More Efficient to Hike or X-C Ski?

[Lawn Sale]

Re: boot swap

I bought a set of bindings from Sportsmans Guide that can be locked down or used hinged, I can't find the sku right now, but I'll look again. They are basically like a set of the old military bindings with the cable on them. Youngblood bought a set a couple of years ago and they were like $10. They fit my Koflach's well, or any boot with a rigid sole. I mounted them to a set of 110cm XC skis for better use on the hiking trails. I'm not an outstanding skier by any stretch, but these are easy to use. Kicking and gliding isn't the best as they're so small, but it makes short work of cruising down a road/trail and skating is a snap.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

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.

I get it - and you only needed 18 words None of my skis have holes in the tips. I don't have real backcountry skis either - only trad skis (or skate skis). I would definitely take them if I went to Bondcliff and back via the Wilderness Trail (and leave them at the junction) or maybe Carrigain if others had skis as well.

Tim

 

[mtnpa]

I learned a good technique for long approaches from a highly esteemed VFTTer. Put your pack in a sled and pull it on skis. When you reach the trailhead change boots and leave your skis and sled for the return trip. It feels awfully good to get that pack off your shoulders at the end of a long day.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I learned a good technique for long approaches from a highly esteemed VFTTer. Put your pack in a sled and pull it on skis. When you reach the trailhead change boots and leave your skis and sled for the return trip. It feels awfully good to get that pack off your shoulders at the end of a long day.

I have skied with my kid (her first winter, 5-8 months old, 15-18 pounds) both on my back and in a pulk. I can say with some certainty that it required far less energy to carry her on my back, i.e., the friction from dragging the pulk was substantial. Of course she couldn't shift her weight and throw my balance when she was 12 feet behind me. Towing her behind the bicycle, while noticeably more difficult than w/o her, offered a smaller increase in effort than towing her behind skis.

Tim

 

[weatherman]

I love combined trips, though I hate switching boots. I've used both the pack-on-sled and pack-on-back methods, sometimes in the same trip. My experience was that for smooth trails (up, flat or down), pack on sled was faster, easier and more fun. For PITA trails (including anything with ruts, brook crossings, ice, steeps), pack on back was far easier and also safer. Kid-in-pack, when they were small enough, was similar to pack-on-back, though weight distribution was not modifiable and tended to shift unpredictably. I did not have a pulk to compare kid-on-sled, and kid would not have tolerated being strapped to sled. Kid-in-pack on nasty terrain was not tried and is not recommended.

Bottom line is, snow/trail conditions are a much stronger predictive variable of energy consumption than method of travel for me.

Weatherman

 

[skiguy]

Bottom line is, snow/trail conditions are a much stronger predictive variable of energy consumption than method of travel for me.

Weatherman

I would agree with this but I would rephrase a bit by saying: "Snow/trail conditions and the best congruent method of travel FOR those snow/trail conditions would be a stronger predictive variable of energy consumption." Also best congruent method being the realm of the particular user's ability.

 

[KenC]

I've only been BC Skiing for the past 2 years (alpine prior) and i really enjoy skiing in /out/ down. So far i've found its faster than hiking in most conditions. In my case i'm short and have short legs so shuffling even with a half arsed glide i'm able to cover ground faster than my hiking and shoeing friends.

I do use a heavier setup but still i enjoy it. My T4's are also comfy to hike in and fit BD Sabretooth's when the trail heads up and its not skinable.

Fun Stuff....

 

[Little Rickie]

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

Isn't this a lot like a person walking a mile in 20 min burns just as many calories as a person that runs it in 8 min?

Faster is certaintly more time efficient but I wonder if it is more energy efficient. Certainly a more physically fit person is more energy efficient and proabably that is the more important factor.

Then there is the all important fun factor .

Who the hell really cares if you're having fun in the snow?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Who cares? Well skiing can save you considerable time if it is faster, which is important in limited daylight. If you are a good enough skier, mixing the two might allow you to do some longer trips you couldn't otherwise do (without bonking, say, I accept that you have a headlight.) I think this is where the question comes from... It's certainly why *I* am interested in the thread.

Tim

 

[1HappyHiker]

. . . skiing can save you considerable time if it is faster, which is important in limited daylight. If you are a good enough skier, mixing the two might allow you to do some longer trips you couldn't otherwise do (without bonking, say, I accept that you have a headlight.) I think this is where the question comes from...

Tim, you’re right on! Just as you say, I’d like to maximize my fun by being able to do some longer trips that might not otherwise be done in winter (via a traditional hike) because of reduced daylight hours.

My original question was aimed at getting input from folks about calorie consumption for X-C skiing vs. traditional hiking. Because, if X-C skiing will get me to/from a spot FASTER but burns up mega more calories in the process, then I might want to take that factor into consideration. It could mean I’d want to pack more food, etc, etc. Or, it could mean that I might not even use skis for a particular trip if it meant I’d be too pooped to do a climb, even though I got to the trailhead in record time via X-C skiing!!

The sense that I’m getting from all the excellent input is that there are many factors that play into this question. But, the posted comments lead me to conclude that there are many circumstances where skiing to a trailhead can have some advantages over traditional hiking or snowshoeing.

 

[cushetunk]

My original question was aimed at getting input from folks about calorie consumption. Because, if X-C skiing will get me to/from a spot FASTER but burns up mega calories in the process, then I might want to take that factor into consideration. It could mean I’d want to pack more food, etc, etc. Or, it could mean that I might not even use skis for a particular trip if it meant I’d be too pooped to do a climb, even though I got to the trailhead in record time via X-C skiing!!

Have you tested this empirically?

I find it hard to imagine from my experience when skiing would necessarily expend more energy, assuming moderate terrain and fairly light ski gear. There's no "glide" in hiking uphill. And while you can surely expend your caloric burn (to practically infinite?) by increasing your speed (i.e. XC racers use more calories) you can always slow down and save calories. So would this threshold be slower than plain hiking? We're back where we started, but I think experience would say, "no."

 

[1HappyHiker]

Have you tested this empirically?

Well, I guess you could say . . . sort of!

My original question was posted as a result of a recent trip to Mt. Eisenhower where I along with a friend X-C skied the Mt. Clinton Road from the Crawford Path parking lot to the Edmands Path trailhead where we changed boots and hiked to the summit of Ike.

Neither of us felt overly fatigued as a result of this exercise. However, since we had never hiked (or snowshoed) this same route in winter, we couldn’t help but wonder if we expended more (or less) calories than we would have if we had simply walked the road. But of course, it was realized that you get into all sorts of testing ramifications about comparing a X-C ski trek to a road-walk, such as: was the road-walk with (or without) snowshoes? Then, you need to consider whether the road-surface and atmospheric conditions were the same for each test? What did you have to eat (or drink) the night before each test? Ad infinitum!!

So, the original question was merely to gather opinions (testimonials, if you will) from experienced VFTT folks as to whether they thought that more, less or equal calories are expended by X-C skiing to a trailhead, as compared to the more traditional means of locomotion (like hiking or snowshoeing).

So as I said earlier, the sense that I’m getting from all the excellent input is that there are many factors that play into this question. But, the posted comments lead me to conclude that there are many circumstances where skiing to a trailhead can have advantages over traditional hiking or snowshoeing.

 

[John H Swanson]

Personally I think it is more about efficiency than speed. Of course when you are efficient you can also go fast.

The number of calories expended has a lot to do with your efficiency. Meaning if you are wasting energy by slipping and sliding (the wrong way) then you wll use more energy. For instance a good skier on a groomed or tracked out trail will travel much more efficiently than someone postholing. When covering terrain that results in skiing inefficiency such as a trail with many feeder stream ravines, steep hills requiring herringboning, or even flat sooth trail covered with slick ice that resists all but the most sticky klister....other forms foot travel will be more efficient. So, for me, if I use snowshoes and tracking aids, I can usually cover mountain trails more efficently and also quickly than on skis.

Calories also includes the amount of trail you have to break. Skis have a narrower footprint. It gets more complicated as you have to consider how much you compress vs displace. This is less of a factor for me as I prefer to follow a broken trail

Calories is also is effected by the mass you need to move. Consider your both body and your feet. Each meter of distance requires lifting feet with their associated weight (boots, showshoes.) Comparing the weight of the ski boots and skis vs hiking boots and showshoes. Skis are the clear winner here vs snowshoes. But keep in mind that the best ski conditions are just awesom when cranking with lighter traction aids. Also, your foot travel rythem includes an up/down motion of your body. I think here skis also win. And lastly there is the elevation gain. Overall pack and body weight are probably comparable.

For me, I often say I can cover mtn trails faster and more efficiently than skiers because these trails often have sections that are not conducive to efficient skiing, some of the people I hike/ski with are not superior skiers, and I have spent so much time trying to improve my snowshoe and winter walking technique.

Of couse I am only human and I my technique is nothing compared to the rabbit PinPin Jr or 3.

One testimonial: I was on an AMC trip to the Captain. It was a group of skiers and hikers. The skiers swithched to snowshoes after the apprach on Sawyer Pond trail from the Kanc. On the return trip, when we got down to the trail, the leader said, "let the skiers go first because they are faster." All the skiers took off. I was in 8 point crampons for traction on hard pack trail. I walked along and sequentially caught up to and briefly talked with each skier before passing them. When I caught up to the first skier, I was following right behind her at about 3.5 mph pace. At the final (big) river crossing I continued accoss while she removed her skis for the crossing.....antd that's how I met Sue Johnston.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Perhaps this is a "trick question". Maybe the question should be between hiking and back-country skiing on hiking trails.

If I could ski next to myself while hiking, there are definitely conditions where one would be much faster than the other. Approaches on forest roads, snowmobile trails, etc., the bikehikeSKIfish me would disappear up ahead. Once there are a lot of rocks, narrow or twisty trails, or many stream crossings (dips) then the bikeHIKEskifish me would pull ahead.

I could clearly hike anywhere I could XC ski, but the reverse is far from true. I can skate ski 40km (redline most of the north end of WV) in less than 4 hours (at least 10km/h, or 6.2mph). Not many could maintain that pace hiking--even with equal weight on their backs. I have never XC skied with a full hiking pack on, nor have I hiked / snowshoed carrying the skis.

Yesterday, HikerBob was digging out his skis on the lower (flatter) section of the Gale River Trail when we passed him (descending), although he never caught up with us, but I think he waited a while to put them on because there were still too many drainage dips to ski comfortably.

Tim

 

[DougPaul]

I have never XC skied with a full hiking pack on, nor have I hiked / snowshoed carrying the skis.

I've XC (BC) skied with an overnight pack. The balance is much more critical, your graceful kick-and-glide can soon turn into a shuffle*, and if you fall it is a lot harder to get up. It is also a good idea to stick to easy terrain. Skins can be lifesavers on the uphill.

* Actually, my "graceful kick-and-glide" may start out more like my survival kick and glide in which my heel stays on the ski at the end of the kick. I normally save this survival mode for the end of the day when I may be too tired for my (excuse for a) graceful mode.

Doug

 

[Kevin Rooney]

The second time I did Zealand in winter it was an "out and back" via Zealand Road. We snowshoed up to the summer trailhead with skis and ski boots on our packs, but conditions were such we decided to stash them at the trailhead, and ski out, which is mostly downhill, or so it would seem.

One of the people in our small group did not have skis, so when we stopped to put on our ski boots and skis, she said she'd start snowshoeing down ahead of us since we'd surely pass her shortly. About 10 minutes later we were ready to go, and started skiing out.

We never caught her. She was at the cars on US 302 waiting for us.

 

[Remix]

The answer to the question really depends on what is on your back, the snow conditions and temperature.

Its a royal pain when waxable skis trap pine needles or small chips of bark. And I think there is a learning curve for to get waxing right. Waxless skis can start sticking to snow when the temperatures hover around freeezing point. I think you'll work alot more muscles than those in legs keeping a heavy pack in balance while skiing.

On the other hand, when conditions are uniform and cold and there is no ice, skiing can be alot of fun, especially when you can "lock in" a uniform pace.

 

[dug]

I've XC (BC) skied with an overnight pack. The balance is much more critical, your graceful kick-and-glide can soon turn into a shuffle*, and if you fall it is a lot harder to get up. It is also a good idea to stick to easy terrain. Skins can be lifesavers on the uphill.

* Actually, my "graceful kick-and-glide" may start out more like my survival kick and glide in which my heel stays on the ski at the end of the kick. I normally save this survival mode for the end of the day when I may be too tired for my (excuse for a) graceful mode.

Doug

We call it the plant-and-drag. With a full pack, I don't do much true skiing but more surviving.

 

[DougPaul]

We call it the plant-and-drag. With a full pack, I don't do much true skiing but more surviving.

Fortunately, my survival kick-and-glide actually includes some real glide...

Certainly not as much fun as skiing with a light pack.

Doug

 

[1HappyHiker]

The second time I did Zealand in winter it was an "out and back" via Zealand Road. We snowshoed up to the summer trailhead with skis and ski boots on our packs, but conditions were such we decided to stash them at the trailhead, and ski out, which is mostly downhill, or so it would seem.

One of the people in our small group did not have skis, so when we stopped to put on our ski boots and skis, she said she'd start snowshoeing down ahead of us since we'd surely pass her shortly. About 10 minutes later we were ready to go, and started skiing out.

We never caught her. She was at the cars on US 302 waiting for us.

Hey Kevin, you’ve validated what I’ve been experiencing. There are certain sections of trail and road that I’ve hiked and I know how long it has taken me to hike these sections. This winter I’ve X-C skied some of these same sections and can honestly say that I can hike these sections at least as fast as (or faster) than I can X-C ski them . . . especially if there are lots of uphill or drainage dips to be traversed.

But admittedly, my experience to date is far from conclusive since I have a very small sample-size, and also my X-C technique is far from perfect since I’m basically a newbie at this sport. Anyway, it was interesting to read your remarks and to learn that perhaps there might be some validity to my limited experience.

BUT, apart from all this, the sport of X-C skiing is fun, regardless of whether you enjoy it as a “stand-alone” activity, or incorporate it into a hike in some manner.