More Efficient to Hike or X-C Ski?

Assume that you have a relatively smooth packed snow surface on a course which has only minor ups & downs (say something like the Mt. Clinton Road from the Crawford Path parking lot to the Edmands Path trailhead). Under the circumstances just described, probably anyone with minimal X-C skiing skills could traverse the course faster than someone hiking the same course.

So regarding the above example, my question is as follows. In terms of efficiency (loosely defined as number of calories burned), would it generally be just as efficient to hike from Point A to Point B as it would be to X-C ski the same distance?

Perhaps if I reduce this to a quasi-equation, it might clarify where I’m coming from:

Exercise SHORTER time via X-C ski with HIGHER calorie burn = Exercise LONGER time via hiking with LOWER calorie burn.

There might be several incorrect assumptions here, such as: X-C skiing burns more calories than hiking, and/or that one can traverse from Point A to Point B faster on X-C skis than by hiking, etc, etc.

Also, I realize that if I played around long enough to get the proper search-term combination, I could likely find the answer on the web somewhere. But, since there’s such a wealth of expertise within the VFTT community, I felt there would likely be folks on this forum that could provide some good input.
----------------------------------
P.S. If this question has already been asked & answered on this forum at another time, then my apologies! And, if this happens to be the case, please just post the link to the thread and I’ll be a happy camper (or skier, or whatever!!).

Recently

Last Saturday evening when I came out the North Twin Trail and down the couple of miles to the Seven Dwarves on skis I estimate that I was traveling at between five and seven MPH. Much faster than on snowshoes or feet alone. And that was relatively flat but without much poling. On modrerate downhills like coming down the Zealand road from the Z summer parking to the Hale Brook trailhead it's very fast. Possibly 10 to 15 MPH. Then of course there are some real hills.

I vote for XC as being the quickest and least NRG consumptively speakin.

I've never decided whether skinning is harder or easier than snowshoes on moderate hills. I think that snowshoeing requires more "foot lifting" than skinning so that may tend to be less stressful.

I will continue to carry both if I know that there are some skiable sections in or out.

I also have hidden skis off trail in places so that I can pick them up on the way back out. Actually I do a bike that way too in the warmer seasons.

I don't know about calorie burn, but as far as time I have found the minimum length of a XC ski section to be worth it for me is about 1.6 miles. Shorter than that it takes more time in changing between XC skis and boots to hiking boots and snowshoes than is saved by skiing. Keep in mind I probably epitomize what you mean by minimal X-C skiing skills.

So for North Twin trailhead, not worth it. For Carrigain, worth it. Gorge Brook Trail, just barely worth it. Stream crossings with skis can be a pain and can tip the balance also.

AndyF said:

I don't know about calorie burn, but as far as time I have found the minimum length of a XC ski section to be worth it for me is about 1.6 miles. Shorter than that it takes more time in changing between XC skis and boots to hiking boots and snowshoes than is saved by skiing. Keep in mind I probably epitomize what you mean by minimal X-C skiing skills.

So for North Twin trailhead, not worth it. For Carrigain, worth it. Gorge Brook Trail, just barely worth it. Stream crossings with skis can be a pain and can tip the balance also.

Click to expand...

I would think that skiing at the start / end of an out-and-back involving a road would be big savings, if you stash your skis. I would question carrying them across the Bonds to use them on Zealand Road and the Wilderness Trail, especially if you need different boots.

If I were to do Osceola from Livermore/Depot Camp side, I would definitely ski up / down Tripoli Road - I know from experience I can skate the length in about 25-30 minutes (UP), so figure trad ski up in 30-35 minutes (with pack). Down is more like 7-10 minutes on skate skis, figure 10-15 on trad. It's about 5K, according to my WV trail map.

Tim

I'm wondering how much your cross-country skill plays into this too, when comparing skiing vs. hiking. I just took my first cross-country ski lesson over the weekend with Brian (NewHampshire). I didn't quite get into as good of a gliding motion as Brian seemed to, so I need to work on that. The instructor mentioned that she sees a lot of people that are basically just walking on the skis, rather than getting any glide motion, thus allowing them to go faster than a mere walking speed. After the lesson we spent about 3 hours practicing on the trails. I noticed there were some people using an efficient gliding technique while others were doing exactly what I mentioned above - basically just walking (or shuffling along) on the skis.

My point is, for someone with minimal experience like myself (and not too coordinated to boot), I might not get any advantage out of skiing vs. hiking. But with practice I hope to be able to glide along more quickly, and make better time with roughly the same energy expenditure or less than if I were to hike. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any point in skiing at all for me.

Total calories burned by end of day? I'd say hiking. Skiing will get you back quicker, where you can drink more beer thereby increasing your calories. If you get back quick enough, you may actually GAIN calories on the day.


Seriously, I spend a lot of time 'stand-skiing' where I am burning no calories at all. Just standing there and gliding.

With all things being equal for XC skiing and hiking, ie experience, terrain, not postholing while hiking, etc, they say XC skiing is one of the highest calorie burning exercises there are, hence advertisements for NordicTrack and other skiing machines. So I think it comes down to how quickly you can finish a given hike/ski. I'm not sure what the equilibrium point is, but say that you can ski more than twice as fast as you hike, skiing will probably require less energy. I think you can probably Google a guide for energy expenditure/calories burned for a given exercise and find the point where they equal.

Aviarome

XC skiing is the highest calorie burner because it recruits more muscles than pretty much any other activity.

The highest heart rate I ever recorded was ~192 during a max HR finding test on a cyclometer.

My lactate threshold while time-trialing on a bicycle is ~163 (~85% of max)
My lactate threshold while skating sustainably hard up a black diamond is ~183 (95% of max)
(I have never worn the HRM or recorded results for trad XC)

Now of course technique is the ability to funnel that raw power into forward momentum. When I first started XC skiing, my wife could clean my clock even though my raw power output greatly exceeded hers. My technique was terrible and she'd been skiing since age 5. My technique is vastly improved at this point, but I'm not Christian Zorzi or Bjorn Daehlie (however, I can out-ski her skating... she's still a better trad/downhill skier than I am.)

Even if your technique is not too polished, it will still burn a lot of calories, you just won't go as fast as you could with better technique.

Tim

I vote for skis - combination trips are great

A few winters ago I did 2 ADK peaks (Snowy and Vanderwhacker) XC skiing the approach and switching to snowshoes for the last mile or 2. What a great way to cover mileage that isn't too difficult (Snowy not for beginner skiers).

From a pure energy standpoint, as long as you don't have to work much harder skiing than hiking to get past any uphills, the potential of gliding downhill should probably tilt in favor of skiing. Not having to pick up your feet, and the gliding even on flat terrain will again favor skiing.

For beginners, the potential benefit is probably reduced. It may disappear for all once you add in bridges, stream crossings or difficult sections. Regardless, I know I enjoy winter trips more when I can include skiing. One caution, with warm & wet snow it can stick to skis making gliding nearly impossible. Bring teflon pads or silicone in warm conditions to prevent the dreaded death march.

BobC said:

I'm wondering how much your cross-country skill plays into this too, when comparing skiing vs. hiking.

Click to expand...

Skill is a very significant factor in skiing efficiency.

IMO, if the snow conditions are good, skiing is more efficient on easy terrain. I have done a 25mi and ~2000 vert ft XC ski as a "day-trip". (About half of the trip was in the dark...) Don't think I have hiked anywhere near 25mi in one push, but in fairness, most of my hikes have more vertical than the ski trip.

Doug

Boot swap

Good point on the boot swap issue. However, I use an old pair of Merill leather double-double Telly boots that work well for snowshoes, skis or hiking. They will even work with my old SMC hinged 12 pointers. I bought my Karhu Nilaks two years ago just to facilitate this combination.

Mentioning skiing experience is of course important. I neglect that too often since I have been skiing since 1948.

I guess it's not for the masses, but works well for me. Lets me get in some very long days. Like for example this longish trip: Glencliff trailhead through Tunnel Brook trail on skis, up the Benton Trail to Moose Hillock's summit on snowshoes, skis down the Carriage Road to Glencliff trail jct, and snowshoes back down to Glencliff.

Aviarome said:

I think you can probably Google a guide for energy expenditure/calories burned for a given exercise and find the point where they equal.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your suggestion for search terms. It was soooo obvious once you mentioned it. As often happens . . . can’t see the trees for the forest!

Anyway, several calculators were located. Below is a link to one of them.

http://www.fatburn.com/free_tool_activity_burn.asp

BUT (and this is a big BUT), in using any of these calculators there’s the real danger that you are not doing a fair comparison. For the calculator that I used (as well as others I looked at) you are limited to certain categories which are not precisely defined. For example, there are several categories for cross-country skiing (light, moderate, etc), but only one category for snowshoeing. And, there are multiple categories for hiking.

If you want, you can use one of these calculators and get your own results and draw your own conclusions. For what it’s worth I compared these 3 categories: light cross-country skiing, cross-country hiking, snowshoeing.

In the order of the LEAST calories expended, the results were: light cross-country skiing, followed by cross-country hiking, and then snowshoeing. In other words, in this particular comparison, snowshoeing burned more calories than any of the other 2 categories.

AndyF said:

I don't know about calorie burn, but as far as time I have found the minimum length of a XC ski section to be worth it for me is about 1.6 miles. Shorter than that it takes more time in changing between XC skis and boots to hiking boots and snowshoes than is saved by skiing.

Click to expand...

Thank you Andy! Regardless of calories burned, I think you are on to something about needing to factor in change of equipment at both ends of the hike. Not only does this eat up time, but I suspect it eats up some calories as well!

bikehikeskifish said:

XC skiing is the highest calorie burner because it recruits more muscles than pretty much any other activity.

Click to expand...

This is for racers on prepared trails. It may not be true for recreational athletes.

The ski racers are moving pretty fast for their high output.
Efficiency = speed/power = distance/energy

(FWIW, if one compares the efficiency various means of human-powered transport under ideal conditions for each, a bicycle would win. And if you add an aerodynamic fairing, the bicycle would do even better.)

Doug

Given the context of a long winter approach through a valley or on a road I would definately consider skiing the approach to be a more efficient use of time and energy for an experienced nordic skier

DougPaul said:

bikehikeskifish said:

XC skiing is the highest calorie burner because it recruits more muscles than pretty much any other activity.

Click to expand...

This is for racers on prepared trails. It may not be true for recreational athletes.

Click to expand...

I think XC skiing still recruits more muscles than any other activity, regardless of ability level. What differs is efficiency, based on technique, which translates to speed for a given power output level across given terrain. I suppose if you aren't actually poling you aren't doing as much work as you could be, but then you aren't really XC skiing.

Case in point - I'm not an XC racer (strictly cross-training/recreational) and it's certainly true for me. See my above posted HR numbers and LT for different activities.

DougPaul said:

(FWIW, if one compares the efficiency various means of human-powered transport under ideal conditions for each, a bicycle would win. And if you add an aerodynamic fairing, the bicycle would do even better.)

Click to expand...

Bicycling is the most-efficient form of human-powered transportation.

Tim

Great thread!! This winter we will be making our 25th (silver anniversary) one-day ski traverse of the Pemigewasset Wilderness, this time via Shoal Pond, so about 23 miles. Via Shoal Pond, our x-c ski times have varied between about 7 and 11.5 hours, depending on snow conditions and our physical fitness. We do not race, except some times the last 2.9 miles out to the Kanc , take lots of time for snack breaks, photo stops, and lunch. I doubt that I could ever snowshoe the route that quickly, although John Swanson assures me that he can. I have also used a combination of lightweight boots / x-c skis and heavier boots / snowshoes for the Zealand-Bonds traverse, with variable results dependent upon the snow conditions, but feel that the lightweight boots / x-c skis are well worth their added weight, as I simply drag the skis by a cord attached to my waste belt. But, I agree with Andy that for shorter distances (1.6 miles sounds exactly correct! ) it would not be worth changing boots. I find that my heavier b/c boots and skis are not as efficient as the lightweight set up, although sometimes I wish that I was wearing them for skiing Thoreau Falls when we use that variant (21 miles; times ranging from 6.5 to 10.5 hours) of the Pemi ski traverse. These days, I consider myself a much better snowshoer than x-c or b/c skier.

So Dr. D., got a photo of the ski-dragging in operation? Do you let them get ahead of you on the downhills? If no photo, 1000 words will do

I can certainly appreciate being able to ski what, maybe 11, of 23+ miles...

Tim

Faster going uphill too

I was surprised to find on two separate occasions when climbing the Tuckerman Ravine trail with different friends, one packing a teleboard and walking and the other alpine skis and walking, that neither was able to easily keep up with me using climbing skins & skis. I think being able to slide one's feet rather than lift them, together with the positive traction of the skins is a very efficient way of moving.

bikehikeskifish said:

So Dr. D., got a photo of the ski-dragging in operation? Do you let them get ahead of you on the downhills? If no photo, 1000 words will do

I can certainly appreciate being able to ski what, maybe 11, of 23+ miles...

Tim

Click to expand...

I do not have a photo, but I use a really short loop through holes in tips, so the tips are right at my belt. I stash them in the pack side slots for the open rocky areas on Guyot and Bond Cliff.

bcskier said:

I was surprised to find on two separate occasions when climbing the Tuckerman Ravine trail with different friends, one packing a teleboard and walking and the other alpine skis and walking, that neither was able to easily keep up with me using climbing skins & skis. I think being able to slide one's feet rather than lift them, together with the positive traction of the skins is a very efficient way of moving.

Click to expand...

I agree entirely, as I could not keep up with my student who skinned up the Tuck Trail for our snowpit stratigraphy study on three occasions last winter. The good part was that he had most of the snowpit dug by the time I arrived. But, of course, age could also make a difference?