Calorie Requirements and Food Weight

[azdano]

I'm planning on doing a 2 month section hike on the AT next year as my first long distance hike. I'll be doing some smaller weekend hikes for prep (and have done plenty of day hikes), but I have no way to do a test run for a long-distance hike where hiker hunger would kick in. I'm well on my way to selecting most of my gear, but having issues with food weight, and possible food volume that will impact my pack selection.

I'm a big guy (6'5", >200lb, 37yrs), and eat a LOT normally (calculations show about 3200 Calories, and that seems reasonable). I see references to people burning 6000 calories, etc. a day. I'm assuming those people are closer to a 2000 calorie diet normally? When I run the calculators, I'm showing 8500-9000 Calories to maintain weight if I'm hiking near 10hrs a day. That seems to be well in excess of 3lb of food a day, which is a far cry from the estimates people are giving for 1.5lb a day. Combined with 2L water (I drink/sweat a LOT), I need about 20lb on top of base weight for the start of a section with a 5 day supply carry, and closer to 24lb for very short distances if I'm not camping by a water source.

Do my food/Calorie numbers seem reasonable? If so, do you all run significantly shy of calorie needs on the trail to keep weight down and just rely on making that back with nero/zeroes? I'm thinking I have to be missing something major here....


I put together a tentative gear list (weights yet to go for clothing), and I can't seem to get low enough on total weight to be able to use any of the more common thru-hike packs. I don't think my base weight is looking that bad, but the combined total will be peaking above 40lb. I realize I won't always need 5 days of food, but I need to plan the pack around the max I will need to carry at any given point. Packs like the Arc Haul and Exos seem to max out at an effective 25-30lb weight, so do big guys just have to stick to traditional internal frame packs for thru hikes?

https://lighterpack.com/r/bcq33h


Thank you!

[HooKooDooKu]

I think the simple answer is that you're just not going to have any way to know exactly how much food you will need and will make adjustments along the trail. After all, as I've heard it discussed, most places are only a few days from a town were you can try to tank up (while you don't have to carry it) and buy more/less from the local grocery stores and outfitters as you learn what YOUR requirements will be on the trail.

[MuddyWaters]

Do my food/Calorie numbers seem reasonable? If so, do you all run significantly shy of calorie needs on the trail to keep weight down and just rely on making that back with nero/zeroes? I'm thinking I have to be missing something major here....

If you only hike 10 mpd, maybe you can keep up with caloric demand

I avg closer to 20. I consistently lose wt. I cannot eat enough on trail, and i pig out in town. Yes, town needs to add back calories and glycogen. But it doesnt keep up . Im talking 5000-10,000 cal in a day in town too. It helps.

[bigcranky]

Yeah, there is no way to carry enough food. Don't worry about it (and don't try!) You'll make up the calorie deficit in town stops. These days it's pretty easy to get into town every 3-4 days for resupply and town meals.

[garlic08]

Ditto all the above.

You may find that hiking the AT in the summer takes less energy than the tables show.

Try it out, but you may find it difficult to eat 9000 calories a day while hiking. If you can't eat it, don't carry it, and adjust your hiking goals to maintain your weight. Town food is definitely a great tactic, readily available on the AT.

As the weeks go by, your nutrition needs will change, too. You may become more efficient and be able to carry less food.

And try to remember that over the course of a couple of months, nutrition is more than just calories.

[map man]

I'm 6'0" and 165 pounds, hike 15 miles per day on multi-week (non cold weather) section hikes, and have found that if I eat 4000 calories per day that I don't lose weight. Since you are a bigger guy than me you will likely need somewhat more than that -- but nowhere near 9000 calories a day.

I'm convinced that some ways of consuming calories are more efficient than others. Eating smaller amounts throughout the hiking day (the slow drip method) probably makes better use of calories than packing all of those calories into 2 or 3 traditional "meals" a day. Also, if a hiker goes five days at 4000 calories per day they probably make more efficient use of those calories than someone who eats 3000 calories for four days on the trail and then gorges 8000 calories in town on the fifth day. Both consume 20,000 calories in five days but I'll bet the steady eater would lose less weight than the hiker who binges.

[Dogwood]

...I'm convinced that some ways of consuming calories are more efficient that others. Eating smaller amounts throughout the hiking day (the slow drip method) probably makes better use of calories than packing all of those calories into 2 or 3 traditional "meals" a day. Also, if a hiker goes five days at 4000 calories per day they probably make more efficient use of those calories than someone who eats 3000 calories for four days on the trail and then gorges 8000 calories in town on the fifth day. Both consume 20,000 calories in five days but I'll bet the steady eater would lose less weight than the hiker who binges.

Agree!

There are other aspects of consuming calories in ways or under conditions that are more efficient that others i.e.; - health micro biome(gut health), hydration level, wider aspects of nutrition beyond cals and cal/oz ratios,...
As an ULer with, IMO, a fairly advanced approach to consumable wt and bulk savings, I consider food, wider nutritional profiles, and caloric usage as a resource to be consumed efficiently. I consume less food in part because I adjust my output levels(pace), etc, where I get the most caloric boost input of resources verse output rewards. I don't go balls to the wall all the time. I use food, and hence energy, hence the POTENTIAL caloric energy in food, as efficiently as I can.

[Jayne]

Well, as a fellow big hiker (280lbs) there are some challenges and differences that you need to account for. For one thing your gear is going to be a little heavier. (I need a larger tent, large sleeping pad, x-large quilt, 2XL clothes, etc., and all of that is a little heavier.) You'll also need more food and water. The good news is that you're a lot bigger and stronger than most hikers so that extra weight isn't that big of a deal proportionally. There are plenty of smaller hikers that feel a 20 lb pack a lot more that you're going to feel a 40 lb pack so don't try to compare your carry weight to someone that's 1/2 your size .

I wouldn't worry too much about trying to consume enough calories to keep up with your burn rate: I really doubt that you'll be able to eat that much even if you were willing to carry it. I personally can't eat 2 lbs of food a day while hiking (I really don't have much of an appetite.) Maybe you'll do better but there's only one way to find out. I would plan on no more than 2 lbs of food a day for planning though.

So my "back of the book" weight budget for a 3 season hike is something like this:

Base Weight: 17 lbs
Water: 4 lbs
Food & fuel: 1.5 lbs /day

So, for a 5 day hike I'll be carrying about 28.5 lbs at the start of a hike. If you add another .5 lbs of food per day you'd only be at 31 lbs. Not saying that's a perfect number but it's a lot less than 40 and I don't think that's an unreasonable planning number for a big guy.

As far as packs go 30 lbs is right in the wheel house for most of them. The Arc Haul is a good choice and the Exos Atmos carries very comfortably. I've used both and either will handle that kind of weight with no issue.

Just my humble $.02 - best of luck with whatever you end up doing!

[MuddyWaters]

There are plenty of smaller hikers that feel a 20 lb pack a lot more that you're going to feel a 40 lb pack so don't try to compare your carry weight to someone that's 1/2 your size .

Bit of a stretch.
2x as heavy in lean fit people, is still not 2x as strong.
And if your a tubby bucket of goo...forget it.


The idea is right. But not for 2x the weight. Maybe some lower percentage...30%, 50, etc. But not 100. Charts and graphs and US army studies are out there somewhere.

[Durwood]

Great thread...

My buddies and I had the saying, "eat the town". Carry as much as you're willing, eat all day (slow drip, as mentioned before) and hit as many towns as you like. While there, eat everything in sight. It's one of the great caveats of AT version of an LD hike. These things will come easy to you once you've mastered your hiking style.

I'm not a physician or nutritionist. YMMV.

[MuddyWaters]

I'm not a physician or nutritionist. YMMV.

Me neither
But i believe empty calories are better than no calories

So if all you can choke down on trail is chocolate frosting and twinkies....have at it .

[azdano]

Well, as a fellow big hiker (280lbs) there are some challenges and differences that you need to account for. For one thing your gear is going to be a little heavier. (I need a larger tent, large sleeping pad, x-large quilt, 2XL clothes, etc., and all of that is a little heavier.) You'll also need more food and water. The good news is that you're a lot bigger and stronger than most hikers so that extra weight isn't that big of a deal proportionally. There are plenty of smaller hikers that feel a 20 lb pack a lot more that you're going to feel a 40 lb pack so don't try to compare your carry weight to someone that's 1/2 your size .

I'm less concerned about what I CAN do and just trying to minimize what I NEED to do. A big part of that is the pack itself. Right now, I have an older 70cuft internal frame that clocks in at almost 6lb (and cost $40 new at the time). That pack has no practical weight limit for me on something like this trip, but I could drop over 3.5lb if I was able to go all the way down to something like the Arc Haul.

So, for a 5 day hike I'll be carrying about 28.5 lbs at the start of a hike. If you add another .5 lbs of food per day you'd only be at 31 lbs. Not saying that's a perfect number but it's a lot less than 40 and I don't think that's an unreasonable planning number for a big guy.

Most of the numbers I was coming up with were putting me in the mid to lower 30s. Again, I'm not that concerned with the weight itself (particularly since the food weight will rapidly drop off on the trail), but rather having to bump up weight tiers on the packs themselves.

As far as packs go 30 lbs is right in the wheel house for most of them. The Arc Haul is a good choice and the Exos Atmos carries very comfortably. I've used both and either will handle that kind of weight with no issue.

I've seen a lot of reviews that indicate the Arc Haul in particular performs poorly above 25-26lb. It's just too much of an investment/risk for me to get one of those packs for the higher weights, and you seem to have confirmed the weight band, even if I run a substantial calorie deficit (thank you for that!). I've also seen reviews indicating the Exos works well until about 30lb, but that's going to be right at the lower edge for me on resupply even if I can get by at 2lb food per day, etc.

[Jayne]

I've seen a lot of reviews that indicate the Arc Haul in particular performs poorly above 25-26lb. It's just too much of an investment/risk for me to get one of those packs for the higher weights, and you seem to have confirmed the weight band, even if I run a substantial calorie deficit (thank you for that!). I've also seen reviews indicating the Exos works well until about 30lb, but that's going to be right at the lower edge for me on resupply even if I can get by at 2lb food per day, etc.[/QUOTE]

Just to ease your concerns on the pack. I had an Archaul that I used for a couple years. It's a good pack and I think that it handled 30 lbs just fine and a bit more than that when I needed it to. What I didn't like about it was how fiddly all of the straps and adjustments are. Plus, all of the adjustments are hiker-sized so I was pretty closed to maxed out on the lengths and I had trouble with straps loosening and slipping frequently and the thin straps chaffed more than I'd like. That's a really personal thing though and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend an Archaul as a solid light weight pack choice.

I am currently using a HyperLight Mountain Gear 4500 Southwest and I really love their packs. They are a pretty basic DCF bag with aluminum stays and heavy duty fabric. They are a bit heavier than the Z-packs stuff because of the material. That's what I like in my gear though: simple, tough, and light (but it's not cheap.) 40 lbs isn't a problem for the pack

I agree that the EXOS is a little questionable at that carry weight IMPE. Again, a nice bag with a great warranty but everything in it feels pretty, well, lightweight to me and I'm a big guy that puts a lot of stress on my gear. The ATMOS, on the other hand, was a very sturdy bag that carried weight really comfortably. It's not a light bag though plus it's nylon so it gets heavier in rain. You also have to be a little extra careful about packing your gear to keep it dry. That being said, it's still not a bad choice to my mind and I wouldn't be concerned about loads up to 50 lbs in that bag. Yes, it is heavier but it distributes the load well and is comfortable so that may be worth a couple of extra lbs in total weight to you.


JMHO

[Nolan "Guido" Jordan]

The calories in calories out method only works in a test tube environment. It's NOT how the human body works.

You don't need to eat 3000 calories if you're gonna burn 3000 calories. In fact, don't even worry about calories. Your main goal on the trail should be proteins and fats. Try it, and see how you feel.

For food recommendations, buy a meat dehydrator, and dehydrate meats. It will save you tons of weight, and you can just cook it in water, and it will become food.

I'm not an expert though, but this is from personal experience.

[CalebJ]

The calories in calories out method only works in a test tube environment. It's NOT how the human body works.

You don't need to eat 3000 calories if you're gonna burn 3000 calories

Good luck with that theory...

[RockDoc]

No, it's true. Any long distance athlete is somewhat fat adapted. You are not entirely burning dietary calories, you are burning your tummy.

At least you better be if you want to be successful at this line of work.

The calories in/calories out theory never worked for dieting because calories are not equal to each other and the theory ignores the effects of hormones like insulin. It doesn't work for hiking either. If we had to eat 6000 calories for every trek we ever took, our species would have fallen flat thousands of years ago. Probably the greatest physical feats ever done were done fasted, by fat adapted individuals.

[MuddyWaters]

The calories in/calories out theory never worked for dieting because calories are not equal to each other and the theory ignores the effects of hormones like insulin. It doesn't work for hiking either. If we had to eat 6000 calories for every trek we ever took, our species would have fallen flat thousands of years ago. Probably the greatest physical feats ever done were done fasted, by fat adapted individuals.

I dont think you understand thermodynamics and an energy balance.

Energy in-energy out=accumulation

Unless you are converting mass to energy via e=mc2, i assure you the energy balance is correct. If someone doesnt understand it, that just them.

A calorie, is a calorie. Its a unit of energy. Energy is consumed by body, expended, and stored. Some energy is used converting one fuel source into another, and some is used to simply maintain body homeostasis. Some may be excreted without being absorbed by body due to innefficiency or problem in digestive system. It well known it requires about 25% more energy to convert protein to energy form that the body can store compared to carbs or fats...so you can eat 25% more protein without gaining weight. That doesnt mean a calorie isnt a calorie....it means some people just dont understand.

But it is ALWAYS correct if your intelligent enough to add up the factors involved correctly. Guaranteed. Its a law of thermodynamics. Energy is not created, or destroyed, it just changes forms and internal energy of objects.

It most certainly does work to predict weight lose and gain as well. Realizing that body wt changes are not just fat storage, water is stored as well. In process of storing glycogen as fuel in muscles, body stores 3 g water per g glycogen. When most people diet they dont realize all they lose first week + is glycogen and water, they havent lost any fat at all yet.

[azdano]

But it is ALWAYS correct if your intelligent enough to add up the factors involved correctly. Guaranteed. Its a law of thermodynamics. Energy is not created, or destroyed, it just changes forms and internal energy of objects.

Absolutely! That's where the easy estimates like "net Calories" come in. Foods like raw celery really do have some macro-nutrients in them, it just takes our bodies so much energy to extract it that it's near zero calorie-wise.

Individual aspects add up too, like I can eat a very large quantity of fresh/dried fruit without it bothering my digestion, but if most people attempt to eat a quarter bag of prunes, the resulting *situation* is not going to be very calorie efficient vs. just eating one or two. I don't happen to do so well with greasy foods compared to most, though.

[RockDoc]

OK, Einstein, eat 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of steak and tell me that they are equal in terms of how your body uses them. Calories are not equal in terms of how the body operates, is what I was very clearly saying.

[CalebJ]

I'm not debating the merits of fat adaptation because they're outside the scope of the general physics of the matter. Yes - you can burn off existing fat stores in your body. That doesn't change anything about total energy needs, however. If you are burning 'x' number of calories in a day, you will lose weight if you don't replace that amount of energy.