View Full Version : Bodyfat
FanaticFringer
08-02-2006, 16:44
I think alot of people fail to think about their bodyfat,weight and solely focus on shaving ounces,pounds via their gear. I have lost alot of bodyfat over the last couple of years and my hikes are greatly improved. I am somewhere under 10% bodyfat currently. A great site that I highly recommend to people is www.bodyrecomposition.com The site is run by Lyle McDonald. A real no BS guru in the industry.
The Solemates
08-02-2006, 18:05
I purposefully tried to gain weight before my thru. I was only about 10 lbs successful.
StarLyte
08-02-2006, 18:42
I purposefully tried to gain weight before my thru. I was only about 10 lbs successful.
HA that's because you're only 25.
SGT Rock
08-02-2006, 20:18
I've been near 10-12% bodyfat most of myu life. I have also thought about adding some before starting my thru.
Nightwalker
08-02-2006, 21:16
I'm already a chunky @ss, but my subconscious mind knows when I'm getting ready to go on a longish hike and I get the hungries. Seems kinda funny. I guess my body remembrs the FEED ME feeling and is trying to get a head start.
Almost There
08-02-2006, 21:38
If you are a smoker and quit it can be equal to your body operations as if you lost 100lbs.
Nightwalker
08-02-2006, 22:31
If you are a smoker and quit it can be equal to your body operations as if you lost 100lbs.
Cool, since that's when I gained the weight...
fiddlehead
08-03-2006, 02:34
If you are a smoker and quit it can be equal to your body operations as if you lost 100lbs.
My girlfriend weighs 98 lbs. What does that mean for her?
Me too, for that matter, i'm about 140 ( i usually lose about 5 lbs per thru-hike and gain it back the following 6 months)
neighbor dave
08-03-2006, 07:15
My girlfriend weighs 98 lbs. What does that mean for her?
Me too, for that matter, i'm about 140
is that soakin' wet??????;) ;) :sun
The Solemates
08-03-2006, 09:33
HA that's because you're only 25.
if you say so...
Lone Wolf
08-08-2006, 09:54
If you are a smoker and quit it can be equal to your body operations as if you lost 100lbs.
Have you stayed off those nasty cancer sticks since your last hike? Hope so.
Your body will eat away your muscle, before it even looks at your fat. You'd be amazed what it takes to break down even one fat cell. It's better to increase your raw veggies, water, and protein, with a strength training program. Yoga and ballet are good training tools for the trial as well. Eliminate everything that you think has sugar in it, and you'll still be eating too much. Almost everything processed has sugar in it, even though it doesn't taste sweet. Stay away from all soda, especially diet, and never consume aspartame. It has been linked to both severe obesity and brain cancer (check out MIT researcher Richard Wurtman, MD's studies on aspartame; yep, the FDA knew, before they approved it).
I'm only 102 lbs, but I bet I'm over 20% fat. I have the testing equipment in my closet; I just don't wanna know. :o
twosticks
08-08-2006, 10:37
If you are a smoker and quit it can be equal to your body operations as if you lost 100lbs.
Where can I get more info on that one? Looking for a few more reasons to quit. Thanks.
Almost There
08-08-2006, 14:48
Simple just do searches on google for reasons to quite smoking, health effects of smoking, etc.
If you are 98lbs and smoke then the stress on your body would be as if you weighed 198lbs. For a small gal, not a good thing. However, if she quite her body would eventually go back to working the way it should for a 98lb person.
Cigarettes have a negative, not a positive effect so while smoking your body acts as if you weigh more! Quitting simply makes your body normal again!
Wolf, had a couple of slip ups here and there, the wife isn't ready to quit, but I think I might finally have it kicked! We'll see once I have monsters in my classroom again, but the hard part is past me.
Your body will eat away your muscle, before it even looks at your fat. You'd be amazed what it takes to break down even one fat cell. It's better to increase your raw veggies, water, and protein, with a strength training program. Yoga and ballet are good training tools for the trial as well. Eliminate everything that you think has sugar in it, and you'll still be eating too much. Almost everything processed has sugar in it, even though it doesn't taste sweet. Stay away from all soda, especially diet, and never consume aspartame. It has been linked to both severe obesity and brain cancer (check out MIT researcher Richard Wurtman, MD's studies on aspartame; yep, the FDA knew, before they approved it).
I'm only 102 lbs, but I bet I'm over 20% fat. I have the testing equipment in my closet; I just don't wanna know. :o
True! Excersise, whole foods (the stuff around the wall at the grocery store, the processed foods are in the aisles, avoid those areas of the store...) And the FDA needs to be dismantled, no doubt about it.
Sugar is the silent killer! It rots your brain, teeth and body in a multitude of ways. The less you eat the longer you'll live. Google the terms "Insulin" "aging" and "glycation" together and read.
Except, aspartame is probably okay if you have a diet soda once in a while, but if you switch a 5 coke a day habit for a 5 diet coke a day habit you're probably not doing yourself a favor. Splenda is a good alternative... Definitely give your kids a coke before you give em diet coke. And don't give em a coke.
FanaticFringer
08-09-2006, 21:10
True! Excersise, whole foods (the stuff around the wall at the grocery store, the processed foods are in the aisles, avoid those areas of the store...) And the FDA needs to be dismantled, no doubt about it.
Sugar is the silent killer! It rots your brain, teeth and body in a multitude of ways. The less you eat the longer you'll live. Google the terms "Insulin" "aging" and "glycation" together and read.
Except, aspartame is probably okay if you have a diet soda once in a while, but if you switch a 5 coke a day habit for a 5 diet coke a day habit you're probably not doing yourself a favor. Splenda is a good alternative... Definitely give your kids a coke before you give em diet coke. And don't give em a coke.
Not all processed foods are in the aisles. High quality pasta such as Barilla brand and their pasta sauce. Kashi cereals, etc. You are generally correct though. Sugar is indeed a killer. While it is very important to limit your intake, there are componds such as Carnosine which help control the glycation process. Aspartame is a extremely controversal subject. Probably better to be avoided but how much of it is going to harm you? Could vary for each individual. Many believe Splenda is no better or maybe worse.
blackbishop351
08-09-2006, 21:25
Have you stayed off those nasty cancer sticks since your last hike? Hope so.
Nobody likes a quitter! :D
Just generalizing about the grocery store aisles...
I'm diabetic and like my cofee sweet, so splenda is what I use...from what I can tell from my research, it's harm causing potential seems lot lower than aspartame.
Carnosine, chromium, R-alpha-lipoic acid, vitamin B6 (among many) all help manage sugar, but execise really tunes your body up for maximum efficiency in processing sugars.
I like this site for info on all sorts of stuff like that...
http://www.lef.org/newshop/cgi-shop/LEFAdvisor.cgi
StarLyte
08-09-2006, 21:40
Great website bfitz-I bookmarked it-thanx
FanaticFringer
08-09-2006, 21:41
Just generalizing about the grocery store aisles...
I'm diabetic and like my cofee sweet, so splenda is what I use...from what I can tell from my research, it's harm causing potential seems lot lower than aspartame.
Carnosine, chromium, R-alpha-lipoic acid, vitamin B6 (among many) all help manage sugar, but execise really tunes your body up for maximum efficiency in processing sugars.
I like this site for info on all sorts of stuff like that...
http://www.lef.org/newshop/cgi-shop/LEFAdvisor.cgi
Have enjoyed LEF for many years now. Used to buy many of their products but now find others at much better prices at places such as www.beyond-a-century.com www.bulknutrition.com
Yeah, beyond a century is great. Buy from them, but read the LEF material, they have a good magazine too, even though it's mostly product advertisement, the stuff is a great place to start researching, nutrition is the key to good health. The history of LEF and their battles with thr FDA is interesting ,too.
Just generalizing about the grocery store aisles...
I'm diabetic and like my cofee sweet, so splenda is what I use...from what I can tell from my research, it's harm causing potential seems lot lower than aspartame.
Carnosine, chromium, R-alpha-lipoic acid, vitamin B6 (among many) all help manage sugar, but execise really tunes your body up for maximum efficiency in processing sugars.
I like this site for info on all sorts of stuff like that...
http://www.lef.org/newshop/cgi-shop/LEFAdvisor.cgi
Check out Stevia or Stevioside. It's from a sweetening herb, stevia rebaudiana, and doesn't pack calories or the nasty side effects like aspartame.
Yeah, stevia is good for you too. Not so easy to find, and more costly, but best option.
alalskaman
08-13-2006, 01:48
Frieden: I have been puzzling for several days over your statement that "your body will eat away your muscle, before it even looks at fat." This doesn't sound like a good survival strategy...Throg the caveman can't chase down a mammoth, cause he's used all his muscle thru the winter..still has lots of fat left? Isn't that what the fat is for? energy storage for the muscles? Why would evolution (or the Creator, not trying to start any debate here) arrange things this way?
Also, they've done lots of studies on how much weight loss comes from muscle tissue vs fat loss. I'm not real into them, I believe it is the body builders who think about this the most. But a couple of english doctors had some overweight guys, made some of them fast (eating NOTHING) for 10 days....these guys lost 21 lbs, but only 7.5 lbs was from fat, the rest was muscle tissue. The guys who were on a 1000 calorie a day diet, lost only 14.5 lbs, but 14 of it was fat. Minimal loss of muscle.
So it sounds to me, if we're taking in sufficient calories to avoid the starvation mode, provide energy for the day, we're not going to burn up muscle tissue when we've got a perfectly adequate set of love handles to work on.
There's always stuff to think about, isn't there.
Bill
FanaticFringer
08-13-2006, 08:38
Frieden: I have been puzzling for several days over your statement that "your body will eat away your muscle, before it even looks at fat." This doesn't sound like a good survival strategy...Throg the caveman can't chase down a mammoth, cause he's used all his muscle thru the winter..still has lots of fat left? Isn't that what the fat is for? energy storage for the muscles? Why would evolution (or the Creator, not trying to start any debate here) arrange things this way?
Also, they've done lots of studies on how much weight loss comes from muscle tissue vs fat loss. I'm not real into them, I believe it is the body builders who think about this the most. But a couple of english doctors had some overweight guys, made some of them fast (eating NOTHING) for 10 days....these guys lost 21 lbs, but only 7.5 lbs was from fat, the rest was muscle tissue. The guys who were on a 1000 calorie a day diet, lost only 14.5 lbs, but 14 of it was fat. Minimal loss of muscle.
So it sounds to me, if we're taking in sufficient calories to avoid the starvation mode, provide energy for the day, we're not going to burn up muscle tissue when we've got a perfectly adequate set of love handles to work on.
There's always stuff to think about, isn't there.
Bill
I meant to comment on this earlier myself. In general, the higher your weight of bodyfat, more will be pulled from fat stores when calories are restricted. It's when folks start trying to achieve the lower extremes of bodyfat percentage that other problems start to occur. Ravenous hunger, severe muscle loss, metabolic slowdown and screwed up hormones are a few of the usual problems.
Preserving muscle while losing fat is always a nutritional tap dance especially when doing something extreme like thru-hiking. Protien powder ought to be a thru-hiker staple but intsead Ramen noodles are. Thru-hikers always seem to have lots of "empty" calories in their food bag instead of nutritionally dense items (one exception: gorp is a health food...) and never seem to have vitamins and/or supplements in their pack. Then in town they get full on pizza and beer etc. instead of loading up on veggies, fish, meat etc.
Prunes are a good addition to anyone's food bag.
saimyoji
08-14-2006, 00:21
I got plenty of body fat to donate to anyone in the area...:eek:
hammock engineer
08-14-2006, 00:33
Frieden: I have been puzzling for several days over your statement that "your body will eat away your muscle, before it even looks at fat." This doesn't sound like a good survival strategy...Throg the caveman can't chase down a mammoth, cause he's used all his muscle thru the winter..still has lots of fat left? Isn't that what the fat is for? energy storage for the muscles? Why would evolution (or the Creator, not trying to start any debate here) arrange things this way?
Also, they've done lots of studies on how much weight loss comes from muscle tissue vs fat loss. I'm not real into them, I believe it is the body builders who think about this the most. But a couple of english doctors had some overweight guys, made some of them fast (eating NOTHING) for 10 days....these guys lost 21 lbs, but only 7.5 lbs was from fat, the rest was muscle tissue. The guys who were on a 1000 calorie a day diet, lost only 14.5 lbs, but 14 of it was fat. Minimal loss of muscle.
So it sounds to me, if we're taking in sufficient calories to avoid the starvation mode, provide energy for the day, we're not going to burn up muscle tissue when we've got a perfectly adequate set of love handles to work on.
There's always stuff to think about, isn't there.
Bill
From what I understand, this is also why people put the weight back on after a diet. Their bodies are used to starvation mode and are storing up any extra calories intaked as fat for the next starvation. That would explain why a lot of hikers put the weight lost on a long distance hike plus some.
alalskaman
08-14-2006, 19:55
I agree, empty calories are a problem...living on potato flakes and ramen. If you're cannibalizing your own muscle, you need more protein - and more fat for that matter.But I don't want to get into the whole fat vs carbs thing. Lots of info out there on that, lots of bombast, flaming and unsupported theorizing too.
But, where I will venture to warn people is, be VERY careful about the idea of adding weight for any purpose...look at movie stars who gain 30 pounds for a role, etc. Scientists are increasingly realizing that adding/losing pounds alters the metabolism in subtle ways - leptin seems to be involved. Just recently saw a study where, once fat people lost weight, they had to, FOREVER eat fewer calories than others who were at that weight to begin with. Also losing weight, especially crash dieting, seems to stress the body in unknown ways...lots of people snuff it young after a lifetime of going to 250 lbs, then brutally starving themselves down to 150. This seems to be true scientifically, and in my own "anecdotal" experience, all the people I've known who rode that rollercoaster are dead now. BTW I'm not.
So IMO adjusting your trail food to keep what body fat you begin with is probably a good idea...using a long hike to take it off, maybe not, you may have to really deprive yourself to stay that way...and adding it may be a really bad idea. Cheers
hammock engineer
08-14-2006, 20:48
That make a lot of sense when you think about it. From what I understand, a fat cell can only get so big. After that new fat cells are created. However the body cannot destroy fat cells, only make them smaller. Makes a good arguement for why people can put the weight back on so easy.
Well, a fat cell can be destroyed, but we're talking long-term Ghandi lifestyle. To really destroy those fat cells, you are harming other things in your body as well. It's better to not get the fat cells in the first place.
Another thing that is bad about fat cells, is that many diseases are stored in fat cells.
Frieden: I have been puzzling for several days over your statement that "your body will eat away your muscle, before it even looks at fat." This doesn't sound like a good survival strategy...Throg the caveman can't chase down a mammoth, cause he's used all his muscle thru the winter..still has lots of fat left? Isn't that what the fat is for? energy storage for the muscles?
Bill
No, fat is meant for emergency energy storage. When Throg has been hunting and hunting, and there is nothing out there, the body will try to survive anyway. There are many degrees of "survival". To the body, it means major systems are continuing to function. Now, if Ug doesn't come to help Throg, then Throg will die, but the fat cells could keep him alive long enough for Ug to help him. There are also various degrees of "alive". Your body may have some serious damage, but your heart, lungs, and brain are still functioning - therefore, the body has survived.
Nobody likes a quitter! :DIf at first you don't succeed, quit and quit again :D
If you are a smoker and quit it can be equal to your body operations as if you lost 100lbs.
that would put me at 48lbs and my 22 pound pack would definitely be unsafe at that point for long hikes.
Hmmm, great thread. Great info. I have always tried to lose weight before hiking long distances based on the idea that the lighter weight would save my knees. I can get load up on protein and good stuff in town, and so on, but a pain in the knee is every step. My thinking, anyway.
Also, I have serious questions about unhealthful effects of anything a thru-hiker eats. Metabolisms being what they are, I don't see much of anything consumed sticking around for any amount of time to the point it can damage you. I have no evidence to support that belief other my experiences eating and pooping on the trail. By New England, there is barely a 6 hour lag between eating, digestion and excretion.
Aspartame is death. Kosher Coke, baby. Made with cane sugar and oh so tasty. I can still remember when Coke was made with real sugar. Before the corn lobby took control of our gov. and put high fructose corn syrup in anything and everything. Check out European store shelves. You have to look a long time before you find anything with HFCS.
Again, thanks for the info.
I have no evidence to support that belief other my experiences eating and pooping on the trail. By New England, there is barely a 6 hour lag between eating, digestion and excretion.
Yahtzee, please don't poop on the trail... It's no fun hiking behind you and having to dodge your 6 hr. old meals.:D
On a more serious note on HFCS, read this article entitled The Devil's Candy http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&channel=weight.loss&category=diet.strategies&conitem=fce999edbbbd201099edbbbd2010cfe793cd____
icemanat95
06-05-2007, 10:29
I weighed in at about 213 pounds when I started my hike, I finished my hike at around 175 -180.
I could use that kind of weight loss plan now.
I think it is better to be in good shape prior to the trail than to put extra weight on for the average person (if you are ultra skinny, the all bets are off).
When I did the AT, I was a little bit on the chunky side. Getting the extra 20 lbs up and down the trail puts more stress on the body. Harder to get your butt up the mountain. We go light in our packs to make it easier to hike.
Same theory applies to your body. If you weigh more, and have a larger percentage of fat vs. muscle, you work harder to move.
FWIW, prior to my trip last summer, I was working out 5-6 days a week. Thinnest and most muscular I've been *off-trail* in a while. My trek in 2006 was easier (physically) than 1998.
Post trip, i am still trying to work out 5-6 days a week. Easier to stay in shape than to get back in shape. ;)
I think the average American does not need to worry about putting on extra weight. With lighter base pack weights (and the typical relatively mellow mileage most hikers do on the AT), I don't think people will use up body fat reserves as much as they think.
To sum this up: Rathern than eat cheeseburgers and shakes, perhaps it is better to exercise prior to the hike. Chris "Suge" Willet has a great article (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=184425#post184425) about pre-hike physical prep.
I am not a doctor or a scientist. Just my own observations from my own thru-hikes (and being from a family that runs to the stocky side).
Skinny people may have a different take on this....
I think alot of people fail to think about their bodyfat,weight and solely focus on shaving ounces,pounds via their gear. ...........................etc,etc,etc,........... .....................
works for Cycling too!
if i can just shed those extra 20...i could be a contender!:D
I think it is better to be in good shape prior to the trail than to put extra weight on for the average person
I agree. I do not think it is ever good to have excess body fat. If it is good to start a hike 5 lbs over, then why wouldn't it be better to be 5lbs heavy for the entire hike.