What do you use to keep track of distance travelled/steps taken/calories burned on a thru hike?

On the classic mechanical pedometer clipped to your pocket or hip or belt, there is a tiny pendulum inside. Your walking gait causes the pendulum to swing back and forth, and that is counted. When you first use the pedometer, you need to calibrate it. That means walking a fixed distance, letting the pedometer count the steps, and then you adjust the setting for step length to be accurate. Note that your stride length can vary a lot, so all you will get is a rough average.

GPS works a lot differently. Pure GPS records your position at one time, then your position at another time. From that it calculates the time spent and it calculates the straight-line distance traveled. In a very short scale, this is not incredibly accurate. However, as you get longer times on the trail over more distance, it tends to calculate distance somewhat accurately, although this varies tremendously because of many factors such as the overhead tree cover. In some cases, users report inaccuracies of 25%. In other cases, users report inaccuracies of only 1-2%.

I've heard of GPS receivers that add in the pendulum to count steps, although I don't understand the usefulness of that.

If you were walking the same flat trail daily for exercise, then I would suggest that the classic pedometer would work fine. If you were backpacking a hilly and twisty trail, then I think that the GPS receiver would do better. Neither is perfect. If you want perfect, then get an inertial navigation system like submarines use. $$$$

–B.G.–

I did the JMT last summer, and the way I measured my daily distances was with maps (Tom Harrison's). This was remarkably precise because I always knew exactly where I was on the trail by looking at natural features and matching them up to the map.

Fitness monitors do NOT understand hiking, because step lengths are so uneven and elevation gained is so random. There was a recent article about this, but I've forgotten where I read it… plus they need to be charged all the time.

If you're not proficient with maps, you could buy a very basic, inexpensive GPS and use the tracking features. Bring extra batteries.

Finally, the only scientific way to gauge calorie expenditure is with an Indirect Calorimeter, which analyzes your oxygen consumption using a face mask and costs between $30,000 and $50,000; the fitness trackers just give you a rough estimate based on their in-house algorithms.

I think the best (UL and least expensive) way to go is to get a cheap Timex (so you'll know what time it is) and use maps to determine your daily distances.

I'd use a map, watch, and piece of string.

Note the time you started and the place you started on the map.
At th end of the day, note the time and place you stopped.

Use the piece of string and the scale on the map to figure out your distance.
Figure out the total number of hours you hiked (don't count breaks).

If you want the number of steps, then just multiply total miles by your steps per mile (count steps in 100 yards and multiply by 17.6 since there are 1760 yards in a mile).

If you want calories, the best thing to do would be to multiply miles by calories per mile. (There have been studies showing that calories expended is correlated with miles, not miles per hour) – but varies with an individual's weight, sex, age, and fitness level.

Since you won't know what your calories per mile are (until you get some data on how many calories you need to eat versus the number of miles you are walking each day) —- use calories per hour. There are tables from BowFlex (etc) showing calories burned per hour on a treadmill will give you as accurate an answer as most fitness watches and smart phones.

Note that both steps and calories can be estimated by multiplying hours by a factor ;)

However, you'll want the distance and elevation gain to calculate your miles per hour — for route planning on long trails.

Calorie burned will always be somewhat guesswork.

Maps work fine for distance.

Weightloss vs calorie intake will give expenditure.

Or, assume 100 cal per mile on flat ground, maybe 150 on steeper trail.

I know from experience 20 mile days in strenuous terrain, eating 3500 cal, i lose about 1/2 lb per day or so. Accurate enough for me.

I use my phone running Endomondo.

Depending on the hike i'll also wear my heart rate monitor, to be honest i'm a bit of a geek for looking and analysing info like that after a hike.

Only downside is that my phones battery only lasts around 6 to 8 hours running the GPS.
To get around this i have a 18650 USB charger and i carry enough 18650 batteries to see me through to the next town stop where i recharge them.

I have a small clip on pedometer – it had to be calibrated at the start so deliberatley did some hills up and down to help get the average stride. The little thing measures distance, number of strides, and calories consumed. It has a stop watch, it has a teeny alarm, it has a clock. It runs on a lithium battery and can be reset each day. There is also a pretty inadequate light. But then I have a petzl elite so what do I care? It can't make the tea, or tell me where I am – except x steps since the last place… But that's what a map is for… I'd tell you the brand but the name has rubbed off, it's seen good use. But these days there are so many you can take your pick – if you want something simple don't be seduced by the whizzy things… Oh, hang on my husband found the receipt – being used as a bookmark – it's a Tanita…

I have a FitBit Zip that I wear at work (sales job, lots of walking). It is small, relatively inexpensive in the new world of fitness trackers ($59.95), has a battery life of about 6 months, and gives steps, distance, time of day, and calories burned. It interfaces with several apps and online programs; those are all optional, although initial setup requires going online.

I keep meaning to take it for a walk and compare distance with my GPS, see how close the numbers are, but I haven't done that yet. And calorie burn is based strictly on your gender, age, and weight, nothing sophisticated there so accuracy is questionable. But it might meet your needs.

What you want is a watch that pairs with a "footpod". This tiny device attaches to your shoe and measures the length of each stride via an internal 3-axis accelerometer (unlike a pedometer which only counts number of strides). These are used by some runners as an alternative to a GPS watch. They are just as accurate, but more importantly they are powered by a coin cell which lasts 100s of hours. Price is comparable with the cheaper GPS watches.

Thanks for your input! Is this the same technology as the Nike+ app and footwear I have seen?

The Nike+ Sensor does use this technology (also Suunto and Polar).
The Nike+ sensor is compatible with:

Nike+ SportWatch GPS (sensor included and optional)
Nike+ SportBand (sensor included)
iPod nano ® and Nike+ Receiver
iPod touch ® 2G
iPhone 3GS ® or iPhone 4 ®

I don't think the Nike+ App connects to the sensor, I think it uses the sensor in the phone, but not certain about that.

try working with ranger beads to measure your distance. it can be entertaining and will keep your mind sharp. with practice you can become pretty accurate. having spent a couple of years doing pace and compass work for field mapping (before there was gps) it comes pretty naturally to me, but others have seen me do it and have picked it up pretty quickly. and as a value add, it needs no batteries.

If you don't use ranger beads, then it requires full-time concentration. If anything interrupts you, you will blow the count. Some people use a little device kind of like the thing that golfers use to count golf strokes.

–B.G.–

Evidently Ranger Beads were used by Indians (from India) who were trained by the British for covert mapping of the various mountain passes from India up through Afghanistan. The British were worried about a Russian invasion through there, and basically no maps existed, so they disguised these guys as monks, give them a staff with a hidden sextant (I might be mis-remembering this detail) and compass in the handle, and those beads (also disguised as prayer beads) and sent them on "pilgrimages" to map the area.

So, it can definitely work, but there aren't loads of people who would be willing to do that all day.

Well, true or mythical, that's a hella entertaining story, Peter: thanks!

It's true! I read about it in "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk. For any history buffs out there (who also want a book that reads well) it's a great choice. Also, sorry for the thread drift.

A profile map for the trail (whether you go north/south/west/east is irrelevant; it's the total distance covered and elevation gained/lost), a watch, and knowledge of my personal caloric expenditure over time and effort.

Hope it helps!

A pound of fat is equivalent to about 3500 calories.

(Weight at start -(minus) weight at end) x3500 = caloric deficit.

If you lost 12 lbs in 20 days, that represents a 42,000 calorie deficit.

If you consumed avg 2400 calories per day, total calories consumed = 48,000.

Total calories consumed (body fat and food) (42,000 + 48,000) = 90,000

90,000 calories/20 days = 4500 cal/day.

Close enough ballpark number. I realize it's more complicated than that – raised resting metabolic rate, etc, etc – but that final number will account for all factors.

Instantaneous ("real-time"), gizmologically-derived numbers are practically useless. The normalized average is much more accurate.