Energy output of hiking vs. snowshoeing

[Gary Dunckel]

This might be a somewhat odd question, but does anyone know how much extra work snowshoeing is compared to simple hiking. I would think that some military study has been done, but I can’t find anything. Specifically, I’d like to know the extra ‘caloric effort” it takes to snowshoe the same distance, over the same trail, compared to just hiking.

I know that the weight of the heavier insulated boots, the extra winter clothing, possibly a heavier winter pack, and the snowshoes themselves will increase the work load. But by how much? My googling came up with several disparate estimations from 50% to 75% more work to snowshoe. My own experience shows that it takes me about twice as long to cover a mile while snowshoeing on a packed flat trail as it does if I just walk it during the summer, and it seems to take a bit more out of me. Also, I’m not talking about breaking trail through the snow, as we all know that can be rather tiresome, more so as the powder is deeper.

So what is everyone’s best guess?

And then we need for Link to steer us to the definitive military study that tells us the real truth. I expect  that the armies of the U.S., Canada, and the northern European countries have this all figured out.

[David Thomas]

I’d say at least 75% more energy.  Potentially twice as much energy in snowshoes than in snow boots.  I’ve always concurred with the “a pound on your feet is like 7 pounds on your back” thought.  Weight on your feet is picked up and put down every step.  It is accelerated and decelerated every second while your pack weight travels along at a constant speed and height.  A pair of snowshoes weighs 4 pounds WITHOUT any snow packed into / onto them and that’s in addition to your boots.

And then there’s the more awkward wide stance to keep from tripping yourself.  We evolved to walk a particular way and we do that stride amazingly efficiently.  The Masai, mail carriers, Colin Fletcher, and waiters walk 20+ miles a day, every day of their long lives.

I live in Alaska.  Of course we have snowshoes for everyone in the house.  I rarely use them.  If I can wear boots and plunge 4 to 8 inches into the snow with each step, that’s what I do.  If I was plunging in more than a foot, I’d consider snowshoes, but usually just put on gaiters and (since the snow is so loose) often kick my feet ahead through the snow instead of raising them so high.  Post-holing two feet with each step?  Then it’s time for snowshoes.

[Paul McLaughlin]

So much variation as to consistency of snow, whether snow is piling up on top of your snowshoes so that you are lifting that, crust over soft, etc. I think only a range of values makes any sense, I’d say anything from 50% more up to 150% more. But then I don’t snowshoe anymore, I XC ski.

[John Vance]

Lots of variables to consider.  I was out yesterday on an 8 mile hike that takes me just under 2 hours without snow.  In snowshoes and working harder, I was gone just under 4 hours and was beat.  My knees still hurt this morning and the snow was several days old and had somewhat sintered.   In new fresh bottomless powder like we get here in the Wasatch range from time to time, I might not be able to make 8 miles in 8 hours.

When I lived in Minnesota I used cross country skis which was much more energy efficient but contrary to popular belief, Minnesota doesn’t get a whole lot of snow, it just rarely melts till spring and just blows back and forth.  The newish short backcountry skis have piqued my interest a bit.  With Black Diamond local I may have to check out their current offerings as mentioned here with Ryan’s latest mini review.  I was really liking those downhill glide video clips.

[Ken Thompson]

https://www.roadrunnersports.com/rrs/content/content.jsp?contentId=300158

http://snowshoes.com/learn/article/fitness-benefits-of-snowshoeing

 

[Gary Dunckel]

Thanks everyone. Ken, your excellent links indicate that it takes about 50% more energy (caloric burn) to snowshoe vs. walking. But the experiences of both John and myself sort of bears out that it could be up to 100%. While our observations certainly are not scientific, the mileage and the clocks don’t lie. And while fatigue is subjective, it still exists.

Now c’mon, Link – I need to know what the Norwegian army thinks about this…

[Paul McLaughlin]

The Norwegian Army uses skis. I mean, this is NORWAY we are taking about. Heroes of Telemark and all that.

Now the US Army probably does use snowshoes as well as skis. Shoot, they probably have the poor guys carrying both.

 

[Eric Blumensaadt]

An even more interesting topic (for this winter forum) would be:

ENERGY OUTPUT OF XC SKIING V.S. SNOWSHOEING

I’ve found that in untracked snow of at least a 6 inch depth that XC skis with skins is FAR easier than snowshoeing. Of course this presumes a modicum if skiing ability even with climbing skins on. I use G3 skins.

My comparison skis: 1. “Atomic TM 22” 9195 cm.)  2. “Asnes Combi Combat” Norwegian Army skis (210 cm.) Both skis have full metal edges, FYI.

My comparison snowshoes: “MSR Lightning Ascent” with/without tail extensions

These days I would only opt for my MSR ‘shoes if I had to ascend in brush or extremely broken rocky terrain. Even for hunting I’ve learned how to rapidly fix the straps on my crossed ski (or hiking) poles to use a a rest and unlimber my rifle from my Kifaru Gun Bearer holder. I practice this B/C I also use hiking poles when backpack hunting.

[Wiktor M.]

That’s really good question, as others mentioned it depends a lot on snow conditions.
In fresh powder, while sinking even 20 cm, I’d say it’s at least twice as energy consuming, so +100%-150%.
In more packed snow (sinking in shoes, but not in snowshoes) probably around +50%.
On really hard snow/crust I avoid putting snowshoes on so hard to say, extra fatigue would come only from extra weght.
I use MSR Lighting Ascent, no tail extensions, hiking in Swiss Alps.

[Dena Kelley]

I spent this past Saturday training for avalanche response with search and rescue. About half our group was on skis with skins, half on snowshoes. I was one of the poor souls on snowshoes, because I haven’t yet learned how to ski. The snow was soft and I was post holing on snowshoes above my knee. I was seriously envying the folks on skis. They also told a story in training recently about an incident they responded to with the local Air Guard Pararescue unit where the civilian SAR members were on skis and the PJ’s were in snowshoes. The PJ’s were postholing so bad they actually had to turn around. To me, that’s astounding, because I guarantee few people in our SAR group are in the kind of shape the PJ’s are. I spent Saturday night cramping up all night. I definitely will be getting some back country skis and skins and learning how to use them. I can’t even begin to estimate what my energy burn worked out to be over walking on packed ground. And I have to do it all again next weekend for 3 days when I re-certify for Avy level 1. Oy. Think I can learn to ski before Saturday? Ha.

[Todd T]

I have no idea what the numbers are, but it’s definitely numbers (plural). Compared to walking on bare ground, of course snowshoes take more energy. Compared to postholing in snow with boots, snowshoes take a lot less energy. I guess there’s a crossover point somewhere with snow depth/density/etc.

[Eric Blumensaadt]

Dena,

I’ll suggest, for your purposes, to get the Black Diamond short skis written up here or some other brand of short, wide “sliding snowshoe” skis with Balata type bindings that strap on your winter boots much the same way snowshoe bindings do. Heel cables will give you more control IF your boots have some kind of groove of keeper bump on the back edge of your boot’s heel. Otherwise they can (annoyingly) constantly slip off.

Then TAKE LESSONS.

[Dena Kelley]

Eric, thanks! I did see that post and it was interesting to me. Might need to make a trip to REI.

[Author]

Posts