Comparing Hiking Miles to Running Miles

[prino]

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.)

Interesting Data there Neil. I never thought of calculating # of heart beats per mile before. It makes sense though, that you would cover more distance with less heartbeats per mile running than hiking.
Although running up most trails in the dacks is nearly impossible (for me at least)

 

[Artex]

It's hard to argue against the cold hard facts. Cool findings, Neal.

 

[Neil]

I thought the results were pretty interesting too. I was surprised that the beats per mile over easy terrain were so much higher (double) than for running. Of course to have any sort of validity in a scientific sense the results need to be reproduced. Also, the running results were from a couple of years ago.
It just so happens that I'm going hiking tommorow...

 

[keepin' on]

calories burned = work done

I know there was a look at colories burned already...but here it is again w/ a bit more detail. These are just taken from a website, but for the sake of conversation please bear with me!! There is no apllication for miles, just time.....an interesting approach. accurate? perhaps not!

for a male, age 25, 6'-0", 200 lbs hiking with a 30 lb pack up hills for an hour he will burn 726 calories

that same male running cross-country burns 816 calories in an hour.

stats from: calorie calculator

 

[jrbren]

Neil,

You have a good approach by comparing HRs but your numbers are quite unbelievable. Either you run your 5K's very casually (nothing wrong with that) or you hike like a mad man or both . I do not wear my HRM when racing but I have worn on a tread mill doing 5K pace miles at the perceived effort level a 5K race. I know my HR is over 200bpm. I do not know what my HR is when hiking (nor do I plan to find out as I prefer not to wear the HRM chest strap) but the perceived effort level would be equivalent to my warmups on the TM where my HR is <120bpm. I suspect it goes up on steep terrain going uphill but I generally slow up to keep an even effort level.

Scott, You do not give nearly enough information for the calorie comparison to be meaningful. Specifically what was the pace, grade & footing, which all be first order effects. As you confess, I doubt the numbers are accurate, although very precise !

Cheers- John

 

[Outtabreath]

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!

Not to mention some of us have an additional 40+ pounds in the front too!

 

[Puma concolor]

Inside the numbers

Interesting results, no doubt. But consider that a mile hiking takes 20-30 minutes. A mile running takes 6-10 minutes. So let's just say that a runner with a 7 minute mile average takes 21 minutes to hike a mile. In that scenario, his/her running heart rate would have to be TRIPLE his/her hiking heart rate to get the same beats per MILE. 80 beats per MINUTE isn't much ... some people have close to that as a RESTING pulse. 240 beats per minute on the other hand is pretty damn strenuous.

 

[DougPaul]

All I know is that walking up any trail is easier than running up it!

But still you persist in running up (and down) them.

Wish I could move half as fast...

Doug

 

[Artex]

Interesting results, no doubt. But consider that a mile hiking takes 20-30 minutes. A mile running takes 6-10 minutes. So let's just say that a runner with a 7 minute mile average takes 21 minutes to hike a mile. In that scenario, his/her running heart rate would have to be TRIPLE his/her hiking heart rate to get the same beats per MILE. 80 beats per MINUTE isn't much ... some people have close to that as a RESTING pulse. 240 beats per minute on the other hand is pretty damn strenuous.

Ah ha... very good point.

 

[Neil]

If you have a resting HR of say 50 and you hike a mile in 30 minutes there's 1500 beats per mile right there. If you ran the mile in 8 minutes there's only 400 beats or 1100 less that are attributable to resting HR.
Say just to skew results you decide to walk a mile in a mall in 6 hours and your AHR is 70. That's a lots of beats per mile.
So, in order for the #'s to make good sense you may have to use AHR-RestingHR as a yardstick.
Average beats per minute above resting is a better function.

I'm going to gather some more data because I found my results a little surprising too.