View Full Version : "Fast" hike
Just wondering if the experienced folks here believe it might be possible to thru hike the AT unsupported without carrying any food. Just eat a bunch, where others resupply every few days. Yeah its crazy, but, could it be done?
k2basecamp
03-06-2013, 07:46
You'd be a hungry camper in Maine
You'd be a hungry camper in Maine
Yeah, NOBO, hundred mile W would test ya pretty good I imagine. Probably be tough enough for most if you started there. Just wondering if it could be done. I'm thinking it could; what with zeros and town stays and angels and all.
Train Wreck
03-06-2013, 07:58
Yeah, NOBO, hundred mile W would test ya pretty good I imagine. Probably be tough enough for most if you started there. Just wondering if it could be done. I'm thinking it could; what with zeros and town stays and angels and all.
and yogi-ing off of other hikers :eek:
and yogi-ing off of other hikers :eek:
Yeah, that might come in to play, in a significant way, but for purposes of discussion.......yogiing would be against the rules. Could it be done?
HikerMom58
03-06-2013, 08:09
I would say no, it can't be done. My blood sugar level would go nuts. If you could carry protein bars, maybe. Could you stash food for meee? ;)
It could be done but it wouldn't be healthy, and it wouldn't be fast.
Rocket Jones
03-06-2013, 08:10
You'd be tapping into your body's reserves pretty heavily and constantly. It could probably be done, but would it be worth it due to the probable damage to your health?
Start mid April. Carry very little. Stay in town every third night. Pig out. Walk fast knowing food awaits you. Take two nights off when you feel you need to. Finish late September. There are plenty of people here who could do it. Maybe a few who would. Maybe not.
It could be done but it wouldn't be healthy, and it wouldn't be fast.
It would be a multi-month fast, interspersed with feasts.
Wouldn't be safe either. Interesting question though. The question would be how the body would recover after a long section without food, just water. Your body could adapt to burning mostly body fat, using glycogen and muscle as second and third energy stores. You would probably want to sleep after eating a huge meal after a long section, but then you could eat again when you wake up and start moving again. It might help some if you started with extra body fat, but the ultimate question would be what sort of distances you could sustain between glutonous meals. Would there also be a limit to how much time you have at each meal stop?
Energy stores while hiking without food...
Glycogen = 2000 calories, weighing about 3 pounds including water.
Muscle = 2000 calories, weighing about 4 pounds including water.
Body Fat = 46000 calories, weighing about 13 pounds including water.
so there you have 50,000 calories, perhaps enough for a 200 mile death march, perhaps not.
But then how long would it talk your body to restore the glycogen, muscle, and fat, and what about vitamins and minerals and other micro and macro damage? Then there is the increased chance of falling, fainting, hypothermia, dehydration, sickness, getting lost, you name it. This is taken to an extreme, and you could probably go to an even further extreme, so the question becomes how far could you hike without eating food, safely. I would suggest 2-3 days, if walking, 1 day if running. Perhaps 30 miles either way, but again you would need a nero day to restore and recover so you wouldn't be saving any time by not carrying the food.
OK. I get the "fast" hike now. Good one.
Don't get me wrong. It is really interesting to consider, and maybe toy with a little.
I would definitely suggest bring some food along just in case you find yourself in trouble.
I've heard stories about Bushmen sitting down for a meal and eating an antelope over a day and gaining 10 pounds of flesh in a day. Not sure what the limits are, but that is the way I would approach it. The other variable would be if you have a lot of fat to lose, then you would only need to restore muscle and glycogen at first. So how much muscle are you willing to lose between feasts, and how long does it take to restore a pound of flesh?
How fast to people regain muscle and organ tissue after a death march? Any data?
I would guess you would gain it back faster if you have lost some, but not too much.
Just wondering if the experienced folks here believe it might be possible to thru hike the AT unsupported without carrying any food. Just eat a bunch, where others resupply every few days. Yeah its crazy, but, could it be done?
Possible? Maybe. Probable? No.
The chances of someone's body holding up to this sort of fast/feast ordeal for 4-6 months--while hiking 2,200 miles--are pretty slim.
My guess is, even if someone were to achieve this feat, there would probably be some long-term damage to their body--including damage to some internal organs.
jburgasser
03-06-2013, 08:51
what with angels and all.
Trail Angels aren't there to supply the unprepared. Your post should be put in the humor section. Maybe a new section titled "Idiotic Questions" should be started.
Is it physically possible? Probably. Is it mentally possible? Doubtful. After Neels Gap there would be a Snickers bar in my pocket. After NOC, a snickers bar and a Hostess fruit pie. By the time I got to Pa, I would be buying new pants with larger pockets.
it is an interesting question as to how far the human body can go to adapt to a situation. I went from Wapiti Shelter to Pearisburg, about 17 miles, only eating 800 calories (Mounds bar, 400 calories of Malto mix, little Debbie's Brownie.) I had more food but I accidentally packed it in the bottom of my pack and I didn't want to unload the pack. So it became a test on how my body would react. I can honestly say that I would have had to stop for a while if I would have encountered one more 100 foot climb, I was at the wall.
Bringing it back to this question. You would be hiking huge sections of trail with the energy level that I had going into Pearisburg. One implication of this would be a reduction in daily mileage likely on any section greater than 30 miles between resupply. Another huge variable would be how long you spend in town recharging your glycogen supply and eating for total energy reserves.
While I love trying new approaches, I wont volunteer to do a section test.
.....but again you would need a nero day to restore and recover so you wouldn't be saving any time by not carrying the food.
Plus, you would not really save much (if any) money. The regular feasting would take it's toll on the pocketbook.
So, if someone actually attempted this, the question that they would soon be asking themselves is "What's the point?"
The need for numerous neros or zeros for rest and recovery purposes would make the hike slower.
The feasts would make the hike as expensive--or even more expensive--than a regular thru hike.
--The torture of one's body would be extreme and painful.
I agree that it would be tougher psychologically than physically, being essentially voluntary, especially if you carried emergency food. It has to be tough psychologically, because that is how we protect ourselves. Interesting to consider though, and perhaps even healthy to push your limits, within reason. Personally I love extremes, and I naturally get by on only one or two meals a day, but I've never been able to go 24 hours without food. There is a huge mental barrier there, which is probably worth pushing past, now and then. Doing so while hiking might be harder, but I'm not sure about that. Worth investigating.
As I understand it, the body should initially use both fats and glycogen, and turn more to fats as the glycogen becomes more depleted, and then start using muscle quite readily at first but then start resisting muscle and organ loss. So fats become the major source, especially if you have excess fat, but some protein loss continues. Once into ketosis your brain can use ketones as fuel, but some glucose can be produced from fats and proteins also, so I think some glycogen can be restored at night while you rest, and then depleted again during the day while you hike, but not sure. Your brain would want the lions share of whatever glucose might be available and it's demand it fairly constant at about 300-400 calories a day. Anyhow, whatever is going on your glycogen would be quite depleted after the first day, and you would lose most protein from muscles and organs on the second day, and after than I think the protein loss would be slow but gradual, and you would be in a very tough mental state, especially if you had food on you or people were eating food in front of you.
it would be easy to pack a little food, maybe 1000 calories a day or less and go on that. You'd be doing other hikers a favor by yogi-ing from them as most are carrying too much food anyway.
I've often wondered if it might be healthy to lose some muscle and organ protein, in order to gain it back in a more optimal form and distribution. In a way this is part of normal training, but I'm thinking in terms of more extremes, like lose a 2-6 pound of muscle and intestines over a period of 3-14 days, then build it back better. Any ideas?
garlic08
03-06-2013, 09:35
I don't know...it's worth thinking about, not idiotic. I keep thinking about the hiker I met on the CDT in New Mexico who was fast-hiking a 90-mile stretch between towns in one night out. He had a five-pound pack (base weight, minus food and water) and he was flying. He essentially didn't camp or cook, just had a few sandwiches in his pack. I wonder if he, for one, could have done that hike without carrying food. I wouldn't think about doing it, but there may be someone out there who could do it.
I'm also thinking about another person I know who does some work up in the Navajo Nation. He was in one home and noticed there was no food. He asked if they needed help getting food, and the reply was, "Oh, no, we ate plenty yesterday." Three squares a day is not a God-given right to every human on this planet. Hiking hungry was one great lesson I learned in the Sierra Nevada on the PCT--it can be done and you won't blow up at the first growl of your stomach.
takethisbread
03-06-2013, 09:37
I would say it would lead to death.
At least a fast hike would. Simply to many calories/miles between stops in many locales eleven at the beginning. You gonna hike from Fontana to gatlinburg with just a full stomach. You'd get sick. Now if you went slow, carried a knife a fishing pole and lived on grubs, worms, vegetation and and occasional fish it's conceivable . But it would take a special person to do that.
Speed hiking, the caloric deficit would drag u down quick I would suspect. Especially in a couple 50 mile sections in the south with no re supply points. Power bars would be needed. IMO
it would be easy to pack a little food, maybe 1000 calories a day or less and go on that. You'd be doing other hikers a favor by yogi-ing from them as most are carrying too much food anyway.I'm afraid if I was in the middle of a 200 mile hike without food and came across a group of hikers I would be more of a grizzly than a yogi. It would not be pretty. I would probably be shot, or hit on the back of the head with a hatchet.
No unless you became a total bum and PIA to everyone trying to enjoy their hike.
Exactly. I would definitely have to do it solo, on a secluded trail. At least until I developed some Zen power.
Pedaling Fool
03-06-2013, 10:51
Yeah, that might come in to play, in a significant way, but for purposes of discussion.......yogiing would be against the rules. Could it be done?When you get food from fellow hikers that's not yogiing, that's begging and being a burden. Yoggiing is relieving the excess baggage (food) of overweight picnickers/"dayhikers", that would probably of just ended up in the garbare, or added to the ever-growing waistline of said picnickers. Yoggiing is an art. Begging is discraceful.
Start mid April. Carry very little. Stay in town every third night. Pig out. Walk fast knowing food awaits you. Take two nights off when you feel you need to. Finish late September. There are plenty of people here who could do it. Maybe a few who would. Maybe not.
Everything looks easy on paper. And it can be made to look easier by doing the math. It's true that numbers don't lie, but they sure do like to fool the hell out of us.
Parkie Man
03-06-2013, 11:22
I would think you would spend a lot more time on the privy than you would have bargained for. Alternating between the runs and constipation.
Can you go without food for a few days? Absolutely, I've done this a few times during detoxing - it's quite refreshing. But this was done with an end in mind and for a brief duration. I did carry on as normal, going to work, going for walks, golfing, staying active.
I'm not sure if you mean you want to "fast" (lack of food) during your hike or you want to go fast (as in speed). The first you might be able to do for a short time but putting your body through this constant stress and yo-yo-ing will have very negative consequences on not only your physical well being but also the mental. You will not complete a thru hike this way. I only say this because you asked the question. If you already eat only every 3 days during your regular life and it's something you've been doing for years and you're at a point where this has no negative effects on your life (which I don't believe is possible), then you wouldn't need to ask the question. You'd simply go out there and do what you already do.
Rephrase your question. Can I drive my car fast across the country only filling up every 3 days? It's a matter of energy. You want to output 2-3 times (or more) the energy you normally do, but cut off your fuel supply for several days at a time. You will simply not have enough energy for your body systems to function. They will eventually begin to shut down.
If it's a matter of saving the weight in your pack so you can be more efficient, why stop there? Why not leave your extra clothes behind? In fact you can go packless I imagine. Just like a car, you could strip it down of anything extra, but eventually you will strip so much that it will simply not run. If you're afraid you won't experience hunger, I think you can safely lay that concern to rest, even if you bring all the food you can carry. You'll still be hungry!
What's the one thing thru hikers constantly think about and need more than anything? FOOD! Even with a pack full of food, a thru hike is difficult, as you know most do not finish.
Isn't this basically what Jennifer Pharr Davis did when she did the trail in 47 days?
Isn't this basically what Jennifer Pharr Davis did when she did the trail in 47 days?
Oops, read supported instead of unsupported in the original post
I have a feeling she ate more often than every few days.
Slo-go'en
03-06-2013, 12:32
I suppose if you started out at about 450 pounds, you could go a couple of weeks without eating ;)
Okay, we got no sleeping bag or pad, no tent, no food - what's next, no brains?
Feral Bill
03-06-2013, 12:59
I suppose if you started out at about 450 pounds, you could go a couple of weeks without eating ;)
Okay, we got no sleeping bag or pad, no tent, no food - what's next, no brains?
We may be there.
It would definitely take some training to be able to do. Could you eat 18,000 calories at a whack without vomiting it back up? There would be a learning curve, for sure. There are many stories of hungry hikers doing the bulimic thing of gorging so much they then purge. You could certainly try building up to it by doing weekends, three-day hikes, and so on, to see if you can maintain your energy and positive enough mental outlook to keep hiking.
flemdawg1
03-06-2013, 13:17
I think you could do it, heck you could even eat just about everyday. but you'll spend 80% of your time hitching. Even in the Smokies, you can get go, 1.5 day then hike down to Cades Cove snack bar for burgers and pizza, hike 2 days to NFG, then 2-3 days to Standing Bear.
Springer to Woody Gap- 1 night
Woody to Neels- same day
Neels to Unicoi- 1 night
Unicoi to Dick's Creek gap- 1 night
DCG to Standing Indian CG (via Deep Gap)- same day
Deep Gap to Rock Gap (1 night)
Rock Gap to NOC- 2 nights
NOC to Fontana -2nights
FD to Caves Cove- 1 night
CC to NFG 1 night
NFG to Cosby CG 1 night
Cosby CG to SBF same day
SBF to Hot Springs - 2nights
HS to Hemlock Hollow 17 miles Same day
HH to Sams Gap 1night
Sams gap to Erwin 1 night
Erwin to Indian Grave Gap, same day.....
jburgasser
03-06-2013, 13:33
Oops, read supported instead of unsupported in the original post
According to her journal she ate b-fast, lunch, and dinner every day and had 2 snack breaks or at least carried food with her for snacks between meals.
I suppose if you started out at about 450 pounds, you could go a couple of weeks without eating ;)
Okay, we got no sleeping bag or pad, no tent, no food - what's next, no brains?
We may be there.
I've got one of those around somewhere. Should be worth quite a bit. Hardly been used.
In theory it should be easier while you still have excess body fat, as you only need to resupply protien and carbs. Not sure how much protien and carbs you could eat in one meal, or say with a 4 hour period, if that was the deal. I would guess maybe enough to replenish you glycogen and protien lost from 2-3 days of hiking. Assuming you are cruising along on 15,000 calories over 3 days, resupplying with 2000 calories of carbs, and 1000 calories of protien, and 1000 calories of fat to help with the digestion, and forgoing the other 11,000 calores of fat for a net loss of 3 pounds over 3 days. So the question is whether you could digest and utilize 4000 calories in 4 hours if really hungry, and whether you could hike in such a way as to be burning 80% fats over 3 days, which would probably be more like 70% day 1, 80% day 2, and 90% day 3. Your body might get used to such a regime. Not sure.
I would say it would lead to death.
At least a fast hike would. Simply to many calories/miles between stops in many locales eleven at the beginning. You gonna hike from Fontana to gatlinburg with just a full stomach. You'd get sick. Now if you went slow, carried a knife a fishing pole and lived on grubs, worms, vegetation and and occasional fish it's conceivable . But it would take a special person to do that.
Speed hiking, the caloric deficit would drag u down quick I would suspect. Especially in a couple 50 mile sections in the south with no re supply points. Power bars would be needed. IMO
This is the most likely outcome. I can remember going about 30 hours and 100 miles without eating hardly anything while moving at 3-4 MPH down the trail. It starts with headaches, tingling in the legs and arms, nausea, lightheaded feeling, loss of awareness, confusion, etc. The only way to stop that is to physically stop moving ... and then you aren't getting any closer to a food source. I had been training for 100 mile ultra runs ( in my younger years), but really just hiking. You can train yourself to stay on your feet for up to 2 days continuous but it can only be done with fuel (consumption of food). When you deprive your body it eventually shuts down.
You should be able to go several days with just high protein bars and water, so it might be possible to make most of the sections. I guarantee that you will be grumpy and miserable. Since your stomach will shrink you might make yourself sick from gorging and your town meals may not be the best for extended slow energy release. :)
The situation becomes progressively worse with time once you've burned your fat stores and begin digesting muscle. I'd suggest you try the 100 mile 30-40 hour training routine first before you try anything major like the AT.
while i am by no means endorsing it as an approach to thru hiking, the notion that a person can not go 3 days without eating is complete nonsense. it wouldnt be pleasant, but it could be done. in fact, people the world over do it all the time.
there are plenty of areas on the trail where one could fairly easily buy food at some point every day or nearly everyday, but really, who would deliberately not carry SOMETHING to eat with them just to say they didnt? thats kind of silly.
now if youre talking about living a day on 3 cliff bars until you make it to town, i do it all the time. i imagine i am not alone.
Garlic, that was such a serious, thoughtful answer it was ALMOST enough to keep me from asking -- would it be acceptable, on this "fast" hike, to buy food on the trail from other hikers? After all, every snickers bar has its price. Money is arguably the most weight-efficient item to carry on a hike.
takethisbread
03-06-2013, 17:17
It cannot be done. Not even close. One can hike 30 miles without eating, one can hike 50 miles without eating. One can hike straight to newfound gap from fontana without food (I suppose but I bet that's dicey in the best of weather) but to do it over and over and over and over again?for months ? No way. You burn certain amount of calories hiking those distances and loading up won't do it. I'm not a nutritionist but its probably an endeavor that would be deadly . I'm not sure if this cat is serious, but we have wack jobs every year trying crazy stuff. Lets not encourage it
It's possible using foraging, hunting, fishing, ect . I think that would be a slow but successful hike for the right person.
while i am by no means endorsing it as an approach to thru hiking, the notion that a person can not go 3 days without eating is complete nonsense. it wouldnt be pleasant, but it could be done. in fact, people the world over do it all the time.
there are plenty of areas on the trail where one could fairly easily buy food at some point every day or nearly everyday, but really, who would deliberately not carry SOMETHING to eat with them just to say they didnt? thats kind of silly.
now if youre talking about living a day on 3 cliff bars until you make it to town, i do it all the time. i imagine i am not alone.
A fast thru hike without bringing food? The more I think about this, the more I think about George Carlin. Humor Section.
Even on my 3 day at a time idea, losing net 1 pound a day body fat, you would soon run out of excess body fat. So eventually you would have to stop long enough every 3 days to be able to take in all 3 days worth of calories, which would take at least a full day I would think. So then we are talking about 3 days 2 nights hiking without food, followed by 2 nights 1 day of eating and resting. Maybe. But for 2000 miles, very sketchy.
I was prompted to think of this possibility yesterday, while reading an account of a local teenage boy's abduction from his settlement near here. He was abducted by Shawnee and taken clear across the Ohio River to "The Indian Towns." This was in the late 1700's. He escaped years later and returned home. In his account he stated that the Indians traveled for three days at a time, carrying large loads, without eating. He said they only drank water and broth during these fasts, and covered a lot of ground. Every 4th day they would kill a deer or buffalo and eat that, then continue the forced march home. Just made me think. I have fasted several times without ill effect, but 2000+ miles is extreme no matter how you do it. Its not just walkin.
Anyway, thanks for the many thoughtful replies. If I decide to test it out for a section sometime I'll let y'all know how it went.
I suppose if you started out at about 450 pounds, you could go a couple of weeks without eating ;)
Okay, we got no sleeping bag or pad, no tent, no food - what's next, no brains?
Reminds me of my friend Mucho's response when I asked him why he was peeing in my closet instead of the bathroom. "I ain't got no brains man!"
Lone Wolf
03-06-2013, 19:23
Just wondering if the experienced folks here believe it might be possible to thru hike the AT unsupported without carrying any food. Just eat a bunch, where others resupply every few days. Yeah its crazy, but, could it be done?
this a joke! if not it's the stupidest idea i've read in a while
It could be done but it wouldn't be healthy, and it wouldn't be fast.
This. ^^^
Once the digestive system is empty, energy stores will be slow to provide sufficient energy, so hiking will be slow and nights will be cold. Fighting those cold night means heavier sleeping gear.
Refilling the energy stores will mean more time in town. A big meal won't do it. Thru hikers already eat as much as possible in town and they still need to carry food and still lose weight.
this a joke! if not it's the stupidest idea i've read in a while
Not joking...just thinking,wondering. I haven't reached the stage where I know everything yet.
Not joking...just thinking,wondering. I haven't reached the stage where I know everything yet.
10 hours of hiking would tell you everything you needed to know. That is, go out for an 10 hour fast walk. On that day, don't eat a thing before or after that walk, including that night. You'll probably figure out during the walk that you need food, and if not, the way you feel the next morning will tell you for sure.
Lone Wolf
03-06-2013, 19:38
Not joking...just thinking,wondering. I haven't reached the stage where I know everything yet.
guess you don't know much then
[QUOTE=leaftye;1432987]10 hours of hiking would tell you everything you needed to know. That is, go out for an 10 hour fast walk. On that day, don't eat a thing before or after that walk, including that night. You'll probably figure out during the walk that you need food, and if not, the way you feel the next morning will tell you for sure.[/QUOTI
I have done that and was not affected any differently than if I had snacked all day, or eaten meals, which I've also done. Several days would be different, but apparently this was a normal thing for some American Indians. Maybe they knew something I don't.
MuddyWaters
03-06-2013, 19:43
Probably not possible.
But with a twist, it would be possible to do with minimal # of re-supplies.
I have done that and was not affected any differently than if I had snacked all day, or eaten meals, which I've also done. Several days would be different, but apparently this was a normal thing for some American Indians. Maybe they knew something I don't.
I doubt that, but I'll entertain you. How many miles did you walk?
guess you don't know much then
I know what I read yesterday, as posted in post #44 above. It is a serious question.
I doubt that, but I'll entertain you. How many miles did you walk?
I don't really need entertaining, but thanks. The day hike that day was roughly 25 miles. Long Mountain wayside south to the James River at 501. I carried no water either.
fiddlehead
03-06-2013, 21:16
I've met 2 breatharians in my life and believe both of them.
One was a German girl and she told me she would dance often and went more than a year without food.
She did drink tea or juice sometimes but not often.
The other was a man who sailed across the Pacific on his yacht.
He had a little food but tried it anyway.
Both were exceptional people with a very positive outlook on life and happy.
I also know a man who doesn't eat much, rides a bicycle for his transportation and has gone a week to 10 days without food 2 or 3 times since I've known him. (4 years now)
But he moves in almost slow motion to conserve when he's on one of his foodless stretches.
Of course, thru-hiking a long distance trail is a lot more strenuous and demanding.
But the OP is not talking about fasting, just not carrying food.
I think they could resupply often if they wanted to.
Perhaps 2 days would be the longest except for the 100 mile wilderness.
So, almost anything is possible. Someone could do it. But it would take a long time IMO.
And why?
I also think it would be different than a 10 hour hike. I went for a 20k run after a day and a half of hiking and had a good bonk on the way back on the second half of the 20k run. It was like I lost all power for the uphills but could still run on flats and downhills, and I was dizzy. When I got back to the interpretation center at Big Salmon River they had cake for some event and that and some poweraide fixed be right up. That was basically a glycogen bonk, and I think I ran out of muscle glycogen but my liver and blood glycogen was still not too bad, which is when it gets real dangerous. I think a 3 day hike without food would be much different. Your glycogen supply would not drop so quickly and so you would have more time to react, and convert muscle into glucose and switch to burning fats, then eventually reduce the rate of turning protiens into glucose and depend more and more on burning primarily fats, and on converting fats into ketones, even to the point of using ketones for the brain. I think that would take at least 3 days even at 5000 calories a day. It would be similar in that you would lose strength and have to slow down, but the mental effects would be different. More severe in some ways than a marathon bonk, but less severe in other ways. I agree with Lone Wolf though, in that it would be extremely dangerous, and I think as early as the second day it would seem like a very bad idea, and if you brought emergency bail out food, which you would be really foolish not to, I think you would be into it by then. The question would also be, how would you know when to bail out and dip into the emergency food? What would it take? Not a good idea to do something like this alone, and if you took someone along, what would their instructions be? Should they wait until you fall off a cliff, or faint, or what exactly? If you both did it together, how would that be different? Anyhow, I think I might try it, but I would push the envelop 1 day at a time and take notes. I day fast-hike then fully recover, then 2 days, then fully recover. Take notes as I went and study and learn. But essentially it would be an experiment of one, and there would be some adapting as I went. Wouldn't really prove anything that could be applied generally. I might have to wait until the daughter's education is paid for first. A few days should hurt though. Will try at home first though. I usually bail within the first 24 hours.
It cannot be done. Not even close. One can hike 30 miles without eating, one can hike 50 miles without eating. One can hike straight to newfound gap from fontana without food (I suppose but I bet that's dicey in the best of weather) but to do it over and over and over and over again?for months ? No way. You burn certain amount of calories hiking those distances and loading up won't do it. I'm not a nutritionist but its probably an endeavor that would be deadly . I'm not sure if this cat is serious, but we have wack jobs every year trying crazy stuff. Lets not encourage it
It's possible using foraging, hunting, fishing, ect . I think that would be a slow but successful hike for the right person.
and if hiking the AT required you to repeatedly hike 50 or 30 miles without encountering food then you might be correct. the bulk of the trail requires no such thing. theres more places where you can sit down and eat dinner every day for a week straight than there are where you'd go 3 days between meals.
still though, the notion of making a "rule" disallowing yourself from putting a snickers bar in your pocket just so you can say you didn't carry food makes the whole thing silly.
it has me thinking though that it might be interesting to try and cross the smokies or the 100 mile carrying nothing but a water bottle and a bag full of power bars. i used to hike up to about 10 miles at a time without even carrying those things.
Tried to find the old Breatharian episode, but this one is pretty good too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rGOhahUTU
So I thought maybe I would "try this at home". I figure 3 days 2 nights on the trail between meals would be the equivalent of 6 days 5 nights between meals at home. I need to lose the weight anyway. I have never managed a 24 hour fast, but I have dieted successful for a few weeks at 800 calories a day. I am going to try and go a few days on 400 calories a day to ease my way into it. To make it trail - like, I will limit myself to my usual trail food, so I will make it 100g per day of whatever I want, and probably go with watery oatmeal for breakfast, and thin lentil and herb and vegetable soups for supper, and maybe plain tea or tea with skim milk powder through the day. Not exactly fasting, and not while burning 5000-6000 calories a day, more like 3000 with my papers and exercise, but may as well dip my toe in, start feeling the waters, and get my Zen going. So I'll weigh the dry ingredients as I go and keep you all posted. Probably cave by suppertime depending on what's cooking.
I don't think the tea leaves should count, right? Just the other stuff. In theory you might be able to forage 400 calories a day on the trail, without yogi-ing if you knew what you were looking for. Easier in berry season. I'm thinking about edible leaves and bugs mostly. If you didn't want to cause too much disturbance in high traffic areas you could allow yourself 100g per day of dry food carried. Herbs are essentially dehydrated green leafy vegetables, and excellent source of vitamins A, C, iron, calcium, and even protein. You can't eat 100g a day in herbs, but on a small diet it would be a more significant portion, and might resemble what you might forage. Parsley is like Queens Anne's Lace, and is mild enough to eat in large quantities like an ounce a day maybe. To that maybe oats, lentils, paprika, whatever. Maybe some spices to add to skim milk powder and black tea. Not sure if spices like cardamom, cloves, ginger, anise, nutmeg, pepper add much nutrition but they should make a small ration of skim milk powder more enjoyable to sip slowly. I think I would include the spices with the tea and not count that weight.
So: 100g per day in oats, skim milk powder, lentils, dried veggies, herbs, paprika. Plus another 20g per day in tea leaves and spices.
Day 1: 9am Weight = 212.8 pounds
Breakfast = 30g Oats + 10g Muesli, Nuts, Dried Fruit + (1g Nutmeg, Cinnamon, Anise)
Lunch = 20g Skim Milk Powder + (10g black tea, 2g Cardamon, Cloves, Nutmeg, Cinnamon, Anise )
Supper = 10g Lentils + 10g Dried Veggies + 10g Parsley + 10g Paprika + (2g spices?) + (5g green tea)
Will try at home first though.
Great idea to try at home first. Will be safer and sooner that way. I will work up to 20mpd by 1st of April and begin a 3 day fast then, continuing to put in 20mpd. Will report back April 12th with a journal of my experience. Thanks for the idea.
No problem. Starting day 2 here. I have 40g of steel cut oats soaking in boiled water for when I get back from my papers. Stuck to my diet yesterday, but it was only day 1, and no exercise after my morning paper route. So I only burned about 2000 since starting, so only a deficit of 1600 easily made up with body fat over 24 hours. I read somewhere that the body will burn about 1% of you body fat per day, once conditioned, and as long as you are active enough and not overeating carbs. I have about 60 pounds of body fat so once my fat burning metabolism kicks in I should be able to do this, even with some exercise. We'll see. For you, if you are younger and leaner, I would think it would be more difficult especially at 20mpd. I do about 4km on the morning paper route, and will try and add another 4-20km per day running and walking. Cheers.
Day 1: 9am Weight = 212.8 pounds
Breakfast = 30g Oats + 10g Muesli, Nuts, Dried Fruit + (1g Nutmeg, Cinnamon, Anise)
Lunch = 10g Skim Milk Powder + (5g black tea, 1g Cardamon, Cloves, Nutmeg, Cinnamon, Anise )
Supper = 15g Lentils + 10g Dried Veggies + 10g Parsley + 10g Paprika + 5g Rosemary and Thyme + (1g Marsala Garam Spice)
Day 2: 6:30am Weight = 210.4 pounds ( little light headed do papers but endorphins seemed to kick in quicker than usual )
Breakfast = 40g Steel Cut Oats + (1g Nutmeg, Cinnamon) with more water than usual for a watery gruel
Lunch = 5g Skim Milk Powder + (5g black tea, 1g Cardamon, Cloves, Nutmeg, Cinnamon, Anise ) again lots of water
Supper = 20g Lentils + 10g Dried Veggies + 10g Paprika + 10g Parsley + (1g Marsala Garam, Cloves, Black Pepper) again lots of water
My glycogen level should not be down that much yet. Maybe at 70-80% from 90% of 2000g. Blood glucose probably down a little, but body is probably accustomed to it being elevated too much too often, so where I am now is actually just closer to what should be normal. Body probably will burn more fat today to conserve more glycogen. I doubt any serious conversion of fats and proteins to glucose and ketones is starting yet, but probably some by tonight and more as the week progresses. I might try a 4k run and 4k walk today in addition to the 4k from paper route this morning. Burned probably 2200 yesterday, 2800 today maybe.
[QUOTE=JAK;1434348]No problem. Starting day 2 here. I have 40g of steel cut oats soaking in boiled water for when I get back from my papers. Stuck to my diet yesterday, but it was only day 1, and no exercise after my morning paper route. So I only burned about 2000 since starting, so only a deficit of 1600 easily made up with body fat over 24 hours. I read somewhere that the body will burn about 1% of you body fat per day, once conditioned, and as long as you are active enough and not overeating carbs. I have about 60 pounds of body fat so once my fat burning metabolism kicks in I should be able to do this, even with some exercise. We'll see. For you, if you are younger and leaner, I would think it would be more difficult especially at 20mpd. I do about 4km on the morning paper route, and will try and add another 4-20km per day running and walking. Cheers.[/QUOTE
Sounds like a good start and sustaniable plan. Do you have a blood glucose meter?
I'm 57 and fat, but otherwise in good health. Could stand to lose 30 lbs easy. Have been walking 5 mi day on and off all year with an occasional longer day hike thrown in. Have done fasts up to six days in the past so I kind of know what to expect. The Shawnee did the three day fast repeatedly while on long marches by choice, even when game and stores were plentiful. From what I've read there was a religious component to this choice, but it must have worked or they couldn't have done it and survives all the wars, relocations, and long marches, in such numbers over the course of 2 centuries.
I've got a glucose meter and will use it in addition to other data for reporting results. Best wishes!
I might get one of those. I'm pretty stupid today at work, more than usual.
I might get one of those. I'm pretty stupid today at work, more than usual.
Sorry to hear that JAK. Hope it is not serious. I only have one because a Dr. told me 6 years ago my fasting blood sugar was too high. Turns out I am one of a small percentage of people whose blood sugar spikes around dawn every day, but is normal the rest of the time. The theory is that it is a kind of vestigial genetic thing that prepares your body for the hunt upon arising. Guess I got some caveman genes. Hope you feel better soon.
No I'm sure it is ok. I could still hike like this. Not all that hungry either. Just getting used to a slightly lower blood sugar I think. Body needs to learn how to burn more fat. I think I'll adjust in a day or two. Easier on weekend..
No I'm sure it is ok. I could still hike like this. Not all that hungry either. Just getting used to a slightly lower blood sugar I think. Body needs to learn how to burn more fat. I think I'll adjust in a day or two. Easier on weekend..
Glad to hear it. The weekend is going to be pretty here so I'll have no excuse for not getting in my daily miles. The next 10 days are predicted to be the kind of days weather wise that I live for. May try some new routes.
evyck da fleet
03-08-2013, 18:50
What would be the point of this hike? Assuming you'd have to gain five more pounds than normal in town instead of carrying five pounds of food for the two to three days between towns, there would be no weight savings gained and you'd just be putting more stress on your body.
What would be the point of this hike? Assuming you'd have to gain five more pounds than normal in town instead of carrying five pounds of food for the two to three days between towns, there would be no weight savings gained and you'd just be putting more stress on your body.
What is the point of any hike?
Rhetorical question.
If you've read the thread you have seen that I am interested in exploring the merits of an American Indian custom. That is all.
I think it would be completely possible to hike without cooking anything - - I'd really want some coffee but aside from that you could totally eat Cliff Bars and Snickers and as long as you hold down 22-24+ mile days - you could make it to a town or road where you could get a hitch almost every day where you could get a meal. My style includes "going big" like this but I also like cooking a lot and carrying food but yes, depending on your fitness level it could be done.
Odd Man Out
03-08-2013, 22:31
Back in 1962, Jame Neel proposed the "Thrifty Gene Hypothesis", which states that there are genes that give humans a physiology enabling them to assimilate and large amounts of calories in a short period of time so that they can live for a long period of time with a calorie-deficient diet. The hypothesis is that for native cultures living a lifestyle which involved feast and famine (such Polynesians who would have to survive long sea voyages), this type of physiology would be quite beneficial. The evidence supporting the TGH is that people from isolated communities living a traditional lifestyle who are suddenly exposed to a modern western diet (where food is available at all times), are at a high risk from developing type II diabetes and obesity. Some people, thus, may be genetically well adapted to live a feast and famine type of lifestyle.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1932342/?page=1
The TGH is still an active area of research. Here is a recent article on the identification of a specific gene that may be one of these "thrify genes" in people from Tonga (have you noticed there are a lot of Tongans on NBC's "The Biggest Loser"?)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/12/10
However, the TGH has critics. Many of the arguments made against the hypothesis are based more on genetics rather than physiology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18852699
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723682/
Several people in this thread have cited historical examples of people living a traditional lifestyle or who found themselves in extreme situations who were able to eat large amounts of food in a short time and then live without food for a long period. I would say that there is certainly some scientific evidence to support this claim, but that some people may be genetically better adapted to do it. If the the TGH holds up, it would be another example of a gene that today is considered bad, but persists in our gene pool today because in pre-modern societies, these genes actually gave people a genetic advantage. Sickle Cell Anemia is perhaps the best know example of this.
This is not the norm, but good luck. Enjoy what time you have out there!
This is not the norm, but good luck. Enjoy what time you have out there!
Thanks Shelb. I always do, as I enjoy the time spent here.....mostly.
Back in 1962, Jame Neel proposed the "Thrifty Gene Hypothesis", which states that there are genes that give humans a physiology enabling them to assimilate and large amounts of calories in a short period of time so that they can live for a long period of time with a calorie-deficient diet. The hypothesis is that for native cultures living a lifestyle which involved feast and famine (such Polynesians who would have to survive long sea voyages), this type of physiology would be quite beneficial. The evidence supporting the TGH is that people from isolated communities living a traditional lifestyle who are suddenly exposed to a modern western diet (where food is available at all times), are at a high risk from developing type II diabetes and obesity. Some people, thus, may be genetically well adapted to live a feast and famine type of lifestyle.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1932342/?page=1
The TGH is still an active area of research. Here is a recent article on the identification of a specific gene that may be one of these "thrify genes" in people from Tonga (have you noticed there are a lot of Tongans on NBC's "The Biggest Loser"?)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/12/10
However, the TGH has critics. Many of the arguments made against the hypothesis are based more on genetics rather than physiology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18852699
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723682/
Several people in this thread have cited historical examples of people living a traditional lifestyle or who found themselves in extreme situations who were able to eat large amounts of food in a short time and then live without food for a long period. I would say that there is certainly some scientific evidence to support this claim, but that some people may be genetically better adapted to do it. If the the TGH holds up, it would be another example of a gene that today is considered bad, but persists in our gene pool today because in pre-modern societies, these genes actually gave people a genetic advantage. Sickle Cell Anemia is perhaps the best know example of this.
If North Korea successfully nukes us, as they have recently declared they intend to do, these old odd survival genes may come in to play. Who knows?
evyck da fleet
03-09-2013, 00:39
What is the point of any hike?
Rhetorical question.
If you've read the thread you have seen that I am interested in exploring the merits of an American Indian custom. That is all.
Fair enough. As Papa D said you'll have a chance to hitch into town every day and there should be enough hikers out there that you can yogi food off of if you bonk, for quite a while (if your goal relates to Indian custom).
If your goal is to thru hike since you mentioned doing this for six months, by replicating what what another culture had instilled in them their whole lives by preparing for four weeks, good luck.
Fair enough. As Papa D said you'll have a chance to hitch into town every day and there should be enough hikers out there that you can yogi food off of if you bonk, for quite a while (if your goal relates to Indian custom).
If your goal is to thru hike since you mentioned doing this for six months, by replicating what what another culture had instilled in them their whole lives by preparing for four weeks, good luck.
Appreciate the well wishes. Been preparing for a lifetime of 57 years, with at least 4 more to go, before i may be able to thru. Still learning and exploring. Wish you good luck too.
Day 1: 9am Weight = 212.8 pounds
Breakfast = 30g Oats + 10g Muesli, Nuts, Dried Fruit + (1g Nutmeg, Cinnamon, Anise)
Lunch = 10g Skim Milk Powder + (5g black tea, 1g Cardamon, Cloves, Nutmeg, Cinnamon, Anise )
Supper = 15g Lentils + 10g Dried Veggies + 10g Parsley + 10g Paprika + 5g Rosemary and Thyme + (1g Marsala Garam Spice)
Day 2: 6:30am Weight = 210.4 pounds ( little light headed do papers but endorphins seemed to kick in quicker than usual )
Breakfast = 40g Steel Cut Oats + (1g Nutmeg, Cinnamon) with more water than usual for a watery gruel
Lunch = skipped lunch (forgot my mug for tea, very lightheaded all day, fine walking, no real hunger, slower thinking than usual)
Supper = we went out to pizza delight, and I just had a large salad of greens, goat cheese, walnuts, balsamic dressing, later had a Drambui with the wife
Day 3: 6:30am Weight = 207.7 pounds ( less light headed doing papers after nights sleep, mostly water weight lost so far)
Haven't really decided on a meal plan for the weekend. Craving a grapefruit. Maybe see if I can fast until dinner.
Breakfast = large grapefruit
Lunch = chai tea
Supper = lentil soup and Greek salad at Demetri's in Fredericton, water, no bread
So down 5.1 pounds in two days, guessing down 2 pounds fat, 1 pound water with glycogen, 2 pounds water
That should be guessing down 1 pound fat, 1 pound water with glycogen, 3 pounds water. Maybe some exercise today see what shakes loose.
That should be guessing down 1 pound fat, 1 pound water with glycogen, 3 pounds water. Maybe some exercise today see what shakes loose.
Having a normal breakfast for me. A boiled egg and a bowl of blueberries. Will not get on scale until just before my walk later this morning. Planning six miles today and since I won't be fasting or even reducing calories until April 1,
the walk should be a breeze. Yesterday my pace turned out to be 16 minutes per mile, on a very hilly five mile route.
That is way faster than it would be on the trail with a backpack. Since the weather is great and I know my way around here, I won't be carrying anything with me.
Going to hunt up that blood sugar meter now and get a before and after walk read. Yesterday all I did was weigh in pre-walk. Starting weight was a whopping 220 lbs.
Anyway.. have a great one. Spring seems to be here early.
Did 9.5 miles yesterday. Ate normally. Haven't been able to find the blood sugar meter. Oh well, it'll turn up eventually.
Heading out for more miles today. Don't know how many.
No-can't be done-not safe at all.
Fast-Hike Revisited.
Been looking at the Fast 5/2 Diet that has been in the news lately, where you eat only 500-600 calories/day in 2 meals per day for 2 days, then eat normally as you like the other 5 days of a week. It is sort of what I did although it wasn't intentional but just happened naturally. I ate 400 calories per day for 2 days then sort of gave up for the past 5 days, but it retrospect I think it kind of worked. So I am going to try it again.
So how this might apply to hiking, more specifically hiking with some weight to lose? Well roughly speaking a hiking day is like 2 normal days in terms of energy use, for some 3 days but they are pretty extreme and probably already down to hiking weight. So for the rest of us, the idea might be to reduce calorie consumption on the final day of a 3-7 day section between resupply, limit it to 800-1200 calories depending on how much fat you have to burn and how well your body is adapted to burning it. On the other days you eat moderately, which might mean eating what you want, but still healthy choices, and might still involve some caloric deficit, but it would happen naturally because your body wants to burn the fat anyway.
To practice this at home you might simply do some walking or exercising in addition to your daily routine. Might be hard to burn 2 times your sedentary rate, except on weekends maybe. So the weekend could be your fast-hike days, or rather the last day if it was a full day of hiking. So exercise and eat naturally for 5 days through the week, then on the go for a long walk or overnight hike and eat moderately and naturally on the first day, but restrict yourself to 800-1200 calories on the second day. Or perhaps the other way around. Or have a moderate but healthy breakfast on Saturday morning before your hike, and have a moderate but healthy supper on Sunday after your hike, and just restrict yourself during your hike to perhaps one third to one half the calories that you are actually burning over those 30-36 hours, perhaps just supper at the end of your Saturday hike, and breakfast before your Sunday hike, with enough restriction and hiking to burn about 1 pound of body fat on each day.
Thought I would post it here. Trying to combine getting back into running and hiking with weight loss in some methodical way. In the past 5 years I've found it increasing difficult to strike the right balance between weight loss and refueling/recovery. I like the idea of intermittent fasting, or at least uneven calories across the days of the week, like the 5:2 diet where have fewer calories 2 days a weeks versus the other 5. Not sure how to coordinate that with easy recovery walks/runs vs harder runs or strength workouts. So I figure build the activity plan first, estimate the calories per day, and so forth.
Activity Plan - Break in Period (base metabolism = 2000 calories)
Rest/recovery days as they happen. Fill the time now, add more intensity later.
Mon: 4k papers, 4k walk to work, 4k walk from work = 3000 calories total
Tue: 4k papers, 4k jog to work, 4k jog from work = 3000 calories total
Wed: 4k papers, 4k walk to work, 4k walk from work = 3000 calories total
Thu: 4k papers, 4k jog to work, 4k jog from work = 3000 calories total
Fri: 4k papers, 4k walk to work, 4k walk from work = 3000 calories total
Sat: 4k papers, Hike, Bike, and/or Paddle = 4000 calories total
Sun: Hike, Bike, and/or Paddle = 4000 calories total
Meal Plan: 2000 calories per day for a initial weight loss of about 10 pounds per month.
20% Protein = 100g, 50% Carbs = 250g, 30% Fats = 67g
Breakfast: 800 calories = 40g, 100g, 27g = Eggs, Milk, Oats, Nuts/Seeds, Fruit
Supper: 800 calories = 40g, 100g, 27g = Meat, Green Vegetables, Soups
Other: 400 calories = 20g, 50g, 13g = Fruit, Cheese, Coffee or Tea with Milk
So the plan is to initially keep the activity light, but high in volume, and to keep the food moderate but steady. In terms of macronutrients, it's light on carbs and high on fats given the body fat being burned, but I want to adapt to burning body fat. Not sure how this will work out but it's a starting point. So I start tomorrow and have to come up with a plan for burning 2000 calories in addition to my 2000 calorie base. Probably a long walk. Water still a bit cold for paddling. River is opening up though. Ice fishing shacks came off the river today. It opens up at the mouth here where I live because it is brackish from the Bay of Fundy through the Reversing Falls. Still some ice chunks though, so it's pretty much ice water. Not safe unless wearing my thick neoprene, which no longer fits me. lol
Trying to remember the relationship between my heart and my calories per hour. I used to figure net 1000 calories for a 10k run at about 150 or so. MaxHR still 185 maybe, and I use 45 as my MinHR even though it is currently more like 60. So I think I can use something like 7 net cal/hr x HR - 45. Anyhow, about a 20k hike should net 2000 calories if sufficiently hilly, or put another way 6 hours at about 100 bpm or 5 hours at 110 bpm, which is nice pace for me if I recall. Still, I will have to refigure all this stuff because I am still not sure I am working the net calories vs gross calories correctly, and heart rate versus calories burned gets a bit squirrelly at walking pace vs running pace.
Trying to remember the relationship between my heart and my calories per hour. I used to figure net 1000 calories for a 10k run at about 150 or so. MaxHR still 185 maybe, and I use 45 as my MinHR even though it is currently more like 60. So I think I can use something like 7 net cal/hr x HR - 45. Anyhow, about a 20k hike should net 2000 calories if sufficiently hilly, or put another way 6 hours at about 100 bpm or 5 hours at 110 bpm, which is nice pace for me if I recall. Still, I will have to refigure all this stuff because I am still not sure I am working the net calories vs gross calories correctly, and heart rate versus calories burned gets a bit squirrelly at walking pace vs running pace.
I just know many "native" tribes, all over the place, subsisting mainly on hunting and gathering, have adapted and done well with varied caloric intakes interspersed with periods of fasting. Now recently I learned the Shawnee deliberately undertook long walks while fasting, even when game was plentiful. I need to get fitter, lose some weight, and I enjoy new challenges. So, thinking there may be some method to their madness, I'm willing to try it. Right now I'm just working up to regular twenty mile days. My right ankle is giving me some trouble and I'm having to take more rest days than I had hoped. When I get conditioned to twenty mile days I'll try to do 3 days @ 20 mpd while fasting. Then I'll rest , eat, rest and eat some more, then resume doing 20mpd while fasting. I will let you know how it goes. I appreciate your very thoughtful input and wish you well. I know from experience that low carb eating, combined with lots of exercise, works great for me to improve general fitness and bmi. Thanks for checking back in.:)
Thanks. Working on a similar plan. Similar inspiration and motivation also I think. First get the training volume up, settle in on some moderate rate or weight loss and fitness improvement, then experiment and tweek the intermittent fasting combined with distance running/hiking/paddling. Only got in 4k papers Saturday and 4k walk Sunday, but starting today on the weekday routine trying to burn 1000 calories per day plus my 2000 calorie base. Will settle in on diet once I get my activity level up and consistent. Today 4k papers, plus 4k run @ 70%, plus 4k walk to work and 4 k walk home should be about 1000 calories.
takethisbread
03-18-2013, 08:41
Has anyone discussed the effects of stress on the trail, on this hopefully hypothetical experiment ? It's one thing to not worry about food at home, the worry might drive you mad in wilderness situations.
Has anyone discussed the effects of stress on the trail, on this hopefully hypothetical experiment ? It's one thing to not worry about food at home, the worry might drive you mad in wilderness situations.
Speaking for myself, if I knew from personal experience what my limits were, and planned my stops accordingly, had plenty of access to water, and was on the AT which mostly isn't big wilderness..... worry would be negligible. Wouldn't have to worry about bears getting my food anyway.
Finished 4k run and heading to work. 4.05 km 23:57 @ 78% HRR.
215.6 pounds total weight on feet. (chilly today) 209.8# body weight.
Need to slow it down to 60-70% for now. First day adrenalin. Off to work now.
By comparison, walk to work was 3.96km in 35:28 @ 52% HRR. Dry pavement. 217.9 pounds total.
Pedaling Fool
03-18-2013, 14:26
Finished 4k run and heading to work. 4.05 km 23:57 @ 78% HRR.
215.6 pounds total weight on feet. (chilly today) 209.8# body weight.
Need to slow it down to 60-70% for now. First day adrenalin. Off to work now.
They don't have 4km, but enough of the other distances to see how you compare to the best in your age group. http://www.pinebeltpacers.org/AgeGrade/newwava.html
Well I think if I can sustain this performance until I am about 144 I might compare well. Thanks for the link.
I think most of my gains will come with weight loss. My lean body mass is about 150 pounds, so I have about 45 pounds to lose.