Walking Forum
Main Boards => General Walking Discussion => Topic started by: ken1921 on 15:16:55, 13/01/20
-
Hi all
I am in my fifties and whilst not totally unfit I want to seriously boost my fitness this year via walking. I would like to do much walking during the coming months building up to one big long walk later in the year and would be interested to hear what experienced walkers feel would be a realistic goal.
What I would like to aim for is to walk from Braunton to Ilfracombe on the South West Coastal Path, a distance of 23.5 miles. The website describes that section as easy to moderate with a more strenuous section near Ilfracombe.
I would plan to do this in September so I have 8-9 months to prepare.
So, thoughts?
Many thanks
-
Welcome to the forum from a windswept Devon.
The walk you propose would be a good day out. Although I have never done it in a single walk, my wife and I caught the bus from Mortehoe to Ilfracombe and walked back on the SWCP as far as Mortehoe in a shade under 4hrs. We were both late 60s at the time. A circular from Croyde to Woolacombe and back takes around 3 hours so the whole walk should be doable.
The going is not too bad but as you say there are some steep sections between Morte Point and Lee, especially after Bull Point - steep enough for steps anyway. The views make it worthwhile though. I have seen seals along that section too.
-
I've walked the whole of the SWCP in weekend stints. I was also in my early/mid fifties at the time. The distances I covered daily ranged from 10 to 15 miles in general, although I did do a couple of 20 milers, one of which was around the Taw and Torridge estuaries (very flat), and I regretted it afterwards. I could barely walk the following day.
I personally wouldn't want to attempt walking 23 miles in a day, it wouldn't be enjoyable for me. Of course it's doable so long as you have some similar distances under your belt before then.
Good luck, and welcome to the forum.
-
That sounds like at least a 10-hour walk. Is this feasible?
1. The best any fit, regular hiker can do with modest kit and easy trails is 3mph, so to do it in less than 8hrs you're as good as the best in the world.
2. I always reckon the way to train for a 4-hour hike is to do 5-hour hikes.
-
...1. The best any fit, regular hiker can do with modest kit and easy trails is 3mph,...
I'm sorry; I really don't like to contradict, but I strongly disagree with that statement.
I'm 67 years old, I've only considered myself a walker for just over 3 years (having started when I stopped smoking after 45 years) and I'm of fairly average build. My normal and average walking speed for anything up to 32 miles in one go is about 4.1mph.
I looked back to find a comparable walk to that discussed here and found one I did last year. It was 23 miles from Ashford (in Kent) to Whitstable. I crossed fields of beans (tough!) and a large field of fully-grown maize to get to the North Downs Way which I followed to Canterbury. Then I followed a track through woods to Whitstable. There were several short, steep hills (some with steps!) and the total ascent was 1253ft. I took lots of photos along the way but I didn't stop to eat. The walk took me less than 6hrs at an average speed of 3.9mph.
My point is... there's little point in speculating about what walkers can or can't do. Some walk at a snail's pace (and are happy to do so) and some walk briskly, while going at their natural pace. The only way to find out what your natural speed is, is to measure it. In my case, I became accustomed to walking fair distances by going out several times a week and trying to go ever further. I'll never forget the elation I felt the first time I did 20 miles!
-
The first part of the walk could be binned without great loss. Saunton to Ilfracombe would be 15 miles and would cover the "wilder" parts and cliff tops.
If you do want to start from Braunton, the section from Velator Quay to Saunton is flat and easy going but go behind the dunes rather than along the beach which can be soft and strength sapping. The SWCP no longer runs round the seaward side of Horsey Island so that cuts a corner off too.
-
Whitstable Dave would have been shoved into the DLI during the period of conscription. ;D
The Infantry tend to train at around 3 mph. The DLI were always the exception. My brother reckons that even in the cavalry they had to march at just over 3mph., that is when they didn't have their horses.
When walking for fun, targets are not important at all, smelling the flowers and viewing the landscape is much more important.
-
The first part of the walk could be binned without great loss. Saunton to Ilfracombe would be 15 miles and would cover the "wilder" parts and cliff tops.
Bang on the money!
-
Whitstable Dave would have been shoved into the DLI during the period of conscription. ;D
The Infantry tend to train at around 3 mph. The DLI were always the exception. My brother reckons that even in the cavalry they had to march at just over 3mph., that is when they didn't have their horses.
When walking for fun, targets are not important at all, smelling the flowers and viewing the landscape is much more important.
Oh dear, I'll have to disagree twice in one topic! :)
I like to smell the flowers and view the landscape too, but I also love targets. For me, targets are very important - but I do enough walks to focus on targets one day and the flowers the next. Targets provide me with additional motivation and help improve my stamina and fitness, and I find meeting them very satisfying.
So again, we're all different and it's likely that we share an enjoyment of many of the huge number of benefits and pleasures of walking, while not sharing certain others!
-
I seriously boosted my fitness with walking. I run now, this boosted it further and faster than walking did but I did the walking first.
People can develop at different rates so there's no guarantees but I think you could do that. I walked around 20 miles in a day before I started running, 12 along the Pennine way followed by 8 urban miles.
I'd prescribe running but if you'd rather walk it...
I recommend you start doing at least 15,000 steps a day around town including going up hills as fast as you can if you have time - took me about 2 and a half hours a day when I used to do this. Get an activity tracker to count them (recommended) or use your phone.
Also go out walking in the country on difficult walks (hills preferably) at least once a week preferably more often, the more often the better really to get your fitness up faster so long as your body doesn't protest - if it does have rest days where you just do the steps. Increase the mileage going by how you feel. Make it comfortably hard so it's challenging but not so hard you end up hating it and quit.
You should smash it. Good luck!
-
Welcome to the forum, Ken.
As long as you have no underlying health issues, there is no reason why you could not achieve your 23.5 mile walk.
I don't have any specific advice other than to get out and walk! Gradually build up your distances as you get fitter.
Good luck :)
-
I'm sorry; I really don't like to contradict, but I strongly disagree with that statement.
I'm 67 years old, I've only considered myself a walker for just over 3 years (having started when I stopped smoking after 45 years) and I'm of fairly average build. My normal and average walking speed for anything up to 32 miles in one go is about 4.1mph.
I looked back to find a comparable walk to that discussed here and found one I did last year. It was 23 miles from Ashford (in Kent) to Whitstable. I crossed fields of beans (tough!) and a large field of fully-grown maize to get to the North Downs Way which I followed to Canterbury. Then I followed a track through woods to Whitstable. There were several short, steep hills (some with steps!) and the total ascent was 1253ft. I took lots of photos along the way but I didn't stop to eat. The walk took me less than 6hrs at an average speed of 3.9mph.
My point is... there's little point in speculating about what walkers can or can't do. Some walk at a snail's pace (and are happy to do so) and some walk briskly, while going at their natural pace. The only way to find out what your natural speed is, is to measure it. In my case, I became accustomed to walking fair distances by going out several times a week and trying to go ever further. I'll never forget the elation I felt the first time I did 20 miles!
I should perhaps have said -
"The best any fit, regular hiker can do with modest kit and easy trails is 3mph.......... excluding WhitstableDave........"
Dave - were you a chartered surveyor by any chance in a previous existence?
-
I think walking solo allows for faster walking. On my own I can consistently average well over 3mph. With a group it depends on who is there.
Walking speed depends on many factors on any particular walk, ascent both the amount and the gradient, the weather... head winds, walking in waterproofs, underfoot conditions.. sticky or slippery mud.
So it always just depends, rarely do we get absolutely ideal conditions so just do the best you can on the day.
-
For my part, if the terrain is undulating, flat, in green footpath areas, like Kent and Sussex, for example, I can still easily hike between 10 15 miles a day, if I push it I have been known to even get up to 20 miles in a day. It all depends I suppose as to what I'm motivated to do and why (e.g. is there a pub waiting for me to visit, etc?) what the weather is like at the time and so on. In the Lakes or similar, I would walk less distance per day unless I desperately wanted to end up in a pub at a reasonable hour. I find pubs very motivational!
-
What I would like to aim for is to walk from Braunton to Ilfracombe on the South West Coastal Path, a distance of 23.5 miles. The website describes that section as easy to moderate with a more strenuous section near Ilfracombe.
I would plan to do this in September so I have 8-9 months to prepare.
So you have your goal - a distance of 23.5 miles on the "undulating" SWCP, and you want to be able to do this in 8 or 9 months time.
If it was me training for this I'd start off with daily short walks (less than 5 miles each day) until this felt comfortable then gradually up the distance over time and include more challenging terrain.
Factor in the odd rest day or day where you only do a short couple of miles without a pack.
I'd also keep a note of my speed over the course of time so as to calculate how long it "could" take to do the intended distance without any rest stops (which you would need to factor in at some point).
I'd also wear my filled backpack on every walk - even if it's just weighted with bottles of water.
I don't think age is relevant. Listening to your body, whatever age you are is more important. If it hurts, aches, pulls or rubs, find out why and either rest or make adjustments.
-
Hi Ken, feel free to join in your thread. I can hopefully relate well to your situation and target. Having surfed for 30 years I returned to walking at 54. I thought I was reasonable fit. I wasn't, now I look back and have shed 3 stone without even trying, just enjoying walking again.
You have your goal, that is important. I started out power walking in my lunch hours to build up my speed over flat ground. I also had 3 or 4 hilly local loops of 3 or 4 miles and alternated those on a weekly basis through the spring and summer. The best thing I did though, was join the local waking group. They were all fitter and mostly older than me at the time. During that first year back walking we completed many walks in the 12-15 mile range plus one of just on 22 miles, all on Dartmoor. The long a short, put your mind to it. Get your body fit and enjoy every minute. There will be moment s when you lay on your back exhausted at the top of a climb. But it is all so worth it for the health and happiness that walking can bring to your life. Enjoy!
-
Welcome to the forum, Ken.
As long as you have no underlying health issues, there is no reason why you could not achieve your 23.5 mile walk.
I don't have any specific advice other than to get out and walk! Gradually build up your distances as you get fitter.
Good luck :)
Hi Ken welcome to the forum from Shetland.
I agree with Richards post, quoted above.
You have given yourself a great target and a sensible timeline.
The key is to enjoy it at your own pace.
Where to start depends very much on where you are at the moment in terms of "walking Fitness"
I have been involved in coaching athletics since the seventies, and an active walker/hiker since 2015. If you want to contact me personally regarding your current level of fitness I would be happy to advise a training guide/program for you. In many ways it is like any training program, in that we would look at what you want to achieve and when you want to achieve it by. Then work out a training program/guide backwards from there, to wherever your start point in fitness is at currently.
It wouldn't need to be anywhere as heavy as a marathon runners programme, but the journey would be similar. First few months achieving a base fitness and just getting in the habit. last month or two keeping up a good mileage @90 mile a month, slowly extending your longest weekly walk.
Great to have you on board.
PS don't be concerned about speed people walk at. they all measure it differently. but that is another discussion.
-
...
PS don't be concerned about speed people walk at. they all measure it differently. but that is another discussion.
"They all measure it differently"..? That's a rather sweeping generalisation. I'd argue (and here will do nicely!) that speed is definitely something to be concerned about when planning this 23.5 mile walk. Some people might take 6 hours to do it and others might take 12 hours - knowing how fast you walk allows you to have a fair idea of how long the walk will take, which might well matter very much.
I'm not sure what are the many different ways walkers measure speed, but I know how I do it. I use a gps watch that measures the distance covered and then uses the time taken to calculate the average speed. Simple.
The question might then be... how do I know my watch measures the distance accurately? The answer is that I don't know for certain, but my watch is in agreement with several other things. For example, I plot a walk on OS Maps Online and the predicted distance is 20 miles. I do the walk and my watch gives the distance as 20 miles. My Satmap hand-held gps agrees that the walk is 20 miles and Google Earth agrees too. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that my watch is recording distance accurately enough for me to believe the average speed it gives me - especially since this whole procedure has been repeated hundreds of times.
So, I use the average speed given by my watch and I believe it to be accurate enough to state the speed to within 0.1mph.
Does anyone else who's stated their average walking speed use an alternative means of measuring it?
-
I know my average speed for a walk retrospectively. Distance divided by time - simple. I know my average speed up to any point on a walk from my gps.
This information is only of limited value for planning a walk though as that is a future event. To do that, I look at the terrain, the weather, fitness, any companion and my motive for the walk. I then use my experience of similar walks to work out how long my walk is likely to take taking account all of these factors.
-
I use VR which I never pause when I stop for a breather/cup of tea so my mph is actually not that accurate at all, even though the distance is. Since I also know the amount of time it took me to be out that day, I can easily compute future walks and know I will be able to have a sarnie or a cuppa en route within that planned time.
My calculated mph is therefore not as fast as someone who takes into account the time they are not walking during rest breaks.
-
Yes - mph is not the issue in planning. The only bit that really matters is h.
-
Just to confuse the issue further, I think mph might matter. If you leave at the crack of dawn in September you should be OK provided you're not a slower than average walker but if you don't think about it and leave later in the day you might need a (head) torch and know your average mph to try to plan your time of departure to keep your walking within the sunlit hours.
-
Yes - mph is not the issue in planning. The only bit that really matters is h.
O0 O0
-
What I would like to aim for is to walk from Braunton to Ilfracombe on the South West Coastal Path, a distance of 23.5 miles. The website describes that section as easy to moderate with a more strenuous section near Ilfracombe.
I would plan to do this in September so I have 8-9 months to prepare.
So, thoughts?
Many thanks
Just walk every other day,say 3-5 miles,and then at the weekend do a longer walk starting at 7 miles and building up to 18-25 miles.Speed isn't really important unless you are training to race.The most important thing is time spent on your feet rather than getting from A to B in the possible fastest time.Its the reason a lot of walkers do better than runners in ultramarathons as the walkers are used to being on their feet for 8-10 hours whereas the most the runners do is 2-3 hours on their weekly long run.
-
"They all measure it differently"..? That's a rather sweeping generalisation. I'd argue (and here will do nicely!) that speed is definitely something to be concerned about when planning this 23.5 mile walk. Some people might take 6 hours to do it and others might take 12 hours - knowing how fast you walk allows you to have a fair idea of how long the walk will take, which might well matter very much.
I'm not sure what are the many different ways walkers measure speed, but I know how I do it. I use a gps watch that measures the distance covered and then uses the time taken to calculate the average speed. Simple.
The question might then be... how do I know my watch measures the distance accurately? The answer is that I don't know for certain, but my watch is in agreement with several other things. For example, I plot a walk on OS Maps Online and the predicted distance is 20 miles. I do the walk and my watch gives the distance as 20 miles. My Satmap hand-held gps agrees that the walk is 20 miles and Google Earth agrees too. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that my watch is recording distance accurately enough for me to believe the average speed it gives me - especially since this whole procedure has been repeated hundreds of times.
So, I use the average speed given by my watch and I believe it to be accurate enough to state the speed to within 0.1mph.
Does anyone else who's stated their average walking speed use an alternative means of measuring it?
Dave
You really should start a new thread if you wish to pursue this discussion. I would love to join in with it.
-
The most important thing is time spent on your feet rather than getting from A to B in the possible fastest time.Its the reason a lot of walkers do better than runners in ultramarathons as the walkers are used to being on their feet for 8-10 hours whereas the most the runners do is 2-3 hours on their weekly long run.
Interesting. I assumed the endurance benefits of long running would translate into long(er) walking. You're not comparing like for like, the runners are trying to run the ultra with the resulting increased fatigue while the walkers are trying to walk it. I know personally a 9 mile run with 250 metres of ascent at 7 mph knackers my legs more than an 8 mile walk with 800 metres of ascent at under 3 mph.
Doesn't make you wrong though.
-
I have been doing more walking on pavement during this winter.
Yesterday after reading this thread, I took my e trex gps to check my average speed. My gps gives an average moving speed which omits the time actually not walking. It came up at 3.7 mph. This being with a couple of steep ascents.
I have always looked upon my self as a fast walker on pavement, but I could never keep this average up over ploughed fields or open countryside with stiles etc. I`m impressed with some of the figures quoted here.
I always reckon between 2.5 & 3 mph is my average across open countryside. This being a speed where I can enjoy views, look out for wildlife and listen to birdsong.
And for sure, its everyone to their own of course.
To the OP, to find out what you are fit for, you just have to start walking anywhere. Close to home or drive out into the countryside. Maybe start with a few mile, see how you feel next day. If all good then crank it up some on the next walk. If you ache and feel drained then just keep to a few mile at least two three times a week for a few weeks. If walks are local it doesn`t mean it has to eat into any busy life style and if committed, then time can usually be found to do it.
-
That sort of distance is certainly achievable in a day, depending on your fitness. When younger I have managed more than that with a 20+kg pack and lots of ascent / descent over rough terrain. It takes a while to build up the required fitness level and it can’t be rushed. Pay attention to aches and pains (other than post exercise muscle ache). These may be signs that you are overdoing the training and need to rest joints and ligaments / tendons. I have learnt this the hard way and been out of action for months at a time. Also take note of any discomfort caused by your gear that could become much worse on a longer, more strenuous walk.
-
That sort of distance is certainly achievable in a day, depending on your fitness. When younger I have managed more than that with a 20+kg pack and lots of ascent / descent over rough terrain. It takes a while to build up the required fitness level and it can’t be rushed.
You're a turbo monster though BFM :)
Pay attention to aches and pains (other than post exercise muscle ache). These may be signs that you are overdoing the training and need to rest joints and ligaments / tendons. I have learnt this the hard way and been out of action for months at a time. Also take note of any discomfort caused by your gear that could become much worse on a longer, more strenuous walk.
Maybe you could benefit from resistance training for the core, hip flexors and such? I recall you had achilles issues. I've just started looking after mine as don't want injuries!
Measured my walking speed around town out of curiosity today after this thread at what I'd call "easy quick" pace. It was faster than my standard amble but an easy pace to maintain. Any faster would have required a bit of effort. That was 3.9 mph. Dave must be pretty speedy :)
-
Interesting. I assumed the endurance benefits of long running would translate into long(er) walking.
Not really.Running and walking use different muscle groups.See:Ultramarathoning:Osler and Dodds,1978.How many runners do you know who run non-stop for 8 hours in training? Walkers do it every week.Where running fitness will give you an advantage over walkers is on steep climbs.
You're not comparing like for like, the runners are trying to run the ultra with the resulting increased fatigue while the walkers are trying to walk it. I know personally a 9 mile run with 250 metres of ascent at 7 mph knackers my legs more than an 8 mile walk with 800 metres of ascent at under 3 mph.
Hence the reason why an average runner would have difficult completing a 100 mile ultramarathon if they tried to run all the way.By mixing running with walking its not that difficult provided you train enough and have a solid baseline.
-
Not really.Running and walking use different muscle groups.See:Ultramarathoning:Osler and Dodds,1978.How many runners do you know who run non-stop for 8 hours in training? Walkers do it every week.Where running fitness will give you an advantage over walkers is on steep climbs.
Running has helped increase my town (fastest comfortable) walking speed to 3.9 mph too. I started off pretty damn slow. Now 3.9 mph is a doddle. I could go (quite a bit) quicker but reckon I'd feel it - must be those different muscle groups you mentioned.
Hence the reason why an average runner would have difficult completing a 100 mile ultramarathon if they tried to run all the way.By mixing running with walking its not that difficult provided you train enough and have a solid baseline.
I never even thought about mixing the two up. Maybe an ultra is in my future after all. I can't imagine running the whole 100 miles my legs would scream way before that.
-
Well the op has not come back so I guess this is now the how far how fast thread.
On flattish payment I can walk pretty fast. My lunch break is 45 mins and I often walk over 3 miles. On a few occasions 3.5 miles. 4.7 mph. I have not tried walking any long distances at that speed.
Moorland is another matter all together. One training route I jog regularly is exactly 4 miles with 850ft of climbs. My fastest time for that route is 54mins. That is running all the down hill sections. Ave speed. 4.4 mph
As for longer distances I did several 20 mile plus routes last year preparing for the Dartmoor Highground Marathon. Then on the day I was delighted to complete the 26.5 miles and 1 mile of climbing in 7 hours and 37 mins. Again I ran most of the downhill sections. Ave speed. just under 3.5 mph
On a typical solo walk on the moors my ave speed is typically around 2.7 mph. That includes all stops. No idea what my walking time vs stopped time is. That has always seemed a little irrelevant.
So for sure walking on a pavement at 4mph is very doable. But there is no way personally that I could do that across moorland. I have to push really hard to average that sort of speed jogging. O0
-
Running has helped increase my town (fastest comfortable) walking speed to 3.9 mph too. I started off pretty damn slow. Now 3.9 mph is a doddle. I could go (quite a bit) quicker but reckon I'd feel it - must be those different muscle groups you mentioned.
My pace around town is near to 4.5mph,anything faster and the body wants to jog.I tried racewalking for a couple of years,did a few races and got up to 7mph but the first six months of training were very painful with shin splints and a stress fracture.Not something I would recommend unless you have a natural talent for racewalking.
I never even thought about mixing the two up. Maybe an ultra is in my future after all. I can't imagine running the whole 100 miles my legs would scream way before that.
Anybody can complete an ultra provided they are in good health and don't go into it with injuries.Ultra running is 20% physical and 80% mind.The body will most certainly hurt after covering a long distance but you go through periods of pain and come out the other side stronger.
Its best to start with challenge walks organised by the LDWA as the entry fees are very reasonable and they have been around for decades.
-
My pace around town is near to 4.5mph,anything faster and the body wants to jog.I tried racewalking for a couple of years,did a few races and got up to 7mph but the first six months of training were very painful with shin splints and a stress fracture.Not something I would recommend unless you have a natural talent for racewalking.
That's about my long run with some hills (15 K so far, building up to a half marathon) pace. Can't imagine walking that speed being pleasant, I'll give power walking a miss!
Anybody can complete an ultra provided they are in good health and don't go into it with injuries.Ultra running is 20% physical and 80% mind.The body will most certainly hurt after covering a long distance but you go through periods of pain and come out the other side stronger.
Don't reckon anyone can do it personally. Most people aren't all that active and lack the physical stamina as well as the mental component.
Pain as in "you're doing yourself damage" here pain or "this hurts but you will recover" pain? Some of the latter kind is acceptable but I'm not a fan of the former.
Its best to start with challenge walks organised by the LDWA as the entry fees are very reasonable and they have been around for decades.
The shin splints and stress fractures you experienced power walking soured me on the idea a bit that would interfere with my running. I know people get them running too but that's unavoidable for me.
Walking above a certain speed doesn't appeal either as it seems to induce unnecessary muscle fatigue and makes me want to jog instead.
-
That's about my long run with some hills (15 K so far, building up to a half marathon) pace. Can't imagine walking that speed being pleasant, I'll give power walking a miss!
Power walking is okay as you don't have to conform to a set of rules,ie,the lead leg as it lands has to remain straight until it goes back through the vertical.This is the reason race walking is so painful.
Don't reckon anyone can do it personally. Most people aren't all that active and lack the physical stamina as well as the mental component.
I am no athlete and neither are the majority of runners.Its just a matter of gradually building up and taking things a bit further a step at a time.
Pain as in "you're doing yourself damage" here pain or "this hurts but you will recover" pain? Some of the latter kind is acceptable but I'm not a fan of the former.
The shin splints and stress fractures you experienced power walking soured me on the idea a bit that would interfere with my running. I know people get them running too but that's unavoidable for me.
Walking above a certain speed doesn't appeal either as it seems to induce unnecessary muscle fatigue and makes me want to jog instead.
Just pain during a race,not the type that lingers on for weeks afterwards and is obviously damage.
-
Power walking is okay as you don't have to conform to a set of rules,ie,the lead leg as it lands has to remain straight until it goes back through the vertical.This is the reason race walking is so painful.
Ahh I didn't even know there was a difference.
I am no athlete and neither are the majority of runners.Its just a matter of gradually building up and taking things a bit further a step at a time.
Another way to look at it is I finished in the top 18% of 304 park runners last Saturday. Does that make me an athlete? Of course not! Am I trying harder than 82% of the runners? Of course not! Some of them don't work as hard as me, some of them are just not capable of my pace just as I'll never see the top 10. I suspect the same is true of distance endurance. 100 miles in one go without rest is a big ask. Not sure everyone could build up to it. You might have more insight having done it yourself or you might be over-generalising by thinking "if I can do it so can Joe Blogs" and underestimating the scale of your achievement.
Just pain during a race,not the type that lingers on for weeks afterwards and is obviously damage.
The acceptable kind then. Hmm. Let me get the half marathon out the way first before I start thinking about bigger distances. I'm capable of running further than my current distance but I've been advised to build up to it slowly as while the muscles adapt pretty quickly to increased distances the tendons and ligaments take longer.
-
Rob, I think you are right to build up slowly. If you overexercise you can do damage that could affect you n some capacity for the rest of your life - particularly if you damage joints and /or ligaments or tendons.
It was when I started running again in my 40s that I first had trouble with my Achilles Tendon. I was running for an hour 4 - 5 times a week and overdid it. It is not necessarily easy to distinguish between the pain you just get while running and that which indicates real damage. I had never had this problem before running or walking. Ten years later my Tendon started getting painful again as I started walking further, more frequently and more uphill. When I first injured my back in 1992, I felt a dull ache in my back about 15 minutes before the end of a volleyball match. I continued to the end, as the pain wasn’t too bad. Within an hour I could hardly move and nearly 30 years later my damaged discs continue to give me varying degrees of pain - from mild discomfort to the worst pain I have ever experienced
-
Wow! Firstly thank you to everyone who has contributed. I never imagined my post would start such a lively and interesting debate!
I have found all of the contributions really useful and positive even when you have disagreed - which is a lot more than can be said about forums on other topics that I have been on!
I have learnt much from it. I grew up in North Devon so I have deliberately chosen this section. I was born in Ilfracombe and spent my early years living in Braunton so it is a sort of homecoming pilgrimage.
I take the point that was made that the distance can be reduced if I leave Braunton and head straight to Saunton rather than go on the SWCP over Braunton Borrows. Also I am can be fairly flexible if I find that after training over spring and summer that I think it is too far - although hopefully not. And of course even if the 23 miles is very challenging it is only one day - I don't have to get up the next morning and do it again.
However I do always work better if I am heading towards a goal so I think this is the best way forward. And also if successful I plan to make this an ongoing 'hobby' with possibly bigger goals for the future.
But many thanks again and I will definitely contribute to the forum. Also I will be in touch with individual contributors here they have raised specific points.
-
It “sounds” like this is an area you know well, so what I’m about to comment on may well be redundant.
Large majority of comments have been about getting in physical shape for walk.
But 23 miles also gives plenty of opportunity for getting lost for a mile or three...at least it would for me unless it was an area I knew really well.
Not something you “want”...you’ll be out for a long time anyway without adding distance and/ or time as you work out navigational problems. Certainly if it was an area new to me, I would walk all the route in sections before the big day...so route finding is easy when it counts.
-
Actually the route is both well marked and well walked so provided you keep the sea on the same side you will be fine.