Large slow steps, or small fast steps?

[adktyler]

So in the pursuit of making my mountain hiking as efficient as possible, I've been thinking a lot lately which is better. I have no idea if this has been talked about on here before (I did a search but who knows what to put into the search field), so hopefully I'm not being redundant.

Do you find when hiking that longer, slow steps are better for you, or shorter fast steps? Do the conditions (snow depth, steepness of the trail, etc.) factor into the equation at all? Do you do something different as you get more tired?

Maybe there is an actual correct answer to this question, but I'm curious what you all think.

Thanks for your input!

 

[Jay H]

More shorter steps is way more easy for me. Of course, I never take large slow steps being a short guy anyway...

Then there's the rest step, which I try to practice on my ADK climbs...

jay

 

[DrewKnight]

I am hardly a model of efficiency in hiking -- or much else, for that matter -- but from my perspective the answer is, "it varies based on the terrain". I personally try to maintain approximately the same cadence, but lengthen my strides when the terrain flattens out and shorten them when it's steeper or rougher.

I really noticed this (which I guess I do naturally) last summer hiking with my 9-year-old daughter, who would maintain HER natural cadence but not lengthen steps... she's reasonably fast on up-hill sections but doesn't speed up at all on the flats.

 

[Fisher Cat]

I would think there are so many variables it would be almost impossible to have anything concrete. Factors like terrain, steepness, gradients, pitch, uphill even downhill, let alone the vast array of body types could give an infinite amount of answers. Perhaps if the quest is to be more efficient for anyone, your breathing and heart rate would be a good monitor and goal.

 

[iceNsnow]

As I think of it

Higher revolutions in a smaller gear are less fatigueing. Learn to spin the little gears fast, then learn to spin the bigger gears fast!

In the world of trailrunning, there is less impact if you keep the legs light and moving quickly. Saves joints and creates less commitment. If you lose your balance it is easier to recover from a quick step, than a lunge.

Maybe I am not clear in my description, but try it next time you have a rocky descent to challenge you!

Keep it fast, light and safe.

 

[J.Dub]

...[EDIT]...the answer is, "it varies based on the terrain". I personally try to maintain approximately the same cadence, but lengthen my strides when the terrain flattens out and shorten them when it's steeper or rougher.

^^^This is korrekt.

I find it much easier to keep the same tempo and simply make the steps smaller when going uphill (within reason, of course -- doesn't apply to postholing or Class 5 moves, obviously).

Then there's the rest step, which I try to practice on my ADK climbs...

I'm actually working on a way to take the rest step and kick it up a notch (with apologies to Emeril)....making it a nap step.

Very useful for steep approaches with deep snow, whereby you can get two or three seconds of shut-eye with every footfall.

On a long hike, those seconds add up!

I'm just sayin'...

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I seem to remember from Physics 101 that keeping your natural rhythm is most efficient, bio-mechanically and shortening or lengthening your stride to match the terrain.

But, that was almost 25 years ago so perhaps I do not recall correctly.

Tim

 

[pilgrim]

Longer steps feel more efficient for me. Short steps tend to cramp up my calves when ascending. Getting the arms going, with or without poles, helps a lot.

 

[DougPaul]

I seem to remember from Physics 101 that keeping your natural rhythm is most efficient, bio-mechanically and shortening or lengthening your stride to match the terrain.

But, that was almost 25 years ago so perhaps I do not recall correctly.

I read a study on gait that basically said the same thing. (One also switches to a different gait when it becomes more efficient.) Stride length is also pretty automatic.

However efficiency is not everything. For instance Sherpa porters use short steps going downhill to minimize the damage to their knees. Maybe not as fast as the long steps that Western hikers like to take, but the knees last longer.

BTW, Sherpa porters have been known to carry up to twice their body weight and Himalayan trails have a rather large amount of rise and fall...

Doug

 

[jfb]

I periodically monitor my heart rate and try to stay in my aerobic range as described here.

 

[expat]

I like short, slow steps

When I was young, I used to take long, fast steps. Now I see more.

 

[Aviarome]

I think it is very difficult to generalize the energy expenditure of walking/hiking due to different leg lengths, weight, etc of each individual person, but I remember reading a paper that calculated energy expenditure and came with multiple formulas. It basically stated that, in general, longer stride lengths for a particular person (lengths more than your natural stride length) takes more energy unless you increase your speed to create enough momentum and inertia.

On the other hand, short stride lengths will take less energy per stride, but for a given distance, would require more strides, and hence, more energy. Thus, the balance would would be your natural walking rhythm which matches stride length, frequency, and rhythm pretty well.

Aviarome

 

[beverly]

and

For instance Sherpa porters use short steps going downhill to minimize the damage to their knees. Maybe not as fast as the long steps that Western hikers like to take, but the knees last longer.

BTW, Sherpa porters have been known to carry up to twice their body weight and Himalayan trails have a rather large amount of rise and fall...

Doug

Sherpas are generally smaller in stature and hike very efficiently, using small steps going up and down. But I've seen them fly down the trail without their packs - usually just wearing flip-flops below the snow line.

 

[Little Rickie]

Short slow steps up and down hill. Some because of my fitness level and some because the chances of me slipping and falling with long steps is to great.

I have long legs, on flat land and gradual declines I can stride long steps real well but I prefer to walk slow.

 

[cbcbd]

I like to switch up my stride, at least to break things up and to use different muscles. But usually the terrain already usually forces me to change my stride anyway.

When I was younger I took shorter strides. As my legs grew my stride got longer.

Nowadays I base my stride on how fast I want to go: Battle, Attack, or Ramming speed. The longer the stride, the faster.


Everything works as long as you don't end up like this:

 

[dentonfabrics]

If I start to tire on the steeps, I find that I can get my breath back by taking baby steps for awhile. Works for me.

 

[hiking morris]

Nowadays I base my stride on how fast I want to go: Battle, Attack, or Ramming speed. The longer the stride, the faster.

I agree, I do the same thing, baby steps do help when you're too tired though. Or just do long steps but slower. Depends on how I feel I guess, it's funny it's something I've never thought of until I read this post.

 

[Little Rickie]

As a variation of the rest step I will take ten steps, pause and rest. It gets me through tough sections and I can look around at the scenery some.

When I'm with a group I feel terrible pressure to keep up. It's not them, it's me that's putting on the pressure. When I'm alone my pace is much more controled and enjoyable.

 

[erugs]

It varies on the terrain for me, but in general I'd say I'm in the middle. Not too long, not too short. Not too fast, not too slow. Sometimes, as an experiment, I try to match my stride to others I'm hiking with. Cathy, who's shorter than I am, has a longer stride. Brian, who's taller than I am (but whose leg length is about the same as mine) takes shorter, faster steps. Rarely, I've found, does someone else's stepping style work for me.

The Rest Step makes a huge difference on steep climbs, and I like the idea of a Nap Step!

 

[John H Swanson]

The other point I noticed with my stride is the velocity profile varies throughout the cycle. Specifically I move my foot to the next position much more quickly than the movement of my torso. The example is obvious when on the stair climber in the gym. My foot routine goes up more quickly than the paddle thus my foot leaves the paddle. I noticed in the field this corresponds to a fast movement of the foot to the new foothold, followed by a slower loading on the foot with torso weight and transfer of the torso.

I also reduce my stride while climbing. It's like I limit my elevation gain per step.