What's a good way to measure hiking performance?

[Hikin_Jim]

I've been filing a "hike plan" with my sister ever since my dad went out for a hike -- and didn't return. It would have been really helpful when we were searching for my dad to have had more details although we did have a pretty good idea of what he was doing and where.

[Taco]

How to measure hiking performance?

A really, really big ruler.

8)

[HikeUp]

Bragger.

[Rick Kent]

I use a yardstick.

[Hikin_Jim]

I use a scientific potassium/sodium excretion monitoring technique. As the body sweats, potassium and sodium salts are deposited on one's garments. By performing a careful analysis of changes in fabric flexibility due to salt deposition, I can determine overall exertion.

(translation: I stick my shirt in the corner after a hike and if it's so salt laden that it stands up on its own, then I had a pretty tough hike)

[KathyW]

deleted

[KathyW]

When I travel x-country on rugged terrain I typically leave a map of my intended route with my son and tell him when to expect to see or hear from me.

[Janice]

Ditto Kathy W - I would be honored to hike with you..

A true hiker, not like some others on this board who are only there for making trouble, making trouble enough to get their thread deleted from another board..

I would hike with you any day Kathy W. I only have distain for trouble makers like Alan K who hop from message board to message board and make trouble until their threads get cancelled by the administrators of that site.

I hike the San Gabriels frequently. I usually wear a red Gregory day pack.

If you see me on the trail, stop me, I will definitely recognize you from your website pictures.

Would love to meet you and listen to some of your stories...

[KathyW]

deleted

[Taco]

Let's not bring any more problems to the board, Janice.

[Janice]

Kathy W. I am Janice McIntyre. I definitely am not Alan K. The only reason I brought him up is to show the level of respect I have on two completely different ends of the hiking spectrum.

I hold you in high regard and would love to meet you on the trail. Maybe we can get in touch.

Alan K is a troll who has ruined other message boards, has had many threads deleted by the administrators of those boards, and unfortunately has infected this board. I view him on the other end of the spectrum.

And by the way, I don't feel that any of his posts are humorous, funny, or harmless banter.. Especially his making fun of the deceased hiker in our San Gabriels.

[Taco]

If y'all can do everyone a favor, and communicate personal info VIA private messages.

Thank you! 8)

This message brought to you by your somewhat-friendly local moderator.

[Maxwell's Demon]

Alan K is a troll who has ruined other message boards...

I disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial ... y_disorder

[Taco]

ALL POSTS BEYOND THIS POINT NOT APPLYING VERY DIRECTLY TO THE MEASUREMENT OF PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE ON TRAILS, WILL BE DELETED.

Danke sehr.

-Herr Mod

[AlanK]

Getting back to the original subject of this thread, I have some inkling of a physical basis for the formulas contributed by Rob and Jim.

In one of the several discussions on the WPS Message Board of hiking energy expenditure , I offered the following rule of thumb:

energy used (in Calories) = 0.6 * weight (in pounds) * distance (in miles) * (1 + 8.8 * grade)

This formula is based on data I gathered from various Web sites about 5 years ago. I have since found other data that do not agree perfectly, but the general trend is ok. (At some point, I would like to take another, more comprehensive, look at the available data, but that can wait.) I should mention that this works for hiking on level ground or uphill. I can make a quasi-derivation of this formula from basic physics, albeit with a fudge factor or two garnered from the literature. We'll save that, and the discussion of downhill walking, for another time.

Proceeding from the above formula:

power = rate of energy expenditure (in Cal/hr) = 0.6 * Weight (in pounds) * speed (in mph) * (1 + 8.8 * grade)

Let us postulate that power is what limits one's performance. In that case, the left hand side of the equation is constant for a particular level of effort. We then see immediately that one's speed is inversely proportional to the factor in brackets. Thus, if v is average velocity and v0 is average velocity on a flat course:

v = v0/(1 + 8.8*grade)

This equation predicts, for example, that one walks up a 10% grade 1/1.88 = 53% as fast as on a level surface. On a 20% grade, one walks 1/2.76 = 36% as fast. In other words, if I can walk 4.5 mph on a flat surface, it should take me 3.7 hours to hike up Baldy via the Bear Flat trail. That is a bit too pessimistic, but in the ballpark. If the factor in parentheses was 5 - 5.5, it would work better for me.

Let's compare to the other formulas.

As I stare at my hike data, it's obvious that (like you) my horizontal speed drops as my vertical speed increases. However, when I add together horiz + vert speed, I get a number that's kinda constant.

For example, last weekend I moved forward at .92 miles per hour (yes, Grandmas passed me) while climbing at 845 feet per hour. Take my vertical speed (845 fph) and multiply by a tenth of one percent. Take result (.845) and add to horizontal speed (.92), yields 1.77. That number (1.77) is sorta constant (+/-) for all of my hikes.

Rob's formula can be written as:

v = v0/(1+5.280*grade),

where v0 = 1.77 mph for Rob. That agrees with my formula except for my larger multiplier of the grade.

The time it will take to do a hike can be estimated with the following: Time=(Miles/MPH)+((Gain/1000)/2), where Time is the time it will take to do a hike in hours, Miles is the length of the hike in miles, MPH is your average walking speed in miles per hour, and Gain is the elevation gained on the hike in feet. The "((gain/1000)/2)" is just a fancy way of saying add half an hour for every 1000 feet.

Jim's formula can be written as:

v = v0/[1 + 5.28*grade*(v0/2 mph)].

This agrees with Rob's in the case v0 = 2 mph. For v0 = 3.3 mph, it agrees with my original formula.

To me, this suggests that these formulas are on the right general track and that one's maximum rate of energy dissipation (energy put into walking, of course) is what determines one's maximum speed. These results obviously fall short of quantitative perfecton, but I thought they were interesting enough to mention.

[Hikin_Jim]

I don't seem to be affected by the amount of weight I carry, therefore I have not included backpack weight in my log.

Now this is indeed an interesting physical property. It occurs to me that the point at which increased mass is no longer relavant is at singularity (i.e. a black hole). Naturally, Alan, I'll expect your future formulae to fully account for this.

This is my rather lame attempt to sound half as smart as Alan -- look at what the lack of forest access has done already; I'm losing it!

[AlanK]

One thing's for sure, Jim -- I am definitely affected by the amount of weight I carry!

[JMunaretto]

I was once told by an elderly but wise hiker ........... you know you have achieved hiker perfection when your uphill speed is the same as your downhill speed.


D

A very good point!

[JMunaretto]

Not sure if anyone is interested, but I though this study was interesting:

http://www.jssm.org/vol7/n1/5/v7n1-5text.php

What it says that make sense is that having a load of 15% bodyweight increases heartrate (and assuming energy expenditure) 10%.

What is surprising is that it says the use of hiking poles downhill increases energy expenditure 20%! (but much better on the knees)

[AlanK]

Interesting article that will complicate my re-analysis. Some day I'll find some time.

The part about trekking poles has me thinking. At first I thought it was crazy, but it suggests some experiments. In any case, it is true -- the knee part, I mean!

[Rick M]

I guess I've gone past hiker perfection cause I now go faster up hill (and it's not that fast anymore compared to downhill (bad knees).

Story time: Thirty years ago we walked up to camp Muir with two climbers who fell behind the faster climbers in their "commercial guided group". My friend and I took advantage of this by asking about what they were taught the day before. We were surprised about what they were told about trekking poles and ice axe use. They were showed the arrest position but did no actual practice but were blasted by how great the poles were.

The next morning my friend and I set off for the summit but returned to the hut when a storm hit twenty foot visibility (not quite white out ) and high winds. The two of them were very upset because the guide said he didn't think they were fast enough and so were told to wait at the hut while the five of them went for the summit. The two invited us over to the Rainier mountaineering hut (we were in the public hut) to continue our discussions. About half hour later the guided five returned and when the guide walked in the first words out of his mouth were that me and my friend "have to get out, this hut is for RMI use only". The two RMI guys left behind and two others propmtly followed us out to the public hut.

Anyway, back to the poles. We had thought about it and thought if a guide uses them then maybe there's something to it. My friend bought some and later that year I tried them on Avalanche Gulche (Shasta) and tried to do somewhat of a scientific field study. It seemed that my pulse was slightly more elevated in the stretch I used them compared to just carrying my axe. Just in thinking about swinging those "lightweight" poles back and forth uses more energy than simply swinging your arms.

When the terrain wasn't that steep but I really didn't like using them on that transitional phase when an axe might be needed to arrest instead of continued use of poles. I do use poles when sking...why don't snowboarders use them?. I can see their use when doing post holes but maybe I should start using them on the downhill to assist my knees (more weight to carry). Might be good to have to move all those rattlers waiting to bite me.

[KathyW]

Sissy Poles - that's what they are.

But I do use them sometimes.

I read somewhere that if you use poles all the time your legs will not end up as strong as they will if you don't use poles - makes sense to me.

[FIGHT ON]

but if you use them to the point that your legs will get weaker, your arms will get stronger! I liken it to using those toe clips on bikes vs not using them. If you pull up on one peddle it makes the other peddle easier to push down. Bottom line, you use more of your body to get you up if you really USE them. Like having four legs.

[Taco]

I like poles more for joints than muscles. Coming down Iron and similar mountains with any load is much better on the joints, and aides balance with poles, rather than without. That said, I rarely use poles, and often carry one and my axe in wet months.

[KathyW]

I also find the poles useful for steep loose downhill sections and I almost also use them in the snow too - except when I think I need my axe.

[FIGHT ON]

I have those Black Diamond Spire Trekking Poles. They have an Oval-shaped Elliptic shaft. When I was looking at them at rei I spent a long time, over an hour, with all the poles and found that I could bend everyone easily except this one. It is not the lightest but it is definitely the strongest. If I am wrong about this somebody please tell me where I am. I like to really bear down on poles. I USE THEM. When I started hiking with them I would rely solely on my grip when climbing uphill. After a while my hands would get tired of hanging on to them from how hard I was pushing down. I still had my hands through those straps but never used them. So I started messing with the straps and I found that if I lowered my grip on the poles so my wrists were wedged on them, I could still pull down as hard as I wanted with my arms but not need to squeeze with my fingers to hold on. So now I can use my grip to target spots on the trail instead and my wrists can bear all the pull from my arms. I can go way longer w/o getting as tired. It really works man. It's fun! I figure the more load on them there poles in sync with my steps the less load my legs have to carry. If I can push down with 20lbs pressure on each stride that would be 20lbs off each step for each leg. It ain't much but the way I figure over miles it adds up. I know I can't be exactly in sync with each stride on all terrain but when I am, I really feel myself go faster. And what is wrong with working your upper body? Nothing in my book. Why make your legs to all the work. One time on Iron Mt. I took a break at the 4 mile saddle on the way back and started down w/o my poles. As I started up those switchbacks I noticed I was really feeling my legs work more than I expected. Then I said, "Where the heck are my poles" and ran down and got them. When I went back with the poles I just flew. I really feel the difference. I also use them for balance crossing streams and really USE them on the down hill. On stuff like Iron I palm the top of the poles and they become an extension of my arms. Again taking a ton of load off my legs. Some guy I was hiking with said you are supposed to use only your legs when hiking. That you can get there faster w/o poles. Beyond explaining the use of poles as being a personal preference, can anyone provide any personal or tested info on hiking with and w/o them? Thanks.

[Rick M]

Fight On asks:

Beyond explaining the use of poles as being a personal preference, can anyone provide any personal or tested info on hiking with and w/o them? Thanks

Just simple physics shows that given the average Black Diamond trekking poles are slightly over one pound, just carrying them in your pack up a 1,000' elevation means an expenditure of over 1,000 foot pounds of energy. Now put them in your hands where it takes energy to swing them up and down and the amount of energy used only goes up.

There are a few times that I have carried them on hikes but usually don't use them much unless I'm in an area where they come in handy for balance like stream crossing or down hill on loose stuff or on sections of icy trails where an axe is not necessary. I believe even better than trekking poles is a good hiking staff where you can use both hands on in some conditions. I might like poles better if I could adjust their length instantly through pure mental thought because sometimes they are too long and sometimes too short and you just can't adjust for constantly changing conditions in many cross country conditions.

If you were interested in building upper body strength that would be a great way to do it. Likewise, you can just carry weights in your hands...the energy to carry the extra weight of the poles up the mountain has to come from somewhere whether your legs left them or your arms. There might be some savings of energy in the places where they are useful for balance because you use less energy from your legs not having to support, balance and propel.

As far as speed goes, if you have the upper body strength to do it, then using both legs and arms will get you somewhere faster but at an energy cost. As with bikes, when I'm just cruising around I seldom lift up on my toe clips but when I want to really kick it I not only push and lift but move in a circular motion and my speed greatly increases but at a greater energy expenditure.

Looking back at our ancient ancestors, how many used two poles and how many of them used just one in getting around? Not real scientific though.

[Taco]

I second the strength on the Spires by Black Diamond. I use the same, and they are very sturdy.

[FIGHT ON]

RickM. Seems to me the advantage of using only one pole would be less weight and would only come in handy when crossing streams or going down a steep trail like upper Iron. If I didn't have any poles going down there I would be happy to have one rather than not have any. But only one pole would put your body off balance especially if you tried to propel your stride with it. Unless you were really fast and went from side to side like paddling a canoe. lol That would be cool to see. With two poles you have to carry 50% more than with one but if you USE them you take what ever pounds you push with off your legs. If you are carrying a 20lb pack its a wash as far as the weight on your legs if you put 20lbs on each pole. It is extra energy using your arms but less off your legs. I believe if one uses them over a long period of time they will eventually become like extra legs. Like a dog lol. No really, imagine a dog running on only his hind legs. Or a spider. Even I can walk faster than a dog who walks like a man. Imagine Rick Kent with 4 legs! Rick Wolf! That dude already reminds me of a wolf the way he goes. Ok Rick Monster. And that's just for going uphill. You get two poles when you cross a stream which is twice as nice. Going down hill you get to use both and each time you step down make it easier on your legs, not just for when it gets really steep. And then for fending off all those snakes and such. You never know, you might have to fend off two snakes at the same time. And if you only had one pole.. lol.
I think adding 2-1/2 lbs to take more than 20 lbs off your legs makes sense. If you aren't carrying anything in your hands then your arms could swing to aid your stride like in running but who is running up hill other than Rick Wolf? You got to give them an honest trial. I bet if you tried to make them work for a few months you would really miss them if you stopped using them. I've changed the tips on mine 3 times and the main body is still undamaged. I have hiked with them and without them and they make a huge difference.
I think black diamond should give me a free set for all this free advertising.

[AlanK]

Just simple physics shows that given the average Black Diamond trekking poles are slightly over one pound, just carrying them in your pack up a 1,000' elevation means an expenditure of over 1,000 foot pounds of energy. Now put them in your hands where it takes energy to swing them up and down and the amount of energy used only goes up.

While this is true, one should remember that 1000 ft-lbs (although it sounds like a lot) is only 0.3 Calories. Compare that to dragging my 175 pound carcass up 1000', which expends 175,000 ft-lbs, or 57 Calories. (Actually, it takes about 3 times that -- because the body is only about 30% efficient -- plus the calories burned in covering whatever distance it takes to gain that 1000'.)