The Foundation Comparison is TrailGenic’s repeated-route benchmark. Most sessions use approximately 3.2 miles. The latest records deliberately retain two deviations: fed Walking S26 and the longer 3.86-mile Ruck S19. Those differences prevent treating the current snapshot as a matched experiment.
Walking establishes the low-cost reference. Rucking adds carried weight. Running changes speed, run–walk structure, and cardiovascular intensity. Hiking is analyzed separately as the environmental world model where terrain, weather, altitude, duration, and judgment interact.
Foundation sessions reduce route complexity so modality fingerprints are easier to interpret. Hiking then tests whether those controlled capacities transfer into real-world terrain and environmental variability.
Walking supplies the unloaded reference: historical mean HR 107.3 → 104.6 bpm at similar pace (S1–12 → S13–24), with a smaller 107.3 → 106.2 change across all 26 sessions in equal halves. Rucking progresses 10 → 20 lb with effort 1/5 and zero anaerobic effect throughout. Running contributes a Garmin-estimated VO₂-max trajectory of 45 → 46 → 48, recorded across S1–15, S16–18, and S19–21 respectively.
The combined record evaluates low-load response, added-load tolerance, and aerobic fitness over time. Different protocols answer different questions; the latest sessions below update those trajectories.
Question: Can the latest Walking, Rucking, and Running observations be used as a like-for-like three-way contrast? This deterministic screening rule checks the recorded feeding state, declared flat-route distance band, and running protocol type. It does not establish causality or clinical readiness.
| Record | Average HR | Eligibility exception |
|---|---|---|
| Walking S26 | 118 bpm | Fed, not fasted control |
| Rucking S19 | 111 bpm | 3.86 mi, beyond reference band |
| Running S21 | 146 bpm | Mixed run–walk, not steady-running block |
Crawlable fallback: September 24, 2026 source snapshot. When JavaScript runs, the selector reads the existing page-level source JSON, not a duplicate data table.
Source: September 24 master, records Walking S26 / Rucking S19 / Running S21. Mike Ye recorded observations; Ella implemented the rule and interpretation. Inspect source snapshots, historical windows and page-source JSON tg-response-data. The private master workbook is not distributed.
Agent-readable companion: Versioned Foundation comparability JSON (release 2026-09-24.2; MCP tool tg.longevity.foundationComparability.get). The linked production MCP dataset is release 2026-09-24.2, with versioned evidence and preserved historical baselines.
Current snapshot from the September 24 master. S26 is fed, S19 extends the ruck distance, and S21 is mixed run–walk. Ready flags remain source classifications; separate timed post-session recovery is missing for these Foundation records.
The most recent available session from each modality shows the current operating state. These sessions occurred on different dates and are not a simultaneous experiment.
| Metric | Walking S26 | Rucking S19 | Running S21 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | Sep 21 | Sep 24 | Sep 23 |
| Dose | Baseline walk | 20 lb · longer distance | Mixed run–walk |
| Feeding state | Fed | Fasted | Fasted |
| Distance | 3.17 mi | 3.86 mi | 3.19 mi |
| Duration | 51.3 min | 69.5 min | 38.2 min |
| Derived pace | 16:11/mi | 18:00/mi | 11:58/mi |
| Average / max HR | 118 / 136 | 111 / 136 | 146 / 168 |
| Zone profile | 49% Z1 / 51% Z2 | 87% Z1 / 13% Z2 | 17% Z2 / 70% Z3 / 12% Z4+ |
| Corrected drift | +4.0% | +3.0% | +4.5% |
| Effort | 1/5 | 1/5 | 3/5 |
| Sleep score / minutes | 47 / 307 | 83 / 400 | 80 / 399 |
| Source recovery flag | Ready | Ready | Ready |
Walking S26 has higher HR and drift than S25 at essentially unchanged pace. Ruck S19 maintains pace and average HR while extending distance. Run S21 is slightly faster with lower max HR and device load, but higher drift. Dates, feeding state, dose, and sleep differ; the interpretation is within each modality before cross-modality comparison.
| Window | N | Pace | Avg HR | Corrected Drift | Protocol Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walking S1–24 historical window | 24 | Low-intensity control | 105.9 | 2.13% | 94.3% Zone 1 · effort 1 |
| Rucking 20 lb block, S14–18 | 5 | 18:23/mi | 112.6 | 2.06% | 81% Z1 · 19% Z2 · effort 1 |
| Running steady block, S10–14 | 5 | 12:29/mi | 153.2 | 0.7% | Aerobic effect 2.88 · effort 3 |
The windows define modality fingerprints rather than rank performance. Running’s lower mean drift in the selected block does not make it a lower-cost modality; average heart rate, pace, zone distribution, training effect, and recovery must remain together.
The contribution is a repeatable comparison framework with deviations preserved. S26’s fed state and S19’s longer distance make the newest records different tasks. Adaptation should be tested with comparable repeats and linked recovery, not inferred from the lowest whole-session HR.
Rucking records that progressive load from 10 to 20 lb was completed on this route without moving perceived effort above 1 out of 5 or creating anaerobic training effect. Running produces the distinct cardiovascular signature: higher heart rate, higher zones, higher training effect, and protocol-dependent recovery cost.
These controls do not reproduce a laboratory trial. Dates, sleep, pacing, hydration, and the wider training calendar still vary. Their value is narrower and practical: they give Hiking a stable reference for what the system looked like before terrain and environment were added.
Context → declared dose → response → timed recovery → comparable return. The original asset is a shared-route comparison framework with distinct protocol windows. It is not a randomized or simultaneous experiment.
TrailGenic decision rule · September 24, 2026: Interpret the full trajectory and comparable route or load blocks before the latest session. Preserve the established movement base; adjust a planned dose when repeated comparable responses, symptoms, or recovery trajectories support the change. A single disrupted night or episode does not establish a capacity ceiling. Change one major protocol variable at a time and retain follow-up. Compare within each declared modality before interpreting the combined pattern; HR/distance is not used as a cross-dose efficiency ranking.
HR-per-mile is average session heart rate divided by distance, not total heartbeats per mile or a validated efficiency score. Ella examines patterns and alternative explanations with Mike’s judgment and accountability.