Comparing Hiking Miles to Running Miles

[Artex]

I know many of you are also runners, so I was wondering your thoughts on the following: For me, I would say that hiking 10 miles when climbing routes involving 4k'ers is roughly the equivant of running 10 miles. Would you agree on the 1:1 ratio, or say its more or less?

I realize the above is highly variable in terms of both geography and personal style/ability, but I'm interested in comparing notes. But some standards seem to apply: While hiking is a slower pace than running, your muscles are working harder. It's still aerobic, but perhaps not as much as running. However, a runner tends to go faster, but is not working on as much of a grade.

Given where I live, all of my routes are extremely hilly, which helps with hiking, and also makes the relatively flat courses of races seem pretty easy.

 

[Neil]

Based on heart rate monitor readings and my own perceived level of exertion I would say that hiking an uphill mile is a (lot) more work than running a mile. A steep mile of trail can easily require an hour of very hard work with my HR's in the 140-150 range with frequent short pauses. OTOH running 6 miles (on the flats) in an hour is pretty easy and my HR's are around 135.

So in my case, using HR as a measure of work the ratio may be something like 6:1. Imagine with a 35 pound pack

 

[carole]

Based on ... my own perceived level of exertion I would say that hiking an uphill mile is a (lot) more work than running a mile.

I definitely agree!

 

[Artex]

Based on heart rate monitor readings and my own perceived level of exertion I would say that hiking an uphill mile is a (lot) more work than running a mile. A steep mile of trail can easily require an hour of very hard work with my HR's in the 140-150 range with frequent short pauses. OTOH running 6 miles (on the flats) in an hour is pretty easy and my HR's are around 135.

Very good point. But what about when you look at the hike as a whole, and factor in the downhill portion where your heartrate is probably considerably less? Would you say that averages it out, or at least provides significant balance? In running, the HR factor would be more constant.

 

[jwynn9154]

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

 

[mike46r]

I hiked with a guy who runs marathons and hold some sort of age group standard in the mile. Running is his life. When we hiked Haystack and were deciding whether to hike out or spend the night in a leanto, he confessed it was much harder than running and he wanted the rest. I think that pretty much sums it up for me. A six mile run or even a ten mile run does or did) not do to me what an equivalent high peak hike does, especially with a heavy pack.

 

[teleskier]

Well, I've run a lot and I've hiked a lot and all I can say is... they're very different. Running is a much more even level of intensity and energy expenditure than hiking is, and much more predicable. But running pace is always better than hiking pace, due to terrain, of course. If I'm making 2 mph in steep terrain I'm happy; even at long distances (marathons) I can manage almost 7mph. So in that sense, hiking 4kers is more strenuous. But... the four hours of exertion it takes me to run a marathon wipes me out as much as a 10-12 hr multi-mountain hike. I guess it's because while the climbs are certainly demaning, much of the day spent hiking is less intensive than running. So, per unit time, I find running far more exerting than hiking. And you're not stopping to enjoy the view in the middle of a marathon. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

[Neil]

Very good point. But what about when you look at the hike as a whole, and factor in the downhill portion where your heartrate is probably considerably less? Would you say that averages it out, or at least provides significant balance? In running, the HR factor would be more constant.

I also forgot to include summit lounging!

I have my HR data (somewhere on a computer) for a day hike from Bradley Pond LT to Panther and Couch and back. The ups and downs are crazy. A simple little research project would be to multiply ave. HR (BPM) by minutes on the trail and divide by miles to come up with beats per mile. Then you compare that to beats per mile running.
What I find tough about Northeast hiking is the steepness of the trail makes me work my muscles at lengths where they have a lot less strength compared to muscle lengths used while running. And lifting one's body weight up a steep incline is plain hard work no matter how you slice and dice it.

 

[Artex]

I have my HR data (somewhere on a computer) for a day hike from Bradley Pond LT to Panther and Couch and back. The ups and downs are crazy. A simple little research project would be to multiply ave. HR (BPM) by minutes on the trail and divide by miles to come up with beats per mile. Then you compare that to beats per mile running.

That would be interesting! If you do it, please post... I'm curious to see the results.

What I find tough about Northeast hiking is the steepness of the trail makes me work my muscles at lengths where they have a lot less strength compared to muscle lengths used while running. And lifting one's body weight up a steep incline is plain hard work no matter how you slice and dice it.

Yep, that's the aerobic/anaerobic factor at play. I'd still categorize hiking as aerobic, but there's definitely more of an anaerobic element involved. I don't usually get the same lactic acid burn in running that I do in hiking, unless it's a really steep hill and I'm really pushing myself.

But... the four hours of exertion it takes me to run a marathon wipes me out as much as a 10-12 hr multi-mountain hike. I guess it's because while the climbs are certainly demaning, much of the day spent hiking is less intensive than running. So, per unit time, I find running far more exerting than hiking.

Ah, good to hear a runner chime in from the other side of the coin. Excellent point. There is definitely a more consistant and constant physical effort with running as opposed to hiking, at least for me. I think because I'm aware of this, I really try to push myself with hiking, and fly up the mountain quick. I just love getting my butt kicked, pure and simple.

 

[Dugan]

Depends on the terrain. I trail run most days. I haven't tried to run a 4k footer, so I can't compare hiking and running over that kind of terrain. My running routes in MA and southern NH just don't have that much elevation gain.

I did notice on the last Metacomet-Monadnock section that hiking over some terrain that I usually run over was a little more difficult. I attribute this to carrying a pack. I rarely carry anything (other than the dog's leash) while running.

 

[Neil]

That would be interesting! If you do it, please post... I'm curious to see the results.

I'm doing a trip up Green in the ADKs tommorow which involves some trail and some 50% incline bushwhacking. I'll strap my HRM on just for fun and collect some data.

Yep, that's the aerobic/anaerobic factor at play. I'd still categorize hiking as aerobic, but there's definitely more of an anaerobic element involved. I don't usually get the same lactic acid burn in running that I do in hiking, unless it's a really steep hill and I'm really pushing myself.

When you take a big step up a vertical section of trail I'm sure that single step is anaerobic. String a bunch of those together and you're going to go acidic.

The toughness I referred to though is related to contracting muscles under heavy load at lengths where the muscles have little mechanical advantage. (to be specific, at shortened lengths there is much less interdigitation of the contractile elements of muscle so you are trying to a big job with a very small amount of working muscle) That's gotta hurt.


[/QUOTE]

 

[weatherman]

For me, just plain different

I sort of agree with teleskier. I run to keep in shape, 3 miles or so 6 times a week. However, with just that training I can go and do an 18 mile hike on the weekend, and while sore later, am not dead. I think if I tried to do an 18 mile run without further training, I'd be scraped off the pavement, or at least leave parts of joints scattered around the course... .
Weatherman

 

[jrbren]

Well, I've run a lot and I've hiked a lot and all I can say is... they're very different.

This is the best answer IMHO. Each depends to the first order on terrain, weather, pack weight and how much you want to push yourself. Both can be made harder with faster pacing or easier by slowing it up. I am a 46er and finished the NH 4000ers and have done many hikes over & over, most recently last Sunday in King Ravine (Adams). I run/jog about 2000-2500 miles per year when healthy, finished 16 marathons. I am running about 30mpw right now at casual pace (~8:15min mile). In general I would say running is much harder, but not as enjoyable. I can run everyday(effort varies from day to day), but hiking takes at least a half day and usually a full day so it is a twice per month activity on average for me. I tried using running alone for preparation for a Canadian Rockies Mountaineering Camp last year and it gave me a great base aerobically but was not adequate prep because it did not work some muscles that I only use walking up steep rocky slopes, hence I developed some knee problems that week (which have gone away and have not come back) which prevented me from reaching some summits I would like to have climbed. In this discussion a disctinction must be made between casual running and racing also. For example I find 5K races among the hardest workouts I do because it is basically run all out for 20 minutes, which I find rather miserable, but rewarding after the fact if I come in under 20 minutes(which I have not been able to do lately). Speed workouts (ie, intervals, tempo runs) stink too, I hate them, but I believe they help my fitness and make me a better runner so I do them. Casual running at an easy pace (135bpm heart rate would fall under that category) are enjoyable, comparable to hiking effort (with let us say a 20lb pack) on a 1000ft/mile grade with good footing. 40lb plus packs gets harder but I always compensate by slowing down allot. That said, I am pretty sore from my King Ravine climb because the boulder hopping and steep terrain made me do gymnastics that worked muscles I rarely use. I will throw in too that metally hiking requires more thought given where you are and the fact that you are out there all day (ie, trip planning, what to bring/pack, not issues for me in road running).

When talk about running are we racing or out for a casual jog ? When we say hiking are we bushwacking up Haystack from Panther gorge through cripple brush with a 40lb pack or strolling to Johns Brook lodge from the garden with a day pack ?

If you want to be best prepared for a challenging hike, then hike. If you want to be a fast runner, then run. I would not acknowledge any conversion factor that says one mile of one is "equal to" x miles of the other.

My 2 cents.

Cheers- John

 

[JJD]

I think it depends on the person as well. I weigh 265lbs, so distance running is really tough for me, but I can hike a good distance over steep, rugged terrain.

 

[kmac]

running compliments hiking

Based on heart rate monitor readings and my own perceived level of exertion I would say that hiking an uphill mile is a (lot) more work than running a mile. A steep mile of trail can easily require an hour of very hard work with my HR's in the 140-150 range with frequent short pauses. OTOH running 6 miles (on the flats) in an hour is pretty easy and my HR's are around 135.

So in my case, using HR as a measure of work the ratio may be something like 6:1. Imagine with a 35 pound pack

I run 4+ miles a day and a long run on the weekends and I can say that running as prepared me for long hikes in the whites, cardio wise, but i agree with neil that hiking uphill is a lot more work that even running a hilly 1 miler.Your body is working with different angles when you are hiking up steep terrain, your muscles are getting a very different work out.

 

[Panama Jack]

A word from the under-achiever amongst us

I run 3 miles about 4 times per week. I dont like to do it. I do it so quickly that I can reduce the mental burden of doing it.

Hiking 3 miles is quite the opposite. I love to hike and want those miles to last and last and last.

So psychologically speaking I think running miles are harder miles than hiking miles. (picks up phone and calls to schedule shrink appt!)

 

[tonycc]

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

 

[Trailhead]

I had this discussion with an accomplished runner at work when considering a training program. My problem was when when faced with a choice of doing a long run on a weekend or doing a hike there was no choice-I'd do the hike. He suggested I could occasionally substitute a 20 mile hike for my weekly long run. I'm not sure how he came up with that but he does both hike and run.

I hope I don't hijack the thread but I was curious about hiking after a marathon. I'm hoping to run my first marathon this fall and would like to do a hike the following weekend (6 days later). Do you think this is too soon? The hike will probably only be around 10 miles or so.

 

[chomp]

I hope I don't hijack the thread but I was curious about hiking after a marathon. I'm hoping to run my first marathon this fall and would like to do a hike the following weekend (6 days later). Do you think this is too soon? The hike will probably only be around 10 miles or so.

You should be OK with 6 days of rest to hike 10 miles. I did the Boston Marathon twice and both times I was toast for a couple of ways after. Actually, for two days after I ran, I had to walk down stairs backwards. But after a few days of rest, your legs will be ready. Actually, I would recommend a short run (3 miles or so) either 3 or 4 days after your marathon.

As for the hiking/running comparison, it is a very hard one to make. I know that my running during the week really helps my cardio when I hike in the mountains. However, where I run now is mostly flat. When I used to run on terrain that had more hills, it found it helped more on the climbs in the mountains.

Since running routes and hiking trail vary so much, I think it would be difficult to come up with a standard answer. I also think that running tends to be a more focused activity, where hiking often involves several breaks and rest stops, so HOW you hike would make a difference as well.

 

[giggy]

I run pretty much 3 to 4 times per week - but never do distance (by distance I mean over 8 miles)

I am pretty much a 5 miler - which the 7 or 8 miler thrown in every now and then -

I run to keep the weight of (I eat and drink alot!!) and keeps the legs and wind going during the week - and I like to throw the tunes on and go - clears the head. But - I am not a marathoner or anything like that -so....

I think they are apples to oranges. while running helps me in the bush - I get more workout by hiking or climbing - no doubt. I would have to say that 10 miles running would be like 3 miles climbing thing like old bridal path, or tucks, lions head, etc....

I think climbing a 20 degree incline is much harder than running on the road or something.