PDA

View Full Version : Calories burned ?



Drybones
01-24-2013, 10:49
The only info I've seen relative to the calories burned while hiking was a statement saying you burn between 4000-5000 per day. Obviously a 10 mile/day hike will burn differently than a 20 miles/day. Does anyone have have any better data on what the calorie burn rate is, maybe a calories/hour rate. I realize there are a multitude of variables...body weight, pack weight, elevation gain, metabolism, etc.

fredmugs
01-24-2013, 10:59
While walking or running you generally burn 100 calories per mile. Adding a pack and tougher terrain obviously increases the 100 calories per mile signficantly. I think most hiking burn rates are inflated. Pulling a number out of my @$$ I would say 150 calories per mile with a pack going flat and up to 250 calories per mile on difficult terrain.

I would rather see calories burned based on distance than time.

Malto
01-24-2013, 11:06
You are going to get a whole host of answers, all of them wrong. Here is my wrong answer after considerable testing and tracking on weight loss on both the AT and PCT. I estimate that you will burn 1 calories per lb of weight per mile. So if your packed out weight is 200lb (mine) then it would be about 200 calories per mile. This is based on hiking 30-40 mpd (with normal AT style elevation gain of about 6000' of elevation gain in 30 miles) which would be 6000-8000 calories. If you are down below 20mpd, I think there are more accurate estimates because I include basal metabolic in the estimate. Below 20mpd I believe .75 calories per lb per mile would be a better estimate.

leaftye
01-24-2013, 11:13
Based on my weight loss of 1/2 lb a day on a 4500 cal/day trail diet, I believe I burned 6000 calories per day while hiking the PCT a few years ago. I weighed myself a couple days after I finished hiking. I gorged in town, but am not accounting for that.

On a different hike with very little elevation gain and fewer calories consumed, I hardly lost any weight. I didn't count my calories, but I'd guess that I was burning 3000-3500 calories per day.

I left out a multitude of important variables pertaining to both of those hikes.

All I'm sure of is that when I'm on the PCT hiking hard all day, I don't believe I can possibly force myself to eat enough to maintain weight, at least not until I lose a substantial amount of weight and reach some equilibrium. As I lose weight, I would hike further and faster, so the point of equilibrium would be a moving target.

ChinMusic
01-24-2013, 11:25
What is known is that a 150-pound person will burn 100 calories per mile, on level, smooth terrain without a load. A 225-pound person burns 150 calories per mile. Rate is not a major factor.

If a person weighs 225 and walks a flat bike trail at 3 mph, in other words REAL easy walking and not even breaking a sweat, they would burn 450 calories per hour. If they walked for 10 hours that would be a 4500 calorie burn. This is not in question. This is a fact.

Backpacking in the mountains is a LOT harder work for way less miles. IMO those same 10 hours could easily be 7000 calories. A 700/hr calorie burn is very believable.

Creek Dancer
01-24-2013, 11:31
I measured my calorie burn using a heart rate monitor on varied terrain carrying a load and I averaged 600 calories per hour. Most women will burn fewer calories than men.

fredmugs
01-24-2013, 11:54
What is known is that a 150-pound person will burn 100 calories per mile, on level, smooth terrain without a load. A 225-pound person burns 150 calories per mile. Rate is not a major factor.

If a person weighs 225 and walks a flat bike trail at 3 mph, in other words REAL easy walking and not even breaking a sweat, they would burn 450 calories per hour. If they walked for 10 hours that would be a 4500 calorie burn. This is not in question. This is a fact.

Backpacking in the mountains is a LOT harder work for way less miles. IMO those same 10 hours could easily be 7000 calories. A 700/hr calorie burn is very believable.

Show me the basis of those facts? I weighed 229 this morning and there is no way I'm burning 450 calories walking at a 3 MPH clip. Let's see some sources.

leaftye
01-24-2013, 11:58
Show me the basis of those facts? I weighed 229 this morning and there is no way I'm burning 450 calories walking at a 3 MPH clip. Let's see some sources.

On a treadmill? Probably not. I could see that on a real walk though.

colorado_rob
01-24-2013, 11:58
There sure is a wide variety of results here. I know fairly exactly that I carried 3500 calories worth of food/day on last year's JMT (lots of up and down, probably similar to the AT). We averaged 18 miles a day and I neither lost nor gained significant weight. I weigh 180 pounds and carried a 22-25 pound pack.

Those 18 miles a day were on average at 2 MPH or nine hours. The other 15 hours each day did burn some calories, of course. The number from a handy online table says 12 cal/pound/day or 90 calories per hour for me, or 1350 calories burned in the 15 hours I wasn't hiking. That leaves 2150 calories burned while hiking for 9 hours, or 238 calories per hour. Round up and call it 250 calories per hour while hiking. At a very big stretch, say I burned less while not hiking, MAYBE 300 calories per hour while hiking. Wow, big difference from answers I see below.

Bottom line: we are all very, very different, and heartrate monitors/calculations and other means of computing this are all over the place. If you accurately keep trak of how many calories you actually consume on a long hike, and don't lose or gain any weight, it seems like this is the only way to know the answer.

Maybe I'm missing some major point though...

Creek Dancer
01-24-2013, 12:16
250 calories burned in one hour backpacking seems really low. There could be many reasons that someone doesn't gain or lose weight - metabolism for one.

But if you want to know how many calories you burn, I think the best way is to simply measure the burn with a reliable device that has been adjusted to your specific weight, age, etc.

ChinMusic
01-24-2013, 12:33
Show me the basis of those facts? I weighed 229 this morning and there is no way I'm burning 450 calories walking at a 3 MPH clip. Let's see some sources.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/314404-how-many-calories-do-you-lose-per-mile/

This is a well-known number. A 150-pound person burns 100 calories per mile unladen and on flat terrain. I would not have stated it as a "fact" if there were any question. My 700/hr part for backpacking was an opinion.

At 229 pound you burn slightly more than 150 calories per mile on flat ground. There is some evidence that with no incline on a treadmill that is slightly less, but nearly insignificant.

colorado_rob
01-24-2013, 12:39
250 calories burned in one hour backpacking seems really low. There could be many reasons that someone doesn't gain or lose weight - metabolism for one.

But if you want to know how many calories you burn, I think the best way is to simply measure the burn with a reliable device that has been adjusted to your specific weight, age, etc. I don't see how you can possibly compare a "theoretical" rate (your method, using a device) vs. an actual measured one (my careful measurements of calories consumed with no weight loss/gain).

You say "metabolism for one", well, of course it's all about metabolism, that's what WILL define how many calories each individual burns.

My personal metabolism is such that I actually did, in fact, burn about 250 calories per hour over about 14 days. Again, this was essentially measured, not theoretical. Keep in mind, my 2 MPH average is a very, very modest pace and my heart rate was probably very low most of that time, the exception being during the big uphills. But in the total scheme of things, those times doing the big uphills were relatively short, a couple hours per day, when indeed, I might have been burning 500-600 cal/hour.

The more I look at the posts below (like the 100 calories per mile), the more I think my actual ~250/hour is about right for me.

ChinMusic
01-24-2013, 12:46
My personal metabolism is such that I actually did, in fact, burn about 250 calories per hour over about 14 days. Again, this was essentially measured, not theoretical. Keep in mind, my 2 MPH average is a very, very modest pace and my heart rate was probably very low most of that time, the exception being during the big uphills. But in the total scheme of things, those times doing the big uphills were relatively short, a couple hours per day, when indeed, I might have been burning 500-600 cal/hour.
For your stated carrying weight of 200+ pounds, at 2 mph, your min burn in 260+ cal/hr. That is on flat terrain. You must have measured your burn on an extremely easy section of trail with a slight downhill slope. I have never seen such a trail.

joshuasdad
01-24-2013, 13:11
I don't see how you can possibly compare a "theoretical" rate (your method, using a device) vs. an actual measured one (my careful measurements of calories consumed with no weight loss/gain).

You say "metabolism for one", well, of course it's all about metabolism, that's what WILL define how many calories each individual burns.

My personal metabolism is such that I actually did, in fact, burn about 250 calories per hour over about 14 days. Again, this was essentially measured, not theoretical. Keep in mind, my 2 MPH average is a very, very modest pace and my heart rate was probably very low most of that time, the exception being during the big uphills. But in the total scheme of things, those times doing the big uphills were relatively short, a couple hours per day, when indeed, I might have been burning 500-600 cal/hour.

The more I look at the posts below (like the 100 calories per mile), the more I think my actual ~250/hour is about right for me.

Is it possible that you gained muscle mass, and lost fat mass during that JMT hike? Muscle has a much lower energy density than fat. You might need to take into consideration the energy expenditures related to that conversion. If you converted 10 lbs fat to muscle, that would be at least about 20000 calories that you have not considered, based on the rule of thumb that protein has 4/9ths the energy density of fat. Possibly even more, since I think that muscle tissue has much higher water content than fat tissue.

Chuckie V
01-24-2013, 13:11
The reality is that there are far too many variables for charts or calculations (or even those calorie measuring devices) to be accurate, especially when a trail increases those variables. Only a scale used over a lengthy period of time will tell your calorie expenditure (and even then a scale is affected by more considerations than just calorie gain/loss).

Hell, we burn calories just thinking, and some of us clearly think more than others (that's clearly think, not think clearly). In reading all the malarkey above, it's clear to see that some of us think less than others, too. Colorado Rob nailed it above with this...

Bottom line: we are all very, very different, and heartrate monitors/calculations and other means of computing this are all over the place. If you accurately keep trak of how many calories you actually consume on a long hike, and don't lose or gain any weight, it seems like this is the only way to know the answer.

robertblake60
01-24-2013, 13:16
http://www.livestrong.com/article/314404-how-many-calories-do-you-lose-per-mile/

This is a well-known number. A 150-pound person burns 100 calories per mile unladen and on flat terrain. I would not have stated it as a "fact" if there were any question.

At 229 pound you burn slightly more than 150 calories per mile on flat ground. There is some evidence that with no incline on a treadmill that is slightly less, but nearly insignificant.

I 2nd this. This number is well known and generally agreed upon.

robertblake60
01-24-2013, 13:22
You should also keep in mind that someone with my body measurements (210lbs, 72in tall, 33 yrs old) will burn about 86 calories/hour just laying in bed.

Pedaling Fool
01-24-2013, 14:09
The reality is that there are far too many variables for charts or calculations (or even those calorie measuring devices) to be accurate, especially when a trail increases those variables. Only a scale used over a lengthy period of time will tell your calorie expenditure (and even then a scale is affected by more considerations than just calorie gain/loss).

Hell, we burn calories just thinking, and some of us clearly think more than others (that's clearly think, not think clearly). In reading all the malarkey above, it's clear to see that some of us think less than others, too. Colorado Rob nailed it above with this...

Bottom line: we are all very, very different, and heartrate monitors/calculations and other means of computing this are all over the place. If you accurately keep trak of how many calories you actually consume on a long hike, and don't lose or gain any weight, it seems like this is the only way to know the answer.
I kind of agree with this. I know the OP wasn't looking for dead-on accuracy, but in this case of calories burned, I don't even think the ball-park figures are anywhere near correct, other than by accident. Same with max HR, the general rule of thumb is way off in many cases and to add to the confusion it seems to change a lot, from what I can tell watching my HR.

And then you got efficiency of effort that changes as you do something over and over, that greatly effects calories burned and takes it even further from any calculator or general rule of thumb. I was amazed at how fast I lost weight on the trail and then all of a sudden I just stopped losing it, despite the fact that my diet didn't change, yet my performace, i.e. distance and speed, changed greatly, in a way that should have resulted in higher calorie burn, but I didn't lose weight :-?

This is just one of those things that rule of thumb figures are useless and one would really have to do some serious observations to get at the truth.

Drybones
01-24-2013, 14:30
While walking or running you generally burn 100 calories per mile. Adding a pack and tougher terrain obviously increases the 100 calories per mile signficantly. I think most hiking burn rates are inflated. Pulling a number out of my @$$ I would say 150 calories per mile with a pack going flat and up to 250 calories per mile on difficult terrain.

I would rather see calories burned based on distance than time.

Agree, distance makes more sense than time.

MuddyWaters
01-24-2013, 15:27
100 cal/mile , 300 cal/hr on easy flat terrain is about right
On a strenuous hard breathing 1000' climb that takes a hour, that can shoot up to 700 or more

Is it perfect way to assess calorie burn ...No

Is it better than saying "..we are just all so different theres no way to know", ....Yes it is.

Resting calorie requirements are called BMR, which depends on lean body mass. Fat doesnt require calories to maintain, muscle does.

Many people that think they are "bigger" and need more calories, but they dont. They are just fat.

The difference in lean body wt among people that dont actively lift weights, is not really that large. It can be correllated by height .

10-K
01-24-2013, 15:36
The body is an efficient machine. The more you do an activity the more efficient the body becomes.

So.... you may start off burning 100 calories per mile (or whatever) but the body immediately seeks to become more efficient so over time it will require less than 100 calories to do the same activity.

This is why you have to keep upping exercise to get the same benefit.

colorado_rob
01-24-2013, 19:20
The body is an efficient machine. The more you do an activity the more efficient the body becomes.

So.... you may start off burning 100 calories per mile (or whatever) but the body immediately seeks to become more efficient so over time it will require less than 100 calories to do the same activity.

This is why you have to keep upping exercise to get the same benefit. Ed Zachery. Except to add that not all bodies are efficient machines. The mean (average) may well be that 100 cal/mile on flat ground thing, but I betcha the standard deviation is huge, meaning very large variations among us. I plateaued a couple decades ago, nothing I seem to do will remove the rest of my (thankfully modest) body fat. I sincerely doubt if during a two week, 250 mile hike I convert much, if any fat to lean muscle. Some folks (like myself, in all modesty) hike/climb/swim/bike all the damn time, every weekend and a lot of weekdays and have become very efficient at what we like to do. Those efficient muscles just plain don't require the same amount of energy to do relatively easy tasks, like simple walking, even in the woods carrying a pack going up and down. Human beings evolved into walking machines, extremely efficient walking machines. The majority of folks have allowed their bodies to lose this efficiency, simply because in general we don't need it anymore. Some of us, many of us on here have managed to keep this efficiency. the "well known" formula cannot possibly predict what any individual will do, only predict an average. Take an overweight, out of shape person and send him for an hour up a steep hill and I don't doubt he'll crank out some serious calories burned. Send an ultra marathoner up that same hill, even one that weighs the same, and he might burn half of those calories. The first guy will be panting, sweating, keeling over ready to stroke out. The second will have his hands in his pockets, enjoying the scenery, hardly having even noticed the hill. Is someone saying these two guys are burning the same number of calories? No way, not even close.

I see folks all the time that say they consume 5000-6000 or more calories a day when hiking. I doubt that they are far off for themselves, but I do know that 3500 calories is plenty for me, and some folks I know, even w/ the same body weight do less than this. So 250/hour on average sounds really just about right on hilly terrain, on average, and again, I have a fairly accurate measurement of this, not some generic formula.

JAK
01-24-2013, 19:46
It's been a while since I looked into this, but last time I looked I came up with a formula something along these lines:

Calories Per Day = Body Weight [lbs] x 100 + Total Weight [lbs] x ( Distance[Miles] + Gain[500feet] ) x 0.75

You can adjust the parameters but I think the basic formula is pretty sound.
So for a body weight of 180 pounds you will burn 1800 calories per day if you stay in camp.
Then for 20 miles on top of that you will add 3000 calories, adding in 20 pounds for gear and clothes and food.
Then if you add another 5000 feet in net elevation gain that will add another 1500 calories.
That will give a daily total of 6300 calories for a 180+20 pound hiker hiking 20 miles per day.

If you cut the distance and elevation gain in half, same hiker will burn 4050 calories.

JAK
01-24-2013, 19:47
Snow adds another factor if you have to trudge through it, even just a little snow. Cold is a factor also.

ChinMusic
01-24-2013, 19:55
I think some are confusing "efficiency" with "effort".

A fit 150-pound man walking 1 mile on flat terrain will burn 100 calories.
An unfit 150-pound man walking the same 1 mile will burn 100 calories.

The latter will feel more effort.

Chuckie V
01-24-2013, 20:07
One would really have to do some serious observations to get at the truth.

The "truth" is ever-changing John; that's essentially the message here. As a exercise physiologist and coach, all I can do is laugh when people read an article or, in your case, post one...and then allude to it as the "truth". Especially when that article is posted on Livestrong (ala, Lie-Strong), as someone referred to earlier here! Livestrong is no different than Men's Health and all those other nonsensical rags designed only to increase profit and dupe unsuspecting readers. There are so many fallacies mentioned in this thread that I don't even know where to begin (and, as such, opt not to!).

Science is about finding the truth and lining up enough facts to back those findings as "truth," but there's always more to the truth than meets the eye; and it's why studies continue on and on and why nerdly guys like me can make a living (and can thus go hike for months on end thanks to that living). Most studies, incidentally, use the same few type of subjects: college-aged males in need of a few bucks, willing to do whatever is asked of them; the majority of these studies use far too few subjects and almost always elicit a debatable, subjective result, even after all that time and money.

Guidelines are fine and in most cases they work well enough, but that's all they are: loose recommendations from a stranger (usually an article written by a personal trainer type of guy) intended for strangers. None of us fit perfectly into the same mold, and what works for one athlete might injure or destroy another. I believe you know all this---you're clearly one of the wiser dudes here---but it's important to keep an open mind and yet all the meanwhile carry plenty of skepticism (that is to question, not necessarily doubt). But heck, even doubting works! Doubt others, but don't doubt what you know or believe works for you...just question how it works and perhaps why, unless the truth of it is always revealing itself. What's great about sport is that winners win, and there's little more "truthful" than that (i.e., the bottom line is the finish line). I've coached some of the fastest athletes in the world and I'm constantly criticized for my methods, but I look at each athlete as just that: a study of one, and I do my best to make sure they keep performing their best.

Anyway, back on topic! When it comes to counting calories, we might as well count how many breaths we take each day. Too many factors control our expenditure (even when we're dormant and inside) and it's hard to accurately count calories. And those calories that can easily be counted (i.e., those occurring in packaged foods, etc) aren't nearly as salubrious as those that aren't as easily quantifyable; not all calories are created equal! The trick is to use a loose guideline as a sherpa of sorts, then to step on a scale often and over the long haul, and learn the truth that way (if weight loss is the concern for calorie-counting, that is). Use all kinds of measurements too, not just the scale. Measure, measure, measure! While it may not be healthy to carry a bunch of extra weight, I know plenty of skinny unhealthy people too.

Lastly, and this is back off-topic, but one of the biggest problems in the US today is that people are afraid to admit that others know more than they do (or that they don't even know enough about themselves!), but that's for another day!

JAK
01-24-2013, 20:07
I would agree with that. There can be variations in efficiency, but I think the biggest difference between the 30 mile per day hiker and the 10 mile per day hiker is that the 30 mile per day hiker is carrying less excess body weight, and the second biggest factor is that they are capable of burning more calories per day and still repair their bodies for the next day. Efficiency can play into it some, but that is also tied in with excess body weight and how it effects movement.

ChinMusic
01-24-2013, 20:14
The "truth" is ever-changing John; that's essentially the message here. As a exercise physiologist and coach, all I can do is laugh when people read an article or, in your case, post one...and then allude to it as the "truth". Especially when that article is posted on Livestrong (ala, Lie-Strong), as someone referred to earlier here! Livestrong is no different than Men's Health and all those other nonsensical rags designed only to increase profit and dupe unsuspecting readers. There are so many fallacies mentioned in this thread that I don't even know where to begin (and, as such, opt not to!).

Please find ONE source that disputes the 100/cal/mile quote...........ONE

Do Better than just bitch.

JAK
01-24-2013, 20:21
Most improvements in running performance come from reducing excess body weight.
Yeah, there are a lot of other factors, but if you are overweight that is the big one.

If you are interested in other activities like paddling, you should work those muscles also. If you are interesting in strength and power for other things, then you will need to compromise your endurance performance somewhat, but that is not a bad thing. You don't really want to optimize for any one thing, unless you have a really good reason. You don't need much more than 10% body fat though, unless you are a sumo wrestler or something like that where you want the momentum. Those guys are very fit, but the fat ain't healthy. They would perform better if they had the same strength and power, but were allowed to carry external weight for momentum, rather than excess body fat. They don't live long, and they are very fit other than the body fat. There is probably an optimal amount of muscle also. Marathon runners probably have too little. Weight lifters probably have too much. In between well rounded athletes probably have the optimal amount for health, but the can do unhealthy things in other ways. Rowers are a good example, with back injuries that limit activities later in life. Concussions in contact sports is another. But heh, you gotta do what you gotta do. Better to burn out, cause rust never sleeps.

Chuckie V
01-24-2013, 20:24
Please find ONE source that disputes the 100/cal/mile quote...........ONE

Do Better than just bitch.

I'm one source who disputes it, so there you are.

I don't think I was bitching, ChinMusic. If that's how it came across, then I apologize. I was just attempting to say that something like "100 cal/mile" is merely an estimate and doesn't apply to us all. If you think it's more than than an estimate, fine. But if you think it's the truth, then I don't care to discuss it with you...and that, my friend, is the truth.

ChinMusic
01-24-2013, 20:31
I'm one source who disputes it, so there you are.

I don't think I was bitching, ChinMusic. If that's how it came across, then I apologize. I was just attempting to say that something like "100 cal/mile" is merely an estimate and doesn't apply to us all. If you think it's more than than an estimate, fine. But if you think it's the truth, then I don't care to discuss it with you...and that, my friend, is the truth.

So YOU are the only source going against the rest of the world without anything other than "trust me, I'm smart"? Sorry, that ain't cutting it for me.

And yes, I believe the 100 cal thing is accurate, at least to the accuracy of this thread. Could the variation be slight between individuals......sure. Could it be enough to change the crux of this thead.........NO. IMO it would be a minor variation lost in rounding.

JAK
01-24-2013, 20:36
I think ChinMusic's main point was that calories burned is primarily correlated with total weight and total distance.
Totally agree. My formula is just a refinement on that, adding in elevation and separating out basal metabolism.

Point is, you don't have to settle for 'we are all different'. We are all basically the same, except for weight.

atmilkman
01-24-2013, 20:42
Hell, the average man burns between 80-180 calories per hour sitting around not doing a damn thing. I can easily believe the 300 per hour walking.

colorado_rob
01-24-2013, 20:44
So YOU are the only source going against the rest of the world without anything other than "trust me, I'm smart"? Sorry, that ain't cutting it for me.

And yes, I believe the 100 cal thing is accurate, at least to the accuracy of this thread. Could the variation be slight between individuals......sure. Could it be enough to change the crux of this thead.........NO. IMO it would be a minor variation lost in rounding. Make that "two people against the rest of the world", and I'm sure there are more, and I could care less if that "cuts it for you".

I think you are way off base and don't understand simple physiology and simple thermodynamics and because of a definite lack of real understanding, you reply on "common knowledge" and treat it as Gospel.

How else can you explain why one 180 pound man burns 3500 calories and another 5000 calories over the same terrain? Are you calling us liars because we don't agree with your "universally agreed to, undisputed formula"? I see an incredible difference in calories consumed among very similar folks. People make fun of me and say that I eat like a bird, and why don't I lose weight. I have a very fit pal that constantly eats like a horse and never gains weight. Our metabolic rates are hugely different, and this affects our burn rate significantly.

JAK
01-24-2013, 20:47
I wonder what the world record is for calories burned in one day.
Probably an ultra-distance runner, but a big one.

Chuckie V
01-24-2013, 21:06
So YOU are the only source going against the rest of the world without anything other than "trust me, I'm smart"? Sorry, that ain't cutting it for me.

And yes, I believe the 100 cal thing is accurate, at least to the accuracy of this thread. Could the variation be slight between individuals......sure. Could it be enough to change the crux of this thead.........NO. IMO it would be a minor variation lost in rounding.

I never claimed to be smart, but thanks for implying that. I do, however, doubt I'm alone in suggesting that a guideline is the end-all/be-all truth, but I'm glad you can now admit that it's merely an estimate; be careful of the word "believe" when seeking truth.

I concur that estimates can work, especially in regards to this thread (believe me, I don't care to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed people like yourself). {I personally don't hike to think about this stuff, as that's what my post-grad studies were for.} But I will stick by the fact that it's fairly uncommon that two individual expend the same amount (ala "100 cals/mile") while doing anything. Metabolisms are all very different and can change fairly rapidly, and if you spent your life studying this, you would have learned that as an underclassmen long, long ago. There's as much as a 60% margin or error in this particular estimate, just so you know. I guarantee, for example, that I'm a far more efficient walker than you are, judging by your profile screen shot; that is to say I will use less energy to cover the same ground as you, as measured by caloric expenditure. You can do your own research; I've got better things to focus on, like getting ready to hike! If our paths cross, I'll buy you a drink and perhaps enlighten you, as I'm sure you can do for me in your chosen field of study.

Wise Old Owl
01-24-2013, 21:20
I measured my calorie burn using a heart rate monitor on varied terrain carrying a load and I averaged 600 calories per hour. Most women will burn fewer calories than men.

from pedo meter to HR monitors they are HORRIBLY in-accurate...it's not you, it in general! They are just junk.

joshuasdad
01-24-2013, 22:14
Actually, net calorie burn can be as little as an additional 50 calories/mile. See http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning-0?page=single

That being said, I doubt that few backpackers could burn only an additional 250 calories/hour when hiking at a moderate pace. There is significant work performed when you move something up a hill. Furthermore, just because you weigh the same at the end of a 2 week hike, does not necessarily mean that you burned only the amount of food you consumed. Your body may have more muscle mass at the end of 2 weeks, which has less energy density than the fat that it replaced.

Malto
01-24-2013, 22:14
There will be no way to measure this on a short term basis. It takes an engineer type who has calculated every calorie down to a raisin on a trek long enough to be significant like a thru hike. Oh wait, that was me on my thru. But as Chuckie V said everyone will be different. Spend the time to learn what your needs are..... Or don't and just eat another donut.

MuddyWaters
01-24-2013, 22:24
People do vary widey, from a 100 lb woman, to a 300 lb man.
But most active people fall into a much narrower range

When averages are all you have, thats all you have.
Use them.
Some are apparently argueing that averages are so bad, you should just just not estimate needs at all.
That is absurd.
Its a starting point, based on the average person. Fine tune using common sense and experience.

For most, its not a question of meeting caloric needs, its a question of how much weight you will lose per week without food binges in towns.

JAK
01-24-2013, 22:32
be careful of the word "believe" when seeking truth.
I like the way Spinoza used the term "I understand ... such and such ". I usually use the term "I think ... " because it is even more transient, but I really like the way Spinoza used "I understand" when laying down his assumptions or premise. He was a great thinker. I understand he went blind grinding lenses so other could see. Rather poetic, as I think he was excommunicated or shunned or whatever for his writings.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Q8V1F1zSQ

ChinMusic
01-24-2013, 22:37
How else can you explain why one 180 pound man burns 3500 calories and another 5000 calories over the same terrain? Are you calling us liars because we don't agree with your "universally agreed to, undisputed formula"?

Please post a link to this study showing such a disparity. I would like to see the data.

ChinMusic
01-24-2013, 22:41
Actually, net calorie burn can be as little as an additional 50 calories/mile. See http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning-0?page=single

That being said, I doubt that few backpackers could burn only an additional 250 calories/hour when hiking at a moderate pace. There is significant work performed when you move something up a hill. Furthermore, just because you weigh the same at the end of a 2 week hike, does not necessarily mean that you burned only the amount of food you consumed. Your body may have more muscle mass at the end of 2 weeks, which has less energy density than the fat that it replaced.

There can be significant differences in water retention as well.

I often weigh more on a scale after returning from a week-long trip. It is not until days later that the water gain returns to normal and the scale shows a loss.

Measuring weight before and after a trip and thinking you have done something scientific is folly.

atmilkman
01-24-2013, 22:48
There can be significant differences in water retention as well.

I often weigh more on a scale after returning from a week-long trip. It is not until days later that the water gain returns to normal and the scale shows a loss.

Measuring weight before and after a trip and thinking you have done something scientific is folly.
I've had it work the opposite way for me also hiking in the heat in FL. One time on a 6 day trip I lost 15lbs. in those 6 days. I felt like I couldn't get enough to drink. When I got home I was down the 15lbs. I speak of. After a solid day of drinking Powerade it all came back in one day. Go figure.

leaftye
01-25-2013, 00:06
It seems a couple of you may understand why I said this:


Based on my weight loss of 1/2 lb a day on a 4500 cal/day trail diet, I believe I burned 6000 calories per day while hiking the PCT a few years ago. I weighed myself a couple days after I finished hiking. I gorged in town, but am not accounting for that.

Water weight can take a couple days to return to normal. I've finished hikes dehydrated and over hydrated, and that can easily account for 10 pounds.

I forgot to mention that hike was two months.

snowblind
01-25-2013, 01:32
Drybones,

Were you just wanting input, or are you looking to refine something for trail? Like say, how much you eat, over certain types of terrain, with such and such amount pack, drinking this much water.... Or were you just seeing what the field experience around here thinks?

After the northern part of the trail whittled me down to 150lbs (I'm 6'1".... O_O ), and w/ a 43 lb pack(max 4 day food, 2L water) and eating roughly ~3000 calories a day (and not more), doing 12 miles became the norm with 15 the upper limit before obvious mental and physical fatigue set in. This was obviously not flat terrain, but not ME/NH ascent/descent. If I wanted to do more distance in a day, I HAD to eat more at that point.

My point? I was trying to find some sort of equilibrium between food and water consumption, mileage, and terrain. Just trying to understand my body better, which still has a fast metabolism.

10-K
01-25-2013, 08:07
At the end of the day, who cares? I mean, why do I care how many calories you or anyone else burns - I can't think of even one small way it matters.

:)

JAK
01-25-2013, 08:26
I would like to know if 10-K has ever burned 10-K in 1-Day. :-)

leaftye
01-25-2013, 08:50
At the end of the day, who cares? I mean, why do I care how many calories you or anyone else burns - I can't think of even one small way it matters.

:)

I crunch the numbers a bit, but that's more because it's what I do, not because they matter. When it comes down to it, my best trail diet and trail eating habits can't get me to eat enough. The math comes down to:

what I can eat < what I should eat

JAK
01-25-2013, 09:04
The other factor that makes it complicated is that calories in vs calories burned is "somewhat" self regulating, but only somewhat. If we eat less we will conserve more. Hiking still takes the same energy, but you will more fully digest your food and lose less heat and expend less energy in non-hiking activities. You eat more and you will be warmer and have more energy but will not digest your food as completely and give off more heat than you need to, not that that is a bad thing. You will also probably repair yourself faster, which takes energy. So comparative studies can be difficult, even with the same individual from one hike to the next.

Biggest factor is still weight.
Total weight including gear for distance and elevation gain, and lean body weight for base metabolism.

Creek Dancer
01-25-2013, 09:05
There can be significant differences in water retention as well.

I often weigh more on a scale after returning from a week-long trip. It is not until days later that the water gain returns to normal and the scale shows a loss.

Measuring weight before and after a trip and thinking you have done something scientific is folly.

+1. Same thing happens to me regarding water retention. Weighing myself before and after a trip tells me nothing regarding the amount of calories I burned.

JAK
01-25-2013, 10:30
I was thinking about this during my paper route this morning. Lots of variables.
In general when they calculate calories during exercise does it include base metabolism?
Or do they subtract it out?

Pedaling Fool
01-25-2013, 12:01
In general when they calculate calories during exercise does it include base metabolism?
Or do they subtract it out?
Interesting question JAK. Metabolism is just something we hear about, i.e. I have slow/fast metabolism, but I've never heard about it being measured. I know HR has something to do with it, but not the entire story. Maybe some of the more educated members on this topic can enlighten us :D

Drybones
01-25-2013, 13:04
[QUOTE=snowblind;1401114]Drybones,

Were you just wanting input, or are you looking to refine something for trail?

I'm trying to develop a better understanding of how I should eat on the trail. I may be in left field but I believe what I ate may have contributed to having to leave the trail after only 414 miles last spring with old knee injuries (torn cartilage). I went from 177 lbs to 165 in the 25 day period I was on the trail, I'd like to made it further come spring and I take up where I left off.

Drybones
01-25-2013, 13:20
I was thinking about this during my paper route this morning. Lots of variables.
In general when they calculate calories during exercise does it include base metabolism?
Or do they subtract it out?

It's amazing how different metabolisms are, I'm 6'1" and stay within 2 lbs of 177 no matter what I eat. My wife hates me, she says she smells food and gains weight, I could drink a case of beer and eat Twinkies every day and not gain weight, as a matter of fact, junk food seems to cause me to lose weight, about the only way for me to gain weight is exercise and eating meals like beans, peas, turnip greens, tomatoes, cornbread... and maybe a piece of apple pie...the apple pie below was dessert after my first meal after a week hike in the Weminuche Wilderness...it was a plate full.
19245

Drybones
01-25-2013, 13:32
Calories Per Day = Body Weight [lbs] x 100 + Total Weight [lbs] x ( Distance[Miles] + Gain[500feet] ) x 0.75

You can adjust the parameters but I think the basic formula is pretty sound.
So for a body weight of 180 pounds you will burn 1800 calories per day if you stay in camp.
Then for 20 miles on top of that you will add 3000 calories, adding in 20 pounds for gear and clothes and food.
Then if you add another 5000 feet in net elevation gain that will add another 1500 calories.
That will give a daily total of 6300 calories for a 180+20 pound hiker hiking 20 miles per day.

If you cut the distance and elevation gain in half, same hiker will burn 4050 calories.

This looks like a pretty reasonable formula...thanks.

colorado_rob
01-25-2013, 13:40
I finally had a chance to do some online-research, took about two minutes to come up with a bunch of links, here's a clear one, with one particular quote:

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm

"Exercise requires energy, and this energy is measured using Calories (http://www.freedieting.com/calories_nutrition.htm) (or more accurately, kilocalories). Considering 1 pound of fat is the equivalent of 3,500 Calories - you can see that it takes a lot of exercise to burn fat. In addition to this, the source for energy may come from either fat or muscle glycogen. As the body adapts to each exercise, it becomes more efficient in its use of Calories - therefore burning less! The amount of muscle also has an impact on Calories burned. Because muscle is metabolically active - more muscle means more Calories being burned. This explains why strength training (http://www.freedieting.com/exercise_weight_training.htm) is such a good fat loss exercise. "

By the way, someone said something about two identical weight dudes, going up a hill, one in shape, one out of shape, that both of them burn the same calories just with a different amount of effort... I believe the truth is exactly the opposite; the effort is identical, that's simple physics. The out of shape guy will be panting, gasping, sweating, generating lots of extra heat. Where do you think this heat comes from???? His body, shedding waste energy because of inefficiencies. Such simple physics, so much misunderstanding because of some blind belief in rules of thumb.

Chuckie V
01-25-2013, 14:01
I was thinking about this during my paper route this morning. Lots of variables.
In general when they calculate calories during exercise does it include base metabolism?
Or do they subtract it out?

JAK...I'm not quite sure what you mean by "they" or "subtracting it out," but I'll assume for a second I do. Ultimately, when measuring (or estimating) calorie expenditure, your basal metabolic rate is a *part* of the equation; you can't really separate exercise caloric expenditure from the energy expenditure that's required to maintain life (which is essentially what your basal metabolic rate alludes to: the energy required to pump blood and breathe and simply "be". Just "being" uses energy to maintain the cell function that's essential for life, and in addition to breathing and blood pumping, just maintaining a life-supporting environment within and around cells requires a continual breakdown of certain energy-releasing molecules. This energy is also used to manufacture the molecules required for repairing cells, storing energy (glycogen/sugars and triglycerides/fat), fighting impending infection, and processing nutrients obtained from ingestion and digestion. These functions and a few others form the body's basal metabolic rate, which is rarely static and always changing, based on the inevitable ups and downs that "being" presents.)


You can see that if a specific exercise or exercise machine is "proven" to burn X amount of calories per hour, it needs to include a person's basal metabolic rate, which differs from person to person (even active people weighing the same), and can only therefore be deemed an estimate (no matter how accurate those estimations may or may not be). We have to "be" even when exercising of course, and to separate the calorie expenditure of exercise from simply "being" is ultimately absurd, though the "fitness industry" does it all the time. "OUR MACHINE BURNS MORE CALORIES!!! BUY IT NOW!!!"

You can burn more by dancing aggressively, I assure you. Plus, it's more fun and much, much cheaper.


Senior Gault: heart rate (HR) measurement can only estimate basal metabolic rates and/or caloric expenditure during exercise (but in general, the higher avg HR during exercise, the more calories utilized), but it could be better than not knowing it. Most calorie measuring methods are severely flawed. Scientists tend to use oxygen as the standard measure, but even this is flawed. We can more accurately measure it (caloric expenditure/basal metabolic rate) by measuring the heat dissipation of the body, but this is expensive (there are only a few such labs in the US) and highly impractical. And again, your basal metabolic rate is ever-changing, especially if you're a hiker or an active person, since we don't always hike or exercise the same amount everyday. Even if we did, they are too many other factors affecting a person's rate of "being".


HR is a bit of a "downstream" measurement to most the body's functions, but you can learn a lot by tracking it (especially when compared to, or in conjunction with work rate/output, etc...power output/wattage on a bike, for example). The lower the resting HR, the fitter a person is, for the most part (though numerous factors are involved even with this, of course...genes, etc). But, in spite of the low HR, he or she may still have a high metabolism! A fitter person's caloric needs may be higher at rest than an unfit person's, but yet lower than that unfit person's when exercising at comparable intensities (relative to themselves and to one another...that is to say both people maintaining 80% of their own max HR for an hour, for example).


The key things here are that estimates are just that (i.e., we're all different, even though we're all very much the same) and our bodies are ever-changing. You might need X amount of calories to maintain life tomorrow, while a week from now you may need Y amount. But we don't always have to meet the needs of our basal metabolic rate (at least not in the immediate sense; over time of course, we have to, or we perish); we adapt to what's available and our metabolism adjusts to account for that. Excessive intake affects it, just as depletion does. *Type* of intake affects it, just as timing of intake can. Sleep affects it. Work stress affects it. Life affects it.

Off to go hike in the Great Sand Dunes National Park for the weekend, where I plan to measure nothing but the beauty of the landscape!

Chuckie V
01-25-2013, 14:12
By the way, someone said something about two identical weight dudes, going up a hill, one in shape, one out of shape, that both of them burn the same calories just with a different amount of effort... I believe the truth is exactly the opposite...

Bingo! Listen to Colorado Rob, folks!

Basically, the OUTPUT (i.e., work accomplished) is the same, but the INPUT (i.e., the effort of that work rate) is not. The two guys in this example may have done the same thing outwardly, but they will each RESPOND differently, calorically or otherwise. Output is what gets the job done, but input is different for each of us at a given work rate, and it affects each of us differently.

CarlZ993
01-25-2013, 14:57
Weight loss on the trail is sometimes hard to accurately measure. How often will you get a chance to hop on a scale? Significant weight loss (fat mostly) can cause some problems on the trail. With very little problem, you can determine body fat loss on the trail. All you need is a tape measure. Have someone measure your arm (same arm each time) as you flex it like a bodybuilder. Have that person then measure in the same place with the arm relaxed. Record the difference of the two measurements. If the measurement differential increase over time, you're losing body fat. If it lessens over time (never happened to me on the trail), you're gaining body fat. If is remains the same, your body fat percentage (& weight?) has stabilized. Fat can't be flexed but muscle can. Anyway, it'll give you some ballpark info that may be useful on the trail.

perrymk
01-25-2013, 15:52
My calorie counting experience works for myself but has been for fat loss, not hiking efficiency. Here's some of what I've learned that works for me, hopefully others find something useful in there:

1. An inactive person generally requires about 10 calories per pound bodyweight per day for maintenance.
2. Walking generally burns about 0.66 calories per pound bodyweight per mile.
3. For each 1% of bodyweight carried, add 5% more calories burned.
4. Extra muscle burns about 10 calories per pound per day. By extra I mean someone who lifts weights and it shows. So if one carries an extra 20 pounds of muscle, one burns an extra 200 calories per day. Most people won't build and maintain an extra 20 pounds of muscle though. It requires significant effort.
5. Pharmaceuticals (steroids, thyroid meds, growth hormone, etc.) throw all the numbers off.

For example, an average non-medicated 150 pound person needs about 1500 calories per day for maintenance, This person burns about 99 calories per mile. If this person carries 22.5 pound pack (15% of bodyweight), the calories burned jumps to 165 calories per mile. To cover 10 miles this person needs 1650 calories in addition to the 1500 calories of maintenence, so around 3150 calories per day. Add in a little for cooler weather, ups and downs, etc.

This person requires around 4800 calories for a 20 mile day. Again, pad it a little for weather terrain, other activity.

The 1% bodyweight requires 5% more calories is something I figured out myself years ago. Basically I compared what various exercise machines were indicating I burned, how I felt after various day hikes carrying different loads, and what I read online. I'm not suggesting this is info ready for JAMA, but it works for me.

ChinMusic
01-25-2013, 18:57
"Someone running at 6mph is working at ~10METS. Runner A has a VO2max of 12 METs, so that speed represents 83% of their maximum, which is pretty hard. Runner B has a VO2max of 15 METs, so that speed represents 67% of maximum, which is a medium effort. Runner A may struggle at that speed and not be able to last more than 10 min, while Runner B can maintain it for an hour. However, they both are working at 10 METs and both are burning roughly 10 Kcal/kg body wt/hour. If Runner A increases VO2 Max to 15 METs, running at 6 mph will now represent 67% of max, just like Runner B. The effort will feel significantly easier. However, it will still be 10 METs and the calorie burn at that speed will stay the same, as long as body weight has not changed.
If Runner A wears an HRM, and has not changed the setting to reflect the increase in VO2 max, then the HRM will show a decrease in calories burned. I think that is what messes a lot of people up. What they don't realize is that HRMs do NOT measure calories--they only interpret heart rate response as a percentage of HR (and VO2) max. If the parameters are wrong, the HRM will be inaccurate as well."

JAK
01-25-2013, 21:13
Heart rates work great, but have to be calibrated to the individual. Measure your heart rate at various walking and running speeds, on level ground. Find some reliable empirical data on calories per hour for speed x weight for walking and running, and understand whether or not it includes basal metabolism. Use that data to determine your caloric rate vs heart rate and then measure your heart rate hiking under various conditions. Have fun with that.

Want to look like drybones when I'm 63.

JAK
01-25-2013, 21:21
There was a typo in my formula. Thanks for pointing that our perrymk.

I am not so sure about your #3. I would say 1% more bodyweight burns 1% more calories at a given speed. Also, #1 and #4 are saying more or less the same thing, but I think what you really intend to say is that muscle adds more to your basal metabolism than bone and fat, so I would think muscle burns more than 10 cal per pound per day, and fat and bones burn less. Then again I think brain burns something like 400 calories per day regardless of activity, so muscle might be 10 cal per pound like you say, basal metabolism, and fat and bone much less, and brain brings the average back up to 10 cal per pound. Something like that.

ChinMusic
01-25-2013, 21:27
Heart rates work great, but have to be calibrated to the individual. Measure your heart rate at various walking and running speeds, on level ground. Find some reliable empirical data on calories per hour for speed x weight for walking and running, and understand whether or not it includes basal metabolism. Use that data to determine your caloric rate vs heart rate and then measure your heart rate hiking under various conditions. Have fun with that.

One thing not mentioned, as far as I've seen anyway, is that there CAN be a difference in calories burned and skill level. I would waste a TON of energy (calories) moving down the bike trail if I were to inline skate. I would be wobbling all over the place. My skilled/practiced twin would burn much less calories do to his efficiency of movement.

Walking/running/hiking is not in that category to any significant level.




Want to look like drybones when I'm 63.

seconded

JybbaGirl
01-27-2013, 18:18
I actually kept track of my calories in / calories out while I was hiking. I used a phone app that was specific to my height, weight and heart rate. I'm a female and was 30 when I hiked last year, so my numbers would be lower than an average man on the trail, but you get the idea. The details are in the post, but in general I burned 3000-4000/day and consumed 2000-3000/day. In town was different of course and I ate a lot more there. Hope this is helpful!

http://www.atraillife.com/1/post/2013/01/calorie-consumption-on-a-long-distance-hike.html

Malto
01-27-2013, 20:06
One thing not mentioned, as far as I've seen anyway, is that there CAN be a difference in calories burned and skill level. I would waste a TON of energy (calories) moving down the bike trail if I were to inline skate. I would be wobbling all over the place. My skilled/practiced twin would burn much less calories do to his efficiency of movement.

Walking/running/hiking is not in that category to any significant level.




seconded

That may be true in your case but it is absolutely false in general. Experienced hikers will burn less calories per mile than inexperience hiked with all other factors being equal.m if you make it past the halfway point on the AT you will likely find that you trip more often. Why? You will get more efficient at hiking and your feet won't be lifted as high hence the trip. Trekking pole motion is more fluid and there is less other wasted motion overall. I first noticed this at mile 2300 of my thru hike. I passed a hiker and he said you must be a thru hiker. When I asked how he knew he said that there is no wasted motion in the walk. This year I met hundreds of thru hikers in GA at the start of the AT. When I moved to PA I ran into the same hikers and there was a world of difference in their walk. They look like they flow down the trail, not fight it like they did in GA. That is efficiency and will burn less calories.

ChinMusic
01-27-2013, 20:24
They look like they flow down the trail, not fight it like they did in GA. That is efficiency and will burn less calories.
It is a skill quickly learned. IMO, it is insignificant for the purpose of this thread. Rounding error.

robertblake60
01-28-2013, 12:26
I'm hearing a lot of words like "less" and "fewer" and "a lot more" and "easier" or "harder". These are qualitative terms, not specific mesurements.

I agree that the more someone engages in an activity (in this case hiking), the fewer calories per mile per pound is consumed. The question I have is "how many fewer?" It seems that some believe the difference to be as much as 30%. I find that VERY hard to beleive.

Drybones
01-28-2013, 13:08
I actually kept track of my calories in / calories out while I was hiking. I used a phone app that was specific to my height, weight and heart rate. I'm a female and was 30 when I hiked last year, so my numbers would be lower than an average man on the trail, but you get the idea. The details are in the post, but in general I burned 3000-4000/day and consumed 2000-3000/day. In town was different of course and I ate a lot more there. Hope this is helpful!

http://www.atraillife.com/1/post/2013/01/calorie-consumption-on-a-long-distance-hike.html

That's a bunch of data you have there...BTW...I love your dawg.

JybbaGirl
01-30-2013, 19:10
That's a bunch of data you have there...BTW...I love your dawg.

Thanks! He's a good boy!

JAK
01-30-2013, 20:33
Great job thanks for the link.
Now where is the data on Rooney's calorie consumption?