Judging Distances U can travel

Dear All,
This is a large and vague question with lots of variables. Can you travel
further on skis than on foot. If you can comfortable walk or Jog 10 miles
how far could you travel on skis for the same effort. Assume the terrain is
flat and you are using track skis.
Thanks
Neil

An exercise calorie chart should give an approximate way to calculate
it: http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

Comfortable walking and jogging are very different, 1 : 1.5-2.0.
Extrapolating from the 5.2 and 5.0 mph running to about 4-4.5 mph, x-c
ski would burn many more calories, plus having the added benefit of
glide.

rm

"Neil Smith" wrote:

Dear All,
This is a large and vague question with lots of variables. Can you travel
further on skis than on foot. If you can comfortable walk or Jog 10 miles
how far could you travel on skis for the same effort. Assume the terrain is
flat and you are using track skis.
Thanks
Neil

Not clear about what you are saying although looking at calories might be a
start. What I am looking for is an idea of what sort of distance I could
cove on X-C skis in comparison to what I might expect to cover if I was
walking or jogging,
wrote in message
...
An exercise calorie chart should give an approximate way to calculate
it: http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

Comfortable walking and jogging are very different, 1 : 1.5-2.0.
Extrapolating from the 5.2 and 5.0 mph running to about 4-4.5 mph, x-c
ski would burn many more calories, plus having the added benefit of
glide.

rm

"Neil Smith" wrote:

Dear All,
This is a large and vague question with lots of variables. Can you travel
further on skis than on foot. If you can comfortable walk or Jog 10 miles
how far could you travel on skis for the same effort. Assume the terrain
is
flat and you are using track skis.
Thanks
Neil

What don't you understand? What I am saying is that to make a
comparison you need to have at least two points to compare. The
calorie chart provides that approximation in terms of energy
expenditure, presumably based on testing of average or normal
populations. I'm not sure what else anyone could provide you, since
even if someone has a comparison from their own experiences, it's based
on their own level of training and skill.

rm

"Neil Smith" wrote:

Not clear about what you are saying although looking at calories might be a
start. What I am looking for is an idea of what sort of distance I could
cove on X-C skis in comparison to what I might expect to cover if I was
walking or jogging,
wrote in message
...
An exercise calorie chart should give an approximate way to calculate
it: http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

Comfortable walking and jogging are very different, 1 : 1.5-2.0.
Extrapolating from the 5.2 and 5.0 mph running to about 4-4.5 mph, x-c
ski would burn many more calories, plus having the added benefit of
glide.

rm

"Neil Smith" wrote:

Dear All,
This is a large and vague question with lots of variables. Can you travel
further on skis than on foot. If you can comfortable walk or Jog 10 miles
how far could you travel on skis for the same effort. Assume the terrain
is
flat and you are using track skis.
Thanks
Neil

since one takes advantage of glide with skis, the distance per calorie
should be longer for skis.

Taking the skiing model to the extreme, let's replace skis with skates
with roller-skates versus walking on a flat ground. With roller-skates
it seems pretty obvious that one can leisurely cover more miles than
leisurely running/walking.

Would any body like to try a guestimate, say 1.5 k X-C to 1K foot!
wrote in message
...
since one takes advantage of glide with skis, the distance per calorie
should be longer for skis.

Taking the skiing model to the extreme, let's replace skis with skates
with roller-skates versus walking on a flat ground. With roller-skates
it seems pretty obvious that one can leisurely cover more miles than
leisurely running/walking.

I've wondered about various comparisons before.

Like, compare the Birkie ski to the Chequemegon bike race. A skating
race might run at close to bike speeds.

Or the Iditaski---when there's a crust and you can actually ride,
what's that speed like compard to skate-skiing it (good crust)

Locally here our famous twisty/hilly Poto (Potawatomi) trail takes 3
hrs to run and skiing is a very hard 3 hrs (up to 4hrs)----but skating
not really possible. Biking it is average 2.5 hrs. Still, I don't know
what a fast runner takes---I've seen one runner report---it seemed
fast.

Conditions, duration, type of skiing would all matter in these
comparisons, I'd think.

Heck, in some conditions skate skiing and classic are more similarly
paced than in other conditions. (My hunch is that at a certain
steepness of grade that skate and classic are about equally fast---go
steeper and you have to h-bone and then V1 wins.)

---JP

Visit a touring center and you'll see the opposite as well. Is there
something specific you are trying to estimate, such as how far or fast
Neil Smith, who can walk or jog comfortably for 10k, would be able to
go with the same effort on cross-country skis? Help us out here.

rm

"Neil Smith" wrote:

Would any body like to try a guestimate, say 1.5 k X-C to 1K foot!
wrote in message
...
since one takes advantage of glide with skis, the distance per calorie
should be longer for skis.

Taking the skiing model to the extreme, let's replace skis with skates
with roller-skates versus walking on a flat ground. With roller-skates
it seems pretty obvious that one can leisurely cover more miles than
leisurely running/walking.

If it takes me an hour to jog 10K (I wish) how far would I go in an hour on
X-C ( I know, infinite number of variables)
wrote in message
...
Visit a touring center and you'll see the opposite as well. Is there
something specific you are trying to estimate, such as how far or fast
Neil Smith, who can walk or jog comfortably for 10k, would be able to
go with the same effort on cross-country skis? Help us out here.

rm

"Neil Smith" wrote:

Would any body like to try a guestimate, say 1.5 k X-C to 1K foot!
wrote in message
...
since one takes advantage of glide with skis, the distance per calorie
should be longer for skis.

Taking the skiing model to the extreme, let's replace skis with skates
with roller-skates versus walking on a flat ground. With roller-skates
it seems pretty obvious that one can leisurely cover more miles than
leisurely running/walking.

In article ,
Neil Smith wrote:
If it takes me an hour to jog 10K (I wish) how far would I go in an hour on
X-C ( I know, infinite number of variables)

Since XC is a skill sport as well as an aerobic one, there is no
standard answer. Since you don't know the answer to this already,
I'm guessing you're an inexperienced skier. For that person, I'd
guess they'd be lucky to do 1/2 to 2/3 the skiing distance in the
same time jogging.

Any answer you get would be so vague as to be meaningless. You
can compare times of elite atheletes over standard distances, but
in general XC race course have far more vertical than even a
hilly road race.

I know when I was XC racing ( classic ) and running, I would have
been very happy to run 10K in the time I could ski 10K course.

_ Booker C. Bense