Adding mileage

[Momwiz]

Question: when looking at the distance between stops on the Camino Francés, I’ve been told that you should add kilometers or miles for altitude in addition to the traditional miles or kilometers that are set along the way. This confuses me and I wondered if anyone has clarification out there. For instance, if the distance is supposed to be 28.5 km you should add 2 km if there’s an altitude that you are walking and climbing up. If adding kilometers or mileage is the case, then it would make a difference to me as to where I would want to stop and spend the night. TIA

 

[Bradypus]

The basic idea has been around for a long time. A Scottish hillwalker made a formula for estimating the additional time needed to take into account ascents. Naismith's Rule. It cannot be 100% accurate because it makes assumptions about basic fitness and ability to handle changing steepness of ground which are not universal. But it is a good general guide. Experience will tell you how to modify it for yourself.

Naismith's rule - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Tincatinker]

It is also worth noting that the “time required” suggested by Gronze, Brierley and others assumes a continuous walk. Time required for rest breaks; photo stops; pee break; 3 course lunch with a bottle of wine, coffee and an Orujo; getting into a good conversation with a very slow walker or a local leaning on their farm gate all need to be added on.

None of which comes as a surprise to experienced walkers but can bemuse the inexperienced. The resolution is walking. In your training walks keep an eye on your speed-over-ground, (for most of the reasonably fit in the region of 4mph) and compare it to how long it takes you to walk 12 miles.

Naismith’s “rule” is a valuable tool for planning journeys in remote and mountainous country but probably only applies on two or three days of the Camino Frances. The Tinker’s “rule”, that all kilometres walked after lunch are twice as long as those walked in the morning, is possibly more applicable

 

[J Willhaus]

On the Camino Frances, you can also make your own stops for the most part. The villages except for a few places are close together so if you find yourself ready to stop due to elevation or distance, you can do so, especially if you are carrying your own things and don't have a reservation you must make in a further town.

Exceptions include the first day our of SJPDP where there are only a few early stops available and later on the meseta in the day after Carrion de los Condes.

 

[naplesdon]

Tink,
That is the reason I never walk after lunch. I always start the day early around sunrise, walk until noonish, stake out my claim for a lower bunk, do laundry for the day's sweaty stuff and then find the best menu del dia in town for a large, long repas with plenty of vino, followed by a much deserved siesta.

 

[Momwiz]

All of this makes perfect sense! A friend of mine and I are walking from Leon to Santiago in late April. She presented this conundrum to me and I wondered about its validation. I tend to walk about 3 mph and at age 79, I don’t think that’s too bad! I’m sure we will be stopping at all the interesting places and situations that were mentioned in the replies as well as spending time in some of the churches and cathedrals. Thanks again!

 

[trecile]

I tend to walk about 3 mph and at age 79, I don’t think that’s too bad!

I think that's a pretty normal pace - I base that not only on myself, but when I go on group walks (flat even surface) that's the pace that the majority of the group tends to go. I can walk at 4mph or better, but rarely do on the Camino.

 

[Tincatinker]

Ah but in group walks the group walks at the speed of the slowest members. Otherwise it ceases to be a group. My current speed over ground on a measured, flattish, mile is 4mph. I very seldom walk 4 miles in an hour

 

[tjz]

All of this discussion above is great! For planning I use the "Brierley formula" of add 1km for every 200m of elevation gain. It's all very subjective, but gets you an idea. But depending on the weather and the beauty and tastiness of our lunch stop, and the distractions along the way, it's so hard to compare apples to apples. But using that formula and factoring in the other stuff usually matches reality to expectations for my wife and I.

 

[Bothydave]

All of this makes perfect sense! A friend of mine and I are walking from Leon to Santiago in late April. She presented this conundrum to me and I wondered about its validation. I tend to walk about 3 mph and at age 79, I don’t think that’s too bad! I’m sure we will be stopping at all the interesting places and situations that were mentioned in the replies as well as spending time in some of the churches and cathedrals. Thanks again!

Basically going up or down steep hills requires shorter, and thus more steps than would a flat section. The Naismith rule is for generally unpathed territory which is not what the Camino generally involves.
That said any short rock sections, muddy patches, inclines, declines all take more care and thus more time.
Don’t worry about it.

 

[t2andreo]

My rule of thumb is to take the planned daily distance, divide by 4 to arrive at the estimated time to complete. I then round the fractional time up to the next whole hour. Finally, I add one hour for pitstops, coffee, lunch, wandering, conversation and any number of distractions.

So, a planned 22 km day would take 5.5 hours - rounds up to six hours. Then adding the extra hour brings it to seven hours - start to finish. I am usually within 15 minutes one way or the other.

Your experience may vary.

Hope this helps.

Tom

 

[K_Lynn]

I had joked while walking that the the guide books were all wrong and that each stage was 2-5km longer. By week three my maxim was "the hour is the longest".

 

[Tony Lenton]

Ah but in group walks the group walks at the speed of the slowest members. Otherwise it ceases to be a group. My current speed over ground on a measured, flattish, mile is 4mph. I very seldom walk 4 miles in an hour

I also walk, when alone and on my way to the pub about 2 miles away, at about 4 miles per hour. Years of walking on day walks or national trails suggest that my average speed over a longer distance is more like 2.5 mph. Like “Tinker” I’m also partial to a pint, a leisurely lunch and an Orujo, Grappa or Calvados when necessary. Walking, like darts, is one of the few endeavours which alcohol doesn’t impede. I’ve concluded that my average MPH roughly equates to the average ABV of the pints I drink so everything is maintained in perfect balance.

 

[susanawee]

Tink,
That is the reason I never walk after lunch. I always start the day early around sunrise, walk until noonish, stake out my claim for a lower bunk, do laundry for the day's sweaty stuff and then find the best menu del dia in town for a large, long repas with plenty of vino, followed by a much deserved siesta.

Sounds like an absolutely ideal day to me. Susanawee.

 

[susanawee]

I think that's a pretty normal pace - I base that not only on myself, but when I go on group walks (flat even surface) that's the pace that the majority of the group tends to go. I can walk at 4mph or better, but rarely do on the Camino.

A good pace methinks and makes for a much more relaxing walk overall. susanawee

 

[Camino Chrissy]

I don't pay much attention to Naismith's rule or others. I do look at elevation profiles but do not worry too much. I use my favorite 20 km as a somewhat daily average, so if the terrain is flat, I arrive a little early, and if it's hilly or more difficult I arrive later, but still in a somewhat normal amount of time. It always seems to even out quite well overall.

 

[Sirage]

I walk about 4.4 km/hr. I divide the distance by 4 and that allows for nearly all eventualities except a long break for morning coffee. It is not a precision activity. It might take a bit longer sometimes.

 

[dougfitz]

I find the notion of being able to reliably calculate an equivalent distance very useful for all my walk planning, whether the walk is in the bush or around the suburbs where I live. The reason that it works in both places is relatively simple - lifting any object takes an effort to overcome gravity, and lowering it takes effort to slow it down. There might be other issues associated with the track surface, but as a rule of thumb, Naismith or the several other variants it spawned, can be used anywhere.

I felt this comment by @tjz deserved a comment.

For planning I use the "Brierley formula" of add 1km for every 200m of elevation gain.

What Brierley does is to calculate an equivalent distance for stages based on Naismith's Rule. In making this calculation, he has had to translate from extra time - the Naismith Rule, to extra distance, which is sometimes referred to as Scarf's Equivalence. My issue with Brierley's approach is that he has used almost the slowest walking speed imaginable. This has the effect of reducing the magnitude of the adjustment, and at the 3 km/hr that he uses, we get much smaller increases in equivalent distance than if a higher walking speed was used in the calculation.

How much difference does this make.

Walking Speed	Equivalent distance of 100 m of ascent
3 km/hr	500 m
4 km/hr	667 m
5 km/hr	833 m
6 km/hr	1000 m

I tend to simplify any calculation as much as possible - it is, after all, a rule of thumb - and use a 'Naismith number' of 8, ie each unit of climb is equivalent to eight units of horizontal distance. @tjz is using a Naismith number of 5 for his calculations, and anyone wanting to use this approach needs to decide on a number they want to use that reflects, amongst other things, their own walking speed. For example, at 4 mph, @trecile would have a Naismith number of over 11. We are all going to be different. Choosing to use a number that makes the arithmetic easy is probably more important here than being absolutely precise.