sdw at lig.net
Sat Feb 19 12:51:08 PST 2011
On 2/19/11 11:05 AM, Dave Long wrote:
>> It seems like I can maintain close to 4 mph (96 miles per day) more or less indefinitely, 3 mph (72 miles per day) at a
>> minimum. Assuming great shoes, liquid, enough fat and/or food.
> The california missions* agree with historical armies at a 50km/day spacing. Remember, over these distances, little things like
> sleeping and eating may pull down the averages.
At about 15 or 16, the 150 miles in one week was 35 miles one day, then 2 days later running (not walking) 20+ miles a day with my
buddy, with lightweight backpacks, sleeping in parks or just on pavement in driveways along the highway. We had another 60 to go to
our goal, but his mother picked us up after he mentioned knee pain on his daily calls. We could have done more than 20 miles per
day easily, but wanted to pace ourselves and it just happened that the towns were roughly 20 miles apart on our route, with nothing
but farmland between.
>> I don't strive to do ultra marathons however because A) I have better things to do with my time and B) I'm wary of wearing
>> through something important without realizing it, like hip joint lining. While running is protective of knee and other joints
>> over time, that is only true if you don't have so much wear that you make tissue layers unrepairable by healing.
> B may not be much of an issue. A friend of mine has been placing well in ultras and apparently, at least at the national
I had some unexplained severe hip socket pain a few years ago. After sitting at work, my hip would get very sore and I had
difficulty straightening for a bit. As I happened to be working with someone who had had hip replacement early, I became a little
wary. Since then, nothing, so it was probably nothing, maybe a temporary bruise.
> level, the entire strategy boils down to correctly answering two questions: what hiking pace can I maintain "indefinitely", and,
> how far before the end of the race should I actually start "running"? If one subscribes to the theory that people are mostly
> hairless because it confers an advantage in heat dumping during persistence hunting, it could be argued that in comparison with
> other land animals, we've been selected for high-effort long-distance travel. (or at least argued that we've been selected for
> doggedly pursuing something well past the point at which all the original context has been lost!)
I posted some articles about this on FoRK last year:
Humans are apparently the best long-distance running animals by far.
> * question for the interested reader: given the distribution of saint's names along the california coast, what was the average
> distance covered daily by a spanish exploration ship?
Interesting! I wonder what the dock, plunder, claim, establish, move on cycle was.
More information about the FoRK