PDA

View Full Version : Bulking up?



Zia
01-28-2009, 13:38
I am very concerned about losing too much weight. I am a lean 6'1" and 165 and if I am going to walk 20+ miles a day I'll need to eat two pound of food a day, I guess. I've done some calculations. At 32 oz of food times 150 cal per oz. that equal 4800 cal. Divided by 20 miles equals 240 cal. per mile. I don't no if that is enough. I've heard hikers burn upwards of 6000 cal. a day. If that is the case I will loose a couple of pounds a week or 20-40 pounds over the 2000 + miles I intend to hike this year. My wife thinks I need to gain weight before I leave the 22 of March, but this is difficult because I've been hiking daily with my 20lb pack to get ready and to make matters worse i am a vegan. Any thoughts?

Slo-go'en
01-28-2009, 13:55
Eat lots of peanuts and other fatty food. Consider becoming a meat eater while on the trail. Its gonna be hard to resist a big, fat burger when you hit a town.

Hard not to loose weight on a thru. Men loose more weight than woman (which really pisses them off!). Most thru hikers are little more than backpacks with legs by the time they get to Maine. Bulking up before you leave will help for a little while.

4eyedbuzzard
01-28-2009, 14:09
Even if you put on some weight before leaving, you'll likely lose it quickly and wind up at the same weight eventually anyway, say about 2 months into your thru-hike. Years ago a woman named Karen Lutz, I believe she is now ATC's director of mid-atlantic region) did a masters thesis on the caloric needs of AT thru-hikers, gathered a lot of data from hikers about their weight and food/caloric intake and basically came to the conclusion that it is very difficult to carry enough food to maintain body weight. Even with supplementing it by eating lots of food in towns, most lost a lot in the beginning and then either plateaued or even kept losing weight slowly. The unhealthy part was that they continued to lose not just fat but also lean muscle, mostly in the upper body. Most thru-hikers lose quite a bit of weight and belt inches by the end.

Gorging in towns can help here. Eat lots of EVERYTHING, but especially those things you don't eat while actually on the trail. When you don't have to carry it--it's simply more efficient. The current wisdom is to take advantage of lots of fruit, fresh vegetables, meat for meat eaters, etc as most eat plenty of noodles, rice, and potatoes while on the trail.

For a vegan the difficulty will likely be even somewhat greater, mostly due to preferred food availability in small towns, restaurants, etc.

Tinker
01-28-2009, 14:14
Add your favorite oil to just about everything you eat. That will help with keeping your weight and energy up while on the trail.

sticks&stones
01-28-2009, 14:15
Heck I guess you can pound the food to you now and maybe bulk up some, but it's my guess that once you start hiking the bulking up you did for 7 weeks won't benefit you for long. Eventually you'll shed the bulk and it probably won't take long, nothing wrong with a little bulk coming out of the gate, but it won't relieve you of what might ultimately become a problem down the trail.
I hiked really close to vegan myself, as a vegetarian who didnt eat eggs or cheese, and it was rarely a problem for me to keep fed. But that was me and that was my metabolism, who knows what you'll go thru. If your pulling 20's at least the places to re-up might come a little sooner than later. It's my guess you'll be eating a lot. I think you might have to figure out how much and when once your actually on trail.

Jack Tarlin
01-28-2009, 14:25
Bulking up beforehand is probably not such a hot idea, as you want to start the Trail in as good shape as possible. Starting out overweight will only make things harder for you.

You will indeed lose weight during your hike, and maybe a lot, but it's not something you need to worry about overmuch.

For one thing, whatever you lose, you'll likely gain it all back by Christmas!

mountain squid
01-28-2009, 14:33
My wife thinks I need to gain weight before I leave the 22 of March. Any thoughts?Personally, I would never suggest 'bulking up' before a long distance hike. What happens if, after a week on the trail, you have to get off for whatever reason? You will be left with the 'bulk' without the daily activity to get rid of it.

I am about the same size as yourself. By the time I got to NJ, I had lost about 30# and definetely did not have the energy I needed for the upcoming mountains. Eat as much as you can in towns and then a little more.

See you on the trail,
mt squid

Kanati
01-28-2009, 18:16
I am very concerned about losing too much weight. I am a lean 6'1" and 165 and if I am going to walk 20+ miles a day I'll need to eat two pound of food a day, I guess. I've done some calculations. At 32 oz of food times 150 cal per oz. that equal 4800 cal. Divided by 20 miles equals 240 cal. per mile. I don't no if that is enough. I've heard hikers burn upwards of 6000 cal. a day. If that is the case I will loose a couple of pounds a week or 20-40 pounds over the 2000 + miles I intend to hike this year. My wife thinks I need to gain weight before I leave the 22 of March, but this is difficult because I've been hiking daily with my 20lb pack to get ready and to make matters worse i am a vegan. Any thoughts?

I was hoping to build some of those big hiker calf's like Wildcat has but I just got skinnyer.

The Professor
01-28-2009, 18:24
I went from 180 lbs to 135 at my lowest. I'm 5'8". After a year off the trail I'm finally back to 180. At 135 I did look like a gulag survivor; at 180 I'm showing that I'm middle aged. I'd rather stay between 155-165 lbs, but I'd better get off my lazy but to do that.

If I were starting skinny I would bulk up. During my hike I lost not only most of my bodyfat, but muscle in my upper body.

You cannt keep up with the calorie deprivation while on the trail. The only hope is to binge while in towns, on the most calorie-dense, fattening foods you can find. I recommend taking a multi-vitamin while on the trail also.

garlic08
01-28-2009, 18:31
I have about the same metabolism, never could gain weight for the life of me. On the long trails, I would burn off several pounds of upper body muscle mass, the stuff I wasn't using. I comes back with hard work. At some point, for me about 800 to 1000 miles into a hike, you get a hunger that's very hard to satisfy and you learn to eat more when you can. I'm also vegetarian at home, but on the trail I can't resist good greasy fried fish and chips. I've never craved a burger.

I think how much you burn depends on how much you're carrying, too. There's a huge difference between hiking with a 20 pound pack and 40 pound pack. I've found with a light load and light shoes, my caloric needs aren't that great. Two pounds per day is plenty for 20 mile days.

I never built up calf muscles, either. Just got lean and stringy.

RockStar
01-28-2009, 18:35
If you're worried about it, I like to drink protein shakes with breakfast. I noticed a few other hikers doing so. .02

Goose Catcher
01-29-2009, 17:52
2 pounds of food means 2 pounds in your pack. It doesn't give an idea of the nutritional/caloric content. It may not be calorie dense enough that in a week you will be catabolic and be losing weight. Or it could be so calorie dense that you are actually gaining weight.

What you want is the calorie content of the food you are bringing.
1 gram of carbohydrate equals 4 calories.
1 gram of protein equals 4 calories.
1 gram of fats equals 9 calories.

Approximately 3500 calories equals 1 pound of body fat. If you are in a deficit of 500 calories per day, you would lose 1 pound of body fat in a week.

Those 32oz of food you are bringing could be all carbohydrates leading to 3600 calories. Or it could be all fats leading to 8100 calories. Now the 32oz of carbs at 3600 calories may be appropriate for your hiking style and metabolic rate, but in the case that it isn't, you will begin to lose weight. If you need more calories, add more fatty foods such as nuts, seeds, oils, avacados or even Odwalla GoMega bars.

So what am I getting to? You have to look at the calorie content of the food you are bringing, not just the weight.

It also may be a good idea to bulk up as much as you can prior to leaving. Although any weight you gain will be fat weight and not lean body mass, this extra weight can provide a buffer if your caloric needs aren't met and give you time to get it sorted out.


Hope this helps, I am leaner than you and know of the stresses it may cause.

SkinnyT
01-29-2009, 18:18
Protien shakes for breakfast and dinner.

Fire Ball
01-29-2009, 19:45
I'm with Skinny T. I supplement my carb-rich diet with protein shakes for breakfast and dinner and a couple of protein bars during the day. This regime works for me as I loose no more than 10 pounds on my 2000+ mile hikes.

take-a-knee
01-29-2009, 20:46
I'm with Skinny T. I supplement my carb-rich diet with protein shakes for breakfast and dinner and a couple of protein bars during the day. This regime works for me as I loose no more than 10 pounds on my 2000+ mile hikes.

Excellent advice, protein powder in isolate form (it is a bit more expensive), I like the Prolab brand, mixes more easily and is more bioavailable.

SGT Rock
01-29-2009, 21:09
I went on a cookies and banna split diet plan a couple of weeks prior to starting. Since I left in January I wanted some extra body fat I didn't have at the time - of course I was probably under 10% body fat before I started.

dradius
01-30-2009, 09:53
+1 for drink mixes. REI sells strawberry and banana flavored powdered mixes that are not bad and are vegan.

JAK
01-30-2009, 11:17
Healthy Vegan Prick.

Seriously though, you are definitely doing the right thing by focusing on exercise rather than weight. Burn as much calories as you can each day by hiking, and eat as much as you can, but don't worry if you don't bulk up. You might even lose some weight. At 6'1" 165# your body might be 10% fat, but it might be 20%. Anything from 140 pounds to 189 pounds is supposedly normal weight for 6'1", depending on how much muscle mass you have, and how heavy your bones are. Maybe watch your waistline measurement, and pinch tests. If you really feel your losing too much take a day off and eat more, same as you should on your hike.

Hiking 20 miles a day burns alot more fat than running 20 miles a day, so you will likely need to add more vegetable oils into your vegan diet. For carbs and protiens I presume you are already drinking alot of soy milk, and eating alot of legumes/grains for complete protiens. Your digestive tract might need some time to adjust to higher intakes of legumes/grains. Try and match the protien/carb/fat consumption to what you are burning, which at 20 miles a day will be higher in fat, but you still need lots of protien and carbs.

Something like...
For every 1000 kcal burned...
~ 10% protien = ~ 20g to 25g of protien
~ 35% to 55% fats = ~ 40g to 60g of fats
~ 35% to 55% carb = ~ 90g to 135g of carbs

Carrying less body weight and a lighter pack will help also. A 135 pound person carrying 15 pounds can cover 20 miles on the same number of calories as a 175 pound person carrying 25 pounds and covering only 15 miles; or a 220 pound person carrying 30 pounds covering only 12 miles.

If I was 6'1" I might stop and eat for a day or two if I got down to 135 pounds, but I wouldn't be too worried about it as long as I was healthy.

wrongway_08
01-30-2009, 11:41
Dont worry about bulking up before hand.

I ate 8,000 calories while in trail towns towards the last 2 months of my hike. I started out at 175, ended at 130.

its simple... eat all the time, when in town stops .... pig out while in town. Dont wait till you start loosing weight, just start the trail eating more then you think is needed.

It took me about a month and a half to start putting weight back on after finishing the hike. I'm now up to 167, almost 4.5 months later.

John B
01-30-2009, 11:57
Where did the 6,000 calorie/day figure come from? Just curious because it is generally recognized that running a marathon (24.2 miles) burns about 2,400 calories for a 150 lbs person at moderate pace. There are many cites for that figure, but this one is typical:
http://running-marathons-races.suite101.com/article.cfm/marathoning_and_weight_loss

This one is a bit more science-y, so to speak, and is drawn partially from an article published in a refereed medical journal:
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

Here is a site where you can calculate calories burned based on weight, speed, and duration. Even for a fat slob like me (210 lbs) running at 6 mph constantly for 4 hours, I'd burn 3,600 calories.
http://www.runtheplanet.com/resources/tools/calculators/caloriecounter.asp

Is there any evidence for the 6,000 calories per day figure?

BigBlue
01-30-2009, 12:05
I wouldn't 'bulk up',but rather start the thru-hike in good shape. Powdered protien shakes are a great idea to supplement breakfast and dinner, NOT instead of though. I always carry a plastic bottle of olive oil and add it to everything I can that tastes good.
It sounds like your wife is not going which means that she can send mail drops for things like vitamin supplements, dehydrated homemade mummus (yum), etc. I've been hiking vegan for years and it's not as hard as people think, it just takes some planning.

jersey joe
01-30-2009, 12:14
Zia,
Your concern about losing weight on your thu hike is a very valid one.

At 6'1", 165 you have a lean build and because of this, bulking up/putting on 10lbs before you start is an EXCELLENT idea and will certainly help. You are planning on 20miles per day and you are right, this will take its toll calorie wise.

I averaged 20 miles per day and went from 175 to 135lbs. on my thru hike and was glad that I gained 10lbs before MY hike.

Jack and Mountain Squid are advising against gaining weight which is probably good advise for someone who is overweight. Not someone that is 6'1"/165.

JAK
01-30-2009, 12:59
Where did the 6,000 calorie/day figure come from? Just curious because it is generally recognized that running a marathon (24.2 miles) burns about 2,400 calories for a 150 lbs person at moderate pace. There are many cites for that figure, but this one is typical:
http://running-marathons-races.suite101.com/article.cfm/marathoning_and_weight_loss

This one is a bit more science-y, so to speak, and is drawn partially from an article published in a refereed medical journal:
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

Here is a site where you can calculate calories burned based on weight, speed, and duration. Even for a fat slob like me (210 lbs) running at 6 mph constantly for 4 hours, I'd burn 3,600 calories.
http://www.runtheplanet.com/resources/tools/calculators/caloriecounter.asp

Is there any evidence for the 6,000 calories per day figure?That's a good point. Walking is slightly more efficient than running, on flat terrain, but on trails its probably comparable. The big variable here is net elevation gain. A second variable is weight carried. Clothing and gear and food and water weight needs to be added to body weight. Depending on the section of the AT the hiking energy expenditure including net elevation gain can be anything from the same as running on level ground to 1.5 or 2.0 or 2.5 times as much, for a daily average. Personally I find I can hike just as far in light to moderate terrain as flat terrain, thus burning more energy, but severe terrain like the fundy footpath or the rough sections of the AT slow me down proportionally to the energy expended.

When I was 175# I could run 30km in about 3.5 hours, burning 2400 calories
but I could walk that same distance also, with 25#, and in moderate terrain, burning perhaps 4000 calories over perhaps 10 hours. If the terrain was more severe the distance would be less, but the calories burn and hiking duration would be about the same at about 4000 calories, plus my resting and sleeping calories for the rest of the day, say 1400 for a total of 5400. Now that I am heavier I cover less ground, but burn about the same calories, because I've got pretty much the same engine. If I was to get fit I could hike more days in a row, and perhaps more calories per day, but 6000 calories per day isn't out of the question for someone 6'1", even if only 165 pounds. Its the size of the engine that matters really, not so much the total body weight. Body weight slows you down mostly, but doesn't burn much more calories. It effects basal metabolism some, but not how many calories you can burn in a day.

Pedaling Fool
01-30-2009, 13:18
...Here is a site where you can calculate calories burned based on weight, speed, and duration. Even for a fat slob like me (210 lbs) running at 6 mph constantly for 4 hours, I'd burn 3,600 calories.
http://www.runtheplanet.com/resources/tools/calculators/caloriecounter.asp

Is there any evidence for the 6,000 calories per day figure?
I don't know of any precise way to measure calories burned (I'm somewhat ignorant in this area), but doesn't HR have to factor in?
I have a watch that takes in all the info on the above website, but instead of distance and speed it takes into account HR, after all, one person doing a certain distance at a certain speed will expend different amount of calories depending on how much they are taxing their system, right? In other words, an elite athlete runing 1 mile @ 6mph compared to a not so experience athlete running the same distance, who will expend more calories -- assuming all else the same: weight, age...

JAK
01-30-2009, 13:26
I would agree though, that most people burning 6000 calories per day are likely averaging over 20 miles a day. I would guess that I would be in the 15 mile/day category even if I lost some weight, and hiked at 200 pounds including gear and clothing and food. I think I'm a 6000 calories per day burner though. While losing weight some of that can come from food, but I think I could probably eat 6000 calories per day also, once I got used to it.

So I am guessing the AT average might be close to...

calories = 2 x pounds x miles

for 6-12 hour/day hikers, including the extra calories burned in camp and while sleeping.


This fellow will probably drop a few pounds if he averages 20 miles a day, and
so his body weight might drop to 150 pounds and with gear and food maybe 175 pounds total, and so by my formula his daily calorie burn might be something like...

2 x 175 x 20 = 7000 calories per day, if he is fit enough. If he is only able to eat 6000/day, he would be losing about 2 pounds per week in body fat, and he could gain half of that back with a zero day on the 7th, so he might only lose a pound a week.

6000 calories is alot of food, but easier if 3000 calories of it is fat. I would guess that high mileage is as much a matter of stomach as it is heart and lungs. Perhaps the most critical thing however, is how fast your body can repair itself. It's all alot less work however, the less your body and gear weighs. If you can drop 50 pounds in body weight, by losing fat, and making some of your muscles leaner and meaner, and hike on basically the same stomach, you should be able to cover alot more ground each day, if that's your thing.

I would just go with whatever stomach I had, and see how far it gets me. ;)

Pedaling Fool
01-30-2009, 13:29
I touched on this subject on another thread http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44949

Not saying my watch is the gold-standard in calorie counting, but HR just seems like a very important factor in determining calories burned.

I usually burn about 2400 calories after about a 10 mile run. I do weigh 220, maybe I should enter 150 in my watch and see what I come up with then. However, if I take it easy I would burn less, the HR/TIME with the other pre-entered factors (age, sex, weight) plus resting HR, max HR -- not sure if they factor in -- determine calories burned.

John B
01-30-2009, 14:03
John Gault, you hit on the key to it when you wrote that you entered your resting heart rate (along with other factors). As mentioned in the excerpt from the med. journal in the Runners World article, it's highly misleading to speak only of the total caloric burn; instead, you have to factor in your resting caloric burn and then subtract to get the net. It is my understanding that the 100 calories per mile figure is based on averages for the resting metabolic rate subtracted from the total caloric burn. Just glancing at the figures you provided, it would seem that you raise your pulse at a greater than average rate on your run. And as you said, age plays a factor in that (I'm 49), too. Still, all things considered, it seems that the 6,000 calorie per day figure is more mythical than factual.

JAK
01-30-2009, 14:10
Just to be clear, 165 pounds is a very normal and healthy weight for someone 6'1".
It might not be 'normal' compared to most people today, but it is mid-range for BMI.

140 pounds might be a very healthy weight for 6'1" at the end of a 20 mile/day thru-hike. If he is fit enough to hike 20 miles a day, he might be best doing it at 140 to 160 pounds. It all depends on how much muscle and bone he's carrying, but 140 to 190 pounds is healthy for 6'1" and normal weight under BMI. It is natural and should be expected that your body will lose some weight while hiking. That's why we carry fat, so that we can burn it. The question might be how much is he carrying now, and does he need any more? 165 pounds might already be enough muscle and fat for this individual for the start of a hike. I think he should just focus on getting in shape, and eating healthy, and not worry too much about bulking up, unless that's how his body responds to the exercise. I say focus on hiking and a balanced diet, and just let your body respond naturally. There is nothing neccessarily unhealthy about 6'1" 140 pounds, as long as you maintain 10% body fat, and your muscles and tissue are lean and mean and repairing themselves.

Let your body decide, not society, but listen to your wife also. ;)

Pedaling Fool
01-30-2009, 14:18
John Gault, you hit on the key to it when you wrote that you entered your resting heart rate (along with other factors). As mentioned in the excerpt from the med. journal in the Runners World article, it's highly misleading to speak only of the total caloric burn; instead, you have to factor in your resting caloric burn and then subtract to get the net. It is my understanding that the 100 calories per mile figure is based on averages for the resting metabolic rate subtracted from the total caloric burn. Just glancing at the figures you provided, it would seem that you raise your pulse at a greater than average rate on your run. And as you said, age plays a factor in that (I'm 49), too. Still, all things considered, it seems that the 6,000 calorie per day figure is more mythical than factual.
I understand that they are averages, but the calculator for calories burned (http://www.runtheplanet.com/resources/tools/calculators/caloriecounter.asp) seems to me would be less accurate than my watch.

I put in info from my runs in both calculators and came up with different numbers ~300 calories different.

If my watch is anywhere near accurate than I can see someone easily expending 6,000 calories during an all day hike -- at least in the beginning when they aren't as in good a shape.

Pedaling Fool
01-30-2009, 14:39
That's a good point. Walking is slightly more efficient than running, on flat terrain, but on trails its probably comparable. The big variable here is net elevation gain. A second variable is weight carried. Clothing and gear and food and water weight needs to be added to body weight. Depending on the section of the AT the hiking energy expenditure including net elevation gain can be anything from the same as running on level ground to 1.5 or 2.0 or 2.5 times as much, for a daily average. Personally I find I can hike just as far in light to moderate terrain as flat terrain, thus burning more energy, but severe terrain like the fundy footpath or the rough sections of the AT slow me down proportionally to the energy expended.

When I was 175# I could run 30km in about 3.5 hours, burning 2400 calories
but I could walk that same distance also, with 25#, and in moderate terrain, burning perhaps 4000 calories over perhaps 10 hours. If the terrain was more severe the distance would be less, but the calories burn and hiking duration would be about the same at about 4000 calories, plus my resting and sleeping calories for the rest of the day, say 1400 for a total of 5400. Now that I am heavier I cover less ground, but burn about the same calories, because I've got pretty much the same engine. If I was to get fit I could hike more days in a row, and perhaps more calories per day, but 6000 calories per day isn't out of the question for someone 6'1", even if only 165 pounds. Its the size of the engine that matters really, not so much the total body weight. Body weight slows you down mostly, but doesn't burn much more calories. It effects basal metabolism some, but not how many calories you can burn in a day.
This, to me, just seems to support my belief. If you want to know calories burned, you must factor in HR. If you put in the calculator 2.0 mph with no indication of how much exertion (and disregarding other important factors), then the calculation of "averages" is going to be way off.

take-a-knee
01-30-2009, 14:50
Just to be clear, 165 pounds is a very normal and healthy weight for someone 6'1".
It might not be 'normal' compared to most people today, but it is mid-range for BMI.

140 pounds might be a very healthy weight for 6'1" at the end of a 20 mile/day thru-hike. If he is fit enough to hike 20 miles a day, he might be best doing it at 140 to 160 pounds. It all depends on how much muscle and bone he's carrying, but 140 to 190 pounds is healthy for 6'1" and normal weight under BMI. It is natural and should be expected that your body will lose some weight while hiking. That's why we carry fat, so that we can burn it. The question might be how much is he carrying now, and does he need any more? 165 pounds might already be enough muscle and fat for this individual for the start of a hike. I think he should just focus on getting in shape, and eating healthy, and not worry too much about bulking up, unless that's how his body responds to the exercise. I say focus on hiking and a balanced diet, and just let your body respond naturally. There is nothing neccessarily unhealthy about 6'1" 140 pounds, as long as you maintain 10% body fat, and your muscles and tissue are lean and mean and repairing themselves.

Let your body decide, not society, but listen to your wife also. ;)

A 73" tall/140# man is a frail gimlet, who, whether he realizes it or not, is a lot closer to a nursing home than he realizes.

JAK
01-30-2009, 15:09
John Gault, you hit on the key to it when you wrote that you entered your resting heart rate (along with other factors). As mentioned in the excerpt from the med. journal in the Runners World article, it's highly misleading to speak only of the total caloric burn; instead, you have to factor in your resting caloric burn and then subtract to get the net. It is my understanding that the 100 calories per mile figure is based on averages for the resting metabolic rate subtracted from the total caloric burn. Just glancing at the figures you provided, it would seem that you raise your pulse at a greater than average rate on your run. And as you said, age plays a factor in that (I'm 49), too. Still, all things considered, it seems that the 6,000 calorie per day figure is more mythical than factual.You've got me thinking.

I know many people make false claims about calories burned, because very few of us are voyageurs or ultramarathoners or high mileage thru-hikers, but we hear figures from those folks and like to apply them to ourselves.

We should be able to scale it back based on mileage and total weight.

David Horton burned 6000-7000 per day, running 40 miles/day on the PCT.
He doesn't weigh much though, and that was running. He keeps his weight constant throughout an event, which is that of a runner.

This fellow was heavier, and consumed 6000-8000 on the AT,
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050806/NEWS/508060372/1004/SPORTS

weighing 190 at start and 160 at finish. He averaged 45 miles a day, so there had to be some running their also. He was supported, so total weight probably averaged say 180 pounds for 7200 calories per day for 45 miles per day.

Scaling that back to 20 miles a day, and adding some efficiency for walking rather than running, but then keeping some basal metabolism constant, it does seem that only 4000 calories is more reasonable than 6000 for 20 miles per day, unless you are carrying alot of weight.

Perhaps something more like...

Average calories/day on AT = Total Weight [pounds] x (Miles Per Day + 10)

The extra 10 miles are added to account for basal metabolism.

So for a hiker weighing 160 pounds carrying 20 pounds:
10 miles per day = 3600 calories
15 miles per day = 4500 calories
20 miles per day = 5400 calories
25 miles per day = 6300 calories

The hiking part is a net burn of 1 pound per mile per pound, which considerably higher than walking or running on flat terrain, but includes the effect of net elevation gain, and to a lesser extent the uneven surface.

JAK
01-30-2009, 15:26
Using those figures, and fellow that is 6'1 and in fairly good shape, but overweight compared to distance runners, and carrying 40 pounds average rather than 20, might have a total weight of 270 pounds. Using the same formula as above, because he is using basically the same engine, his fuel consumption might be as follows.

5 miles per day = 3600 calories
10 miles per day = 4450 calories
15 miles per day = 6300 calories, and that's probably the best he can do

I would agree that 6000 is pretty extreme, and 4500 is more reasonable.
Depends on many factors though, like age, engine size, fitness, and determination.
By engine size I don't mean body weight so much as a persons natural capacity to do work.

JAK
01-30-2009, 15:31
I guess I am saying this guy can probably still stand to lose a few pounds if he wants to do 20 miles per day.
But he shouldn't worry about it until he hits the trail. Until then just hike and eat to get in shape.

Zia
01-31-2009, 01:35
Thanks for all the good advise. I think I'll hit the trail without bulking up. I don't even think I know how. I eat when when I'm hungry, it seams unhealthy to force feed myself. I do like the advise of protein shakes, supplements and olive oil. As for daily milage I don't see why I won't be able to do 20+ a day everyday, even at a snails pace of 2 mile per hour for 10+ hours a day. But you guys are right hiking all day will burn 6000 cal. I live in santa fe,nm with training mountain right outside my doorstep and I have been pounding the trails for year. I am assuming my body fat is very low even though my upper body isn't very muscular .So if I look like I just returned from a concentration camp after reaching Maine so be it. It will be all worth it. See ya'll out there.

randyg45
01-31-2009, 03:27
Chocolate.

jrwiesz
01-31-2009, 03:56
I eat when when I'm hungry, it seams unhealthy to force feed myself. I do like the advise of protein shakes, supplements and olive oil.

Butter...eat a stick every day, in divided portions.

Along with the protein shakes, vitamins/supplements of your usual regime, and olive oil in cooking all your meals where sensible.

Trail gorp[with plenty of raisins/cranberies/dried fruits] & jerky every two hours while hiking. You won't have to "force feed" yourself every two hours; I think most people just don't want to be bothered. Eating every two hours keeps ones' blood sugar on an even keel. Resulting in increased energy/stamina consistantly.

Try it at home now; eat every two hours 6-8 times a day, instead of the usual mindset of three square meals a day. Eat a quality protein and a quality carbohydrate, the portion size should be the size of your fist balled up, or the flat of your palm. For example - a skinless boneless chicken breast, and an apple. Or a scoop of cottage cheese[balled up fist size], and a banana. It works. Even keel blood sugar, energy/stamina, maintain body weight.

gregor
01-31-2009, 10:35
Good thread, lots of good info floating around.

First things first, BMI is a crock. it doesn't take into account muscle mass at all, it's just a weight/height measure that penalizes tall people. Very simply put a person who grows an inch from 5' to 5'1 is going to put on some weight, more bone, more muscle, etc. Another person going from 6' to 6'1 is going to need to put on more weight than the 5' person based on the fact that bones don't just get longer they get thicker, thereby increasing volume. Doubling length, quadruples surface area and increases volume by a factor of 8. What i'm trying to say is that 6'1 and 165 is pretty darn skinny. Is it emaciated, not in the least, but the OP does not have a ton of weight to lose and that's the thing to be careful of.

2nd thing, the 6,000 calorie a day figure probably takes into account the basal metabolic rate (maybe 2500 cal/day for someone 6'1 and 165, but i'd guess even higher) plus any extra work they do during the day. Thru hiking would be quite a bit of extra work. But i think where the caloric needs start to climb is the body adapting to the workload. As you get more fit on the trail, its because your body is able to better handle the same stress through adaptation. Your metabolism is going to get revved up quickly so now instead of 2500 cal/day you are burning 3500 a day to help repair the damage from the day so you are ready to go the next day.

I'd think that the original poster is going to need to watch their calorie makeup more closely than most. Key is to get enough protein, and not just every once in a while, like in towns, but constantly, every day getting a solid supply of protein. I don't have the study in front of me, but i have read before that we have a hard time absorbing more than about 40 grams of protein in a sitting. So gourging ourselves every once in a while is not an effective way to make up the deficit. Protein powders, or Meal Replacement drink mixes are a good way to do this. Also making sure to get enough carbs in a steady stream throughout the day as well as at night to help keep your body burning carbs instead of breaking down itself for fuel (not much fat, so it's going to resort to muscle catabolism) as well as stocking up the glycogen stores for tomorrow.

If it were me, i'd try and increase the fat content of my meals leading up to the trip. Some extra fat will give you just a little bit of insurance. Also it will be easier to see if you are losing weight by looking at how much fat you are losing (is that 6 pack becoming more defined?), if so more calories. You're going to lose some weight, but i'd think that getting down below 155-150 is going to end up costing you muscle, which i feel is dangerous and a bad idea.

wrongway_08
01-31-2009, 10:40
Forget all the calories and crap. Start out eating more then you think is needed. If you keep your weight, thats good. If you gain a little, thats okay - youll loose it later. If you loose weight, eat more. Its that simple.
Too much thinking going on here :)

jersey joe
02-01-2009, 10:53
If you loose weight, eat more. Its that simple.
Too much thinking going on here :)
Wrongway, the weight issue is a lot simpler on a 6mo thru than on a sub 4mo thru. Much harder to keep weight on when averaging 20+miles per day. Planning on adding higher calorie foods to your diet, like olive oil, can make a big difference.

SGT Rock
02-01-2009, 10:54
Sometimes by the time the hunger really kicks in you are already in deficit. I hit that about 2 months in. And I thought I was already eating a lot of food.

JAK
02-01-2009, 11:58
I agree that BMI alone doesn't mean much. The critical thing here is percent body fat. The OP should maybe estimate his percent body fat, with pinch tests and stuff. If it is less than 15% then he should maybe visit a sports clinic and get it measured. Then he would have a sense of how much he can lose. You start to redline at 10%, and start to lose vital organ and muscle tissue. Not good. Marathon runners go to 8%, and I am sure high mileage thruhikers do also, but you gotta be really careful. At 6'1" 165 pounds he could have a lean body mass of 150 pounds to as little as 125 pounds, depending on your frame and muscle build. That would be 10% body fat to as much as 30%, but he sounds 12-15%, which is really healthy, but his body is going to need time to adapt to an even higher level of activity and digestion. I wonder how much he eats now.

20 miles a day is easier with alot of upper body bulk though. I don't think he would need 6000 a day to average 20 miles, not at 165 pounds, unless he is carrying lots of gear, which it doesn't sound like he is into if he is into high mileage. Say his lean mass is 145 pounds. so at 165 he is 14% fat. Say while hiking he drops a pound a week for the first 10 weeks, down to 155 pounds with a lean body mass of say 142 pounds, for 13/142 = 9% body fat. By then maybe he is carrying 15 pounds of clothing and gear and say 10 pounds of food and water on average, for an average weight on feet of 180 pounds. Averaging 20 miles a day he would need 180 x 20+10 = 5400 calories/day by my reckoning, as he can no longer afford to lose more weight. Prior to that, at a loss of 1 pound of body fat a week, he would only need about 5000 calories per day.

Anyhow, he doesn't really know what activity level he can maintain yet, but he probably already has some buffer there, but another 5 pounds wouldn't hurt. He should maybe get his body fat checked, and then increase his mileage and diet during training and see how his percent body fat responds. I think 6000 a day is for higher average mileage, or carrying more weight. But I'm only guessing. 5400 a day is close to that, and still alot of food. There is buffer there though. If his weight drops too much he needs to slow down or eat more, but he should get his lean body mass checked to know where his redline is.

JAK
02-01-2009, 12:10
I am very concerned about losing too much weight. I am a lean 6'1" and 165 and if I am going to walk 20+ miles a day I'll need to eat two pound of food a day, I guess. I've done some calculations. At 32 oz of food times 150 cal per oz. that equal 4800 cal. Divided by 20 miles equals 240 cal. per mile. I don't no if that is enough. I've heard hikers burn upwards of 6000 cal. a day. If that is the case I will loose a couple of pounds a week or 20-40 pounds over the 2000 + miles I intend to hike this year. My wife thinks I need to gain weight before I leave the 22 of March, but this is difficult because I've been hiking daily with my 20lb pack to get ready and to make matters worse i am a vegan. Any thoughts?So in Summary...

1. Work on increasing your weekly mileage while training.
2. See what foods work best as you increase weekly mileage.
3. Find out what your lean body mass is, and know your redline.
4. Try to build up a buffer, both muscle and fat, say 10-15 pounds.

You might already have that buffer now, but you should check.

JAK
02-01-2009, 12:17
When I entered basic training in 1983, age 21, I was 6' 1/2" and weighed 155 pounds. After 13 weeks, I was one of the few guys that actually gained weight, to 165 pounds.
Now I am 46 and about 220 pounds. Nothing wrong with 165 pounds at 6'1".
Lots of skinny tall guys in our company, and they were the best hikers.

SGT Rock
02-01-2009, 12:44
Similar experience. I was 5'8" 124 when I entered basic, left at 135 and practically no fat - I had to eat tons to have energy.

I got back from Iraq in '07 and went on the "eat everything you didn't get on an Iraqi base" diet and got up to 185. That summer I decided to slim back down and got down to 155 with almost no body fat. I got up to about 162 before I left by eating lots of Bannana Splits and cookies. By about 2 months on the trail I was at 152 and starving though I was eating all the time. I got to the point where I had to stop every 30 minutes and eat more food or I had no energy at all. I was eating huge meals in towns and eating 3 large meals a day on the trail and lots of snacks. I would say my calorie intake was probably in the 5,000 region.

Now I have been working on adding in muscle and not fat. I'm up to 175 with about 12% bodyfat. I'd like to add about 10 more pounds of lean body mass while keeping the fat at about 12%. But if I got ready to thru-hike again I would probably try to make it to 20% bodyfat before leaving. Much more than that wouldn't be healthy, and I am sure if I started at 20% I wouldn't have it by the time I was a month into the hike.

George
02-01-2009, 13:14
If you have the time and budget try to spend 1 extra day per week in town and taking it easy eating lots of small meals, giant pig outs in a short time just get passed through the body. Like most religion the day of rest came from practical needs in a time of great exertion to make a living. Now it would make more logic to have a day of physical toil per week for the office workers

Pedaling Fool
02-01-2009, 13:26
...giant pig outs in a short time just get passed through the body...
Not sure if this is true for someone with a "hiker's appetite". I remember eating incredible amounts of food and never getting that "stuffed" feeling. It was like the food was gone before it ever hit my stomach. I'm not sure if I had the discipline to eat small meals during this time, it's the only time my stomach was bigger than my eyes.

garlic08
02-01-2009, 13:28
Forget all the calories and crap. Start out eating more then you think is needed. If you keep your weight, thats good. If you gain a little, thats okay - youll loose it later. If you loose weight, eat more. Its that simple.
Too much thinking going on here :)

Way to go, Wrongway, well said. Just eat as much as you can of what tastes good to you. You'll soon know if it's enough to keep up that 20 mpd pace (or if you can keep that pace). If it's not, either slow down or eat more fats if you can.

You'll need more calories per day in the South and North, less in the middle. Some days 30 miles will fly by, others you'll struggle to get 15.

Your strategy about a 2 mph pace for 10+ hours per day is a sound one. That's what I did. If you really like to walk and your pack weight is reasonable, it's not that hard. My average packed food load was about 3500 calories per day. I only lost a couple pounds on the AT. I lost more weight before Damascus, then gained it back and kept it on.

As far as bulking up now, a few pounds of fat won't hurt. It's a good buffer. Good luck!

JAK
02-01-2009, 13:43
If you have the time and budget try to spend 1 extra day per week in town and taking it easy eating lots of small meals, giant pig outs in a short time just get passed through the body. Like most religion the day of rest came from practical needs in a time of great exertion to make a living. Now it would make more logic to have a day of physical toil per week for the office workersInteresting. That last line is pretty funny, but true. A few years ago I was running an hour a day and 2 hours on sunday but because of my work I figured it still averaged out to subnormal. My weight got back down to 185. Now I try to and from work each day, and again, just to approach normal, but I'm back up around 225. I wish I was only 20% body fat. That would be sweet. At 225, I'm probably carrying 75 pound of fat. Yikes.

I think for many of us our weight is a reflection of activity more than diet.
I know the two go hand in hand really, but when I live healthy I eat healthy.
When I am active I lose. When I am inactive I gain. Form follows function. ;)

George
02-01-2009, 13:50
I would also eat 3 days calories at one time but the next day would be running on empty if I did not keep eating, even a 900lb cow with 4 stomachs can only process enough food to put on about 3 lbs per day regardless of how much it eats

rickb
02-01-2009, 14:57
You got a Baskin-Robbins near by? This is from the Boston Herald:


What single food item has more calories than 49 Oreo cookies, more sugar than 20 bowls of Froot Loops cereal and the saturated fat equivalent of 59 strips of bacon?

That would be Baskin-Robbins’ large Chocolate Oreo Shake. Baskin-Robbin’s 32-ounce Oreo shake contained 2,600 calories, 135 grams of fat (59 grams of saturated fat), 263 grams of sugar and 1,700 milligrams of sodium.

Some other good tips can be found here:

http://hawk.heraldinteractive.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1148553&format=text

Good luck. :eek:

jrwiesz
02-01-2009, 17:08
Interesting. ...

I think for many of us our weight is a reflection of activity more than diet.
I know the two go hand in hand really, but when I live healthy I eat healthy.
When I am active I lose. When I am inactive I gain. Form follows function. ;)

This should be the number one, public service message, to overweight society.

Getting it to listen, is the problem.:(

Thank you JAK for that pearl.:sun

Zia
02-02-2009, 11:49
Way to go, Wrongway, well said. Just eat as much as you can of what tastes good to you. You'll soon know if it's enough to keep up that 20 mpd pace (or if you can keep that pace). If it's not, either slow down or eat more fats if you can.

You'll need more calories per day in the South and North, less in the middle. Some days 30 miles will fly by, others you'll struggle to get 15.

Your strategy about a 2 mph pace for 10+ hours per day is a sound one. That's what I did. If you really like to walk and your pack weight is reasonable, it's not that hard. My average packed food load was about 3500 calories per day. I only lost a couple pounds on the AT. I lost more weight before Damascus, then gained it back and kept it on.

As far as bulking up now, a few pounds of fat won't hurt. It's a good buffer. Good luck!
Thats great to here that you didn't loose much weight. My pack is 15 lb plus consumables, so max weight with 80 miles of food is around 25lb.

garlic08
02-02-2009, 15:06
Thats great to hear that you didn't loose much weight. My pack is 15 lb plus consumables, so max weight with 80 miles of food is around 25lb.

You're the first poster I've seen on WB who measures food by the mile, like I do, instead of by the day. My working formula is 1 pound per 10 miles, so for 80 miles I'll carry 8 pounds. I usually run out on the last day with that, so if I'm really hungry I'll carry an extra pound.

That's a very nice starting pack weight, and you'll probably loose some as you hike into the summer. I started with 10 lb, ended with 8. My 63-year old partner and I had no problem with a 20 mpd average with those packs.

You can eat fairly well on the AT with all the towns along the way, especially from PA to NY, where we enjoyed the "deli-a-day" tour for about 10 days in a row. There were even some nice ice cream stops in there, too, like at the Bellvale Creamery in NY. With some stretches like that, it's hard not to gain a little weight back.

Good luck!