View Full Version : calorie intake
Benjamin Putnam
09-14-2010, 11:54
how do i keep my calorie intake up on the trail?
couscous
09-14-2010, 12:00
Highlight every time the letters AYCE appear together in your guidebook and plan to visit these places. Take along some very dense calories like nuts and olive oil to add to your meals.
Eat... I gained weight. :)
garlic08
09-14-2010, 12:08
One way, often neglected, is to reduce the work you do. Every ounce you lighten the pack load, the less food you need to carry. Pay special attention to the amount of extra food and water you carry. Most packers carry way too much of both and that's often the heaviest thing in the pack. If you're facing a stiff climb and you have verified that the spring on the descent is good (info from hikers coming the other way), drink your fill and dump the rest, and climb light. Way less energy expended, way less food needed. I often saw hikers carrying three extra liters (seven pounds) of water when not even remotely needed. That's a lot of extra work for which more food is needed, which takes more work to carry, etc. Try to get on the other end of that spiral.
For sure, carry calorie-dense foods; that is, fat. Cheeses and peanut butter are cheap and easy to carry. Fats have roughly twice the energy density of carbs (bread, pasta, grains) and fruit. Most hikers aim for roughly 130 calories per ounce average. Pure fat is about 200 calories per ounce.
Benjamin Putnam
09-14-2010, 12:39
ok thanks guys. any "weird" food suggestions
garlic08
09-14-2010, 13:28
Weird food suggestions? Well, since you asked, try this--cold food only. It's not for everyone, but some have made it work well. On a long hike, the main benefit is the futz factor--not having to worry about fueling a stove in small towns, no shipping of cannisters, no fire building, etc. Meals are quick, clean, and very little water required so dry camps are more fun. There's more time to hike, if that's your goal. Lots of hikers are out there more to camp than to hike, so this is a really lousy suggestion if that's your goal.
It took an embarrassingly long time for me to figure that out for myself. I wish someone had told me when I was your age that a stove is not required equipment for backpacking.
There are already a couple of threads on this topic, so do a search if you want to read more about it.
What is weird is you will soon find yourself reading labels opposite of what you're supposed to read them for. Instead of looking for food with a low calorie count or low fat ratio you start choosing the stuff that has 50% or more fat or comparing two items and choosing the 250 calorie one over the 180 calorie one. Or you'll add up the total calories in the whole package and start thinking 1200 calories really isn't that much.
One way, often neglected, is to reduce the work you do. Garlic08
Good suggestion often overlooked. Not only does reducing pack wt translate into having to do less work, which really is just another way of saying using less energy, requiring fewer cals, but expending energy wisely as you hike in other ways does the same thing. For example, I don't normally max out my pace while going uphill. It's not that I can't, I just choose to spend less energy going uphill because the input(cals, muscle use) doesn't justify the output(miles) Use your cals(energy) most efficiently(where you get the most bang for your calorie buck, so to speak!). Walking/hiking efficiently at little (less than 3 ft) rises, on steps, water crossings, etc does the same thing. The energy saved or often needlessly expended eventually adds during the course of a day or during priods between resupplies. If you want a hint as to how to hike more efficiently watch experienced hikers. Watch where and how they place their footings and where they tend to speed up and slow down. Don't be a shotgun hiker, fast out of the gate, but lacking stamina!
ok thanks guys. any "weird" food suggestions
I once saw a thru hiker in New England buy and consume a whole tub of chocolate instant cake icing. Extreme, maybe.
Personally I craved orange juice, beer, and ice cream (in that order) when I got into town.
Couscous is right...... you'll come to love AYCE's. The Ming Garden Chinese Restaurant in Waynesboro, VA was the best I experience- YUM!!!!
My favorite AYCE Chinese on the AT was that place too Spokes!
Hometown familt Restaurant(I think that's the name of it) in Catawaba was second.
DaveSail
09-14-2010, 14:42
Yes , I agree with Digwood .
If you have hiked for awhile i'm sure you look where you put your feet .
Never step UP on a small rock / root . or DOWN into a depression ! Keep the " plane " of your travel / momentum even as possible . Sound silly ? Say you way 180 pounds and carry a 30 pond pack . That is over 200 pounds ! Every " useless " inch you lift it is wasted energy . Multiply it out over a day or two or three .
Talk about " PUD" s !!
David V. Webber
You said it better than me DaveSail!
Chance09
09-14-2010, 14:59
One way, often neglected, is to reduce the work you do. Every ounce you lighten the pack load, the less food you need to carry. Pay special attention to the amount of extra food and water you carry. Most packers carry way too much of both and that's often the heaviest thing in the pack. If you're facing a stiff climb and you have verified that the spring on the descent is good (info from hikers coming the other way), drink your fill and dump the rest, and climb light. Way less energy expended, way less food needed. I often saw hikers carrying three extra liters (seven pounds) of water when not even remotely needed. That's a lot of extra work for which more food is needed, which takes more work to carry, etc. Try to get on the other end of that spiral.
Couldn't have said this better myself. I frequently find myself dumping out my water when i know there will be more ahead. One of the bonuses to haveing bottles on the outside instead of a bladder.
Pedaling Fool
09-14-2010, 16:37
Highlight every time the letters AYCE appear together in your guidebook and plan to visit these places. Take along some very dense calories like nuts and olive oil to add to your meals.
Yeah, you gotta love them AYCE places. I was always on the look out
I can't really add anything else to what's been said, other than hunger is a part of long-distance hiking. And one thing you'll learn is that we eat way too much food when in society. I was actually surprised at how efficient the body is. I figure I was eating 1/2 (probably more) of what I usually eat at home and at the same time expending tons more energy walking up and down mountains with a pack that averaged between 50-60 lbs. I never felt stronger than I did after my thru.
...one thing you'll learn is that we eat way too much food when in society.
Isn't that the truth, especially here in America! Most Americans who go to Europe for the first time complain of the small portions. Actually, the portions generally served in many large cities in Europe are closer to what's considered "normal." It's here in America where we have the super size me mentality. Even here in America when folks go on doctor overseen diets and they receive the normal sized recommended sized 4-5 oz portions of meat, chicken, fish, etc they ask "what's that the appetizer?" No, that's just what healthier unspoiled less wasteful normal societies eat that don't have wt issues. And, we wonder why there is an Obesity Epidemic in America.
...I was actually surprised at how efficient the body is. I figure I was eating 1/2 (probably more) of what I usually eat at home and at the same time expending tons more energy walking up and down mountains.... I never felt stronger than I did after my thru.
I watched a TV special where they were investigating how people/societies live longer. The ONE unifying factor/aspect of those that lived longer was that they ate less or ate moderately, not over eating! Studies done with rats show that those rats who ate the least or ate just enough to meet their caloric needs lived the longest, but the rats who were able to eat as much as they wanted, and they wanted a lot, died the fastest and had the greatest incidences of disease! Made me say, "HUMMM" and not "YUMMY!, GIVE ME MORE MORE MORE!"
Monkeywrench
09-15-2010, 11:26
What is weird is you will soon find yourself reading labels opposite of what you're supposed to read them for.
Absolutely! I remember laughing out loud at labels that promised "REDUCED FAT." Why would anybody want reduced fat?
During my thru-hike I found great pleasure in wandering the aisles of a well-stocked supermarket. So much food!
Rocket Jones
09-15-2010, 11:55
If you're facing a stiff climb and you have verified that the spring on the descent is good (info from hikers coming the other way), drink your fill and dump the rest, and climb light.
I've never looked at it that way, but dang, that's brilliant!
I definitely need to consider losing some more of the 45 pounds of fuel I'm still carrying around.
Weird. I guess you could do like the infamous PCT hiker that ate a whole stick of butter. Some people claim to drink olive oil.
High density food is important, but it's even more important to find food that you would be willing to consume enough of. For me this was a powdered diet. I can drink and drink and drink, especially when my drinks are flavored. I can't stuff my face with more than about 4000 calories a day, even if I'm at home all day with nothing better to do. I can't do it at all on the trail. Obviously going liquid was the way for me. I put together a custom mix of powdered supplements that gives me at least 3000 calories a day. I could do more, and sometimes do get more by supplementing with Nido or electrolyte drinks, but I still try to get 1500 calories a day from gorp. I don't really think powdered drinks are weird though. It's pretty damn common for fitness enthusiasts to use protein drinks and for some weight lifters to use meal replacement bulking drinks.
Liquid is a good way to add calories. Also, if you want to down a bunch of fat, it's a lot easier to do it if it's mixed with sugar. I don't think I could eat a whole stick of butter or half a cup of olive oil (they're equivalent). But mix butterfat with sugar, egg yolks and vanilla and I'm definitely sure I can eat a pint.
That was kind of my thinking when I made sure to include high quantities of fat and carbs in my drink. My diet tricks don't go much further though. I suppose a page could be taken from soda companies by using high fructose corn syrup. Not for me though.
Weird. I guess you could do like the infamous PCT hiker that ate a whole stick of butter
I do this here at home although it takes me a day or two.
I do this here at home although it takes me a day or two.
All by itself? I can eat a lot of butter in one sitting if it's mixed into food, but that doesn't compare with downing a stick of butter like it was a Snickers bar.
garlic08
09-15-2010, 17:11
Gotta watch the fat a little, though. All things in moderation and all that. I hiked with a guy on the PCT who did drink olive oil, about a liter a week. He started feeling poorly in Washington State and slowed down a little. He finished the trail, went home, checked himself into a hospital with chest pains, and suffered an infarction right there that night. He was 40 years old. He's still alive with a stent, but now watches the fat intake more carefully.
All by itself? I can eat a lot of butter in one sitting if it's mixed into food, but that doesn't compare with downing a stick of butter like it was a Snickers bar.
All by itself. I eat a TBsp at a time several times during the day. Not quite Snickers intake.
http://www.kerrygold.com/usa/product_butter.php
High calorie intake can also be achieves with grains, like oats, as shown here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIq3gO-D6os
Pedaling Fool
09-16-2010, 08:45
Yeah, it's called moderation. We hear this all the time, but most of us don't understand what constitutes moderation -- I know I didn't really understand it before my thruhike.
When most people first start a diet they feel as though they're starving themselves; and in a way they are, but that's just because their body has learned that it doesn't have to be efficient, it is NOT because the food portions are too small. If you think about it it's kind of disgusting what's happening in your body when you gorge day-after-day...but I don't want to get too graphic, too early in the morning.
Exactly. Moderation to someone like myself, with some excess body fat and hiking perhaps 10-12 miles per day is different than that of a 24 year old hiker hiking 24 miles a day on 8% body fat. Even if I burn 4000 kcal or even 6000 kcal a day, I should not eat that much, because I am still overweight. A good rule of thumb is that you can burn at least 1% of your body fat each day, and I would suggest that you can increase that by 0.1% for every hour of hiking. So someone like myself, 195 pounds with perhaps only 150 pounds of lean body mass, should be able to burn 0.45 pounds of fat in a day, perhaps up to 0.90 pounds if I hike 10 hours. So that 0.90 pounds of body fat could replace 0.90 pounds of fat from the hiking diet, leaving the diet mostly carbs and protien. While hiking your body should be burning mostly fat, perhaps 5000kcal at 50% fat, 35% carbs, and 15% protien, but most of that fat can come from the body if you are overweight, say 80% of it, the dietary intake would then become 3000kcal at 17% Fat, 58% carbs, and 25% protien. YMMV.
Esssentially, High Calorie / High fat diets are only for hikers that are not overweight.
So someone weighing 150 pounds, with only 15 pounds of body fat, should burn only 0.15 to 0.30 pounds of body fat in a day, and they should replace that as soon as possible because they are already down to 10%, which is getting rather lean. So they need to consume more fats while hiking, whereas I do not. I still do it in winter though, to stay warm, but only if it is really cold like sub-zero F. Higher protiens also because they seem to generate more heat during digestion. Fats in your diet don't generate more heat during digestion, but they do trigger your body to burn fat more readily because more fats are coming. Not a great strategy for dieting, but a good strategy for staying warm. Still I eat mostly oats, even in winter. They work for me. I think everyone should have some. I can get away with more oats and less other stuff than most people.
Here is something I have enjoyed as a treat at times.
http://www.bettycrocker.com/products/cookie-mix?WT.mc_id=paid_search_300104_636117&WT.srch=1&esrc=11165
Very high in calories. Disregard all instructions on baking, just add a couple of spoonfulls of water and mix in the bag. eat as cookie dough.
The only drawback is the weight, but if you eat it soon after re-supply, no problem.
Available at a lot of Dollar Generals along the trail also.
Really have to be careful when designing a diet for the trail. A nutritious, satisfying, and adequate diet for the trail, as is at home, is more than consuming enough cals. and the right ratio of carbs, fats, and protein. It's also about vitamins, enzymes, and minerals. We should also be looking at what else has been added to our foods during the processing and refining of it! I also think it wise that a distinction be made between good fats(omega 3, 6, and 9 found in foods like avocados, sardines, herring, nuts, seeds, olive and canola oils, some beans, etc) and bad fats(trans fats, hydrogenated fats for example, often found in junk foods), complex carbs(whole grains, vegetables, and fruit for example) and simple carbs(often found in highly refined and processed flours, some breads, pastries, more junk food), and various sources of protein(some proteins are more complete than others, that is they contain more or all of the essential amino acids which are the building blocks of protein). No discussion of trailfoods should totally disregard these aspects of what we eat.
It's really not hard to design a nutritious, healthy, low food wt, compact foods diet if we would just spend a little more time getting ourselves informed as hikers. This is an area of hiking that is often times not given the consideration it deserves.
I cringe when hikers think all the answers to trailfood questions, maintaing a healthy body wt, and eating while out on hikes, especially while thru-hiking, is to consume every high cal food they can find. This too often results in consuming massive amounts of convenient easy to find junkfood, drinking olive oil as if it's the elixir to life, or carrying out a tub of butter or margarine to the trail. Even a good fat like olive oil can be consumed to excess.
Aye.
Eat real food. Avoid food like substitutes.
Aye! Right back at ya!
I was helping prepare some food in a homeless kitchen, where I volunteer some of my time, placing slices of cheese, or what I thought was cheese, on top of burgers. A mouse ran across the kitchen floor, stopped, and stared at me, twitching its little nose. I thought, "I'm going to make this mouse's day" and threw it a piece of the "yummy" cheese. No mouse can resist cheese! Right? I was expecting a little thank you, back flip, or at least a whisker/nose twitch from the mouse for being so kind. But no! The mouse scuttled over to the cheese, picked it up, sniffed it, took a tiny nibble, spit the nibble out of its mouth, and then ran away from it! What! This mouse must be confused, I thought! UNTIL, I read the ingredient list on the cheese packaging - whey, hydrogenated oil, food coloring! - Pasteurized Processed Cheese Food! What the hell is Cheese Food?
Turns out that was a smart mouse. It new the difference between "real" cheese and "fake" cheese! Now, if only humans could learn the diffreence by eating REAL food rather than Food Like Substances/Substitutes!
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.
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.
Marta, curious. Why do you say "not the sugar-free electrolyte powders?" What are you gaining from eating sugar? Is that really maximizing your health, nutrition, and cals/oz in terms of trailfood wt carried? Refined sugar is a refined simple carbohydrate(about 4 cals/oz) providing a quick sugar rush and then proceeded by a more significant energy crash. Not what I'm looking for in a food when endurance and stamina are key components to the activity.
Same with overly spiced foods. While spices can certainly add flavor and variety and a FEW cals, carrying trailfood wt in the form of excessive amounts of spices, doesn't really maximize your nutrients or cals/oz in terms of trailfood wt carried, which is why I typically like to buy palin food and spice it myself.
While on long hikes I'm into the strategic gorging every few days while in town like you advise, but I'm beginning to wonder how healthy that is too because once I finish my hike and I'm not expending those massive amount of cals like I was when I was hiking I pack on wt REAL FAST, EVEN THOUGH I"VE STOPPED GOUGHING ON FOOD.
I consume most of my daily caloric intake when hiking by using the "drip" method or by gnoshing on small snacks throughout the day.
I prefer refined sugars over artificial sweeteners.
I do have artificial sweeteners in my custom shakes. The protein I use was much cheaper when ordered in a preexisting type that already had artificial sweetener. Still, it's at least at least as concentrated after the other ingredients of my shake are added. Adding Nido adds a lot of flavor and all the other good stuff I'm looking for...although I have to scale up my usage so as not to wreak havoc with my lactose intolerance.
Johnny Thunder
09-16-2010, 20:43
just follow the ABE principle. find ways to stow easy-to-eat foods near the outside/top of your pack.
if you take off your pack, eat something.
if you stand around to drink water, eat something.
enjoy a pretty view, eat something.
put food near your camera if you have big enough hip belt pockets so you can always be snacking. you'll still find yourself hungry enough at big meals and never feel sated in the woods.
If you are going to eat sugar you might want to get it as evaporated cane juice crystals, Sugar in the Raw(those brown packets found at Starbucks and local coffee houses), agave syrup, or stevia, or get your sugar in the form of fructose in fruits. At least those sugars have not been designed in a lab. When you start researching how those little pink, blue, and yellow artificial sweetener packets came about you might be very surprised to know that most of them were not originally designed by chemists for the food industry as sweeteners!
I don't know any hikers that used straight sugar of any type. I wouldn't recommend it anyway. While it is a fairly high source of calories, there are ways to come close and get some other beneficial ingredients with those calories. In my case, I get fiber, and it's also low on the glycemic index so it doesn't make me sleepy.
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.
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
09-17-2010, 08:57
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
09-17-2010, 09:03
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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
09-17-2010, 10:37
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
09-17-2010, 10:46
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
09-17-2010, 15:45
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.
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.
http://www.azucarimperial.com/_filelib/ImageGallery/Consumer/Health-Nutrition/Imperial-EFG.gif
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
09-17-2010, 22:26
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
09-18-2010, 07:20
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 :D
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
09-18-2010, 09:53
...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.
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
09-20-2010, 10:11
"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. :eek:" http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58026
Yes, the 180 pound man would only weight 79 pounds after 6 months of hiking. :)
Pedaling Fool
09-20-2010, 10:42
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.
Pedaling Fool
09-20-2010, 10:54
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.
Actually I was wrong in saying that, because your activity level does rise. You gradually hike longer/further than in the beginning. So you're exercise level does increase. However, my diet and packweight stayed the same, yes my body weight was less, but my hiking day was so much longer, but I remained at a constant weight.
Leafty, you may elect to measure your cals by volume/density, which is what Imperial Sugar is doing when they say refined sugar has 45 cas/tablespoon, but that is not the way it is most often done. Cals are most often measured by wt in terms of cals per gram, or cals per oz. and then measured against other food using the same comparison.
As we know food calories come in 3 basic forms/packages - carbs, protein, and fats. They can be subdivided into areas like simple and complex carbs, various sorts of protein, and so called good and bad fats. This is where food calories comes from! It's basic. We also know protein amd carbs have aboout 4 cals per gram and fat has 9 cals per gram. Grams are units of weight not volume.
Why mention protein and carbs in the same context? Not because they are the same in every aspect or function but because they both contain 4 cals per gram. This is pertinent information when designing trailfoods and you are attempting to get enough cals in your trailfood while lowering your total trailfood wt.
My approach is, first look at your total nutrition and cals per oz, THEN seek trailfoods that are dense and less volumous(more compact).
As to weight loss trailing off, part of that is because weight lost means less weight to move. I suppose there's some biometric efficiency gained as well. I know I get better at walking the longer I do it and quickly forget when I get off the trail.
Leafty, you may elect to measure your cals by volume/density, which is what Imperial Sugar is doing when they say refined sugar has 45 cas/tablespoon, but that is not the way it is most often done. Cals are most often measured by wt in terms of cals per gram, or cals per oz. and then measured against other food using the same comparison.
My attached sheet has the sugar in calories per ounce too. It's on the low range of foods on my sheet, but my sheet only has foods that I thought would either have a great calorie/ounce or density ratio.
As we know food calories come in 3 basic forms/packages - carbs, protein, and fats. They can be subdivided into areas like simple and complex carbs, various sorts of protein, and so called good and bad fats. This is where food calories comes from! It's basic. We also know protein amd carbs have aboout 4 cals per gram and fat has 9 cals per gram. Grams are units of weight not volume.
Why mention protein and carbs in the same context? Not because they are the same in every aspect or function but because they both contain 4 cals per gram. This is pertinent information when designing trailfoods and you are attempting to get enough cals in your trailfood while lowering your total trailfood wt.
My approach is, first look at your total nutrition and cals per oz, THEN seek trailfoods that are dense and less volumous(more compact).
I prefer to consider the calories from protein till the end. I believe I said before that protein is not a very good source for calories. Just because you can get 4 calories per gram of protein in the lab does not mean you can get it in your body. Same goes for high fiber foods, although to a greater degree and for a different reason (in humans). The body certainly absorbs excess carbs and fats better than it does with protein. If I do consider the calories from protein, I reduce it to 3 calories per gram and expect to provide energy much later than carbs or fats.
In addition to simple and complex carbohydrates, it's also useful to consider the glycemic index of the food providing the carbs. As someone else said earlier, you want things in moderation, and moderating the blood sugar levels helps to moderate insulin levels which helps prevent plaque build up that could cause a heart attack. While we may be forced to eat a LOT when hiking, there's usually some wiggle room in our desired pack weight to plan for weight, density, macronutrient balance, vitamins & minerals, fiber and glycemic load....not to mention complex carbs, amino acids and essential fatty acids.
If I do consider the calories from protein, I reduce it to 3 calories per gram....-Leaftye
I never took that novel approach. That's something I need to consider. I missed opening your trailfood list the first time around.
Maybe, you or T-Dubs can weigh in on why a person without liver problems, diabetes, artery plaque, high cholesterol, high triglyceride levels, high blood pressure, heart disease, and without body wt issues, in other words a healthy person, needs to be overly concerned with all the recent talk about glycemic indexes of food.
Glycemic index isn't a big deal for me, but I do feel and appreciate how it makes me less groggy.
Additional units of food ups the insulin response due to the increased glycemic load, thus becomes a multiplication problem. I'm still learning about this, but supposedly a higher glycemic load causes a bigger insulin response, which causes greater hyperness and then greater sluggishness and a potential for plaque buildup and diabetes. Let's make up some numbers to start with here. Let's say food A has a glycemic index of 3 and food B has a glymemic index of 8. A normal diet normally requires 3 units of food and a thru hiker requires 7 units to maintain weight. With food A, 3 x 3 = 9 glycemic load, and food B is 8 x 3 = 24 glymemic load. With a trail diet food A is 3 x 7 = 21, food B is 8 x 7 = 56 glycemic load. The low glycemic index food has a lower glycemic load on the trail than the high glycemic index food does on a maintenance diet at home.
Maybe someone else can expand or correct this info. I don't care much about the health benefits. The way energy is disbursed and how it makes me feel is what's important to me...the long term stuff means little to me.
mark schofield
09-25-2010, 06:36
peanut butter seems like a good high calorie food to supplement caloric needs. so I googeled dried peanut butter. all I could find are brands with most of the oil removed which delivers a much lower calorie content when reconstituted.
I would choose peanuts over peanut butter. Easier and more flexible. If I didn't need that much oil in my diet, and I don't because I'm still overweight, I would cut back on the peanuts, and add some other legume to my diet like chickpeas or lentils, for soup. Legumes are a good thing to include in your diet. They are very complimentary to foods like oats. You don't need to go overboard. Just add some lentils or chickpeas into a dried veggie soup mix at night. If you are lean, and need extra calories, then you can hit the peanuts as part of a trail mix, day and night as between-meal and after-meal snacks.
atraildreamer
09-26-2010, 16:41
Ha, Ha that's a good point. And it makes you wonder why you lose so much weight (if you have it like I did) in the beginning and then level off and maintain a certain weight, regardless 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.
John, you may just be right about the long-term applicability of the formulas to a thru-hiker. When I read the original article by Jim Wood, I also researched other sources than the formulas that Jim incorporated into his article. These formulas Jim used seemed to make the most sense of what is available in the www. Everyone has a different opinion as to what is the correct method to quantify body types.:confused: One example is the question of how much water a person should drink every day...lots of varying opinions...so I picked a reasonable sounding amount and used it in the spreadsheets. :-?
Another problem is that everyone's metabolism operates at different levels, and is constantly changing in response to outside stimuli. So a thru-hiker's body is going to adjust as the hike goes along. It is going to reject some foods and crave others. Witness the abandoned instant oatmeal and pop tarts packages in hiker's boxes, and the gargantuan chow downs at the AYCE restaurants near the trail.:eek:
My conclusion is that the formulas incorporated into the spreadsheets should be used to compare and track your own weight loss, or gain, performance, and not be used to draw comparisons to others.
jem.slighr
11-10-2011, 12:16
Just get it over with and start eating the appropriate level. You know how to lose weight, so once you restore your metabolism, this won;t be a problem if you've gained a few pounds.