Comparing Hiking Miles to Running Miles

[Jasonst]

I personally can't make the comparison, my knees scream so much at me when I try to run that I run very little. For that reason alone I have come to the conclusion that running is an evil activity invented by the devil to make me feel guilty for not don't do it more often. A good brisk walking pace going up a steep hill is my favorite workout.

I have very few problems with my knees when hiking, although sticks sure do reduce the shakes when going back downhill after a long day.

Tony

Althought I thoroughly enjoy the way my body feels when I am running 3x per week, I can't keep it up or I get bad knee issues (patellar tracking problems) I haven't run for 6 months and my knees feel great again. Hiking doesn't cause these problems.

 

[Gator]

For me, minute for minute, running is a lot more mentally challenging. Perhaps it's the impact. I don't know. I just find it a lot harder to run for a long time than hike (even without breaks).

I can definitely sustain a higher heart rate hiking for longer than running. Last weekend for instance I went for a full hour, heart pounding, sweat dripping off of me. I wasn't breathing that hard though, which is strange. I can run for an hour, but not at that heart rate. It seems as though running requires more oxygen per bpm. It's possible that my heart rate is the same or greater running, but it doesn't seem that way.

 

[Puma concolor]

To me, running is definitely tougher overall. I've hiked 20-26 miles plenty of days, but have never come close to running a marathon. The reason is simple: when you run, you go until you stop and that's it. Hiking gives you the opportunity to stop and smell the roses along the way. Sustained cardio when running is far more intense than even the steepest slope ... unless of course you consider a 12 minute mile "running."

 

[BrentD22]

6 miles running = 45-60 minutes of hard work (depending on the hilliness)

6 miles in the Whites = 3 hours of hard work.

So I'd go with a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio myself

Plus when you run you have either no wieght or maybe a water bottle or a radio. Not 40+ pounds on your back making everything harder on you! Hiking is very very difficult and demanding on your body, mind, and especially back!

 

[mtn.goat]

Being a trail runner and loving doing grueling hikes I guess I can chime in. I don't believe you can compare road running and hiking. Trail running is different though because it is the same type of terrain that you are traveling over and the only difference is the speed at which you are traveling. When I go trail running my HRM max/avg usually is about ~160/~140 whereas when I did the Devil's Path and wore my HRM out of curiousity the max/avg was ~150/~120. I was actually quite surprised by how low the max was on the hike considering I was hiking at a pretty good clip. The trail running has definately helped my hiking but lets face it, not many people trail run over multiple mountains. It helps condition your legs for hours of continuous hiking but not for steep hiking. My trail run loop (8mi) only has about 1400' of gain as compared to the Great Range Traverse which I did recently which had roughly 10,000' of gain over the first 15-16 miles. Hiking I've found (according to my HRM) that I burn about 400-500 calories per hour whereas trail running is usually around 700-800. Makes you realize the rediculous amounts of food needed to even balance out calorically for a long 20+ mile hike (or the great foods you can enjoy afterward guiltlessly ).

 

[Artex]

Being a trail runner and loving doing grueling hikes I guess I can chime in. I don't believe you can compare road running and hiking. Trail running is different though because it is the same type of terrain that you are traveling over and the only difference is the speed at which you are traveling. When I go trail running my HRM max/avg usually is about ~160/~140 whereas when I did the Devil's Path and wore my HRM out of curiousity the max/avg was ~150/~120. I was actually quite surprised by how low the max was on the hike considering I was hiking at a pretty good clip. The trail running has definately helped my hiking but lets face it, not many people trail run over multiple mountains. It helps condition your legs for hours of continuous hiking but not for steep hiking. My trail run loop (8mi) only has about 1400' of gain as compared to the Great Range Traverse which I did recently which had roughly 10,000' of gain over the first 15-16 miles. Hiking I've found (according to my HRM) that I burn about 400-500 calories per hour whereas trail running is usually around 700-800. Makes you realize the rediculous amounts of food needed to even balance out calorically for a long 20+ mile hike (or the great foods you can enjoy afterward guiltlessly ).

Thanks mtn.goat. I'm kinda surprised at your HR stats for the Devil's Path also. No doubt that's a result of being in great cardio shape and perhaps also you pacing yourself a little more, which is not to say you weren't flying that day. Heck you beat me by nearly an hour and a half!

 

[prino]

I was going to chime in with a simple equation of AHB (Average Heart Beat) over a given time, and comparing the two. It is definitely not as simple as that as there are many factors at play.

I'm not much of a runner....it's way too hard on my joints, but I bike a lot and I can get my heart beat higher for a longer period of time on the bike than I can Hiking. Having said that I get out of breath at a much lower heart beat(130/140)hiking than I do on the bike (compared at about 140/150BPM).

I think it must have something to do with amount of oxygen needed for the larger muscle groups. Although running muscles are a lot closer to Hiking.

I'll stop now I'm beginning to ramble!!

 

[Artex]

but I bike a lot and I can get my heart beat higher for a longer period of time on the bike than I can Hiking. Having said that I get out of breath at a much lower heart beat(130/140)hiking than I do on the bike (compared at about 140/150BPM).

I think it must have something to do with amount of oxygen needed for the larger muscle groups. Although running muscles are a lot closer to Hiking.

It could have more to do with imposing an oxygen debt on your leg muscles, since they are being worked anaerobically. Your body might be more conditioned to biking, and therefore is more efficient at getting the oxygen to your muscles simply because it has learned to do so, hence the higher HR, but less feeling of fatigue. But that's just my best muse.

BTW, if anyone is interested, Bernd Heinrich has a really fascinating book out that deals with this and related topics. It's called Why We Run: A Natural History. His style of writing uses lots of layman's terms and examples. Highly recommended if you're interested in the science and evolution of running.

 

[rtrimarc]

hike after a marathon?

I think you will be ok. I run about 35 miles a week, and more during my marathon training. I finished the Lake Placid Marathon in June, and did the Mt. Washington Road Race the following weekend. Was fairly successful at both. Did the marathon hinder my Mt. Washington time? Probably, but not significantly. Mt. Washington race is so unforgivingly uphill, that i probably would not have been much faster if i were totally fresh. I believe that having to get a good hill workout once a week in preperation for that race was more of a detriment to my marathon training than vice-versa. However LP Marathon is a very hilly course. VERY! So after your marathon, you will be very tired/sore for a few days. It will take you a couple weeks to fully recover. However, it shouldn't hurt you too much for a hillclimb. It may take your feet a while to heal if you get blisters/hotspots during the marathon. That may be the biggest issue.

As far as running v. hiking, they are very different. Running will give you a great workout in a shorter amount of time. You can do 10 miles in 80 minutes(which reminds me Teleskier, why weren't you in Lake George last weekend?!). A hike of that distance up a mt. will take a lot longer. And a good mountain seems to be more of a strength training workout than an endurance workout, however that definitely comes in to play. But your pace is so much slower usually that the benifits are different than a long run. 10 miles in the mountains won't prepare you for a fast 10 on the road tho it will help in endurance since you are out there so long. However, 10 miles on the road, will help on the mountain. I think too different to compare, however both workouts will help prepare you for the other.

As Mark S stated, hiking and running similar distances is not comparable. I did 22+ mile days when i thru-hiked the NPTrail - with 40 lbs on my back. Then got up the next day after sleeping on a hard floor and eating nutritionaly questionable foods, and then hiked again. After 26.2 running, don't dare tell me i have to run another marathon the next day. That should give you some idea of the difference in exurtion.

 

[Neil]

I was going to chime in with a simple equation of AHB (Average Heart Beat) over a given time, and comparing the two. It is definitely not as simple as that as there are many factors at play.

So true! I ran 10K yesterday at 2:30 pm in the sweltering heat (don't ask me why I did this ) and as I dried out and heated up my HR when through the roof! I wasn't only measuring HR as a function of work but was measuring my heart's reaction to skin vasodilation and decreased blood volume. Ie. I had to maintain blood pressure with less, more viscuous blood and more open blood vessels to pump it through while I ran.

So yes, it would be best to compare AHR's with as many things being equal as possible. Like external temp., nutritional and hydration status, same amount of rest before data collection and so on.

 

[teleskier]

Hey, I was there! It just took me closer to 90 minutes, not 80. You were probably cleaned up and gone!

 

[rtrimarc]

Sorry i missed you.

Glad you had a good race tho. Those hills get steeper every year! Cleaned up and gone? Not quite. But The Lake was quite refreshing!

 

[spaddock]

I'd agree with the people that said, they are totally different.

I've done 12 hour hikes with people that run half marathons and after they've always said the hiking is harder. On the flip side, I don't think I could run a half marathon with an anywhere decent time.

There's no way 1 mile running equals 1 mile hiking, I'll say that with definite certainty.

-Shayne

 

[rtrimarc]

1:1

Spaddock makes a good point, and one that is interesting to me. A mile hike(at least uphill) is certainly harder than a mile run. But a 13.1 mile half-marathon takes a lot more out of me than a 13.1 mile hike. Even with a small daypack.

I guess it comes down to what is more FUN!. And a round trip from the Loj to Marcy summit and back is a lot more fun(to me) than a half-marathon. And i enjoy half-marathons.

 

[Neil]

For me there are two issues. Work and tissue damage. Mile for mile hiking is more work but running results in more tissue damage. I could never run as much as I can hike because of the tissue damage brought on by running.
Right now at my current fitness level if I hike to Marcy and back I feel fine the next day and could do it again no sweat. If I ran 14 miles I know I'd be very sore before the run is finished and would need several painfull days to recover.

 

[DougPaul]

For me there are two issues. Work and tissue damage.

Uphill maximizes work, downhill adds damage.

Doug

 

[snowshoe]

I jumped into this thread late so I did not get to read all the threads. You get a better workout running than hiking. I have hiked and ran some of the same summits and found running to be much harder. First you are liffting your legs higher and your cardio rate is up much more. You have to watch for rocks more carfully as well. It is also hard to compare running and hiking. You use different muscles. Hiking is less impact than running.

 

[Lovetohike]

Clearly if you talk about generic "hiking" and compare it to generic "running" you can't draw any conclusions. I'm reminded of a comment I heard in response to a question someone asked about how tough a hill was for cycling up. The response was: depends on how fast you go, it's either pretty easy or incredibly tough. The same hill that you find a pleasant exertion while riding on your own can be a true terror if you're hanging on to a bunch of hammerheads duking it out to get to the top.

In terms of hiking, the main variables are gradient (vertical feet of climbing per mile) and speed. For running, barring any really steep, long hills, the variable is much more speed. And while you can achieve quite a high percentage of maximum heart rate by hiking quickly up a steep trail for a long time, most people would find it difficult to sustain that heart rate for more than 1 to 1.5 hours of running. In a way it's similar to biking at a fast pace: you can sustain a pretty high heart rate for several hours because the stress on the joints is just so much less than running.

What I do with hiking to get that sense of a hard workout that I can get pretty easily with running or biking is to find a long, continuous steep uphill trail, without too many flat parts, and work it hard for one, two hours or even more. Then once I get to the top, I shift to hiking mode, I keep going fast, but don't expect my heart rate to go into much of an aerobic zone at that point (except here and there on some periodic ups), and enjoy the many other aspects of hiking in the mountains.

I also agree with most of the comments about the specificity of training. Running builds aerobic capacity and some similar muscles to hiking. Biking does the same, with more similar muscle development for the uphill and steep downhill parts of hiking (quads). Running down long hills or trails gives you some preparation for hiking down a long steep mountain trail, but nothing really prepares you for the latter as well as actually doing it. What I find works the best to prepare me for hiking in bigger mountains when I can't actually get out there is to do long trail run-hikes in my local area, where my goal is to sustain a workout for at least a few hours, combining running and fast hiking at paces that I can sustain for the time I want to be out there. Keeping pretty regular with this type of workout, mixed up with other more standard running and biking, seems to result in minimizing the transition to periodic bigger mountain hiking.

 

[crazymama]

Hiking is harder

Mile for mile, hiking (high peaks) is harder than running. I base this opinion on how tired I am after each, and the physical results I see with each.

Last summer, after hiking high peaks almost every weekend, I was in the best shape of my life. I didn't see the same results a few months earlier when I was training for my first marathon and doing long runs every weekend.

 

[Neil]

As promised, here is my heart rate data for a hike on Redfield. All distances were obtained using my Gps' odometer.
Of interest to me was that even easy hiking over flat terrain from Adirondack Loj to Avalanche camp the beats per mile was about double compared to a very hard 5k run.

To take the analysis further one would have to enter resting HR (mine is about 55) into the equation. If you take more time to cover a given distance there are heart beats in the equation that aren't related to the workload. (they are simply keeping you alive.)