View Full Version : Should I gain weight (fat) for the trail?
travisap
10-27-2010, 14:00
I'm 5' 8" - 150lbs. I'm a marathoner (2:58:47) and an avid triathlete (Half-IM in 4:39:37), with a very low body fat percentage.
Would it be a good idea to put on more weight, specifically insulation (fat) for the trail? Would gaining more muscle mass help or hurt?
I have very poor circulation and find it very difficult to stay warm in conditions where other "normal" people are just fine.
Moose2001
10-27-2010, 14:08
I don't think you should go on a plan to fatten up before your hike. If you do, that weight will come off pretty quickly anyway. I'm not the athlete you are, I don't have a bunch of excess weight. I also tend to be both a cold sleeper and get chilled pretty easy. I just prepare for it, make sure I have a really good sleeping bag and know to layer up if I start getting a chill.
The one warning I would give you is there is a point where your body will start to burn muscule if it runs out of fat. Your energy will go and you'll be tired as hell. Happened to me in Maine in 2003. Listen to your body. If you start with low body fat, you need to make sure you're getting enough to eat. Pig out in town! That's one of the joys of hiking.
Wise Old Owl
10-27-2010, 14:38
I disagree with putting some fat on, but if you are going to do it, drink beer in the trail towns. This quenches all the pain and it's like liquid bread of empty calories.
I suspect that only those who suffer from an eating disorder should attempt to add body fat before attempting a thru hike. The trail is a physical and mental challenge for most who attempt a thru hike. Therefore it is wise to start in the best physical and mental health you can achieve. If you think you would be physically healthier with more fat, eat more. But that seems to be quite a rare condition. At least I've not seen many athletically fit people, who appeared to be too skinny.
You're fine... The vast majority of people hiking would love to be in the shape you're in.
garlic08
10-27-2010, 15:28
I'm the same body type and size, and also very active. No matter how much I eat, it never stays with me long. I need to keep moving to stay warm, and I need to keep eating in order to keep moving.
A few extra pounds probably won't hurt much, but it won't last long if you're not eating well. A pound of fat is only equal to roughly a day of average hiking. You still need to eat enough to sustain your activity. I've learned to ignore the concept of "meals", and eat every time I stop hiking for a few minutes, at least every couple of hours.
If you eat well on the hike, you won't need extra fat. You do have to watch it so you don't go into muscle-eating mode. Pay attention to your body. If you start looking like your ass fell off, slow down a little and eat more. I like to feel a little padding around the back side of my waist ("love handles"). When that disappears, as it did in the Southern Appalachians and in New England, I make sure to eat as much as I can and slow down a little. In the mid-Atlantic states, it was easier to maintain a faster pace and actually gain a little weight.
You will likely lose some muscle mass on the hike, mostly in the upper body. This will eventually return with normal activity over the following months. You're young, so you'll have a faster and easier recovery.
thelowend
10-27-2010, 15:41
Yeah just bring along some olive oil or peanut butter to easily make up for the massive amount of calories you will be burning. Because it sounds like you will be starting off where most people end up after getting used the trail, physically.. so better to overload with the calories than to have your muscle mass being eaten away, ugh... I don't have personal experience with longer than a weeks worth of hiking but I hear that once on the trail for a few weeks, you can't get enough calories.
Speakeasy TN
10-27-2010, 16:10
At 46 I have developed the typical "spare tire". The hike has changed my attitude about it from being self conscious to "feeding the baby". At 5'10 and 185 I'm not worried about packing on 10 more before March. On the other hand, would I trade with the OP? hmmmmmmmmmmmm
I think thermogenesis cost me more fat and muscle than hiking did. You don't say when you're starting, but an April start date might work better for you, as you'll probably finish before it gets too cold. Take extra warm clothing, drink olive oil before you sleep and make sure you're eating enough while on the trail, not just in trial towns. I was able to eat a 1400 calories worth of carbs for dinner (with oil, meat and dried veggies) to supplement huge breakfasts, lunches and snacks each day and still lose more than ten percent of my body weight in less than a month. But once it warmed up the weight loss stopped, even though my mileage increased significantly.
If the weight loss or the cold gets to be too much, take a few days off in a place with heaters and eat more. I've read that your body can only process so many calories in a day, so there's not much point in exceeding 3500-4000. Instead, keep the calorie count up every day, not just on town days.
If you're not in shape and you encounter bad weather you'll be in far worse shape than you will be if you just need to carry more food.
No. Extra fat is not fuel...it is just more weight you have to lug up the mountain. Unless you are 5% body fat..I would not sweat it. :)
IronGutsTommy
10-27-2010, 21:58
muscle mass is more warming to the body, actually creating heat. fat just insulates, and rather poorly for all the extra weight involved, plus the wear and tear on your knees and hips. i wouldnt try to fatten up. since youre used to being thin your joints will not be used to the weight and experience even more strain. increase muscle mass if you want. a good core can always be enhanced and thicker arms and chest will help keep you warm. a chest creates alot of heat. instead of fattening up just pack adequate layering, perhaps even a good down jacket even in wamrer climates if your body runs cold. you can always remove a jacket instantly, while if you regret the fat gain after a week or so itll still be another month or so until you can remove that.
Appalachian Tater
10-27-2010, 23:14
No, gaining fat is a bad idea. If you are going to carry extra weight up and down mountains and you are worried about being cold, let the extra weight be long underwear and an insulating sleeping pad plus some extra food. You should be much more worried about gaining weight AFTER your hike. Letting your weight yo-yo isn't good for you.
NCcummins
10-28-2010, 00:28
Good OP! I'm about the exact opposite of you! Not really, but don't run marathons and have never done a triathlon. However, I do lift weights daily and wondered about the muscle part of the post as well. Is more muscle mass going to hurt or help? I would think help, but there are always pros and cons it seems. I'm also in college, and have the known beer gut. Hope to cut some of this before the hike.
Good post! Thanks!
double d
10-28-2010, 01:28
In my opinion, your fine, as your young, in great shape and have the ability to put alot of calories in your body that will burn quickly. I wouldn't worry about adding a few pounds. and have fun.
fiddlehead
10-28-2010, 07:53
You can try, but if you're like me, it won't be easy.
I usually add 5 lbs before a thru and lose 10 (5 below my normal) by the time i finish.
It's fun both putting it on and taking it off.
More muscles mass on the legs might help on those steep climbs, but muscle mass on the upper body is often lost during the hike so building more up on the chest and arms is pointless. I would also be against gaining extra fat and instead just carry the equivalent extra weight in food when you leave town.
No, I agree with IronGuts. Though your solution works for walruses, plan instead to hike in the warmer months and pack more miles into every day by breaking camp early and continuing until daylight fades. If you insist upon starting in the South before the middle of May, pack wool, which serves man nearly as well sheep, though UL fanatics may think otherwise.
Danielsen
10-29-2010, 07:45
With all due respect to the posters above, if you're around 6% like I tend to be, trying to get it up to 10% or so before your thru could add about 200,000 calories to your reserves, and yes, it is fuel. If it weren't, thru-hikers wouldn't end up using theirs up. Of course, if you eat like most americans your body is a lot better at putting calories into storage than getting them back out again, but on a thru your body is going to use whatever it can get, regardless. Jumping from 6-7% to 10% or so can also give an appreciable boost in insulation. Gaining 5 or 10 pounds when you're at average bodyfat levels might not make a big difference, but when you're starting out with so little in the first place the difference can be pretty noticeable. All told it's a difference of about 3 pounds if you're my size, maybe 5 or 8 pounds if you've got a bigger frame. I'd call the extra-calorie buffer worth it.
jersey joe
10-29-2010, 08:04
I'm 5' 8" - 150lbs. I'm a marathoner (2:58:47) and an avid triathlete (Half-IM in 4:39:37), with a very low body fat percentage.
Would it be a good idea to put on more weight, specifically insulation (fat) for the trail? Would gaining more muscle mass help or hurt?
I have very poor circulation and find it very difficult to stay warm in conditions where other "normal" people are just fine.
travis, This is exactly what I did before my thru hike. I gained 5lbs onto my otherwise in shape 170lb frame. My problem was that was all I could add, no matter how much I ate. It burned off pretty quickly and I lost 40lbs by the end...I'm happy that I put on that extra five buffer.
I think the majority of people saying not to do this are older more out of shape people and for that body/age type I would not recommend losing weight. But for a 21 year old in shape? Add weight!
If it weren't, thru-hikers wouldn't end up using theirs up
That's because most thru-hikers who start the trail are carrying extra baggage on them to begin with!
As Garlic said, you are better off eating correctly on the trail than trying to bulk up. And it IS extra weight you have to carry up and down the hills.
Look at Scott Williamson, Trauma, Andy Skurka and similar. They are trim, lean and in shape athletes on and off the trail.
Danielsen
10-29-2010, 10:13
That's because most thru-hikers who start the trail are carrying extra baggage on them to begin with!
As Garlic said, you are better off eating correctly on the trail than trying to bulk up. And it IS extra weight you have to carry up and down the hills.
Look at Scott Williamson, Trauma, Andy Skurka and similar. They are trim, lean and in shape athletes on and off the trail.
That doesn't change the fact that stored fat is fuel, and your body will use it if it has to. If your body fat gets too low, you consume muscle tissue instead to conserve that last 6% or so, which isn't terribly helpful.
Eating correctly on the trail is certainly the most important thing to do, but for those of us who normally ride the line between having barely enough fat as a buffer and burning muscle tissue, it's nice to increase the buffer a little before undertaking an extended effort like a thru-hike, whether to make up for possible unforseen dietary inadequacies or in case of an illness or other problem. When I went trekking in the andes last winter I was at my usual low level of body fat. When I inevitably got the runs and couldn't get any calories in for 48 hours and had to burn more to fight the infection, I lost my previously pretty substantial glutes. Hauling a pack up mountainsides about a week later, I really missed them. I'd rather have carried around both a few extra pounds of fat along with the 5 pounds of muscle I lost so that I could have kept the lean tissue.
Sure, skurka and similar are lean as heck, but I also suspect that their weight goes up and down when their body finally gets those occasional opportunities to get up to a more "comfortable" body composition. I'm not suggesting that the OP aim to put on a gut, I'm suggesting that he add just a few pounds of adipose tissue that his body can draw on to preserve vital fat stores and lean tissue. Sure, it's a couple extra pounds no matter how you slice it, but I'd rather reduce the pounds in my pack to make up for it and be better able to preserve the lean tissue that has the job of actually moving that pack.
That doesn't change the fact that stored fat is fuel, and your body will use it if it has to. If your body fat gets too low, you consume muscle tissue instead to conserve that last 6% or so, which isn't terribly helpful.
.
It is indeed stored fuel. Doesn't change the fact you have to haul it up down the mountains first... ( I was being sarcastic in the first post..go figure).
As I said in my first post, unless you are ~5%, I wouldn't worry. Too many people use the 'bulking' up idea when, quite frankly, they don't have to (or shouldn't!) Apparently you are one of the minority.
An extra 10 lbs is not going to help the majority of people...it may even hurt if your body is not used to it. Heck, 5lbs is only about 16k calories extra. You'll burn through that faster than you'd think. Probably in the first week. So, the bulking up idea is not even useful in the real world of long hikes vs. the internet chat room experts. ;)
garlic08
10-29-2010, 10:50
...if you're around 6% like I tend to be, trying to get it up to 10% or so before your thru could add about 200,000 calories to your reserves...
I think you're off by a decimal point in your calculations. The difference between 6% and 10% body fat for a 150 pound person is six pounds of fat. At about 3500 calories per pound, that's 21,000 calories, not 200,000.
That's also about 10 pounds of my normal trail rations, or a little more than what I carry for a 100 mile three-season hike.
I wouldn't want to carry six extra pounds of body fat on my 150 pound frame, nor do I want to think of the type of eating I'd have to do in order to get it. I'm happy with maybe half that before I start a hike. Any more than two or three pounds really gets in the way, for me.
Someone running a sub-3 hour marathon is not going to burn calories at the same rate as someone out of shape and 20 lbs overweight.
The better shape you're in, the more efficient your body is.
FWIW, I gained 8 lbs averaging a bit over 20 miles a day for 800 miles.
Danielsen
10-29-2010, 11:37
I think you're off by a decimal point in your calculations. The difference between 6% and 10% body fat for a 150 pound person is six pounds of fat. At about 3500 calories per pound, that's 21,000 calories, not 200,000.
That's also about 10 pounds of my normal trail rations, or a little more than what I carry for a 100 mile three-season hike.
I wouldn't want to carry six extra pounds of body fat on my 150 pound frame, nor do I want to think of the type of eating I'd have to do in order to get it. I'm happy with maybe half that before I start a hike. Any more than two or three pounds really gets in the way, for me.
You're right, I did mess up a decimal point.
I'd still rather start with a bit extra. 5 pounds extra fat (I'm well under 150) are no noticeable burden compared to the same quantity of equivalent trail rations carried in a pack off the center of gravity. Sure, maybe it's gone in a week, but that's a week I can spend dialing in my food consumption so I can figure out what works best for me to keep from losing much weight after that.
Like I said, a couple extra pounds of fat would quite certainly have been helpful in the real-world case of my butt-eating peruvian experience. I always find it so strange that on a website for people who undertake something rather unconventional (long-distance hiking), unconventional approaches or ideas are so swiftly poo-pooed. He's going to burn a hell of a lot of calories. Starting the trek with a couple dozen thousand in reserve just *may* have some benefit. Whether the few extra pounds are a sufficient impediment to cancel out the benefit is dependent on the individual. I know I wouldn't mind.
I'm not advising anyone to go gorge themselves on doughnuts and cake and put on 10 pounds. I'm saying that 10% body fat may be a good place to start for a thru-hike, rather than the 6 or 7 percent so many high-level endurance athletes (possibly including the OP) are at. I'd rather have that get used before I start losing my behind again, personally.
garlic08
10-29-2010, 12:41
...I gained 8 lbs averaging a bit over 20 miles a day for 800 miles.
That's good eating and very efficient hiking. What was your typical daily intake, if you had such a thing?
Also, I assume you were happy with that? Or were you trying to loose weight?!
garlic08
10-29-2010, 12:45
I'd still rather start with a bit extra...I'm not advising anyone to go gorge themselves on doughnuts and cake and put on 10 pounds. I'm saying that 10% body fat may be a good place to start for a thru-hike, rather than the 6 or 7 percent so many high-level endurance athletes (possibly including the OP) are at. I'd rather have that get used before I start losing my behind again, personally.
Point taken and understood, and agreed on in principle. It's also funny "quarreling" about a few percentage points of fat when you see the number of obese hikers attempting the trail in Spring in the South!
I hiked with a guy on the PCT who is thin as a rail who actually gained weight by the end of the trail when he normally couldn't gain weight at home. He had weight loss issues the first month but eventually by adjusting his diet and carring more food, his body returned to what he looked like before and his final weight ended up above what it was when he started.
I only lost 10lbs when I hiked the PCT (mostly lost in the first month). I had wanted to loose at least another ten and was disappointed it didn't happen. When I hiked, I was too concerned to burning off my fat reserves too fast and I started too much food to my resupplies too early and ended up gaining some of my weight loss back by the end. I never ran out of food on a section and always had extra coming into town. Too many hikers try to save weight by cutting food weight and have to ration towards the end of the section. Others smoke too much weed, eat their snacks up early on and then are hungery for the rest of the section (I have a trail friend I still tease about eating all his snacks in the 1st 2 days on a 7day section).
That's good eating and very efficient hiking. What was your typical daily intake, if you had such a thing?
Also, I assume you were happy with that? Or were you trying to loose weight?!
I started out at 163 and lost 5 lbs between NY and VT. In VT I upped my calories to as close to 5k per day as I could and that put the weight back on and then some - I clocked in at 171 when I got home.
I ate as well as I could, given the circumstances but trying to get 5k worth of healthy trail food was pretty hard so I ate a lot of crap. I just got my physical and my cholesterol, which is normally 135-150 is 173 and I attribute that to the trail food I ate.....
Gaining the weight didn't bother me one way or the other - I'm 6'2 (used to be 6'3" :) ) and am very active. One thing I've learned about my body that is that it has a range of 160-175 and depending on where I'm at in a cycle that's where my weight is.
I started out at 163 and lost 5 lbs between NY and VT. In VT I upped my calories to as close to 5k per day as I could and that put the weight back on and then some - I clocked in at 171 when I got home.
I ate as well as I could, given the circumstances but trying to get 5k worth of healthy trail food was pretty hard so I ate a lot of crap. I just got my physical and my cholesterol, which is normally 135-150 is 173 and I attribute that to the trail food I ate.....
Gaining the weight didn't bother me one way or the other - I'm 6'2 (used to be 6'3" :) ) and am very active. One thing I've learned about my body that is that it has a range of 160-175 and depending on where I'm at in a cycle that's where my weight is.
I started the trail 20 years ago, 15 years older than you are now, but not with a particularly different weight regime -- or height for that matter. I remain 6' 2". My bath room scales when I left in '93 hovered between 180 and 190. I dropped 10 pounds on my walk north, but quickly stabilized to between 180 and 190, once I returned.
I'm 5' 8" - 150lbs. I'm a marathoner (2:58:47) and an avid triathlete (Half-IM in 4:39:37), with a very low body fat percentage.
Would it be a good idea to put on more weight, specifically insulation (fat) for the trail? Would gaining more muscle mass help or hurt?
I have very poor circulation and find it very difficult to stay warm in conditions where other "normal" people are just fine.I don't believe it would be wise to gain extra fat before your hike. In my opinion if you wanted to attempt to build some muscle, say through weightlifting/bodybuilding movements I don't think this would hurt, but I would lay off the weights for a while before the start of your hike so that you feel well rested/recuperated. As other's have said, planning to eat well and planning to consume enough calories to keep yourself supplied with the energy needed to maintain your hiking and also your health and current body mass needs to be of utmost importance once you are underway. As long as you are eating enough and properly your body most likely won't begin to "consume" itself as much (since you are already mean and lean) as possibly other thru-hiker's who are not in great condition and will feel and experience the weight loss "hit" much more, and who also may not be eating as well as they ought to be. Rest will also be important, even more so at the start of your hike as someone who is in shape will be able to hike more miles and go farther faster than the average or out of shape hiker. This will make your beginning weeks out there easier but could also cause one to overdo it, resulting in becoming worn out, burnt out, or even injured easier. Plan to take it slow and easy in the beginning, allowing your self and your body the time to adjust to the life and rigors of the trail, setting yourself up for success instead of failure. And as someone else said, if you have the funds, invest in a really good, warm bag to allow yourself the ability to keep plenty warm at night. Also consider better, warmer clothing. Not having as much fat on your body will make yourself more vulnerable to the cold. Plan for this. Also, if starting time is not a factor, maybe consider beginning in April, as by then it will begin to become warmer faster, rather than a late February or early March start time.
Boothill
10-29-2010, 21:42
from Andrew Skurka's website
"Fattening up" before your hike
"This is a bad idea, though admittedly very tempting. True, you probably will lose the pre-hike fat that you purposely put on -- and then some. But, until you lose it, you have to carry it. All weight (whether it's in your pack or on your body) requires energy to carry over hill-and-dale, and it puts stress and strain on your body. More weight equals more energy needed, and more stress and strain on your body. Unless your body fat is dangerously low, my recommendation would actually be to lose body mass before your hike -- it will improve your comfort, mobility, and hiking pace; and you can maintain your body weight by simply carrying more food with you or by eating more in towns."
boot
That's because most thru-hikers who start the trail are carrying extra baggage on them to begin with!
As Garlic said, you are better off eating correctly on the trail than trying to bulk up. And it IS extra weight you have to carry up and down the hills.
Look at Scott Williamson, Trauma, Andy Skurka and similar. They are trim, lean and in shape athletes on and off the trail.
Garlic and Mags already said what I would say, nevertheless I will add to the chorus.
IMO, NO, you should not fatten up before your hike, just eat right on the trail.
when i first hiked the a.t., just out of college -- read, nerd with no muscle, no fat -- i was 6' 135lbs. i finished the trail at 150lbs. my second thru -- seven years later, and in running shape -- i started 155 and finished 155. and the second hike was much more intense mileage wise, though my pack was lighter. before the first hike i added lots of peanut oil to my oatmeal in the morning for the three months before i left. but i didn't gain any weight. probably the only way for you to gain weight is to keep eating and stop exercising ... but that seems counter productive. i would just eat lots of mrs. freshley's honeybuns along your way to springer or katahdin. and not worry. / it worked okay for me.
i would just eat lots of mrs. freshley's honeybuns along your way to springer or katahdin. and not worry. / it worked okay for me.That's a great hiker food combination. Lot's of sugar and fat:D. I guess Little Debbies will work too:sun.
Lots does not have an ' in it. Lot's means that something belongs to lot. The apostrophe is often used and little understood. Poor apostrophe......:(
Lots does not have an ' in it. Lot's means that something belongs to lot. The apostrophe is often used and little understood. Poor apostrophe......:(Well I have an inney, don't know if you would like to see it:rolleyes:
I agree with adding more weight. I started my hike 15lbs under my weight through factors I couldn't control (though still healthy). I was in decent shape. And my metabolism couldn't keep up with the demands. So at the end of my SOBO when it was cold, the extra calorie demands from the cold really started slowing me down and wearing me out. I had no body fat left. When I finished I gained almost a full pound a day for the first 14 days, and boy did I look better. I gained even more weight and I look at the pudge as my future hiking trust.
Just think of that 5th month in high calorie demand.
Of course metabolism varies so much by person, I saw a bunch of folks finishing up who still had spare tires and hadn't lost much weight.
.... Of course metabolism varies so much by person, I saw a bunch of folks finishing up who still had spare tires and hadn't lost much weight.
In addition to metabolism, weight loss also depends a bit on how many miles a "finishing" hiker actually has hiked.
IronGutsTommy
10-30-2010, 22:16
yeah tinker most folks dont understand apostrophies. the most common mistake is using an apostrophy to show ownership to someone whos name ends with an S. I saw a restaurant the other day named after a woman named Iris. the proper way would be Iris' but the name of the restaurant was Iris's... they had it spelled that way on their menus, signs, uniforms.. i didn't have the heart to point the error out to them.
yeah tinker most folks dont understand apostrophies. the most common mistake is using an apostrophy to show ownership to someone whos name ends with an S. I saw a restaurant the other day named after a woman named Iris. the proper way would be Iris' but the name of the restaurant was Iris's... they had it spelled that way on their menus, signs, uniforms.. i didn't have the heart to point the error out to them.That would be even wiser if you planned to eat there:D.
yeah tinker most folks dont understand apostrophies. the most common mistake is using an apostrophy to show ownership to someone whos name ends with an S. I saw a restaurant the other day named after a woman named Iris. the proper way would be Iris' but the name of the restaurant was Iris's... they had it spelled that way on their menus, signs, uniforms.. i didn't have the heart to point the error out to them.By the way Tommy, I think it is spelled "whose" not "whos":D
actually, possessive apostrophe's aren't so simple. the traditional rule had been that -- except for biblical figures, etcc: moses' robe, jesus' cup -- you added the extra "s" after the apostrophe. so it would be "iris's restaurant." but newer'ish rules have come into play regarding the number of syllables and the way it sounds to the ear, especially if it's a "z" sound or an "s" sound. "iris" is an "s" sound, so she gets the extra "s." therefore, "Iris's Restaurant." / "jennings" has a "z" sound, so there is no extra "s" ... and his restaurant would be "Jennings' Restaurant." because it would just sound so awkward. after writing this up i found: http://www.accu-assist.com/grammar-tips-archive/01-10-07_GrammarTip_apostrophes4.htm which does a good job of explaining what's going on. of course, although this is grammar and not language, spelling, pronunciation per se, it's still language ... and the most amazing fact of language is how it is both fundamentally dynamic and static. if it weren't static we wouldn't be able to convey meaning, if it weren't dynamic ... well, it wouldn't be real. which is to say, iris can do whatever she likes. :)
Fortunately, the plural apostrophes doesn't cause near the confusion.
oh, clearly, i meant to do that. ;)
Fortunately, the plural apostrophes doesn't cause near the confusion.Now I think it's time for Spelling 101:eek::sun.