approach, it’s awfully good to share with her;)

Roman-You have a good woman and you are a wise man to consider her wants.

Please post your trip experiences as a couple, documenting both perspectives. The rest of us want to learn from you about this type of journey also.