calorie intake

[Marta]

My favorite drink powder is Cytomax (tropical fruit flavor), which has electrolytes, and also a "complex carbohydrate blend," which is a variety of types of sugar. A sugar rush is exactly what I'm looking for when I'm exercising, to get up that steep hill, or add some miles towards the end of the day.

Also, as someone said above, in general I don't buy foods that have artificial sweeteners in them. They don't taste good to me, I don't trust their healthfulness, and when I'm looking for calories anyway, I don't see the point.

[T-Dubs]

If you are going to eat sugar you might want to get....agave syrup

Not a fan of Agave syrup. It's labeled as 'low-glycemic' but the trade-off is that is metabolized by the liver. When that happens, as with sugar, triglyceride levels will rise. It has a higher fructose concentration than even high fructose corn syrup (it's the fructose molecule in sugars that harm the liver and may lead to NAFLD. Then again, ibuprofen has been implicated with this condition. Not such good news for hikers.)

[Pedaling Fool]

There's an argument for eating "healthy" food in moderation, but it's not like thru hiking is the healthiest activity, and moderation is the last word I'd use to describe this activity.

Figure out the balance of nutrition/health/hassle/cost/bulk/weight that works best for you. There's no solution that works for everyone.

As for eating in moderation, JAK and I were talking about it in the context of at-home eating. There's is not moderation on the trail; on the trail it's all about rations. There is an arguement to be made that I was actually starving myself in an unhealthy way if it were not for the gorgings in town.

As for thruhiking and moderation......Again it's personal, or relative. For me it was the healthiest thing I've ever done for myself. However, if I flipped and did a yo-yo, then that might have been pushing it, but for others it's not.

We all got to determine for ourselves what moderation is.

[Pedaling Fool]

...There is an arguement to be made that I was actually starving myself in an unhealthy way if it were not for the gorgings in town...

BTW, that's despite eating very healthy meals, much healthier than the typical snickers bars...of most thrus. I always had veggies and real meat for dinner, rice, oatmeal, fruits...I was just always hungry and I could eat an incredible amount in town and I never got the typical bloated feeling after a gorging at an AYCE.

One of the best aspects of a thru, IMO.

[JAK]

I haven't thru-hiked, but I would second that thru-hiking is, or could be, a moderate form of living. If done right, in my opinion, you would finish as healthy and fit as when you started, if not healthier and fitter, mentally as well as physically. I could see it being done differently, like if you wanted to set a personal record or something, but I think it would be foolish in the extreme to try to set a personal record in bad nutritional while at the same time trying to set some personal record or goal in speed/distance hiking.

For some, 20 miles a day could be done as an exercise in moderation. It's all relative. I think the goal of most people could be to develop their fitness and wellbeing to the point that they can sustain 120-150 miles per week in a very helathy manner. You don't do that on corn syrup and olive oil, especially if starting out overweight and out of shape compared to where you want to get to. You certainly don't become a 8000kcal/day thru-hiking machine by eating like one right out of the gate.

[JAK]

However you wish to look at it, distance hiking in a mix of easy/moderate/rugged terrain can be a very healthy exercise for just about anyone at any age. Since you can hike 10 hours a day, 60 hours a week, you can lean down and toughen up and become highly proficient in a relatively short period of time compared to other recreational activities.

You can probably start off in worse shape, and end up in better shape, by hiking for 6 months, that by doing anything else for 6 months, if you go about it with that goal in mind. As for upper body strength, well, maybe hiking sticks aren't such a bad idea, and a few pushups every night might be a good way to warm up before hitting the sleeping bag. Throw in a little yoga and meditation. Whatever.

There are better single exercises for the whole body, like rowing and swimming and cross-country skiing, but they are not that much better, and I don't think anything is more natural or moderate or healthy than living and walking on trails for 6 months, if you do it right. Anything can be unhealthy if you let it. Thru-hiking can be a fast-track to get your health and fitness and well-being back to where it should be, or to a whole new level you've always dreamed of and never achieved. That would be my goal.

[JAK]

Excellent nutrition would be one of the foundations of such an endeavour.
Good rest would be another.

Sure, there would be some drinking and socializing.
That would be where the moderation comes in.

[Dogwood]

Straight sugar... While it is a fairly high source of calories... - Leaftye

No, it's really not a high source of calories or nutrition. That's my pt. It's about 4 cals/gram equal to complex carbs or proteins for the same amount of wt.. If you are going to eat sugar at least make it unrefined/less refined sugar which can have better over all nutrition and with wise options a lower glycemic index number.

When designing a trail menu for myself I'm looking for more cals/oz by increasing my % of total daily cals from good fats which have about 9 cals/oz which translates into more cals for an equivalent amount of wt when compared to carbs and protein. This means carrying less wt for my daily trailfood or carrying more cals for an equivalent amount of trail food wt.

[Pedaling Fool]

Eat more often. If you pull together breakfast, lunch, and dinner, then count the calories, it's usually less than 2,000. Not enough for a thru-hiker. Add in high-calorie snacks--nuts, peanut butter, muffins, energy drinks with sugar (not the sugar-free electrolyte powders), and candy. If you have four snacks a day at 350 calories per snack, you've added another 1400 calories. If you stop and snack every hour or 90 minutes, you can bump your intake up by a couple more snacks, and get over 4000 calories in a day. With strategic gorging every three days, you probably won't lose too much weight.

Since this all started with Marta's post I thought I would remind what was initially said.

I think Marta's recommedation was good, nothing wrong with energy drinks with sugar. Won't hurt in the least while hiking. She wasn't saying anything about eating tons of straight sugar.

I don't believe that refined sugar is such a bad thing unless, of course, it's over eaten -- which is really hard to do on a hike. And I'm sure the unrefined type of sugar would be just as bad if over-indulged. I know the stuff just evaporates when I'm hiking.

P.S. The hikers that eat mostly snickers bars and such during a hike I don't believe are getting too much sugar, rather they're not getting enough of the other needed nutrients.

[Pedaling Fool]

There are better single exercises for the whole body, like rowing and swimming and cross-country skiing, but they are not that much better, and I don't think anything is more natural or moderate or healthy than living and walking on trails for 6 months, if you do it right. Anything can be unhealthy if you let it. Thru-hiking can be a fast-track to get your health and fitness and well-being back to where it should be, or to a whole new level you've always dreamed of and never achieved. That would be my goal.

There probably are better single-exercises for the body. However, I think a thruhike is the perfect activity to restart your body. It's a lot easier for most of us to do as a "restart" than most other activities. But to do hiking or anyother activity as a sole exercise for life-long health is not a good idea, IMO. There are things not being worked much during hiking and they need to be. I never did push-ups or anything else during my hike, too damn tired, just got back to the gym when I got home.

It's only 6 months, it's not like the rest of your body will fall apart, but they do suffer a little. And if you don't keep up your body after a thru, then you basically wasted your time (WRT physical shape).

[garlic08]

My take on processed white sugar, or maybe even high fructose corn syrup, is not that it's bad for you, but there's really nothing good in it, either. I don't do soda or candy, but only because I don't like them, certainly not while hiking. The crash is too pronounced for me. I get my simple sugars from fruit, dried and fresh (love raisins). And all starches (bread, pasta, potatoes, rice) metabolize into sugar anyway, so the body gets what it needs along with at least a few other nutrients and less of a sugar rush.

For those who buy hard candy and soda, I always wondered why you don't just buy a bag of white sugar and eat it by the spoonful. That looks cheaper.

[leaftye]

As for eating in moderation, JAK and I were talking about it in the context of at-home eating.

Okay, I totally agree with you in this context. At home is usually about trying to stay in equilibrium. Eating too much, or too much of almost any particular thing can cause the body to react unfavorably.

As for thruhiking and moderation......Again it's personal, or relative. For me it was the healthiest thing I've ever done for myself. However, if I flipped and did a yo-yo, then that might have been pushing it, but for others it's not.

Same here. That speaks poorly for my diet at home. Pushing it for me this year would have been pushing onward on an ankle injury that could progress into a permanent injury.

Straight sugar... While it is a fairly high source of calories... - Leaftye

No, it's really not a high source of calories or nutrition. That's my pt. It's about 4 cals/gram equal to complex carbs or proteins for the same amount of wt.. If you are going to eat sugar at least make it unrefined/less refined sugar which can have better over all nutrition and with wise options a lower glycemic index number.

I didn't say it was a good source of nutrition. Read my post again.

First of all, comparing it with protein makes no sense whatsoever. While clinical testing find 4 cals/gram for either source, that doesn't take into consideration the greater energy expenditure it takes for the body to convert protein into an energy source. Try getting fat on a super high diet of baked chicken or tuna in water. It may be theoretically possible to get fat from that, but it's damn near impossible to do it in reality.

As far as it not being a high source of calories, let's start with this nutritional label from Imperial Sugar.



Density: It has 45 calories per tablespoon, which equals powered butter, is about 2-3 times higher than mac & cheese and oatmeal, respectively. It also handily beats rice and cous cous. It is barely beat out by peanuts, walnuts and Costco's trail mix. You have to look at olive oil, sunflower seeds or nut butters to really beat it.

Weight: Let's use the commonly known number you posted of 4 cals/gram. By weight alone it still beats grains and mac & cheese, but gets beat by straight fat and high fat foods, which of course is to be expected. Still, it's within 20% of a Snickers bar. I'd call that fairly high. Compare to my attached sheet for other comparisons.


While by density and weight sugar may compete with other foods if you only look at calories, as I said before, I prefer foods that provide other nutritional benefits.

When designing a trail menu for myself I'm looking for more cals/oz by increasing my % of total daily cals from good fats which have about 9 cals/oz which translates into more cals for an equivalent amount of wt when compared to carbs and protein. This means carrying less wt for my daily trailfood or carrying more cals for an equivalent amount of trail food wt.

Can you post something similar to the sheet I attached? I've met a lot of people that claim they've designed their diet well, but a little bit of inquiry quickly proves that they know little about the content of what they're planning to put into their body.

Since this all started with Marta's post I thought I would remind what was initially said.

I think Marta's recommedation was good, nothing wrong with energy drinks with sugar. Won't hurt in the least while hiking. She wasn't saying anything about eating tons of straight sugar.

I don't believe that refined sugar is such a bad thing unless, of course, it's over eaten -- which is really hard to do on a hike. And I'm sure the unrefined type of sugar would be just as bad if over-indulged. I know the stuff just evaporates when I'm hiking.

P.S. The hikers that eat mostly snickers bars and such during a hike I don't believe are getting too much sugar, rather they're not getting enough of the other needed nutrients.

I don't believe you're disagreeing with me. I just wanted to restate that when it comes to the limited choices on store shelves of refined sugar or an artificial sweetener in an energy drink, I prefer the refined sugar. Why would I want an artificial sweetener that does nothing beneficial for my hike? I don't.

[DaveSail]

Thinking about the math . Lets just take 12 steps . Half with six steps down a needless inch , which then require lifting up that inch , and the other half with six steps up an inch , which wil be wasted lifting . [ Like , in a car , racing up to a stop - light and then having to brake hard . $ for brake - wear and $ wasted going faster than rquired . ]

That is 12 " extra " inch - liftings of that 200 pounds . 2400 inch - pounds . So ? Take a fifty - pound weight , ( two Car Batteries ? ) and lift them from the floor to the top of a four - foot - high dresser .

Was that " extra " work worth caring about ? Just 12 steps !
Out of the 5 Million Steps , a good number must be over trail which is neither perfectly flat nor large rocks .

Taking care leaves you less tired at the end of the day , and you need
to carry less food .

DVW

[Pedaling Fool]

My take on processed white sugar, or maybe even high fructose corn syrup, is not that it's bad for you, but there's really nothing good in it, either...

That may be true, but it's so good...sooo, sooo good

[JAK]

That said, you can also conserve energy somewhat by letting yourself speed up a little at the bottom of short downslopes and use the momentum on the immediately following upslope. So short little dips don't hurt you so much. You can do something similar if you have to go over a bump. If you are at a good pace you can let yourself slow as you go up the bump, and then speed up as you leave the bump behind. Long legs help.

So it isn't so much constant elevation of your center of gravity.
It is often a constant kinetic+potential energy that is the better strategy.

[garlic08]

...Was that " extra " work worth caring about ? Just 12 steps ! Out of the 5 Million Steps , a good number must be over trail which is neither perfectly flat nor large rocks .

Taking care leaves you less tired at the end of the day , and you need
to carry less food .

That reflects something I've always thought, that even on a five million step walk, every step counts. I was thinking more in terms of safety (it just takes one little stumble to put you off trail), but it works in terms of effort, too.

[JAK]

It is amazing though how when you do stumble, even when trail running, how you can instinctively reach out and grab a tree, ans avoid hitting your head on trees and rocks. Doesn't always work, so you do get knocked out occassionally, but of course you get used to it after awhile.

What was the question?

[atraildreamer]

"Take the example of a 180-pound man, 40 years old and 5’ 10” (70") tall. He is planning a weeklong hike of 7-hour days carrying a 35 pound pack. The spreadsheet calculates his daily basal calorie requirement at 1,831 calories. The ExpandedNutribase.xls chart gives a figure of approximately 446 calories/hour x 7 hours/day x 7 days for a total of 21,830 calories to be expended in exercise. To this figure add the basal calorie requirement of 1,831 calories x 7 days (21,830 + 12,817=34,647 total weekly calories. This equals a requirement of 4,950 calories per day and factoring in the 10% thermic effect, 4,950 x 1.1= 5,444 calories needed per day. Since the typical backpacker carries and consumes around 3,500 calories/day (according to many posts on the forums), we see that there will be a calorie deficit of 5,444 - 3,500 = 1,944 calories/day, or 7 x 1,944 = 13,608 calories for the week. This results in a weight loss of 13,608/3,500 = 3.89 pounds for the week. Multiply this through a 4, 5 or 6-month thru-hike and you can see why backpackers experience large weight losses. " http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58026

[JAK]

Yes, the 180 pound man would only weight 79 pounds after 6 months of hiking.

[Pedaling Fool]

Yes, the 180 pound man would only weight 79 pounds after 6 months of hiking.

Ha, Ha that's a good point. And it makes you wonder why you loose so much weight (if you have it like I did) in the beginning and then level off and maintain a certain weight, regarless that you're exercise and diet hasn't really changed. But your body has, makes you wonder if these formulas are based more on unefficient bodies rather than what the body is capable of; in other words maybe these formulas are BS.