Tortoise or Hare

[Michael B]

Which is more economical (energy wise) or less demanding (body wise) Hiking at a 4mph rate for 5 hours or a 2mph rate for 10 hours. Same miles obviously.

 

comments

Mike

 

[Todd T]

4mph is pretty fast, so for your specific example, I’ll say the 2mph scenario is usually more economical energy-wise.  Our bodies are not mechanically designed for fast walking.  Running, yes; walking fast, no.  But if you drop the 4 to 3.5 or 3, I’ll say that’s more economical because you “waste” less time.  Everyone’s different, of course, so the specific upper limit will…depend.

As for what’s less physically demanding, it probably tracks the energy thing somewhat, but also depends on one’s particular physical issues.  I have a bad back that hurts only when I stand around or walk slowly, so 2mph is death for me unless it’s up a pretty good hill or on pretty rough terrain.  Weird.

 

[Greg Mihalik]

Runners on a treadmill expend more energy than walkers on a treadmill covering the same distance.

In this case, physiology trumps physics.

Extrapolate at your own risk.

 

 

[Michael B]

Running yes I agree as you are lifting both feet of the ground as opposed to Walking (by olympic definition ) one foot is always on the ground, and we all know running is much more demanding physically.

The 4 mph was just an example more than actual speed ( typically 3.4 -3.7mph ) I always have walked reasonably fast. Just wondering over a JMT type trip are you better of long slow days or shorter quicker days   (same mileage per day) One gives you more time to recuperate / rest , the other probably keeps your heart rate lower and body less “stressed”

[Ken Thompson]

Running with a full pack is a different game altogether.

Steady wins the race says the tortoise.

[Paul Wagner]

Given that most of our hiking is at 10,000 feet or so, carrying a pack, usually on a not perfectly smooth trail, and often with considerable up and down on it, we’re lucky to get to 2 mph.  4mph must require nuclear fusion…or at least younger legs than ours.

[Michael B]

No,  legs are not that young any more , no bionics (yet) . My Sierra hikes are still  relatively quick pace but for 9 days we are planning (Mammoth to Horseshoe meadows) 16 miles plus per day.. There is plenty of Daylight at that time of year (12 hours per day ) so we can crawl at 1.5 mph and still cover  18 miles per day . Just wondering over that span if that is a better way to go rather than 6 hrs at 3 mph , or 5 hrs at 3.6mph ( for example).

 

mike

[Bob Moulder]

You say “we”, to which I would note you’re only as fast as the slowest member of your group.

IMVHO, a 9-day hammerfest is no fun, especially in that country. Or on any backpacking trip, for that matter. Much more fun to end the day with energy to spare for an enjoyable evening.

 

[Nick Gatel]

Slower and steady works for me. At times I have needed to hike twice as fast to meet deadlines and was much more tired and worn out. No scientific data to back it up.

[bjc]

Most research points towards reduced energy costs at slower walking speeds. Mechanical work which impacts muscle force and joint stress is also reduced at slower walking speeds. There does seem to be a fairly narrow range of speed that people find to be comfortable. Too fast or too slow can feel uncomfortable and decrease efficiency.  An individual’s range of comfortable walking speed is impacted by age, fitness, as well as other physiological and  psychological factors. If memory serves me correctly, group studies have suggested that for many people the most metabolically efficient speed was about 2.8 to 3.1 mph. That would have been walking without extra weight and on flat or slightly uphill surfaces.

[Art …]

I asked a very similar question on here a year or two ago and a bunch of sciences types chimed in explaining physics formulas that proved both speeds would expend the exact same amount of energy.

however from personal experience its pretty clear that the economics tenet about “speed of adjustment” also applies to human physical activity. the faster you try to accomplish something the greater the cost.

p.s. if you could walk 4 mph in the Sierras you’d hold the JMT speed record, by a lot.

[Nick Gatel]

The OP is talking 4 mph for 5 hours vs. 2 mph for 10 hours; question being what is best strategy to cover the same mileage where time and speed are the variables.

The OP might want to head over to Andrew Skurka’s website, he was written a lot about this and his strategy is longer days at a slower speed. It is unlikely that any of us will undertake the kind of hikes he has done, so his thoughts would be worthwhile to consider.

[William Chilton]

“Slower and steady works for me. At times I have needed to hike twice as fast to meet deadlines and was much more tired and worn out. No scientific data to back it up.”

This. A number of times we’ve had to push the pace in order to catch the last bus home on the last day of a trip. Almost invariably we’ll pay the price in terms of sore legs the next day.

[Diane “Piper” Soini]

Well, you cannot sprint for long amounts of time. If you think you can, you aren’t sprinting. A 4mph walking pace with a backpack is a sort of sprint, and if it’s not for you, then it’s closer to the non-sprint 2mph pace for you.

I would not be capable of keeping up a 4mph pace with a backpack for 5 hours. I could keep up the 2mph pace for 10 hours easily. I’d probably even speed up since that’s a little too slow for me.

Since as living organisms we are prone to conserving our energy, no matter what any spreadsheet calculations might say, the more energy conserving pace would win out.

[IVO K]

As many pointed out, the tortoise wins here.

The energy expenditure might be close between the two options, but the wear and tear on the body  (and the ensuing needs for recovery) is not.

[Valerie E]

In running circles, folks used to talk about “Most Efficient Pace” (MEP).  One’s MEP is 100% individual, which is why finding a hiking buddy who goes the same speed as you is a HUGE gift!

Hiking at your MEP simply feels easier than hiking either faster or slower than your MEP.  A few times a year, I hike with a group of very slow people, and I feel WAY more tired than I do when I do the same trail at my own pace!  You’d think that going slower would be easier, but it isn’t.  You’ll feel similarly if you go faster than your MEP (only you’ll likely notice it more quickly because you’ll get breathless).

[Michael B]

Thanks for all the comments , Im not planning on Hiking the JMT @ 4 mph , was just using those numbers to make the comparison ie. 4 x 5 vs 10 x 2 . I agree that there seems to be a pace we all fall into where faster gets the heart rate going up too much  and slower just feels awkward… I’ve done a lot of distance MTN Bike races (10 hr deals ) where there is one HR zone that feels good all day , trying to catch someone puts you over the edge really quickly and slowing down isn’t any easier just slower. Altitude plays a part and at the Leadville race (100 miles, 10000ft + all day )you still seem to find a pace that is effortless , but my HR monitor  shows that the comfort zone  is at similar HR range as at lower elevations . Im sure we all have experienced those times in our athletic years when you are in excellent physical shape and holding a higher HR for long periods of time is not unduly tiring , oh to be that young again !!!

[Author]

Posts