Another why doesn't Hiking count as Walking thread but with new developments

bluefish said:

You can also understand it by looking at the preferences for speed in the settings. The default setting there is “PACE” for walking, and SPEED for hiking. PACE is used for faster sports.

This is a bad argument as the Garmin preference for cycling defaults to speed while the preference for running defaults to pace, to match the usual conventions of the respective sports, and last time I checked, cycling is much faster than running. Alpine skiing also defaults to speed, btw. I think alpine/downhill skiing is a lot faster than running, too.

In fact, most normal people irl don't refer to pace ever [i.e. as in time per unit distance -- e.g. min/km or min/mile] -- unless they are runners or swimmers -- and some new runners have questioned why runners even use it. To be clear I am not arguing that pace isn't useful for runners (I think it's very useful, as it seems more intuitive for slower speeds and makes it easy to do certain calculations in your head), but I also think it's incorrect to claim that pace is used for faster sports.

It's more that most people think in terms of speed [distance per unit time], and certain sports like running and swimming are exceptions.

For example, if a runner tells a non-runner they finished their first marathon in 3:50, what do you think the non-runner is more likely to (politely) say:

- "hmm that's like 10k per hour" [distance per time, aka speed]

or

- "hmm that's like 5:30 per km" [time per distance, aka pace]

Clearly the first statement is what an ordinary, non-running person would say, while the second statement could only be uttered by a runner. (Also, for normal ppl, the words "pace" and "speed" are pretty much synonymous -- again "pace" as in time per distance is a really niche concept for a handful of endurance sports.)

I could even make the argument that, if anything, pace is more appropriate for slower sports [nobody measures the speed of a race car in seconds per km], but whatever.

To be clear I'm not taking a stance on the topic of this thread, just deconstructing this argument.

bluefish said:

That's exactly it. Your definition is obviously wrong. Garmin builds sports watches with sports profiles. If you are comparing walking activity with going for a walk, that is wrong. Garmin's “walking” profile is fast walking. It's like the precursor to running. So it's the same as “Nordic walking”, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Except that it is done without poles.

It is faster than hiking and you pay attention to a certain technique of execution. The arms are swung like when running and the body is tilted slightly forward to maintain momentum.

This is what the Garmin “walking” activity profile means. Not a slow stroll. But fast, sporty movement.

Citation needed. Regardless of what you think, I know several people who use the Garmin Walk profile (which translates to a Walk activity on Strava) for a casual stroll (e.g. solo walk, walk with family and friends, etc.), not some kind of intense nordic walking with "fast, sporty movement". This includes people who can run a 2:30 to 3:00 marathon, just to preempt any possible arguments about their level of fitness or dedication to intense workouts in other contexts. They just don't think that they're doing some kind of intense workout when they use the Walk feature on their Garmin. A lot of times they just want to share with the world that they walked (for whatever reason - e.g. maybe they want to post the activity on strava and add some pics of their vacation or their kids.)

So even if you are right, I doubt most users would agree with you or even be aware that such an argument exists.

It doesn't matter because I think the premise that pace is for faster activities is invalid anyway.

Btw, I could apply the same argument that you just made for the Walk profile to the Hike profile: if the Walk profile is meant for fast walking (because it's a "sports profile"), then the Hike sports profile must be meant for fast/intense hiking.

But ofc many people hike for fun (at less than max intensity), just as many people walk for fun (e.g. as in casual strolls), and yet nothing prevents either of those groups of people from using the Hike and Walk profiles on their Garmin watch.

FlowState said:

Btw, I could apply the same argument that you just made for the Walk profile to the Hike profile: if the Walk profile is meant for fast walking (because it's a "sports profile"), then the Hike sports profile must be meant for fast/intense hiking.

I share part of your detailed post. But it doesn't give any more clarity as to what purpose Garmin itself is pursuing with the “walking” profile. I suggested asking Garmin themselves what this profile is primarily intended for.

After all, another difference between hiking and walking is that hiking does not determine VO2max. Because Garmin assumes that walking is faster than hiking ? 

https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=g9VOolzNBr08b7mfclmxt7 

This support article is not up to date, but obviously shows the logic behind the profiles.

bluefish said:

After all, another difference between hiking and walking is that hiking does not determine VO2max. Because Garmin assumes that walking is faster than hiking ?

My understanding is that hiking doesn't provide VO2max for the same reason VO2max can be turned off in trail running: in both the terrain may be such that the correlation between hr and speed is erratic or at least not predictable. 

But personally I think trying to "define" walking and hiking activities is futile, since people use them for different purposes anyway. Some "hike" in a park, some with a heavy backpack in a forest (at let's not even try to include "rucking" here...). And some use "walking" for going to work, take out the dog, do Nordic walking, speed walking, whatever.

Garmin has decided to categorize walking and hiking in some way, only they know why. And if it was changed, some people would become happy, and sone previously happy people would become angry...

I mostly use the walking profile to keep track of how much I walk since I want it to be more. The badges are a big motivator for me personally because I can be motivated with gamification.
I've been using hiking for some hilly longer walks to track the ascended meters for the badge and to focus on that as well.
It's really frustrating that you don't get any recognition for hiking other than the ascended meters even though it's more work than a leisure stroll along the river.
The "Heart Walks" badge is another badge that should take hiking into account for that reason.

I agree, it would be enough to count hiking activities towards walking challenges.

Also, so far they've introduced only one hiking challenge. I think I wouldn't mind if there were more challenges for hiking similar to those for walking. I actually like the idea of collecting a specific amount of altitude difference but it's the only challenge I can do with the hiking profile.

Something like the different distance challenges that exist for running and walking would also be nice for hiking.
I'm not a runner (partly because I'm still too heavy - working on that though) but I always try to collect the weekend 3mi walking badges. I usually look for a nice route in nature for that. Now, I have to chose between hiking, which would actually be more appropriate for the kind of routes I'm doing on weekends, and walking which awards me my badges.

I don't have much hope for Garmin to allow hiking in walking challenges but I hope they'll at least give us "more to do" for hiking if they're unwilling to change the system.