Speed: finding the sweet spot

Since this is in Philosophy and Technique, let’s talk about the philosophy of the thing.  Why would anyone want to rush thru the backcountry and get out faster??  I want to stay out as long as possible and not leave the wilderness. Reducing a 10 day trip to 8.5 days sounds very odd.  Why not make a 10 day trip last for 15 days instead?

Heck, go ahead and carry 20 days worth of food and stay out for three weeks—and hike every day too.

Not everybody is retired.

Some people only have 6 days off and must cram miles in to get the Wonderland (or something) done in those six days, then go back to work.

Later in life when we are bitter and weak in the knee, we will hike to the nearest tent site, prop up our bones, and ponder the ignorance of others for weeks at a time.

Thanks for the responses so far.

I’m totally not trying to rush any hike. I like being out in nature. The thing I don’t like is carrying lots of weight. I think my pack was at about 35# leaving MTR and I don’t enjoy myself nearly as much carrying that much.

I’ve already figured out how to drop seven or eight pounds from my pack so maybe I should be happy with that. Hiking out of MTR at 28# would be much more fun…

Where I live in coastal Alaska, speed is sort of a necessity unless you feel like wandering around in high winds with rain/drizzle/fog (RDF) as you come to the end of the nice forecast you started your trip in. We rarely get more than 5 decent days in a row, and consequently my mantra is “go slow, but go”, meaning, I don’t have to working myself to death at any given moment, but I put in long, steady days with few breaks and put in a lot of miles (I average 17 mi/day through rough alpine country interspersed with valleys of dense vegetation, and no trails). If our weather were more stable, I could take my time more. Carrying less weight lets me go uphill a little faster, but it mostly makes me less fatigued at the end of the day so I can add on a mile or two or three, and that’s what makes the difference. Not so much speed, but rather endurance. The scenery goes by at the same rate, I just get a little more of it each day. And a lighter pack makes all the intervening miles more pleasant.

All that said, my pace is usually dictated by pre-selected camp locations that I want to reach each day. I’m very picky about where I camp.

Philosophically just depends what is planned .. or maybe an emergency.

I tried to maximize distance a few days over 2 week backpack to find my said sweet spot (in the teens in miles) in the admittedly nicer American West.  Did this in the Sierras recently with an 11 lb packweight, so max is about 20 miles per day with a couple 1,000 ft climbs (or so) is about as far as my Achilles’ tendon cares to go with a relatively light load, ample water, etc.. while still feeling good about the day.  Connective tissue seems to play a larger role as a hiker ages, … becomes more experienced.

Taking this to the logical extreme, you can geek out on Roman Dial’s discussion on weight vs distance. This is more of a exercise in what the maximum range of a self-contained hiker is, but still interesting: Calculating range in lightweight backpacking

“I’d uncovered a ruthless calculus: it appeared that every pound dropped from my back increased my daily maximum by a mile.” -Roman Dial

Consider how many hours per day you walk, versus how many miles per hour. If you go from 8 hours per day to 12 hours per day you just increased your mileage by per day by 50% assuming you don’t change your pace.

Each person needs to determine what strategy works better for them. I am of the school that says more days outside at a slow pace is better than fewer days at a faster pace. Remember, most people have an inventory of about 120 days per year that can be used for whatever leisure purpose they desire.

Nick says

I am of the school that says more days outside at a slow pace is better than fewer days at a faster pace.

My point all along.

Yes, but everyone can’t go for two or three weeks at a time. So the point is to use more of your normal weekends to go hiking, rather than waiting for larger blocks of time to become available.

The issue with speed, especially in the southern Sierra’s, it the faster you go the more you have to be watching the trial for trip hazards.  And the more you’re watching the trail the less you get to see of the scenery.  If I’m doing 18 mile days I recall much less of the scenery that if I do 12 mile days.

For me, up to 24 pounds I can go fast with good distance.  Above 24 pounds starts to slow me down.  Above 28 pounds is not much fun so I avoid going over 28.  And as Nick stated, distance depends on how long your hiking for.

So the question is, does Andrew Skurka see less when doing 30+ mile days over 12-16 hours, versus a hiker who does 8-10 miles in 8 hours and spends much more time sitting around the campsite each day?

I’m not convinced that Andrew sees less, he might see more.

For me issue about a heavy pack load, especially with a minimal backpack, is less comfort that might distract the hiker’s mind and body; and yes a lighter pack can allow you to go faster and longer, but there is a point of diminishing returns when you go lighter and lighter. Each of us needs to determine our own point of diminishing returns.

Tipi’s method works for him. Mine works for me, and yours needs to work for you.

In my mind, FKT attempts are adventure races; not backpacking per se, so perhaps we cannot compare experiences because the goals are different. But we can learn from some of the FKT attempts.

For me, the faster I hike or the more MPD I do, it just kicks my metabolism into a higher gear and makes me eat more which makes me need to carry more. The sweet spot for me is about 15 to 18 MPD. Any more than that and I turn into a hiking piranha.

Nick:  It’s kind of like running through a museum.  Sure, one could say you see more but you’re going to be missing a lot of detail and may not remember much of what you saw.

Since we’re talking about Skurka, let’s add some quotes from his blog post—

“What Inspires You to Backpack? The Hiking, the Camping, or Both?”

http://andrewskurka.com/2012/what-inspires-you-to-backpack/

He says “No single backpacking objective is superior to another . . .” and yet he’s the guy who used the word “ultimate” when he wrote “The Ultimate Hiker’s Gear Guide”, meaning that his light and UL gear recommendations will make you a more “ultimate” hiker.  ???

Here is the quote relevant to this conversation—

“I enjoy passing through extensive landscapes in relatively short periods of time . . .”

ENDURANCE ATHLETE
He says he’s an endurance athlete so of course his ultimate hiking technique will be about this style of backpacking.

He says:

“I pack light so that I can hike faster . . .”

Which is weird on the face of it in my opinion.  It’s sort of like saying “I go to church and pray and get communion and have developed a way to do it in 3 minutes instead of the usual one hour”. Or: “I have learned thru certain techniques to give my children quality face and play time in much faster allotments so instead of playing catch with Timmy for 2 hours I’ve shortened it to 5 minutes.”

Another strange quote:

“I travel efficiently so that I can hike more, to make ‘constant forward progress.”

Just because your physical body is making constant forward progress does not mean your heart or mind or spirit is doing the same.  Most of us are not endurance athletes. Suppose a person goes out into wilderness and sits under a tree to meditate for a day and finds this to be constant forward progress?  Another quote:

MAXIMIZING DISTANCE
“The goal is to maximize distance—not for the superficial purpose of just covering miles, but rather for the rich rewards of experiencing landscapes (at a blazing fast 3mph I should add)”.

What!? Beware the keywords here: “Rich rewards”, “experiencing landscapes”, “blazing fast”. A guy could move 2 miles a day and experience as much or more landscape than Skurka. There is no way to define the rich rewards coming from experiencing landscapes except when used as keywords to justify fast hiking (blazing fast he should add) and very light gear. A person could get as rich or richer rewards from experiencing a single landscape and do so while moving slowly with heavy gear.

Nick:  It’s kind of like running through a museum.  Sure, one could say you see more but you’re going to be missing a lot of detail and may not remember much of what you saw.

You could be absolutely right. I’m not arguing either position.

One might argue that Andrew will see more due to his skill and experience. He might be able to pick out the easiest cross country route, allowing him to go faster and look around more, versus the hiker who is spending more time looking at foot placement and hand holds because he could not pick out the best route. Perhaps Andrew sees more wildlife such as a grizzly or moose because his knowledge and experience tells him there is a good possibility, given the terrain and other physical evidence, that there might be a large animal ahead; whereas others hikers tend to stumble across wildlife by accident.

So we can discuss this forever and never reach any kind of consensus. However, I am pretty confident that the more days a person hikes, the more they will learn and the more they will come to enjoy their outdoor experiences.

Since this is a lightweight gear driven forum, many disagree with Tipi’s philosophy of a good trip and it is diametrically opposed to Andrew’s philosophy. Given the amount of time Tipi has spent outdoors during his lifetime, probably more than the majority here, he has probably seen more than most of us.

So the answer is: probably the best strategy lies somewhere between Andrew and Tipi, and each of us will need to discover our own. We can learn much from Andrew, Tipi, Ryan J, and many of those who participate here on BPL. But don’t emulate, personally investigate while in the wilderness.

While I don’t agree with his prescriptions, I do understand what Tipi is arguing.

We undoubtedly live in the age of the GoPro and the personal “epic”, and many people get caught in the mentality of wanting to be known for doing something “extreme” that sets them apart from the crowd.

Remember the days of backpacking when people used to actually brag about how much weight they carried?  I think the UL movement has shifted this mentality to how much mileage you cover in a day.  Ultrarunning feats, FKTs, and general self-aggrandizement on the internet have also spilled over into creating this attitude.

Stating to the public that I took a leisurely walk around Rae Lakes doesn’t have the same “epic” appeal as saying I went out and crushed the 45 miles in a single push and then went on and bagged three peaks the next day. Which account sounds more “badass” in the trip report or the Facebook post?

Now don’t mistake any of what I’m saying for knocking people that want to go fast.  I love following FKTs and I totally get it.  Mileage and distance have always appealed to me and I’ve certainly felt the pull of posting the online “epic” simply because 1. I have an ego like most humans, and 2. I enjoy reading about other people’s epics.

But the idea that the two styles are mutually exclusive of one another and that there can’t be a time or place for either is absurd.  Ultimately, why anyone would care about whether or not I take pleasure from walking fast or slow is bizarre.

I would, however, suggest that if you find yourself always gravitating towards one end of the spectrum that you give the opposite end a try.  There are a lot of ways to enjoy this world and the act of moving through the outdoors.

>>>>>>>>>>>

One consideration for speed though: in certain scenarios being able to log serious miles can be a great safety tool.  In the unforeseen event that a trip must be cut short due to weather, injury, or some other emergency, it’s nice to have the option of laying down 20+ miles in hard country in a single push.

Nick says

So we can discuss this forever and never reach any kind of consensus. However, I am pretty confident that the more days a person hikes, the more they will learn and the more they will come to enjoy their outdoor experiences.

Excellent response.  More time outdoors = more learning = more enjoyment.  This would have to be true, otherwise it would be— More time outdoors = more learning that they dislike being outdoors = more suffering = more time at home indoors.

Most of us choose to be outdoors whether fast or slow and like anything else the more we do of something the more we learn.  I equate it to a universal concept:  Who has the most time invested in their particular pursuit?  Who has the most hours logged in?

Example:  I was raised a clarinetist and played in the USAF Band etc and spent years playing the horn and performing in recitals etc.  How many hours did I log in on the “planetary odometer” of the clarinet?  One thousand?  Ten thousand?  How was I ranked with other clarinetists?  There was someone somewhere who had more hours then me or more than anyone else.  Maybe a million?  He’s King of the Clarinet, at least at this point in time, until surpassed. He’s done it all and experienced it all thru the investment in time.

And so it is with everything else.  Who has the most time outdoors and what have they learned?  I call it Bag Nights.  The American Indians had some outstanding bag nights.  They spent so much time outside that they even developed intricate religions around the experience.  More outdoors = more learning = more enjoyment.

Wisner says

One consideration for speed though: in certain scenarios being able to log serious miles can be a great safety tool.  In the unforeseen event that a trip must be cut short due to weather, injury, or some other emergency, it’s nice to have the option of laying down 20+ miles in hard country in a single push.

Such a mileage push can happen no matter how much gear you’re carrying.  I’ve had several trips where I had to bail out early and make a lot of miles despite the weight on my back.  One was due to a family emergency, another to incoming tornadoes etc.  A “last day shove” can be accomplished with a 10 lb pack or a 60 lb pack.  It’s possible and even reasonable to hike 15 miles with a 65 lb pack—take my word for it.

I agree with most points.  I think the bottom line is doing what you like to do.  With me on a hike it varies on a day by day basis.  I’ve had great days doing lots of miles, and have had great days spending hours at various spots along the trail, all on the same trip.

In regards to Matthew’s OP, for me for me it’s Speed vs Weight Vs. Comfort.  My sweet spot is going to be 18-24 pounds total pack weight.  I’m comfortable(sleep, shelter, food and safety wise) with what I’ve brought and I can move rather quickly and cover 15-18 miles in a day and still have numerous stops to enjoy the scenery.

My sweet spot is going to be 18-24 pounds total pack weight.

This is the right metric and formula. Total pack weight balanced by Speed and Comfort. Here at BPL we get too fixated on base weight.

The biggest challenge, in my experience, is to try to harmonize your own style with that of your significant other. My husband is significantly stronger and therefore faster than me, and likes to do the epic hike, bike, get to the top. I simply cannot keep up. He likes to get it over with and then take a long sleep whenever we stop, but I need frequent short pauses, for a pee break, snack, bird look, etc. he would rather hike hard for 6 hours and I would rather go slower for 10. Once in camp we are very compatible, but it’s tough to hike together. And in bear country I hate to get left too far behind and be hiking alone.

I won’t judge the speed, distance or style of anyone else’s hike, but not having  a matching style to the people you go with can make it difficult. I frequently go with women friends and it’s much more enjoyable. But I’d also like to be able to hike with my spouse at times!

Unless you’re mixing in some running, I don’t think speed plays an overly big role in miles logged, it certainly plays a role, but as alluded to above, hours on your feet play a much bigger role.

The sweet spot is a constantly moving target based on time constraints, terrain, goals, fitness, companions, etc- last weekend backpacking with my grandson and wife, the sweet spot was hiking four hours (and a little over 6 miles) and taking numerous breaks to get into a high mountain lake; the sweet spot for a short solo weekend trip could be 12+ hours/day and 30+ miles/day- it varies sometimes significantly

And I agree with Craig, who gives a rat’s hinney if someone hikes 6 miles or 36 miles, 6 hours or 16?  It’s all good in my book.

In regards to Matthew’s OP, for me for me it’s Speed vs Weight Vs. Comfort. My sweet spot is going to be 18-24 pounds total pack weight. I’m comfortable(sleep, shelter, food and safety wise) with what I’ve brought and I can move rather quickly and cover 15-18 miles in a day and still have numerous stops to enjoy the scenery.

Yes, this. Thanks for bringing this discussion back to my original question. I agree with your perspective and Nick’s response. A total pack weight that is relatively low is an enjoyment multiplier for me.

I like my pack weight low enough that distance and speed are choices I make rather than choices the load makes for me. I have done the type of hiking where you put in your 20-35 miles per day and I loved it. I have also done the type of hiking where you put in 3-8 miles in a day and loved that, too. Either way I would rather have less weight on my back, be able to dance over rocks, across streams and up the high mountain passes with ease. If for whatever reason I misjudge the amount of food I need and have too little, well, I’ve been there, too. It’s not so bad. I’ll be fine.