Page 2 of 2

Re: Why women rock at very-long-distance hiking

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:26 pm
by giantbrookie
AlmostThere wrote:26 hours is not the worst... try three days (not me - someone I know).
Three days for my wife on our first one. For the second child, her labor was not very long, but I was out of town (and out of any assistance range), so she drove herself to the hospital to deliver by doing the driving between contractions, because she didn't want to call and wake up her folks or any available friends in the wee hours of the morning. She is in fact a way stronger than average hiker, too, with a high strength to weight ratio. However, her hiking ability doesn't seem to derive as much from athleticism and strength as it does from her mental toughness.

Re: Why women rock at very-long-distance hiking

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:39 am
by Jimr
dave54 wrote:
Jimr wrote:I think my wife holds the endurance record for longest time spent in labor = 26 hours. It was a difficult thing to watch.
Which is why women have childbirth. Men could not handle it. I say that without any shame or embarassment.

Women consistently have demonstrated greater pain tolerance than men.

Hell, I give up on a poop after 5 minutes.

My wife was in labor for about 3 days. They sent her home the first time. The 26 hours was in the hospital bed having extreme contractions. She wouldn't dilate and was getting the crap kicked out of her. My daughter was also stubborn. Still is. After about 15 hours, they gave her some demoral which helped a bit, but after about 20 hours, I told them to give her an epidural. Doc said she may have made it to delivery but at the rate she was going there would be no energy left to deliver.

In the shape she's in now, I'm sure she could pump out some long distance hikes, she just has no desire. I didn't marry a hiker.

Re: Why women rock at very-long-distance hiking

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:30 pm
by Cross Country
Having read on HST for 6 years I easily concluded the the majority of the hikers who write on HST hike long distance better than I did. I backpacked with Vicki, Janet, Marilyn, Elenor, Wendy and (saint) Diane. None of them could hike long distance equal to me. Perhaps the very best women hikers are almost equal to better than men but to say that women hike better long distance than men flys in the face of my persoal experience with 6 (SIX !!) women. All 6 were in their 20s and wanted to be out there. My experience is that women rock an very-log-distance hiking es pure fantasy and flattery.

Re: Why women rock at very-long-distance hiking

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:40 pm
by Jimr
Cross Country wrote:Having read on HST for 6 years I easily concluded the the majority of the hikers who write on HST hike long distance better than I did.
Perhaps the conclusion is erroneous. Perhaps there were just as many men on HST who couldn't have kept up with you as well. Just sayin'

Re: Why women rock at very-long-distance hiking

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:49 pm
by Cross Country
I admit that's possible. Maybe I just focused on the very best of HST. I was a good long distance hiker and Vicki and Eleanor were close to me.

Re: Why women rock at very-long-distance hiking

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:23 pm
by Wandering Daisy
The "Very" long distances being discussed are on the order of 2000+ miles, day after day, all in a row! Maybe the fact that the women could not keep up with you at moderate long distance is that they paced themselves at a pace that would be more suitable for 1000 miles, not 200 miles. Perhaps men set a too fast pace that in the long run, their bodies cannot keep up with.

Also, we are talking about super athletes, not your every day backpacker. I am not sure if any conclusions can be extrapolated to we average Janes and Joes.

Re: Why women rock at very-long-distance hiking

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:17 pm
by Cross Country
And because of that I retract what I said because this subject obviously has abosultly no connection to backpacking nor to HST.