Distance Equivalent for Elevation Loss?

[uintahiker]

The rule of thumb out there for elevation gain is that 1000 ft gained vertically is roughly equivalent to 1 mile horizontally. I've seen research out there that backs it up with a few caveats, such as sex, body type, load, terrain, etc. But through it all it's clustered around that 1000ft gain = 1 mile flat and that's good enough for me. I'm just wondering if anybody knows what the distance equivalent for 1000 ft of elevation loss is. To me it's hard to imagine it being the same as it is for elevation gain, but the forces and muscle groups you're using are different.

 

[steve]

-1 mile.

Good question though, I had never thought of it.

 

[Bob]

Always did in terms of adding minutes to hiking, not distance...

 

[Howells Outdoors]

I know in time it is add an hour to your time for each 1000ft gained and add a 1/2 hour for each 1000 ft lost...but I'm with @Bob...not sure what the distance would be. Half?

 

[Gary]

Sorry for the long post but it is the Engineer in me.

The problem is not distance but time dependant and is completely dependant on individual’s fitness, height (length of stride), and percent grade being taken, but here goes a typical example for me to illustrate the point.

On an ascent of a grade of about 20% with a fully loaded pack I typically pull about 0.5 miles per hour with a stride of about 18”. So in a 1 hour’s time I would travel a horizontal distance 2640 ft and a vertical distance of 528 ft. So to get the equivalent of 1000 ft vertical on a 20% slope = (2640*1000)/528 = 5000 ft horizontal or 0.94 miles, which takes 1.88 hours to cover.

Descending I can cover around 2 miles per hour with a stride of a little over 3 feet. For the same grade as outlined above and same duration of 1 hour. I would travel a horizontal distance of 10,560 ft and a vertical distance of 2112 ft. So to get the equivalent of 1000 ft vertical on a 20% slope = (10560*1000)/2112 = 5000 ft horizontal or 0.94 miles but takes 0.47 hours to cover.

So as the example shows the vertical and horizontal relationships are the same but it is the time it takes to cover what is different, of course this assumes the same conditions for ascending and descending. So for me it is add 1.88 hours for a gain and 0.47 hours for a loss in elevation.

 

[Nick]

Sorry for the long post but it is the Engineer in me.

I love that kind of post! Way over my head, but I love it!

 

[uintahiker]

Sorry for the long post but it is the Engineer in me.

The problem is not distance but time dependant and is completely dependant on individual’s fitness, height (length of stride), and percent grade being taken, but here goes a typical example for me to illustrate the point.

On an ascent of a grade of about 20% with a fully loaded pack I typically pull about 0.5 miles per hour with a stride of about 18”. So in a 1 hour’s time I would travel a horizontal distance 2640 ft and a vertical distance of 528 ft. So to get the equivalent of 1000 ft vertical on a 20% slope = (2640*1000)/528 = 5000 ft horizontal or 0.94 miles, which takes 1.88 hours to cover.

Descending I can cover around 2 miles per hour with a stride of a little over 3 feet. For the same grade as outlined above and same duration of 1 hour. I would travel a horizontal distance of 10,560 ft and a vertical distance of 2112 ft. So to get the equivalent of 1000 ft vertical on a 20% slope = (10560*1000)/2112 = 5000 ft horizontal or 0.94 miles but takes 0.47 hours to cover.

So as the example shows the vertical and horizontal relationships are the same but it is the time it takes to cover what is different, of course this assumes the same conditions for ascending and descending. So for me it is add 1.88 hours for a gain and 0.47 hours for a loss in elevation.

Since time = money and money = power and power = energy, I'll circle it back around to energy burned. So how do those 1.88 hours and 0.47 hours compare with energy levels? Does 2 hours descending loosly compare with 1 hour ascending relative to energy burned?

 

[Gary]

Love your analysis and this is the kind of discussion I really enjoy having bellied up with a tall frosty in one hand and popping peanuts in the other.

At the risk of becoming too technical (and also outside my area of expertise) I would reason that going uphill would burn more calories as you have to over come the force of gravity in addition to the your own mass and the mass of the pack. With that said and without the funding from a significant federal grant, I would venture a guess roughly 40% more calories burned going up a significant incline verses going down.

Oh and not trying to hijack the thread but I digress for a moment. For me time does not equal money nor power but, time is the only thing in life I can not get back, is a finite commodity and once spent it is gone for ever. So I spend it how I really want and not how others think I should.

Happy hiking and I will buy you a frosty if we ever cross paths.

 

[uintahiker]

Love your analysis and this is the kind of discussion I really enjoy having bellied up with a tall frosty in one hand and popping peanuts in the other.

At the risk of becoming too technical (and also outside my area of expertise) I would reason that going uphill would burn more calories as you have to over come the force of gravity in addition to the your own mass and the mass of the pack. With that said and without the funding from a significant federal grant, I would venture a guess roughly 40% more calories burned going up a significant incline verses going down.

Oh and not trying to hijack the thread but I digress for a moment. For me time does not equal money nor power but, time is the only thing in life I can not get back, is a finite commodity and once spent it is gone for ever. So I spend it how I really want and not how others think I should.

Happy hiking and I will buy you a frosty if we ever cross paths.

Great way to live!

Here's a summary of the study that got me thinking about this:
http://news-prod.wcu.edu/2011/05/faculty-students-test-‘energy-mile’-theory-in-lab/

Averaged, 1 mile with 1000 feet of elevation gain is roughly equal to 1.6 flat miles, but it varies from 1.3 to 2.