Against Conventional Wisdom, But A Very Fast Pace Worked For Her

Oh to be a teenager again ;)

edited: I am only 44 and my husband and I did a trip like this is in our early twenties.... I think back though and regret not taking the time to just sit and chat with the locals, walk and get lost in the streets of Rome etc. It was all about getting to the next destination. My travel style has just changed a lot.

I can vaguely remember, through the mists of time, doing a 3 week trip where I was never in one city for more than 2 nights. It was wonderful. But even then, much younger, healthier, and energetic, I was a wreck when I got home. There's a reason many of us advocate a less hectic pace.

Agree with Sharon, it helps to be young and energetic. It also depends so much on personal travel style. I rarely comment on ambitious itineraries unless they are pretty much physically or logistically impossible, or at least improbable. When I was younger (not just as a teenager but well into my 50's) I traveled at a much faster pace than I do today. I think you get a somewhat slanted view of travel on this forum because a majority of those responding here are either older and/or retired with plenty of time to slow down, or those that just feel that travel should be enjoyed at a slower pace. That is not to say it's the only way to enjoy traveling.

With age comes wisdom.

I have to agree. It is important to let people enjoy and travel at their own pace. It has nothing to do with being "old or wise" to travel slowly and everything to do with your own preferred travel style.

I first discovered that I was one of those people with the plan/then go fast pace travel style when I started traveling with others. They simply couldn't keep up and I had to modify how I approached travel. Conversely, my sister has had to modify her style as well. I think we now have the best of both worlds. She probably sees more than she would on her own and I probably slow down for special moments a little more than I would on my own.

I can still remember how horrified I was when she wanted to sit around and read for a day while we were on vacation. I thought, " I can sit around and read any time, I want to see things while I am here." Our compromise? When she wants one of those days, I simply find an interesting all day bus tour and off I go.

I still have trouble with " taking a vacation from the vacation" about every 7 days. Can't do it. Drives me crazy to think about stopping or slowing down for a day. It seems like one Town or another has to be sacrificed for the day.

My main issue with these so called fast paced itineraries is not that people are trying to see too much and need to slow down. The problem is that people are wasting time getting from a to b by racing across the Continent. I Think you Can see more with a week in Rome or Paris, than you can if you try to cover Paris, Amsterdam and Berlin in a week, because you dont waste time on trains and planes.

Fortunately there is no real right or wrong way to travel. Everyone has and develops their own style. We like a combination of fast & slow - depends on where we are. If we are on a long trip we've been known to take a day off - usually spent doing laundry and chillin'.

I do not understand those who call the time spent in trains a waste of time - we love watching the beautiful landscape go by and enjoy seeing the small towns especially when traveling on regional trains. It is so beautiful when the countryside is carpeted in yellow from the rape seeds.

To each his own - as long as you are enjoying yourself.

Good for her!

I don't like fast paced itineraries, but I don't think they are necessarily bad or exhausting. A teenager or college student can do this easily. I could if I had to and didn't have kids with me and I'm pushing 40. It's just a matter of style. I find it more fun to really explore one place, see things beyond the top icons, plus have time to wander and linger. Not everyone wants that. It comes down to a matter of style. I try to warn people of the limit of the time they will have in a place (logistics can be tricky) but if they are ok with that then they should travel how they want to.

To me, it is not at all about having the energy or youth. It is about what you want to get out of your trip.

If it is all about checking off some boxes and posting on Instagram to prove you have been somewhere, then go for it and do it all. With this mindset, however, things will blur and you will lack authentic experiences.

I, myself, am happy to spend a week in a town, eat at the same place for lunch everyday and focus on one major activity per day. I have very distinct memories from all of my trips.

The example of the high school student is impressive because it takes a lot more planning and skill to plan a fast-paced 10-day itinerary than a slower one. Every young person can benefit from these skills in other areas of their life. Good for her. Travel styles are not set, they constantly evolve with age and fitness, so the way this young person chose to do it may be a very good fit at that time in her life.

Young people who have their whole life ahead of them seem to always want to go, go, go! I was that way once. On the other hand, seniors who may not have all that much time left seem to always want to slow things down a bit. Is there a message in there somewhere?

I used to plan my itinerary with details even on the day I travel from point to point. I don't do that anymore. On travel day, no itinerary (at least fixed) I usually take noon or near noon trains so I can rest in the morning (no crazy early morning trains anymore), and when I reach my new destination, I use that time to slowly figure out my hotel directions (even with homework done is challenging to orient myself when I reach a new place) go for groceries, laundry, buy a SIM card, etc. AND IF I am in the mood (I am usually with no pressure to cover anything that day) I stroll, visit some place, go to eat. But it all depends of my willingness on that day, not on my set itinerary. In the next morning I am up on my itinerary again :)

If your only reason for visiting somewhere is to say you've been there, take some photo's to post on social media and then move on to the next 'must see' then fine, that's all you get out of such fast paced itineraries.

Personally I really don't see the point. You haven't actually experienced the place, you certainly won't have time to truly admire the 'must see's' and understand why they are regarded as such. It just becomes a facile tick box exercise.

I accept that I'm fortunate enough living in Europe to be able to take a cheap flight to so many fantastic places but even when visiting the US I've always taken the slower option. I've spent a week in Yellowstone and still haven't been to the northern part. I've spent two weeks in Virginia and Washington DC yet still haven't managed to fit in a load of museums that I wanted to, even five days in San Francisco wasn't enough to see everything so I cannot understand why people insist on trying to cram three or four different countries into a two week period, it's impossible to experience any of it in any meaningful way.

JC, you are making quite a few assumptions that may not be true about people with a different travel style than yours. I think it is ok for people to approach travel differently........

People "experience" things at different speeds, and based on their own abilities, interests, values, and constraints. Even the nature and process of "experiencing" something will be defined differently depending who you ask. There's a lot of variability out there - what may be good/right for one person may not be for another (and may vary throughout one's life). Projecting motivations onto strangers and drawing inferences about what they value may be pure folly; better to ask them directly.

I admit it's hard not to point out some apparent trade-offs to new travelers, but mostly if they seem totally unaware that their approach may be logistically unfeasible (not just intentionally fast by design, but unknowingly undoable).

I go faster, longer than most people but I don't notice until I travel with someone else. I don't intentionally travel fast, but I really don't like to just hang out with no plans while I'm on vacation either. I don't like wasting time.

I don't spend my entire vacation moving from place to place. Moving - whether by train, car or plane - consumes valuable travel time. I keep my travel legs short and my one night stays to a minimum so I can actually see something while I'm there.

The thing I don't understand is to go quickly and hurried through many different sights and attractions, and then burn all that efficiency away by spending a lot of time moving between destinations. Maybe people who like to rush through Paris, London and Berlin, 3 nights each, on a first visit use the time between cities, in airports or trains to get a breather?

It is not that there is something wrong with people spending their time or money that way: it is theirs, not mine, and as long as I am not being dragged along such a trip, I'm totally fine with others doing it that way -.I just don't get the point of, for instance avoiding the climb at Arc de Triomphe in Paris so that there is still time left in the day to climb the basilica at Montmarte, but then losing the better part of the next day between check-out - RER - airport - plane - airport - Leonardo Express - check-in again in Rome, only to rush through the Foro Imperiali during its final opening hour.

Maybe people who travel that way get satisfaction from having been and glanced in person at as many known places as possible, more than from any more curious exploration or them? If so, kudos to them.

I went on my one and only bus tour, back in 2000, with my mother. She had booked the trip but her friend backed out at the last minute - so I went instead. The tour brochure had a lot of sights listed. It wasn't until after the trip that I learned that "see Buckingham Palace" meant that you drove by in the bus so you could literally only "see" it. Jedburgh Abbey was on the brochure, as we pulled into the parking lot the guide told us we only had time to get off the bus and take a picture from the parking lot. Somehow we had plenty of time for tourist traps and the guide ensured the passengers never missed a mealtime.

I could have come back and touted the brochure as proof of how much I saw. In reality, I felt I had missed the things I really wanted to see (should I say visit?). The tour companies priorities regarding sights were completely different than mine - so I've never taken another.

It is great to have energy to waste. Staying at a place for one or two nights is ok depending on how superficial the visit to the place is. If you're set on seeing one particular site or certain sights in a city, then two nights could do it. Then plan on a disciplined trip and stick to the strict program. That sort of visiting I need at least two nights, depending on the place. I've stayed in small towns for one night to four nights, or more, all depends on one's purpose and priorities. If I am not now staying a week or more in a city, then I'll plan on staying 2-4 nights as a first time visitor or a repeat visitor.

Well, just look at the RS tours. Other than the city tours where you spend the week in a single location, you often spend not more than 2 nights in any location arriving very late the first day at that stop sometimes with barely enough time to have dinner. So is that the wrong way to travel? No, it isn't for what RS wants you to get out of it. At least from my view, these tours are designed to show you the basics and teach you enough so you are comfortable returning to these places on your own at some future time and take the slow approach. I am thankful I have done the RS tours I have because now I have the knowledge to travel successfully on my own.