Normal Walking Speed?

In trip planning I have always bargained on 4km/h in good conditions. People walk at the same speed
in good conditions regardless of load (to a point) - although I think the 200 pound marine packs
would blow my theory out of the water.

"Adrian Tupper" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dear all, I'm doing paper on human behaviour. Does anybody know if

there

Quoted message said:

is

Quoted message said:

any research or study about "normal wlking speed" of human being, and

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

academic materials can be found on net?

The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet.

In euros this is about 5 Km/h + 1/2 hour per 300m. But this equation

works

Quoted message said:

best over long distances and varying terrains.

So on the flat we assume 5Km/h is the normal speed. If at the same you are climbing 100m per Km
flat (1:10 slope) then it

would

Quoted message said:

take 12mins (for the 1Km) + 10mins (for the 100m)
= 22mins to walk each 1Km - equivalent to around 3 Km/h.

Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the flat.

HTH.

--
Adrian

Thank you Paul for your valuable comment.

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders

url=''URL:/url said:

"Adrian Tupper" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet.

Only there's a catch. That walking speed is only "normal" if you are very fit. Naismith, who
worked out the formula, was an extremely fit walker. Most people can't keep up with him.

Paul

Yes I find that I tend to get a better result by substituting 4km an hour.

In these days where many people collect GPS tracklogs it ought to be easy to collect a large sample
of data for analysis according to distance and altitude.

Mike Clark, <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> ||
_`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

hi ,

does anyone have the true naismiths rule ie true reference to what Mr or Mrs Naismith stated?

The reason I ask is that i was always taught " 5km/h flat open ground, +1 hour per 500m of ascent +
1 hour per 1000m of descent...." in general. i think this came from a victorian (Australia)
bushwalking publication years ago....

(not that i disagree with Gaza)

It would be nice to find the true origins of these rules-of-thumb.

Andrew S

"gaza" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Naismith's Rule: 5 km/h plus 1 hour per 600m ascent; minus 10 minutes per 300 m descent for slopes
between 5 and 12 degrees; plus 10 minutes per

300m

Quoted message said:

descent for slopes greater than 12 degrees.

Gaza's Rule:

For Wait-A-While, allow 1.5 hours for 1K For flooded creeks allow 1 KPH For dislocated shoulder in
rough terrain allow 5 hours for 3K On the home stretch heading towards a pub allow 6 KPH.

Sir Nigel Puke-Fuui said:

Going too fast and going too slow are both stressful. Anyone else notice this?

Yeah, definitely! Particularly slowing yourself downhill - your calves get it bad! I prefer to walk
normal speed then wait if I can...

Cheers, Jason (remove ----- to reply)

Macrovision Disablers - gadgets.shorturl.comgadgets.shorturl.comOpen ↗ Photo Folio, 300 Images -
webpics.shorturl.comwebpics.shorturl.comOpen ↗ Paid Online Surveys - emailcashaustralia.shorturl.comemailcashaustralia.shorturl.comOpen ↗

Yes you're spot on there; I've the same problem. May be that's why I prefer to walk alone. Frank
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, "Sir Nigel Puke-Fuui"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1103_1048814954@Loud_Belch...
:
: A very interesting discussion....
:
: One thing I have noticed is that my "normal walking speed"
is a fixed
: quantity. I go out almost every day, walking the
undulating dirt roads
: near my home. I almost always have my GPS with me. Over
the long
: term it reports my normal walking speed at 5.1 kph. I can
maintain this
: for several hours at a time. But if I go out with a group
of fitter people
: and they insist on going at 5.3 kph, I suddenly get very
buggered very
: fast. As well, if a "senior" party wants to go at 4.8 kph,
then again I
: become prematurely tired. Going too fast and going too
slow are both
: stressful. Anyone else notice this?
:
: >
: >
:
:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:29:14 GMT, Sir Nigel Puke-Fuui <[email hidden]> gushed forth:

Quoted message said:

A very interesting discussion....

Indeed.

Quoted message said:

[deletia]

Quoted message said:

for several hours at a time. But if I go out with a group of fitter people and they insist on going
at 5.3 kph, I suddenly get very buggered very fast. As well, if a "senior" party wants to go at 4.8
kph, then again I become prematurely tired. Going too fast and going too slow are both stressful.
Anyone else notice this?

Years ago, around the Oz. Audax cycling club ( long distance cycling with a set time to complete the
ride - see lesrm.orgbrevetsRM.htmOpen ↗ Article 10 for distances and time
) there was a lot of discussion as to whether it's better to slow down from your normal pace to stay
with a group that's travelling a bit slower than you normally would or whether it was better (
easier ? ) to speed up to stay with a group that's moving a bit faster than your normal pace. The
general concensus was that staying up with a FASTER moving group was much better. The longer the
ride the more pronounced the effects were. The speed differences were pretty trivial - in the order
of a few km's / hour with normal riding speed being in the order of 25 - 30kph.

For me if I'm out walking the opposite is true. It's MUCH better to slow down a bit. Speeding up,
even just a tiny bit, leaves me gasping in no time flat. Walking at my normal pace gets me to the
morning tea stop at around lunh-time. I'm pretty damn slow but I'm VERY thorough...:-)

--
Ooroo Mark F...

Another Optus Cable Traffic Monitor. members.optushome.com.autraffOpen ↗

Today is Boomtime, the 14th day of Discord in the YOLD 3169

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dear Adrian, thanks a lot! Is there any publications or study regarding Naysmith's Rule?

I'm sure there's lots of stuff on the Web. And lots of variations too. I expect there'll be a few
more answers to your questions in this thread so I'll hang fire on that answer just now.

--
Adrian

"Michael West" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000

feet.

Quoted message said:

That means 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet *of ascent*. Not everyone would know that, so it's
important to state it.

This is exactly why I put in the line: "Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the
flat." at the end of my post.

So there!

--
Adrian

"Trevor Dennis" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the flat.

Unless you have dodgy knees. In fact, I should think most folk would have difficulty maintaining
5KPH on a typical Snowdonia descent.

I'd have difficulty maintaining 5kph on a flat track... ;-)

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In trip planning I have always bargained on 4km/h in good conditions. People walk at the same
speed in good conditions regardless of load

Definitely not in my case. Perhaps I can maintain the same speed on flat terrain with a heavy load,
but the moment the ground starts sloping upward my speed drops exponentially. The heavier the pack
the slower the ascent. I find myself stopping for a breather quite frequently (I'm thinking of
carrying a full sack up a mountain here).

I've noticed that some people like to walk at the same pace uphill (not carrying heavy sacks), but
that just means they work harder and subsequently have to stop for rests. I prefer to slow down
proportionate to the slope, to try to avoid having to stop too much, but this rarely happens when
walking with others.

Quoted message said:

although I think the 200 pound marine packs would blow my theory out of the water.

Well I don't carry *quite* that much, but I do seem to carry a lot more than most.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thank you Paul for your valuable comment.

Well, it was quite valuable. Anyone writing a route plan and employing Naismith's rule should then
modify it for stops and the fitness of the walkers, otherwise they're not doing the job properly.
Failure to do so might (in extreme cases) result in a party being listed as overdue when they are
bumbling along quite happily.

Rules are, as always, for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise.

If you wish to know more, a simple Google search for "Naismith's rule" will give you plenty to read.

--
Bob Mannix (anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quite so, there is a normal speed for fit people, and a normal speed for normal people.

...then there is a speed for walkers with sons who ask "how much further dad", "can we stop for
lunch now!" or "why is mum so far behind?".

Add this to the young daughter who insists on walking over every 'interesting' incline at the side
of paths, wanting to look at every flower/tree/stone and saying "please can I read the map?" - only
to realise she's looking at last weeks route upside-down.

Be doing this all over again on Mother's day somewhere in Derbyshire.

Leigh....

"Mike Clark" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Yes I find that I tend to get a better result by substituting 4km an hour.

I've always found that 1.5 miles an hour works well for me, including all stops.

Quoted message said:

In these days where many people collect GPS tracklogs it ought to be easy to collect a large
sample of data for analysis according to distance and altitude.

Yes, I really should analyse mine more closely, I've got over three years worth now.

On one that I studied I noted that 4kph was my normal "strolling" speed, on a good flat path with no
stops. My GPS usually reports average speeds of between 3kph to 3.5kph for a walk, only taking time
spent moving into account. However, it only registers movement above 1.6kph or so, so doesn't take
very slow movement into account, such as when ascending very steep slopes or crossing very rough
ground. These would definitely bring my average down.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗

"Mark wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if I go out with a group of fitter people and they insist on going at 5.3 kph, I suddenly get
very buggered very fast. As well, if a "senior" party wants to go at 4.8 kph, then again I become
prematurely tired. Going too fast and going too slow are both stressful. Anyone else notice this?

Walking slighty faster? Yes. Walking slightly slower? No.

Quoted message said:

Years ago, around the Oz. Audax cycling club ( long distance cycling with

a set

Quoted message said:

time to complete the ride - see

lesrm.orgbrevetsRM.htmOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Article 10 for distances and time ) there was a lot of discussion as to whether it's better to
slow down from your normal pace to stay with a

group

Quoted message said:

that's travelling a bit slower than you normally would or whether it was better ( easier ? ) to
speed up to stay with a group that's moving a bit faster than your normal pace. The general
concensus was that staying up

with

Quoted message said:

a FASTER moving group was much better.

But this is cycling, not walking.

Quoted message said:

For me if I'm out walking the opposite is true. It's MUCH better to slow down a bit. Speeding up,
even just a tiny bit, leaves me gasping in no

time

Quoted message said:

flat.

Yes, this is my feeling too. I saw a TV programme about a team race (in the Lake District I think)
some time back in which they conducted scientific experiments on a team using treadmills, measuring
oxygen & carbon dioxide levels and so on. They concluded that it was best for the whole team to walk
at the pace of the slowest member, while faster members could occasionally scout ahead to find the
best routes.

The idea was to find the fastest pace that each member could walk without having to stop for
rests. If that pace was exceeded they'd have to stop for rests frequently, and more time would be
spent walking faster and resting than walking slower and not resting. So the team as a whole would
reach their objective most quickly if they walked at the speed of the slowest member and didn't
stop for rests.

Being a slow walker myself (I suspect that the length of one's legs are a big factor in
determining comfortable walking pace) I find that if I'm walking with people who try to push the
pace, my attempts to keep up them result in more frequent stops, which seem to annoy them even
more than my slow walking. They don't seem to realise that they'd get there faster if they slowed
down to my pace!

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗

"Adrian Tupper" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Michael West" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000

feet.

Quoted message said:

That means 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet *of ascent*. Not everyone would know that, so it's
important to state it.

This is exactly why I put in the line: "Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the
flat." at the end of my post.

I use 3 mph (~5 kph) for walking on decent tracks, reducing to 2.5 mph (4 kph) for open country e.g.
heather, tussocky grass, or for softish snow. The half hour per 1000ft works OK in ascent (equates
to 10m per minute) but I also reckon on an additional 15 minutes per 1000ft (20m/min) on steep*
descents. (* difficult to define but if you can't stride out downhill but need to work out where to
place your feet then it would qualify as 'steep'😉. I also allow at least 5 minutes per hour for
rests, looking at the views, navigation, food stops, etc. (I do a lot of looking at views and
talking to other people - it is meant to be enjoyment after all). On really big days out, say over 8
hours, the pace probably reduces to nearer 2 mph even on good tracks.

Graham

W. D. Grey said:

In article <1103_1048814954@Loud_Belch>, Sir Nigel Puke-Fuui <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Going too fast and going too slow are both stressful. Anyone else notice this?

Ambling lazily following my wife around the shops is particularly knackering.

I also find that this sort of ambling aggravates my low-back pain, which walking at my own pace,
even with a pack, doesn't really do.

"Leigh Preece" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Add this to the young daughter who insists on walking over every 'interesting' incline at the side
of paths, wanting to look at every flower/tree/stone

Hey, that sounds like me! :-)

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗

"Bob Mannix" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

If you wish to know more, a simple Google search for "Naismith's rule"

will

Quoted message said:

give you plenty to read.

And check for "corrections" too, such as Tranter's Corrections.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗

"Bob Mannix" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thank you Paul for your valuable comment.

Well, it was quite valuable. Anyone writing a route plan and employing Naismith's rule should then
modify it for stops and the fitness of the walkers, otherwise they're not doing the job properly.
Failure to do so might (in extreme cases) result in a party being listed as overdue when

they

Quoted message said:

are bumbling along quite happily.

Yes. After two or more walks, one should be able to adjust the coefficients to match ones own pace.
This is how I came up with my formula of "40 minutes to climb 250m on any normal hillside
irrespective of the horizontal distance" It works every time. And flat walking is 2.5 to 5km/h
depending on terrain. Downhill takes about half the time as uphill IME so that's 1hour per 250m of
hill. Ergo most Munros take me 3 to 4 hours up and down when climbed singularly.

--
Adrian