Walking up the slopes. To walk brisk or to walk slow?
This question has been eating my head for quite some time now.
I trek often and most of the treks involve climbing up to a peak or something similar. I usually carry heavy loads of around 13-15kgs on my back and I've always found that walking up the slopes of a hill/mountain at a brisker pace is easier with the heavier loads. I climb fast, rest for a minute or two and start off briskly again. However, I have met trekkers who have told me that this is not a good practice and it's better to maintain a slow pace while going up the slopes. I did try this a few times but a slower pace tires me down faster while carrying heavier loads.
Hence, which is better while walking up the slopes? Slower pace or the brisk one? Or is it just a matter of choice and nothing more? (Better in terms of the ease of the climb and avoiding injuries over a period of years)
I would appreciate both personal preferences as well as scientific answers for the question.
Note: I am not referring to high altitude climbs i.e more than 3000m (at higher altitudes, slow pace is the only one advisable due to acclimatization). Also, the slopes I refer to have gradients from 30 - 50 degrees.
Please note that I'm not worried about maintaining the group structure of a trekking group or the time taken for slow vs fast walk. I'm concerned about the injuries one might incur and the ease of the climb.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/q/4893. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
4 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
A slower, steady climb is better for me, because it takes energy when I stop to:
(a) stand with the pack on,
(b) remove and re-load the pack, or
(c) sit and standup with the pack on.
Taking shorter steps going uphill will help a lot. You have better leverage with your leg muscles. A walking motion is easier than a stair-climbing motion, but of course this depends a lot on the steepness of the trail.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/4949. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
This answer address efficiency i.e. to climb quickly, without getting too tired. It is something in between an answer and a comment.
One advantage of walking consistently is thermal balance. That's how some old people in my area hike for several hours in the snow, wearing only shoes and short pants.
And by thermal balance I mean avoiding the vicious cycle of
- dress comfortably for the weather
- walk 10 minutes
- become too hot and sweaty and stop to remove a layer
- walk 50 minutes
- stop for a 5 minute rest
- become cold from the wind and put extra layers on
- depart from the rest and repeat the whole procedure.
This not only introduces huge time-outs for re-clothing, but can also be hazardous to health in colder climates.
However, this is only a secondary benefit and is in no way as significant as Weda's argument. Keeping consistent, slow (i.e. not exhausting) pace is the way to hike far and swiftly, for many days.
Interestingly, the same discussion applies to cyclists. Pedalling hard in a difficult gear is a performance-killer. It took me 10 years to learn that :D
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/4913. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
As already said in WedaPashi's answer, the question in my personal experience is not so much about fast and slow. It is mainly about finding your own rhythm and walking speed that you can then sustain for long times.
Whenever I go too fast, I come to a state where I have to take a rest, after some minutes I feel like "Oh, I'm fine again", start to walk again too fast and have to stop after some minutes again breathing like a steam engine. Overall this takes me much longer than walking with lower but quite constant speed. But once I am in this "run and rest" mode, it is very hard to get myself out of it again and regain a more constant walking mode.
Just recently I had to walk behind someone who was walking slightly slower than my own rhythm was. It nearly drove me crazy as it was always an interplay between catching up and letting me fall back, because when I went my own speed I was too fast but at the speed of the guy in front I felt like being totally out of rhythm.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/4895. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I would say there is no point in walking briskly. With a heavy backpack, it's a no-no for me.
I have observed and have struggled with the same problem when I started off towards some serious trekking with genuinely elevated/steep climbs with a heavy haversack on my back. The sack that I usually carry weighs about 18 kg.
People who are advising you to walk slowly are not precisely correct either. I believe when it's about trekking, the term slow has lot of variants.
For example, what is slow for me, would be extremely slow or probably out of rhythm for you. The point is, everybody has his/her own rhythm of walking (especially while ascending). So, if you ever feel like you are unusually panting for breath, it means that either you are carrying more weight than you normally do, or you are walking faster than you normally do (i.e. walking out of the rhythm that suits you, or you have developed over the years).
I have seen people who don't walk briskly, but they go miles without stopping. Now that's rhythm! And on the contrary, I have also seen people who literally run through an ascend and then rest for quite some time. That is exertion IMHO.
It's an art to maintain the rhythm and keep yourself fit to walk the entire day. Walking in rhythm (neither too fast, nor too slow) over ascends and meadows and plateaus, I have trekked for 22 hrs, without resting for more than 20 minutes at each break, with around 2 hrs in resting altogether.
When trekking within a group:
It is important for a group to be in pack during the entire trek/hike. We simply can't expect every other guy/girl to walk at your pace. There will be rolling stones (I meant, people who walk a little slower than what suits your walking style).
In that matter, you shouldn't just go ahead, find a shade/tree to rest by and wait for them to come: this isn't the way to trek within a group IMHO. I have observed this humongous amount of times that people who have developed the habit (ability is not the word) to walk briskly often do the same thing.
Rather, if I am a guy who can walk at a milder pace, I can accompany almost every single fellow in the group, often shifting my gears just a bit to get along with the guy/girl marching ahead of the group and ask him/her to slow down if he/she is going too fast, and without much of rest needed, can simply walk a little slow to get to the guy/girl trailing behind the group, having tough time and try to make him/her feel better by deviating his/her mind from the exhaustion that he/she is feeling, help him/her boost up his/her morale to carry on a little further.
To achieve this, I need to have a rhythm that is neither too fast, nor too slow. Someone who walks briskly/faster won't be able to do that task over the longer formats of the treks.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/4894. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads