Complications of extreme weight loss in thru-hiking of long distance trails

[Creek Dancer]

For planning purposes, 3500/day works well for me in warm weather, 12-15 miles per day. For longer distances and colder weather I need to add more food. And, as you know, I'm in the 99th percentile of female height distribution. Most women could probably cut back to 2500-3000 per day for moderate backpacking trips.

What's surprising is how much food even 3500 calories turns into. A typical Mountain House meal is around 500 calories. So if I pack a MH breakfast and supper, I'm still only at a thousand calories. Energy bars are usually only around 250-275 each. So eight energy bars plus two MH meals would still only get me to 3000 calories. Packing high-fat foods really helps--peanut butter, summer sausage, hard cheese, nuts, coconut...

One good way to take in calories is through liquids--hot cocoa, energy drinks, Muscle Milk, and so on.

I'm often amazed to see hikers making themselves one packet of instant oatmeal for breakfast. Are you kidding? Even for someone with a desk job that would be a starvation diet.

Great, I will plan for about 3,000 per day. You are right about the liquid drinks. I like instant breakfast made with Nido and some extra protein powder, which is about 300 calories per drink. I will often have this in addition to oatmeal or whatever I am having for breakfast. Nice boost of hydration, vitamins, and protein to start the day. Someone on another thread mentioned adding instant coffee to the mixture, which would be great because i wouldn't have to fire up the stove in the morning to make coffee.

[RockyRoo]

BUGGER!!! I'm 48 Kilos, so any weight loss could be dangerous for me. I've always been tiny, so the prospect of loosing too much weight is something I've always had to be cautious about. Cheers Marta for the advice regarding calories, I'll try and aim for something similar on my thru next year. I always carry my dad's old army amunition pouch full of chocolate and nuts so it's easy access and just eat while walking.

[Marta]

BUGGER!!! I'm 48 Kilos, so any weight loss could be dangerous for me. I've always been tiny, so the prospect of loosing too much weight is something I've always had to be cautious about. Cheers Marta for the advice regarding calories, I'll try and aim for something similar on my thru next year. I always carry my dad's old army amunition pouch full of chocolate and nuts so it's easy access and just eat while walking.

There are plenty of tiny hikers out there. It's like Garlic says--eat more, and if you notice yourself losing weight, lightwn your pack and shorten your hiking days.

[garlic08]

BUGGER!!! I'm 48 Kilos, so any weight loss could be dangerous for me. I've always been tiny, so the prospect of loosing too much weight is something I've always had to be cautious about. Cheers Marta for the advice regarding calories, I'll try and aim for something similar on my thru next year. I always carry my dad's old army amunition pouch full of chocolate and nuts so it's easy access and just eat while walking.

Ditto what Marta says--don't let this thread scare you. Weight loss is not imperative on the AT, if you're a little bit smart about it. I weighed 150 at the start of the hike (five pounds above my minimum), went down to minimum after the Smokies, gained it back in the mid-Atlantic (lots of easier days and better access to towns), lost a few pounds in the Whites, and weighed 148 when I got home.

I never carried more than two pounds of food per day (about 4000 kcal), and hiked an average of 20 miles per day. I ate very well in towns, going for quality more than quantity. My town food expenses were about $750, nearly what I spent on trail rations, about $800.

Eating all the time is a good plan. I pretty much forget about meal times. I stop four or five times a day, every two hours or so, to eat as much as I can. Nuts and nut butters are excellent for good fat and easy to find and to carry. Cheese is readily available on the AT, especially some really good local stuff in Vermont. I'm a vegetarian, didn't do any mail drops, and had very few problems buying suitable food along the way.

[LDog]

There are plenty of tiny hikers out there. It's like Garlic says--eat more, and if you notice yourself losing weight, lightwn your pack and shorten your hiking days.

I'm wondering ... Given same person, route, pack weight, etc, is there a difference in caloric expenditure if one hikes 20 miles in 10 vs 8 hours? I'd think you'd burn fewer calories by using rest steps on steep hill climbs, vs grunting it out to the top, taking more rest stops ... Still get the mileage, but with fewer calories and impact on body?

[garlic08]

I'm wondering ... Given same person, route, pack weight, etc, is there a difference in caloric expenditure if one hikes 20 miles in 10 vs 8 hours? I'd think you'd burn fewer calories by using rest steps on steep hill climbs, vs grunting it out to the top, taking more rest stops ... Still get the mileage, but with fewer calories and impact on body?

I've wondered about this too. I think it depends on how efficiently the person is hiking.

There's a real good possibility that the slower speed could actually burn more calories. If you're hiking slower than an optimum speed, you're spending more time on the trail and are burning more calories just by being idle. I notice this when hiking with a slow party. I'll often need to bring a lunch for a trail I would normally hike in a few hours by myself.

But if by pushing a faster time you start stumbling, gasping, making mistakes, you're not hiking well or efficiently and are definitely using more fuel. And stumbling leads to injuries and impact, etc. That's part of the wisdom of HYOH--Hike Your Own Hike.

[Malto]

I doubt that there is much difference in calorie burn between 2 and 2.5mph. I do think that Garlic is correct about efficiency. I think experienced hikers will burn less calories than newer hikers. Why? Efficiency. When I was in WA I passed a weekend hiker that said "You're a thru-hiker aren't you?" even though there was few thrus in the areas. When I asked him how he knew he said that thru hikers walk differently. Then I started watching the difference in hiking stride and style between thru hikers and the weekend hikers. It was amazing to see, thru hikers have very little wasted effort. Now on the AT I can usually pick out the thru hikers without using my sense of smell.

[Kookork]

I doubt that there is much difference in calorie burn between 2 and 2.5mph. I do think that Garlic is correct about efficiency. I think experienced hikers will burn less calories than newer hikers. Why? Efficiency. When I was in WA I passed a weekend hiker that said "You're a thru-hiker aren't you?" even though there was few thrus in the areas. When I asked him how he knew he said that thru hikers walk differently. Then I started watching the difference in hiking stride and style between thru hikers and the weekend hikers. It was amazing to see, thru hikers have very little wasted effort. Now on the AT I can usually pick out the thru hikers without using my sense of smell.

Loved what you said. Efficiency is the key.I think optimum speed for hikres is different and as we hike longer ( in matter of weeks to months ) the efficiency increases.

[garlic08]

I doubt that there is much difference in calorie burn between 2 and 2.5mph. I do think that Garlic is correct about efficiency. I think experienced hikers will burn less calories than newer hikers. Why? Efficiency. When I was in WA I passed a weekend hiker that said "You're a thru-hiker aren't you?" even though there was few thrus in the areas. When I asked him how he knew he said that thru hikers walk differently. Then I started watching the difference in hiking stride and style between thru hikers and the weekend hikers. It was amazing to see, thru hikers have very little wasted effort. Now on the AT I can usually pick out the thru hikers without using my sense of smell.

Exactly. Sit trail-side on a rocky stretch in PA in thru hiker season. I think experienced, efficient hikers burn far fewer calories than the average. I read sometimes that thru hikers should plan on carrying up to 6000 calories per day. Not for me--that much food would actually hurt, both in the eating and the carrying.

Another big factor is planning. Most backpackers end their trips with an extra day's worth of food, up to several pounds. Some plan it that way. (I love running into those folks near the end of their trip and they're handing out extras.) I consider it a triumph to eat my last cashew or tortilla a few hours before I get to town, and get to town hungry (I'm not afraid of being hungry for a few hours and that's a tough fear to overcome, I know). That's several pounds I lightened my load for the trip, and less energy I needed to carry it, so less food I needed to carry...you get the idea.

[LDog]

PS--For those with devices which can utilize apps, it's quite interesting to track calories, and to see how that varies with different types of exercise. The one I'm using now is My Fitness Pal, which has a very good food database. It is, alas, wildly optimistic about the the number of calories I use when backpacking. It told me that I would use 4300 calories in seven hours of backpacking. I wish! That's actually quite a bit more than experience shows me I will actually use.

That is an interesting app. I loaded it to my droid, and entered the food I had outlined in my most recent blog post on "Eating Like a Hobbit" and found I was planning to consume nearly enough calories to cover what it said I'd burn by backpacking 8 hours - 4897 calories. I updated the post to reflect these numbers ... www.laughingdog.com