How many miles an hour hiking?

To expand a bit on the question.

If you had to resort to walking out of an area.

How many miles an hour do you think your group can make and over what kind of ground?
How about in a day or a week?
Are you counting time for feeding and sleeping?
Are you counting the weight of the packs slowing you down?

How about for a person you are looking for after they became lost?

I am like a snail.

Not being a bug out kinda guy, I would have to say zero...

Bug out on foot? Not going to happen. It's too far to any kind of better shelter than what I have right here and both directions necessarily cross the major earthquake faults so the damage would increase.

If a bad earthquake hit while I was at work I'd figure 2-3 mph depending on the amount of damage/obstacles en route on the trip home, assuming I had to walk. I have a light pack that's just perfect for such a trek. The walk will take 8-12 hours, but before I did that I'd hunker down for a few days and camp out with the supplies in my truck. Fix a few roads and I wouldn't need to walk home after all.

This is where practice comes in to play. Get yourself a handheld GPS, doesn't have to do mapping or be color or anything like that, just needs to be able to log. Go find a park with a trail, turn on your GPS, walk until tired then turn off the gos and go home. Now download/export the log file and use any of the dozens of programs or web sites that can plot and analyze your log to see how how far you went, how fast you did it, your average speed, the elevation, etc. Now compare with the route you may need to work someday to get some benchmark to compare to.

Projecting 3ish map miles per hour. I say map miles because of the upping and downing- driving my primary route, the map says 96 miles, but my odometer thinks more like 110. I'm not going to push it- if you push it, you are more likely to hurt yourself. If I'm on foot, odds are 3mph vs 5 mph isn't going to mean diddly squat.

Unless they are 4 mph zombies. In which case... ah, man....

All of the above - you'll only move as fast and as far as the slowest person in your group. For me that probably means my teen age daughter and wife, my teenage son I know could handle at least 7 miles a day with a full pack based on Scout hikes, my daughter not so much, my wife least of all. If we were hiking out of the area together with full packs we might expect to make as little as 5-7 miles a day, which would call into question why we hit the road in the first place. Like alot of folks I'm probably biased towards sheltering in place, and evacuating from an area as early as possible, and always via a car.

This all depends on the terrain, the weather, the pack weight and the level of fitness.

You may find the following interview entertaining, the experiences of the Maggie Hems about the enjoyment of the TGO challange crossing (A walk across Scotland in Spring), getting her pack weight down to 15kg and walking as a solo lady.

http://backpackinglight.audioblog.com/deluge/167d028d-85f3-c98d-73b5-ef1ca08588a0.mp3

Think we would be capable of 20-25 miles the first couple of days leaving DC. It's pretty level for 90 miles west. We routinely walk 10 miles on the C&O Canal, in 3 hours, carrying daypacks.

3 miles an hour on flat ground.

1 mile an hour on a steep climb (such as a mountain pass).

That's with a backpack and a gallon of water.

Have done day hikes up to 13-miles gaining and losing 2500-feet of elevation. Carrying a gallon of water-Gatorade (it's humid here) but not as much gear as I would in an evacuation scenario (for one thing I'd have to carry dog food in an evacuation scenario).

There are many variables, of course: motivation (radiation or bioterror behind me would provide adrenaline), pack weight, weather, terrain.

I have three mountain bikes and two bike trailers. Those would certainly be preferable to walking.

Your dog needs a pack so he/she/it can carry his/her/its own food.

The type of terrain, genetics, fitness and mental level of indidviduals, footwear, the weather and many more variables need to be factored in.

For me personally, I know that I can walk 7.7 kms (4.6 miles) in 1 hour 5 minutes on concrete with carrying a pack that weighs anywhere from 6 to 20 lbs. I do this at least twice a week walking to and from work which makes a single day total of 9 miles.

Even one way at 4.6 miles, I know that I could not keep this pace for hours on end. At best, perhaps 3-4 hours broken up over a day while the rest of time at a slower pace of perhaps 3 to 4 miles per hour. At this rate, figure on about a 28-30 mile day. Keep in mind that this would be the extreme and that I am better shape then 99% of my contemporaries and I also cycle over 2000 miles per year. How many days could I do walk at this rate? Maybe 3-4 days in a row before the feet and legs start to have problems as walking on concrete with a heavy pack is extremely hard on the bones and muscles.

To take into consideration other people who may be with me. My partner (ex marathoner / tri-athlete / adventure racer), she can keep up with me for a few hours but certainly not for many hours or days. If it was just her and I carrying 20 lb packs, 20-25 mile days are doable on concrete. If the weight of the packs were not a factor then this distance could be exceeded....believe me, I would be on the lookout for the first available baby stroller etc to carry the packs in.

As for other people in the group, my son and daughters who are in their mid teens are no slouches, both are good athletes and I know from previous experience, they are very capable of walking long distances and could probably outwalk us both in the long run (no pun intended).

For others who may be in a group, this includes other fmaily members or most friends, the distance would not be measured in miles, rather in hours. I would suspect that most would be done in by hour 3...even at a slow pace.

Walking offroad on mountain trails, foresty roads etc, this is a totally different matter. Depending on the terrain and weather, the days walking distance can be measured in single digits.

For example, a hike we regularly do in summer takes 2 hours each way over an 6 km (3.6 miles) distance and over some steep terrain. This same hike yesterday took almost double the amount of the time due to the warmer then expected afternoon sun heating up and melted the previously walkable on snow crust that had us falling through up to our knees into slush below. By time we got down off the mountain, my partner and I were tired, wet, sore and hungry. There is no way that this type of walking can be sustained for hours...let alone days on end.

In summer, the most I have covered in a single day in rough mountainous terrain over an elevation gain of 6200 feet is 17 miles...and it just about did me in. On less steep ground, 2 miles an hour is about our average and over a very long day, 20 miles has been done on good trails with pack weights between 25-35 lbs. Over a number of days, these distances would be much shorter with each passing day as this pace cannot be substained carrying any amount of weight.

Lastly, the above is based on our experiences and our physical conditioning. YMMV (Your mileage may vary)....really.

Be real careful putting a pack on your dog. There are serious questions that a vet needs to take part in. I have seen several dogs who look perfectly capable of carrying a light weight end up being the weight carried.

Another thing to add is research your area. If your looking at bugging out of work or home start researching the areas. A lot of places now have walking/biking trails or there may be a converted rail trail. Look for paths you can utilize.

On mountain trails with a loaded backpack for 2-4 day trips, I usually average just over 2 miles per hour. That includes a few thousand feet of mild (or at least short, <1000') ups and downs. If I decide to turn it on, 2.5 is easily within reach, provided the footing is good. Loose rock or ice means all bets are off, and more elevation cuts down on the speed. Trying to maintain 3mph on trails isn't much fun, and I backpack on vacation. Fun is what it's about. I average about 15 miles a day on the AT, for up to 7 days straight.

I find that I am better off continuing for an extra hour or so, rather than trying to set a land-speed record. Headlamps (or full moons) are great for night-hiking, which is an experience not to be missed. Thunderstorms, however, or rumors of cold beer at a road crossing on the AT, can twist my throttle.

Longest dayhike I've done (basically unloaded) was the Rachel Carson challenge in Pittsburgh. 34.6 miles, with over 10,000' of elevation change. The elevation profile looks like an EKG.

Toughest hike with a full pack was 19 miles in the Tetons, with 9,000' of elevation change. That hurt.

I just watched a still video at the Rachel Carson Trail Challenge website. I would love to partake in something like that. If I am ever in Pittsburgh during this time....

Here is the EKG that Jaywalke is referring to.

I think YMMV is not only hte key statement, it's true for all of us.

Good prior observation in this thread is that the speed of a group will be the speed of the slowest member. Since it is only DW and myself, and we both climbed up Mount Washington in September (4 miles, 4000 feet up and carrying a pack), I have no question we could make that kind of a distance over flat ground. Our packs would likely be heavier, but the terrain would not be as difficult or with as much vertical. The first day, I think 10 miles is doable for us. If some of my family members were involved, well, Mom is pretty much not walking out of anywhere.

The second day is a different story, for the walkers. If you have a group, many will be sore and tired from activity they are not used to. Someone is likely to have blisters, someone may be nursing an injury such as a twisted ankle. If you get everyone going, day 2 should probably be dialed back from Day 1. If no one is hurt, someone is more likely to get hurt walking on those tired legs.

Thereafter, speed should pick up, all else being equal. But from what I've experienced and seen, making 15 miles a day is strenuous throughout most of the northeast. If you are not in good shape at the start, it's going to take a while to get up to making that kind of speed.

In the end, I don't think there are many who are going to get up to walking more than 10 miles a day, unless they stick to it for weeks.

Have you never come across Naismith's rule?

Naismith's Rule, Wikipedia

Second on researching your area if you contemplate bugging out on foot. For example, in modern urban living we tend to ignore waterways but in a disaster the bridges might be down or they might be dangerous congestion points.

Also, consider what other people are likely to be doing. If you contemplate bugging out on day 3-7 after a disaster, keep in mind that members of this forum will likely be much better equipped with material goods than the average man on the street, but you may not be much better armed. In that case, you’ll want to proceed very cautiously and keep self-defense in mind.

If you plan on having packs prepared to carry gear, and especially if you live in an urban area and/or will be traveling with family members not used to hiking, does it make sense to invest a little money in a wheeled assist? Something like a suitcase carrier, only with bigger and higher quality wheels, could ease the strain of carrying a pack. Even in rural areas, odds are you will try to make use of roads to speed your progress. However, don’t let the wheels tempt you into carrying too much stuff.

There is a good reason why experienced folks always measure distances in hours, not miles when traveling on foot. The mileage itself is just meaningless in difficult terrain.

3mph is doable on a day trek if you're very fit, travel light and the terrain is flat and clear (well marked trail or road). In heavily wooded but not too hilly terrain 2mph is a good daily average for a fit man. Add any major slopes however and the time required becomes much more difficult to calculate. Even Naismith's rule is not that accurate. I've seen a chart somewhere that seemed closer to my own experience, I think it was devised by some Swiss mountain climber but I can't remember the details off hand.

Anyway, weather and climate are two other major factors to consider. In general, I believe any healthy person should be capable of covering at least 15 miles in one day, carrying a moderately heavy load over reasonably flat ground. Anyone who can't accomplish that is seriously out of shape and should focus on improving his fitness first. Keep in mind that in a bug out situation motorized transport simply might not be available and if that happens, going on foot will be the only option.

It does depend on the scenario, though. I have a sister who lives on a farm about 120 miles away. I keep enough petrol on hand to drive there, but if for some reason that wasn't practical it could be an interesting journey to make on foot.

It can vary, but the range is from 2 to 4 mph. In the city, under little or no load, on average terrain figure 4 to be a good pushing average. In the hills hiking under moderate load, figure 3. Under heavy load, or rugged terrain, figure 2 mph.

If forced, I can walk about 5 mph on easy terrain under no/minimal load, but I smoke my shins doing it, and day two would not be so good. I can do twenty miles or so a day on easy terrain under no load, 10 miles a day with moderate load on moderate terrain, and 5-6 miles a day on rough terrain or under heavy load. It's a bell curve.

No matter what I've tried, heavy load over time hurts. Either it gets my hips, or my shoulders, and no amount of ergonomics or padding is going to make an 80 lb pack ride any easier on me without bruising one or the other. I suppose if I did it regularly those areas would toughen up, but day two and three are usually quite painful strapping on the pack first thing in the morning.

It's been a few years since I've been on a good hike. I will have to let you know how the hills treat me this spring.

Indeed. Like people, dogs need gradual conditioning, especially for enduring long-distance weight-bearing.

Gidget has done a lot of pack hiking, walks at least a few miles a day, every day, on sidewalks so her paw pads are toughened and she does a lot of bikejoring (6-10 miles at a time) so she probably starts out ahead of other dogs. But she's six years old, has thick fur (blessing in winter, problem in summer -- especially on pavement) and veterinary care would likely not be accessible on such a trek.

I would take extra care with her on such a journey. No pack. That's why I have a bike trailer for dogs -- so she can walk as much as she can and she can ride when tired or injured.

Something I should do is get her comfortable with wearing booties. I have a couple sets for her to avoid ice buildup in her paws when it snows. But she does not like them, at all, and acts hobbled when forced to wear them. Booties could be a lifesaver for a dog doing miles a day on pavement.

Anyone who wants to seriously prepare for bugging out should have a bike and bike trailer. Even if you start out evacuating in a vehicle -- that bike and trailer could be priceless backup. There are bike racks for every kind of vehicle and bike trailers fold down, come apart and can be used for storage in the vehicle.

I use the bike dog trailer at campgrounds for hauling firewood and bags of ice. It's rated to carry 100 pounds (Croozer dog trailer). You'll note at their website that they also carry dedicated cargo trailers.

http://www.croozerdesigns.com/

Also have a Burley "Nomad" cargo trailer with cargo rack:

http://www.burley.com/

This is a great thread, harkening back to others' observations on ETS that a survival basic is being in good physical condition at the outset of a crisis.

Indeed. I've heard pretty much the same thing even from people who were very much used to hiking long distance with a heavy pack.

It seems everyone has a pretty specific limit as to how much weight they can "comfortably" handle on a longer-term basis. 40% of bodyweight seems to be a fairly useful estimate for a fit man (and usually a little less for women).

Once you get past that point you can still haul a heavier load but it will take a toll on your muscles and bone structure. Carrying even a very heavy load may be doable for a while if the weight is distributed properly but unless you're extremely fit and motivated, you'll have a hard time doing it on consecutive days. Little point in pushing yourself too hard if you're too shot to be able to make a decent shelter at the end of the day or gather sufficient firewood.

That sounds right to me.

I would add that when bushwhacking through deadfall or detouring around endless bogs, 1 mph is about the best you can plan on.

As was mentioned before, walking distance is more accurately measured in hours than miles.

Worst case if I had to leave and driving was out I'd put the rack back on my bike and ride out. Limiting myself to a modest 10 mph on flats, slower going uphill, faster going down the other side; 50 miles a day is not out of the question. There's still the issue of water. A bike will just take me farther into the desert before I drop from dehydration.

+1

Everyone should keep in mind that when we carry a pack, the weight is applied to the spine vertically, and with a better packs, applied more directly to the hips.

With a dog, basically you are bending its spine among other things.

Most people would consider it dangerous and potentially painful to have a jouncing load on their spine.

-john

This would be my rule of thumb as well. Travel speed is highly related to terrain.

-john

Thanks Ian, I had completely forgotten about it and it is one that does give a reasonable estimate for most cases.

That's been my experience as well. For an average (non conditioned) person, about 3-3.5 miles an hour is a fairly comfortable walking pace on even level ground with no load. When hiking on more difficult terrrain, heavy load, or if there are any hills, the speed drops dramatcially. I usually estimate an hour/mile for any group with more than a few people, unless all of them are well conditioned. That includes rest breaks, snack breaks, lunch, photo ops, etc. On shorter hikes, maybe less that 5 miles, it's probably a faster, but as the hike gets longer the speed have usually averaged around 1mph. This is a very relaxed, comfortable pace for most people. If pushed, they can do maybe 2-2.5 mph, but not for very long.

When backpacking, we used to feel 2 mph was a nice pace to average.

For those that say they will never bug out, let me bring up this little story. Seems in World War One there was a French farmer who watched his farm change nationality many times and in the course of said things watched his worldly possessions pulverised by artillery.
So when the war ended, he was disgusted with humanity and decided to relocate to a remote South Pacific location and run a rubber plantation.
The name of this island was Guadalcanal

That guy needed a different real estate agent.

LOL!

Edit
Well, wherever you go, there you are.

I agree with ducktapeguy, I think that 1 to 1.5 mph is about right for the average person carrying any additional weight for a sustained period. I'm certain others could maintain a better pace but not me and mine. I will have to play it conservatively. Keep it slow and steady, to reduce the risk of injury and fatigue. What did the wagon trains average, about 10 miles a day?

P.S. God help me if there are fast zombies.

Actually mileage is not meaningless regardless of terrain. Whenever you set out for a walk whether around the neighborhood, the park, a mountain trail or on the open plains you know it is roughly xx amount of miles which = xx amount of hours to complete the walk depending on your physical conditioning.

Every walk / hike whether it is a 5 hour hike or 5 day hike also needs to factor in mileage and hours...regardless of terrain type.

Never heard of Naismith's rule.

This moring I walked about 3 miles, with a small pack around Manhattan. About an hour to go 2.5-3 miles, with plenty of people and stopping for traffic.

On my last backpack trip I was covering about a mile every 30min (according to the trail markers).

By the time I covered the 8 miles to my campsite, I was beat.

So based on that with my current condition level and a 40lb pack, 8 miles /day the max I plan on covering.

Lots of great input here. It's funny, when I was thinking about some of the hikes I've taken, with significant elevation change, I am sure that I've had stretches where instead of miles per hour, I'd be looking at hours per mile! The Mahoosic Notch section of the AT in western Maine comes to mind. Anyone else ever traverse that mile? I gotta dig up some pictures.

A trail I've done at least a half dozen times, roundtrip from Pinkham Notch center via Tuckerman's Ravine trail to summit of Washington. (Sometimes I go up Lions Head, and down Tuck) From the Pinkham Notch visitors center, it's about 4300 ft elevation gain to the 6288 summit. The trail is only 8.4 miles, but, it's typically an 8 hour round trip, about 1mph. The guidebook says it should take 6:20, but, I guess I'm not in that kind of shape, or pack too much stuff. Don't always keep track of top time hanging out either, especially if it's a nice day. (Nice means above freezing, in summer)

Depends on a lot of factors like:
How far do you have to go? A very light pack, flat ground, good conditions and only a couple of miles to go, somewhere at the other end where I can kick back and relax for a few hours and I might have jogged it at a good six, maybe seven miles per hour. Older now, I might manage five miles an hour if you sic the dogs on me.

Heavy pack, up and down mountains, lousy weather, little opportunity to rest, limits on food and water, and the realization I have to do it every day for a month may limit my pace to about one mile per hour. Maybe a bit faster. Particularly on the down slopes.

I usually figure about two miles per hour and estimate I lose about a third of that pace if I'm going up and down mountains or slogging through swamps.

Extreme conditions can cause you to have to go slow and cover several times the distance on the ground that you cover on the map. Historically going through dense jungle and near vertical slopes trained troops sometimes only cover a mile, perhaps two miles, on the map in a day.

Forced by events highly capable and motivated people have often completed remarkable feats of strength, toughness and endurance. Sometimes coming across the line half-dead after giving everything they have to give. At the same time others have died in the attempt. History is full of these death marches.

I plan on 5 miles per day for the first 3 weeks of hiking. That also means pushing for 5 days and laying up a day or two, procuring food and resting up!

All of the above is dead on.

Assuming long distance travel...

One more thing to add. One must plan "recovery days" every so often. There are going to be times requiring rest and work that does not include traveling.

Without some down time one will eventually be wearing down but not rebuilding the muscles worn down. This will eventually slow you some.

Very true, very true. Then there are the sadest cases of all - the ones who die after making it back. Especially in history, but also in some contemporary survival stories, there seems to be a pattern of people who make it back alive, but then die soon after. I think these cases show how sometimes the mind can drive the body to achieve beyond it's endurance.

That might be a good argument for pacing yourself and your group, if find yourself in such a situation. Feeling the urgency of the moment, there may be a tendency to drive yourself to your limit, without remembering that your mind might be stronger than your body. Even if you think you can go on, you need to ask yourself if you really need to, or if you can achieve your objective with a little more rest thrown into the mix.

If I were to load a dog, it would be with a harness and dragging something, either a sled or a cart. I have tried to use dogs as pack animals, and they just aren't built for it like a good mule is. But you take the same dog that struggled with a 10 lb pack and rig him to pull a load, and they can go like the energizer bunny.

I had a dalmation a few years back that used to literally drag me through the intersections on my bike, both wheels locked my feet down and dragging. He didn't care, he wanted to go and it took a while to get him trained to "mush" and "whoa dragon" (dragons is so stupid). His paws would get tore up a little, but it never seemed to bother him too much, and as they toughened up, there wasn't anywhere he wouldn't go with me.

A while later, I rented a Forest Service cabin up near Mt. Adams and we had a late season snow come in and close the road, so I loaded up a sled full of about 100 lbs of supplies and hooked his harness to it, along with a check line for me to control him, and he drug that sled faster than I could keep up with him. I had to whoa dragon him a lot to keep from getting pulled off my feet, and most of the trip was uphill. It was a good two and a half miles into the cabin, and I was so wore out by the time we got there I had to sit before I could unload the sled. I unhooked the dog and he bee-lined it for the stream, took a big drink then proceeded to scour the area nose down for the next half hour. I mushed him back down the hill, grabbed another light load, and mushed him back and he never balked, although he did whine a bit once in a while, probably from the cold and ice getting at his paws. He did sleep good that night, but next day showed no signs worse for the wear.

Dogs, like dragons, is tough, but sometimes stupid. You just gotta know how to work them proper, and train them well so's they don't go gallavanting out into the thules with your load with you chasing after. A sled is most often a better choice than a cart, wheels don't go over obstacles quite as well.

Interesting topic. In the Marine Corps, the standard, with 40 pound ruck, weapons, ammo, and body armor, is 3 mph with a 10 minute break every hour; 20 miles per day. Out of an 800 +/- man battalion, you'll lose approximately 30-50 Marines to twisted ankles, pulled muscles, dehydration, and spineless wonders. And these guys are extremely physically fit. The type of terrain and weather conditions never seemed to matter to commanders, the standard had to be met as the enemy won't wait on you to get to the fight. On my six man team, we'd operate with average 50-80 pound rucks (depending on who carried the radio, spare batteries, extra ammo, claymores, etc.) and, mission dependent, move an average of 10-20 miles per day to get into our area of operations, then roll into 24 hours ops for several days, then get back out. Very taxing physically, evening more taxing mentally. Your average American family is no where near that level of mental or physical conditioning. Unless a tsunami or hurricane is headed your way, or you ABSOLUTELY have no choice in the matter, I'd recommend staying put. I'm fortunate in that when I bought my property I deliberately looked for a location just close enough to a city to be decently accessible but far enough away to not be bothered, a year round running water source, abundant wild game from squirrels to a nice 8-point buck that I WILL get next season, and a few other property owners that are firm believers in looking out for each other. I'm surrounded on three sides by heavily forested private property and on the remaining side by forested conservation land. My farm road only has two access points, and the terrain is such that it can easily be closed off to outsiders, if necessary. Geographically, there are no major earthquake faults nearby, although a little one can be just as bad. The only major natural concern I have are tornadoes, but I'm prepared for those as well. From a survival standpoint, in the event of a natural or man made (short of a nuke) disaster, I don't think I'd have to bail. From a tactical standpoint, I have a readily defensible location with the ability to withstand a substantial siege for a considerable amount of time. Again, I will emphasize, I AM NOT A WHACKO running around the woods in cammies carrying an AK! After 22 years in the Corps, I sort of can't break the habit of eyeballing terrain in preparation for a fight. Old habits die hard...

General Joe Stilwell's march/retreat from the Japanese through Burma took 20 days.
He covered 140 miles in that time, about 1/2 of his desired rate of travel.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_2_90/ai_76736958/pg_1?tag=content;col1

And let us remember, Those soldiers were not in good health any longer.

I remember years ago reading about Vinegar Joe and this march through Burma. It was a remarkable feat considering the soldiers health, the terrain and weather they encountered.

For fans of Band of Brothers, Easy Company (and the rest of the 3rd Bn) did a forced march, with field equipment, of 136 miles in 72 hours, which works out to 1.88888888888 mph. And they were in fantastic shape, much better than most of us I'd suspect...

Actually Stilwell's group was a mix of civilians and military, and they had sick who had to be carried too.
That is one of the reasons his march is a fair example to look at for planning purposes.
He also had periods where he was able to raft his motley crew on rivers, was able to use pack animals, and he had resupply at a couple of points.

If it had been all military or all healthy it would not be as relevant.

Then there's those crazy LRRP humps in Nam, basically a "run through the jungle". I need a good dose of CCR this morning anyways.

Weren't the Apaches reknowned for their arid cross country humps, something like 100 miles a day?

Boy that's a variable question.

Mind you, those boys in Burma were MOTIVATED! As were the Easy Co. boys.

Personal experience: about 2-3 hours with a daypack in fairly even terrain, 4-5 miles (taking it easy). With Boy Scouts 15 years ago, we could do 10ish miles in about 7 hours, in the Sierra Nevada mtn ranges.

Funny thing though, is I've done 13 mile runs in 2 hours in virtually the same terrain (Mammoth mtn area). The point being, group size and pack weight hugely make a difference.

I figure that the "3 mph" rule is usually a good estimate, unless really mountainous terrain.

In a BO situation, I figure 20 miles a day. Unless I run (go figure)

If anyone is curious on what the absolute limit of human endurance is for a completely self supported hike, I'd say it's about 624 miles.

http://www.ryanjordan.com/2006_arctic/

These guys were covering up to 40 miles a day in some pretty tough terrain.

Ha, ha! I've hiked with Ryan! He's certifiable. I'm a lightweight hiker, but he's what we refer to as psycho-light. If you can, find his blog post about going into the Yellowstone backcountry in winter with a 9-pound pack (including food). On that very 19-mile, 9000' day in the Tetons, I was chasing Ryan Jordan and Glen Van Peski (of gossamergear.com). The next morning I started out at their pace, but when I saw Ryan trail-running up out of a steep valley with a full pack, my quads out-voted me and I slowed down.

We had a little weigh-in before that trip, and, if I remember correctly, Glen had a 12-pound pack for a 5-day, 4-night, 75 mile trip down the west side of the park, crossing over the continental divide three times. That included food. He'd done a little scientific calculation, and determined that macadamia nuts were the best food for the weight. The upshot of that was that by day 3 he was willing to trade almost anything to get something else to eat.

That was a damn fun trip. It was 9 days after September 11th, 2001, which made the flight out very exciting. Yellowstone was empty, though, when we went up there on our 'acclimatize day,' and we stood at Old Faithful on a beautiful September Saturday almost alone.

Macadamia nuts are almost pure fat. I like them a lot, but yes, you can get too much of them. Pemmican would've been a far better choice.

If you knew what you were doing, I'd say there is no limit on how far you can go on a self supported hike. It depends on how much you would rely exclusively on what you bring. A good naturalist ought to be able to go for weeks on end, and cover over a thousand miles. I believe there was a story of a pair of hunters back in the 1800s that lived off of buffalo while they crossed the dakotas and half of Minnesota afoot, their horses being "borrowed" by a local tribe at the time. Of course you couldn't do that now, but there was a time when living off the land while travelling was a lot easier and more commonplace.

If you can make 2Km / 1.6 Miles per hour you are doing well in poor terrain with out trails etc. Add in another hour for each 300m / 1000' elevation gained and remember that groups cannot usually make more than 8 hours a day hiking unless they train for it.

Well, considering I got this on TV, it must be flavored with the ubiquitous grain of salt...

During lunch today, I saw a special on the USAF PJ's. They were showing part of their final FTX at the end of their 2 year school. It stated they were going to be covering 60 miles per day in full gear.

I saw their packs, I remember what those things weigh. If they were doing 60 miles per every 24 hours, they were not going to maintain that for very long without resupply of water. The area was desert around Kirtland AFB (Desert South West) New Mexico.

EDIT: They wouldn't be doing 60 miles per day for very long anyway if at all.

Having trained with the DOE not far from there for two weeks, I know the area. Water was not one of the elements that was readily available when the maker created this place. It was obviously already used up.

Is 60 miles in one day possible, yes. Is it possible for me in the sad shape I have allowed myself to get into, OH NO! [expletives deleted in advance]

This is a subject Montanero can probably relate experiences to. I am absolutely sure he has more time in varied terrain than several of us combined and multiplied by the same number.

This wasn't on the Discovery Channel by any chance. It would explain a lot about that claim. If this is correct then this is truly remarkable effort. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Green Berets physical requirements for hill fitness being roughly half this distance per day.

I try to make sure they are chocolate covered, for a more balanced diet

Whew, I don't know anything about the terrain or those guys' fitness (though I'm sure they're in awesome shape) but 60 miles per day does sound extreme, close to impossible.

If you look at Bravo Two Zero, the SAS patrol at one point completed about two consecutive marathon runs in 24 hours while Ryan covered 190 miles in 8 days altogether. Granted, it was under combat conditions but the sheer exertion nearly cost him his life and left him partly crippled for life.

Anyway, I'm not sure 60 miles in a single day is feasible even for the best trained guys, let alone as an average for several consecutive days. Maybe the TV editor just made a mistake somewhere?

My point exactly

A very good friend of mine is a PJ- way I heard it from him was 60km. Still a good haul on broken ground and with full kit, but doable if you aren't (a) worried about setting camp, (b) know you can crash shortly after you get there, (c) prep for it, and (d) are trained that hard. But you can't do it for a prolonged period.

Miles =/= Kilometers!!!
Now I understand why the science channels measure everything in football field lengths.

Ok, 60 klicks is sensible. That's only about 37 miles. I have walked farther over friendly terrain with a full load. Not by choice, but I made it.

A news story from last fall.
40 miles in 29 hours.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_092607_news_hiker_pacific_crest.10fce6df3.html