I watched the long walk and now I’m reading the book. I was wondering, how credible is the distance? It’s 300 to 400 miles. What would happen to your body on the way?

  • solrize@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I watched the long walk and now I’m reading the book. I was wondering, how credible is the distance? It’s 300 to 400 miles. What would happen to your body on the way?

    I don’t know what happens in the long walk, but if you mean nonstop, 300-400 miles isn’t happening unless maybe as a death march. OTOH for someone who is in shape, 300-400 miles with stops for sleep and provisions is certainly doable. The Appalachian Trail is 2200 miles and lots of people through-hike it. It typically takes 5 to 7 months though some do it faster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Trail

    Oh man, the long walk sounds nuts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Walk_(novel)

    Sleep deprivation, no pooping, etc. Yeah, I found Stephen King to be a horrible writer and never understood his appeal.

  • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    There was a pilrimage/challenge a friend of mine went on. It was walking 20 miles each day for 3 days for a total of 60 mi/96.5 km. That was in upstate NY where there are plenty of hills to keep it interesting

    Blisters, chafing and fatigue is common but many people do that every year

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Without rest? I don’t know. I could walk a marathon distance with the right shoes but would need to stop to pee. Two marathons? Probably not without training some months, and where would I find the time? Also, if it was in the day here, risk of heat exhaustion is pretty high at midday & afternoon.

    300 miles? No.

  • Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Ultra-marathon runners will typically run/jog for over 100 miles without stopping (except for a piss), and the hard-core ones will just piss themselves anyway.

    With decent footwear and training the only thing stopping you from walking will be your need for sleep which will come at the 48-36 hour mark. But even then I suppose the desire to not be shot will keep you going further.

    At an average walking pace of 4mph, you can walk 300 miles in just over 3 days without stopping

  • IWW4@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It is unknown what the the max distance is. Terry fox ran a marathon every day over the course of 140+ days and ran around 3500 miles …… and he was missing a leg when he did it.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The Appalachian Trail is about 2000 miles and a lot if people walk that. Worth a Google search. There are documentaries, memoirs, plenty of before/after photos, etc.

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 hours ago

      They mean without stopping.

      If you’re unfamiliar with the Long Walk, it’s a story where a bunch of kids are in a contest to see who can walk the longest. If you stop walking, you get shot.

  • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’m not familiar with your source material. Are we talking about one continuous segment without stops, or can the walker rest at regular intervals?

  • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Stephen King is really bad with numbers. Apparently in the book they had to constantly walk at 4-5MPH, but they dropped it to 3 for the book. But sometimes King will just pull numbers straight out of his ass and his editor just lets it fly.

    Similar case, in IT, he constantly described Ben as fat, as wider than he was tall, etc., basically fat shaming the kid, but his actual weight was just a bit over average. It’s just in 1958 when the book took place, there really weren’t fat kids, and the “fat kid” was the one who didn’t look starved. Not like now where everyone’s thick and fat really means fat. It’s a matter of perspective, but the fact of the matter is, we might even consider Ben to be normal or underweight compared with the 11 year old boys (what he was) of today. King just liked to fat-shame. (But he also gave Ben a huge member in the train scene. Like shockingly big. So he didn’t do the boy entirely dirty!)