I've been posting for a while on another thread where someone passed away after what can only be described as a heroic effort to walk to safety. I seem to be getting a bit of heat saying I think I could walk 40 miles. Lots of people have posted about how I'm unfamiliar w/the conditions there, etc, so that situation aside, I stand by this basic belief: If you're in terrible shape, all the equipment in the world isn't going to do you much good.

So here we go, I think the most important thing any of us carries is his or her brain, a little bit of careful thought and planning can substitute for a lot of gear and avoid a lot of bad situations.

Next up I'd say what kind of shape you're in is essential. I'm sure there are people here who are physically disabled and if I'm frank, I think that is a huge disadvantage in a bad situation. For the rest of us though, and I consider myself one of these people, the fat and lazy, I think we have to work on physical fitness. I'm no guru. I regularly run 3 miles in 30 minutes, I have run 6 miles in 60 minutes, I know I can run 5 miles. With that in mind, I think going nice and slow I could walk a great deal further. I could use to lose 30 lbs (maybe 40? ), I could use to build some upper body strength, I could gain from building more running endurance. In other words, I'm far from perfect.

I should say prior to October of 2009 I'd attempted to run 3 miles ONCE and failed, that was when I was 17. I'm now 27 and through a bit of hard work, I can do it pretty easily.

So fellow members, where do you stand, do we all spend more time typing and when the going gets tough will be collapsed on the side of the road or trail catching our breath or does everybody make sure to spend some time keeping their second most important piece of gear fresh? If I had to guess I'd say we run the spectrum from people who are out of breath if they run up a flight of stairs (I know I still do sometimes!) to those who regularly run marathons and hike the Appalachian, etc.

How important is physical fitness to being equipped?

In many situations, it's more important to know your limitations and plan around them than to be physically fit. You're better off conserving sweat and energy while making yourself easy to find in almost any situation where you can expect people to be looking for you. It's up to you to have a responsible person know when you should be checking in so that there is a search if you do get in trouble.

I certainly can't argue with the logic of staying still and making your whereabouts known in outdoor survival situations, but I do stand by my fitness concerns for natural disasters and I still believe some basic level of fitness (which I may not have yet achieved myself) is beneficial if you plan on building fires, etc, wherever it is you're staying still.

Being equipped to survive does not equate having to run miles on end. This leads to a bigger question as to what are you trying to survive. In a hypothetical situation if you are in a plane crash in a remote area and survive (and say for the sake of argument, help is forthcoming and the weather is reasonable), would it be expected that you need to be in great shape to survive until help arrives? In this particular case, probably not, as a person in even poor shape (not severely disabled) can survive hours or a couple of days until SAR finds you.

At one time, I did high altitude mountain climbing (above 15000') and can tell you that I seen and heard of climbers who were my friends....even those who were in great physical condition who failed at survival. Other times, we hear incredible stories of survival from ordinary people who could not run to the end of block if they had to, yet walked for days and miles to help and safety. Other then an extreme medical emergency where help is very close by, I cannot foresee where a person would have to run for miles for help. If this occurs in the back country then the person running for help may have their own survival situation after they trip on an unseen tree root et al...

Due to bad knees after years of outdoor abuse, I can no longer run as much as I want...nor climb the high mountains for days on end. However being in my mid forties I am still in decent enough shape and can and have out walked/hiked people 1/2 my age who thought they could beat the "old man" which brings to mind the tortoise and the hare...

Young age + physical condition + boasting of the ability to run 5 or miles does not come nowhere close to equaling the years of wisdom and knowledge gleaned from actual hands on outdoors (or urban) experience. If I had to choose a person to help me when the chips are down, it would be an easy pick...

Tes - I'll take that last paragraph as a personal attack, thanks so much, I think that's what these forums are really for, attacking people on a personal level. It is really heart warming and makes me want to continue to participate in the community.

That said, I think you've met what I suggest as a minimum criteria for fitness, you can walk/hike a fair distance.

Also, please explain "If I had to choose a person to help me when the chips are down, it would be an easy pick..."

Best,

R

Tes - Also - I wouldn't consider what I've said to be "boasting." 6 miles in sixty minutes is about how fast some people would walk that distance, it is pretty slow.

Surely, by your standard, if I'm boasting so are you. Not too many people are out playing at 15,000 feet That said, I don't think you're boasting and I have no doubt you're a superior hiker/climber than I, the point of my post isn't to to aggravate people, I'm merely stating that I feel physical fitness is an often ignored factor in being properly equipped for bad situations and asking if others agree, apparently you don't.

Personal attack, I hardly think so. I take it you did not read my reference to the tortoise and the hare. There are many people who make claims they are bigger, better, faster. And the point I made is that people who lay claims of being better then faster (hare), they do not always beat slower paced people (tortoise) who have the knowledge and wisdom to know that speed is not what is always important 99% of the time. I also know people who are much older then me and I forever humbled by their superior physical abilities and knowledge in comparison to mine...

As for your question, my previous post and the above illustrates that I would rather have a person who has the knowledge and wisdom beside me when the chips are down.

I don't believe I boasted about anything by simply stating I have done high altitude climbing and seen and heard of people of whom many I considered friends that have met untimely deaths. This is not boasting, rather it is actually very heartbreaking to even write about it. You may want to search for the very first post I made on this forum as it would explain this.

Anyways, can we get this thread back on track? You brought up some very good points in your original post and I am interested in hearing other peoples responses.


In the meantime, we are running late to get for an afternoon hike...have to stay in shape you know Hopefully I will have a few good photos to post tonight.

Fitness isn't everything but it offers a wider range of options in every situation.

About the only place where fitness, if defined as having a low % body fat, would be a negative is cold water survival or near starvation. I suppose that it might contribute to over-confidence as well sometimes.

I spend time sweating my brains out on the stair climber during the week so I can go on 10+ mile hikes on the weekends. (Got turned back by a sudden snowstorm at the 5 mile point on an out-and-back 2 weeks ago. Hoping to do the 12 miler tomorrow in better weather.)

I have always considered a reasonable level of physical fitness to be an important part of my overall readiness for the unexpected.

I'm not much of a runner (trick knee) but I am a pretty good walker (slow and steady, but I can jog short bursts in hiking boots).

To my mind, mobility is a critical part of my "kit." My minimum requirement is to be able to walk/run five miles in just over an hour without dropping dead of a heart attack, or walk ten miles in under three hours at an efficient pace. This is paired with always having the footwear, clothing, and basic gear to do so at any time.

For me, fitness contributes in many ways:
- helps prevent injuries when dealing with the unexpected
- contributes to coordination, balance, and flexibility
- helps a lot in maintaining a positive mental attitude and mental alertness/concentration
- gives me increased confidence that I can assess and handle situations in a hands-on way (this is a gut-level thing; hard to describe but it's real for me)

True, but still faster than a US Marine..

http://www.military.com/military-fitness...al-fitness-test

Doug - I like your standards.

I should say I run because I can and it is good for my heart (I think?). In a disaster situation, I'd walk, I don't imagine myself running someplace unless it was totally necessary. In a a bad situation, I think running would be imprudent, twisting an ankle on a Saturday morning would be inconvenient, doing it while I'm trying to get away from fire/flood/etc. could be something worse than an inconvenience.

Haha, uh, I just looked, I do 3 miles in about 30 minutes, at my age I'd have to do it in 29, I'd fail by a minute. Plus I bet realistically marines my age are doing 3 miles in more like 24 or 25. Ultimately though, for the situations I imagine physical fitness being important in, I don't think running is the key, it is how I elect to keep myself reasonably fit (but like I said, I've got a long way to go), but I don't think it in itself is critical.

Mind is number one. That includes knowing how to use gear, and not necessarily your own equipment. It's good to know how the sewer system works, how electricity is supplied to your home, etc. In a survival situation, the lawyers, stock brokers and hedge fund managers will all have little value if they don't know about anything outside their profession.

I agree that physical fitness is number two. When I am physically fit, everything works better - my brain, my reasoning abilities, my sense of humor, my stamina, my morale, etc.

Having said all that, in a survival situation, what's most important is the thing that you need at that moment. Perhaps you're hurt, but you're the only one in your team with the necessary knowledge to survive. You can instruct/teach more able bodied people. Mind is most important there. Or maybe you don't know much, but you can take instructions from somebody who is knowledgeable. Perhaps, physical fitness is most important there.

So, the best preparation, in my opinion, is to prepare myself for a variety of survival situations. That way, I have a better chance of doing well in the real thing, and I don't have to depend on luck.

On a site like this, experienced people already have the mindset down. They sometimes treat the mind as a given and are free to talk about gear. New people to survival topics need to be reminded that they need to train their minds first and foremost. Basically, they need to know how to do stuff. They need to be out there testing their gear, and not just talking about it.

Interesting thread. Doing SAR, I was impressed at how different skills and strategies interplayed in achieving a successful outcome, often demonstrating the wisdom of Ecclesiastes -There is a time and place for all things.

There were situations where blinding speed and raw physical ability were required. There were times when pausing and careful observation were needed. Sometimes, it was both, by different elements of the operation, in communication and acting in concert.

I was also impressed how often experience and knowledge enabled me to perform as well or better than people half my age who were in better raw condition. I knew what to expect and I was familiar with the fatigue that developed about 3 AM on an allnighter. I knew I could deal with it. Younger folks were experiencing these joys for the first time.

Same thing with survival. Sometimes you should hike all night to reach safety, and sometimes you should stop before night and prepare a secure bivouac There is a sort of yin/yang connection between rescue and survival when you think about it.

Diversity is good. A mix of young and old, new and experienced, knowledge and enthusiasm, combined and led properly, is often the best way to achieve a good result. Both survival and SAR are, or should be, team efforts.

Each activity is a three legged stool. Gear is important, but so are mental aspects (knowledge and attitude), as well as physical conditioning. All three interact to lead to a successful outcome. Good knowledge and the right attitude can often compensate for deficiencies in physical abilities and shortcomings in gear, so, yes, the mind is the most important single aspect. But isn't that true in most of life's arenas?

Fit is better than not fit, no matter the subject at hand.

Knowledge is king. Mental toughness is queen. Or vice versa, depending on the survival situation.

I'm reminded of Laurence Gonzales' book, Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why

http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Survival-Who-...2378&sr=1-1

Excellent book. IMO it should be considered required reading for all on this site.

15-20 years back my typical run was 4.5 miles in ~34 minutes. These days when I run it's with a dog on a leash and the risk of injury is much higher. Walking is a much better survival mode.

Being physically fit is always good going into a survival situation if for no other reason than the mental stress. That said, survival is rarely a race. If you're alive at the end with all your fingers and toes, you did good. If you're alive but missing a few parts, you need to reassess your limitations. Personal opinion.

Just being able to run a long ways won't always help. As the wise man once said, "No use in runnin' if you're going the wrong direction." The aforementioned woman who died covered a lot of ground but it's not clear that she had any idea where she was going. Often you see people make trule heroic treks in an attempt to reach safety only to die 30 miles off in the wrong direction. Oh, I won't dispute being in better condition will improve nearly every element of your life- it will. But having a cool head and some wilderness savvy will beat being young, dumb and full of...something.

Yesterday I was cutting a tree , or big part of a tree using a saw. It was very very exhausting !!! Confession time : If I was in a survival situation and needed the wood for fire and shelter, I would be in trouble.

I had to take frequent breaks to catch my breath and bring back my heartbeat to near normal.

Upper body strength is also important, no doubt about it. Imagine your self under some rubble or wreckage and couldnt move that pile of stuff on your chest !! The stonger you are the better. Even in less desperate times, if you are strong enough you can haul that deer you shot on your shoulder. Defintely not me !! I'd cut a small part for a meal and hope the wolves or bears become dumb enough not to find the caracas until I have eaten enough meals out of it. LOL !!

On the serious side, I have to get in shape. At least I can spare my ears the nasty comments of my DW. LOL.

BTW, have you seen any U-tubes by (dsarti1) ?

He reminds me of myself being fat and losing breath easily . However, I admire his guts , buying a farm and doing everything from milking goats to catching chickens .. LOL .

I love when I can inject the tried and true controversy on this issue....would you rather be lost in the woods with Bear Grylls (pole vault over the Grand Canyon while doing a triple backflip somersault with a raw scorpion in his mouth)or Les Stroud (hunker down, make fire, find water, make shelter)?

Byrd - Obviously Les Stroud, because he's awesome, that aside, I bet Les Stroud would give Bear Grylls a run for his money in terms of physical conditioning, he does, after allm participate in adventure races: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Stroud

That said, I think this whole post has gone a lot to "brains are better than brawn" which I hope everyone noted I conceded to in the original post. I'd way rather be smart than almost anything else. I'd rather be lucky than smart, if I was always lucky.

Anyways, it seems like most posters agree with this: Brains are best, but being in decent shape is important.

Also - Just because this keeps coming back to my age - I ran a 10k in February, I came in 274th (told you I'm slow) of the 273 people who finished before me roughly 70 of them were younger than me, that means 200 were older, including at least two individuals in their sixties and a dozen or more in their 50s. I really don't think physical fitness, particularly cardiovascular physical fitness, however you choose to pursue it, be it running, hiking, stairs, walking, etc, has to be about age!

Having dealt with literally thousands of people in and immediately after emergency, survival and disaster situations, there is a trait or set of traits I'd rank higher than either intelligence/survival knowledge or physical fitness/endurance in contributing to a successful outcome. Mental and emotional toughness, resilience, flexibility and endurance are the traits that seem to correlate most closely with survival in adversity.

I've seen competitive level athletes in their prime fall apart and frail looking grandmothers in their 80's thrive in disasters. I've seen experienced outdoors-men fold up and highly educated physicians and tough street cops lose it under adverse conditions, while quiet suburban housewives and teenage drop-outs emerged as neighborhood leaders and towers of strength in times of trouble. You just never know how people are going to react to extreme, prolonged stress, until it happens. Some people do well initially, then seem to run dry of inner resources and give up, while others just need a little time or support at first to get their act together, then do fine thereafter. Many others, especially the pro's, go from can to can't, rest up, and go right back to it, time and time again. Generally speaking, most people do pretty good most of the time, and bring on their best game when the situation calls for it. Still, everyone, and I mean everyone, has their limits, and no one knows where theirs is on any particular day. May God grant that we never have to find out.

What do you do Jeff?

I've had a variety of occupations: lawyer, college professor, paramedic, firefighter, and federal/state disaster response professional.

Ahh, so I assume in those latter three you had all the disaster experience. I'd read another post by you saying you'd gone to law school, so I was curious. Sounds like an interesting professional career.

I am an ironman triathlete, marathoner, endurance athlete. I run a 6 minute mile, a 20 minute 5k, and a 4 hour marathon.

For GP (General Purpose) I went out last Saturday to walk or run for 24 hours. I stopped at 48 miles because I developed an IT band problem in my right knee. It started a few days before but I went out anyway. I thought it would go away as I warmed up but after 15 hours of pain I decided that for just a training day it wasn't worth it, even though I was still sticking to my pace per mile.

Ultimately at 15 hours, I found a bench to sit down and the words, "This sucks" just came out. At that point it wasn't so much to keep going or not, but it just wasn't fun anymore.

A couple months ago, again for GP, I also took a 42 lb BOB and airborne shuffled 10 miles home with it, to see how I fast I could go, how it would feel, all that. So I walk the walk when it comes to putting preparedness into action.

Before I get into the nuts of this thread, I will say the two things I missed more than anything was an icy liquid and a decent place to sit. There were no benches or seats on my route.

Mental attitude and emotional intelligence is more important than anything else. Fitness is absolutely necessary but not the defining characteristic of survival. Knowledge or wisdom, decision making, is vital.

I'd challenge anyone who thinks they can simply walk as far as they want to do it. No time limit, no distance. No special clothes. Just grab a pack and and go. See how far you get before you start thinking about how much time you've spent walking and have to get back. How much water you consume and start thinking about finding a place to refill. How many calories your putting in for energy. How do your feet hold up with your footwear, your back or your knees. Now vow to double that time before you stop. Its hard.

I am not convicting anyone. I wish I was smarter and didn't have to work as harder, as the saying goes. I mean look, if I was stuck injured or with injured people in the middle of the desert (my likely scenario) I think I could with my preparation, my knowledge and fitness walk to get help. I would rather punch the button my my SPOT or PLB and have the rescue come to me.

Such an excellent post, so many great points. Thanks!

Your 48 mile training jaunt is awesome.

This paragraph I find spot-on as my muscles are still aching from a 13 mile round trip stroll thru the hills up to 7000' on a pleasant day with only 20# on my back.
I was wearing my hiking footwear, had changes of socks, had water, had snacks and all my usual "just in case" stuff. It was a very nice day.

Still, I was happy to see the car after that final 600' climb. Would not have wanted to go another 3 miles (though I probably could have).

One cannot just walk until they get there - even if you're above average in fitness.
Other survival strategies have to come into play.

comms - Great real world insight.

Physical fitness is, IMHO, paramount in ANY survival situation. You are looking at a stressful situation; being physically fit, your body is more prepared to handle that. You certainly have a higher chance of survival, all things being equal, than someone who is out of shape. Yes, mindset also plays a huge factor into this-but, take that out of it, when you are dealing strictly with physical/physiological ability, the person in better shape stands a better chance.
Now, I think, personally, there is a plateau-having 3% body fat isnt likely going to help you in certain situations. But, I think having an average fitness-someone who jogs regularly, or walks, does some weight training ie a general overall decent fitness level-has a better chance than someone who doesnt do anything at all.
Now, speaking from personal experience; I served 12 years as an infantryman in the US Army. Not a necessarily easy life. We were physically active every single day-runs, ruck marches, HMMWV pulls-the idea of course being that you develop a high level of fitness, and maintain it. Now, since I got out, of course I slacked off . But, all of that training had taught me that, if I think I can do it, I just suck it up & do it. If I DONT think I can do it, think again! As we used to say: sometimes, you just have to embrace the suck. Could I run 8 miles now? Probably not. Could I jog/walk it? Yes. Physical fitness isnt where it was, but the mental toughness is still there-and that counts for a lot.

As to what military standards are for physical fitness; there are the BASIC standards, which all US forces must meet. Then, at least in the Army, there was what was called "Fit to Fight". You have to achieve at least 70% of all categories (my understanding is that there are different tests now-it used to be situps, pushups, and a 2 mile run). In almost all units I served in, you had to achieve a MINIMUM of %80 every 3 months. We tested every 12 weeks, if we werent in the field. If you failed to meet the 80% criteria in ANY of the categories, you had double PT-one in the morning, one in the evening, until the next test. Alternatively, if you score 100% in all 3, you didnt have to do PT at all-they figure whatever you are doing in your offtime is working

There are a lot of good points here. I'll bring up a related concept.

I was listening to the interview of a professional soccer player some time ago. I can't remember who. Anyway, the athlete said that in soccer, it's 20% mental and 80% conditioning. After I thought about what he said, I admired the athlete for how much that statement made sense. Soccer is unlike basketball and unlike football. Perhaps in these others sports, an out-of-shape bench player might come into the game and make a difference at their position because they have lots of "heart". It struck me that you can't do that in competitive soccer. If you aren't fit in competitive soccer, you will be too winded after 20 seconds to be of any use, and you'll be a huge liability to your team. I remember sometimes trying to play competitive soccer as a youngster without being fit. It's basically impossible to do much of anything.

I draw the soccer analogy to survival. Different survival situations call for a different set of skills. I think anybody who tries to argue against the premise in the original post is being at least somewhat defensive. Depending on the situation, being fit may mean the difference between life or death. I have the ability to be in great shape, and I will try harder to be so. This thread provides yet more motivation. Thank you for reminding me.

"A man's gotta know his limitations".

That said, everyone's abilities are finite, and in a relative sense, there's not that much difference. Whether you can go 50 miles in a day or only 5 probably won't make a lot of difference in those situations where running like hell is going to apply. I realized in Baghdad that being able to run 100 meters faster than anyone else around me was more important than the next 900. In other circumstances, I would expect endurance might be more important than speed, so I try to maintain both to some degree, but at 47 I am no longer what I'd consider an athlete. My knees won't take the beating, my cardio just won't keep up like it used to, and even my reflexes have noticably slowed. I've tried to rationalize that I've replaced some of that reaction ability with reason and experience.

In the big scheme of things, I find that there are few incidents where a fit person would "just make it", and a less conditioned person has no chance. You likely won't fail unless you quit, pace isn't as much a factor as we would prefer.

I would like to be in better shape than I am. I would also like to be a better shot, a better driver, a better cook, but all these things take time, and I am kinda busy just trying to live life so I do what I can and leave the rest to those with more time on their hands. I am not at the frontline fighting a war, and there's little chance I ever would be again. I can get home on foot from most places I frequent and have good plans in place for making sure the risks are minimized if I have to under duress. Beyond that, I maintain a suitable condition to pursue what pastimes I can afford.

Just because they keep coming up, and I have problems with them myself - Anyone have any good knee tricks? I find a lot of my knee pain can be solved by keeping hydrated. I have no idea why, but if I have achy knees drinking two liters of water solves it within 30 minutes most of the time. The other knee pain I get is what I've been told is "runner's knee" which mostly just hurts going down stairs, and I'm told is due to over-use/weak knees/just plain old bad knees.

If anyone has any good knee tricks/exercises, etc, please post them or I can start another thread dedicated to this. I, of course, have Google'd this, talked to some personal trainers, etc. I now do some side of leg stretches, etc for it.

As far as the water thing - this is a bit sad, but I noticed after I had a beer or two (shouldn't it take more than that? ha) the next morning my knees would ache a lot. I searched "knees hurt after drinking" and people complained about dehydration/knee pain. Now I'd get this pain at random times regardless of my interaction with beer, so I do the water thing regardless, and it helps.

Boy, lots of good points. I think there's a lot to be said for determination, grit, etc in keeping going. But... what good is it to be the most gung-ho minded, determined, grizzled, perfect person for the job, if you weigh 800lbs and can't get out of bed? There are LOTS of stories about folks stepping up, about SpecOps guys that pass training being the runt of the litter, of poor nobodies from Kenya winning huge marathon money. No one cares if the Olympians kick ass for 20 years - duh, they train for it. An exaggerated example, of course, but they tend to combine mental and physical strengths.

Physical fitness IS important... but it's not the be-all and end-all. It makes translating your mental fortitude into actions easier. Sure, most of *could* physically walk 30 miles. But put a sleet storm, 3 ridge lines, a broken rib in the mix, and most of us probably wouldn't. And those of us who did might not be smart enough to hunker down for a couple hours to warm back up.

Another reason physical fitness helps - it wouldn't do much good to walk the 30 miles, get out of trouble, and keel over from your heart attack.

I'm sweating just reading about 3 ridge lines...or maybe it is this sticky hot apartment?

There are some situations that call for good sheer physical fitness. For example outpacing the storm that is closing in on you (it happened to me on one of my runs and it was quite a motivation). Or gathering enough wood for a big warm fire when you are tired after a hard slog in a deep snow. Various situations that involve long distance swimming. Or fast short distance swim as a way to rescue yourself from the rapids. Climbing a tree because a bear is chasing you (there is even thread about this real situation here). Etc.

I haven't the experience to back it up, but I have become a firm believer in stretching both the back of the knee and the tendons/muscle that extend the knee. There is a tendon that goes in front of your hip joint that is connected to the knee extender. Stretch that one, too.

A little disclaimer - I haven't been doing that for long. Seems promising so far. I've had only minor knee problems - typically not really painful, just uncomfortable "something's not right"-kind of feeling after overdoing some running or whatever. I've also overstretched from time to time, but that's quite a while ago.

I had a leg injury while deployed, and the Naval medic (whatever they are called in the rear areas-I just call them all "medics") had me doing a course of Yoga, to keep the injured area loose. Up to that point, I never once considered trying it out. It certainly worked-I was back walking patrols within 2 weeks. Granted, my other option was manning a radio 12 hours a day, and that may have had SOMETHING to do with it .
Seriously though, try yoga. There are several different types-I was given the military one, which I used then (it was some sort of little booklet), but continued for a while using the Yoga for Regular Guys book (no affiliation, just a happy user). That book breaks down some fundamental exercises, and worked for me when I would need stretching. I need to get back to it, now that I think about it!

It seems that "equipped to survive" should most definitely include physical conditioning. While not nearly as romantic as preparing for an immediate survival situation, daily survival over the long-term includes lowering one's risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc., all of which include exercise and diet (or so the "experts" have conveyed). Really, what good is being equipped for a disaster if, at age 45, you drop dead of a heart attack because you had a real soft spot for bacon and your recliner?

I try to maintain a healthy level of activity (although it is currently time to ramp it up again). I'm 10 pounds over weight but working on it. I'm 37. The time of immortality is behind me. If I'm going to be equipped to survive, I need to take care of the ticker. I suspect it's even more important than having my PSK on me daily. Just food for thought.

And the limited warranty period ends completely at 50.

Too Funny. Actually, I am almost 50 and plan on sticking around for alot longer than that.

"Everybody gotta die sometime, Red."

It's not the quantity, it's the quality...

Just a couple of points to consider.

I think a lot of people would be surprised at how far they can walk in a day if they had to, but even more surprised at how short of a distance they can cover in a week.
here is some discussion of Naismith's Rule for estimating time to hike a distance
Here is another thread on it at Backpacking light forum

Notice that Naismith estimated 3 miles per hour on level ground.

On a prepared road you might cover 30 miles in a 12 hour day (4 half hour lunch breaks), but if you are out of shape and carrying a pack it will likely drop to less than 20 miles. Possibly as few as 10 miles.
The likelihood of going more than thirty miles a day for more than three days is very small.
If you look up some of the famous forced marches you see they were usually pretty slow.
You might find the story of General "Vinegar Joe" Stilman's retreat from China into India interesting.
It took them 16 days to go 150 miles and they drove at least 50 (possibly 70) of those miles over 4 days.
That left at most 100 miles walked in 12 days.
Less than 10 miles a day by a group of young, fit men with the Japanese army chasing them.
Lacking the incentive of a bunch of armed men behind you and being less fit 5 miles a day is a more likely rate of travel over a long distance, especially if the route is rough at all.

Scafool, in contrast to that is the story of the doomed SAS team in Iraq during the Gulf War-one of the members, after being compromised & using their E&E plan, was found dead in the desert, only a few miles from the border of Turkey, where he was headed. They estimate he ran roughly 127 miles I believe, in a couple of days. He died, IIRC, of heart failure-but, he ran for almost 2 days straight.
Again, this is a rare example-I think we all benefit by being fit. Every little thing we do that increases our chances, is good. Wearing a seatbelt, eating right, making the right contacts, having good gear-ALL of it is prior planning. And, I am sure we all know the 5 P's, right?

First day mileage might be a happy surprise.

Second day's mileage after age 30 would be a disappointment.

Second day's mileage after age 50 would be pathetic.(that would have been me on Monday)

Not enough recovery time to do the same mileage the second day.
Recovery time is longer with age. (and boy how I hate that!)

sca - Naismith's rule is fascinating and a great rule of thumb! This thread has got me thinking I should probably start hiking...

I didn't see a factor for altitude. Have to derate your abilities when there is less air to breathe.

1000' elevation gain in 1/2 hr I've only achieved in the negative direction here in Colorado. More like 45 minutes (fresh and light load) to 1 hr with a real pack.

2 mph on trail and 1000' gain per hour has been my thumbrule for 20 years.

Have been down to 0.5 mph or less offtrail with pack.


Comment- Vinegar Joe Stilwell's troops weren't in good shape. Many had to cut the seats out of their pants so they could keep going with dysentary. Hopefully this is not a valid comparison to what ETS-ers are contemplating.

I'm about to make a terrible confession - I don't have an assembled BOB, but I guess if I'm going to start hiking w/a pack, I should assemble one and see much it weighs...

Nope...that's why I'm here...link please.



Well, my bag is not nearly sufficient. I've been working more on my mind. I've been focusing on the "how" and the "why", as opposed to "what" gear I'm buying.

Personally I always seems to remember more easily the 7Ps more than the meaning of the 5Ps. Hmm, I wonder if that is on my companies Acronym Server... Somehow I doubt it.

Then, if you can lift it, see how far you can carry it :-)

If you can't lift it, reconsider the contents. Repeat as necessary.

Am_Fear hit it with his link: the 5 P's (or 7, military dependent), are Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance. With the addition of the other two, its Propor Prior Planning Prevents (fill in blank) Poor Performance. Being this is a family oriented site, I say stick with the 5P's-although I will use the 7 in my personal life

Cool... The word "prior" seems redundant, but it's too late to change it now.

Well, that version does come from the military side of things, where redundancy is prized...

I always heard the 7P's as "Proper Previous Planning Prevents [censored] Poor Performance."

When I first heard it back in the 70's it was 6P's: Prior Planning Prevents P*** Poor Performance.
Adding "Proper" to make it 7P's seems to be redundant. . . and British (no offense).