Backpacking on a Low Carb Diet

[Kattt]

What an accomplishment Jennifer; the PCT and the discipline to follow a diet like that. Congratulations and hope to see a trip a report as well!

[Roger Caffin]

> there will be a point where your body can not supply the energy from fat and protein.
You reckon?
There is not a lot of chemical difference between fats and carbs. Both could be called long-chain hydrocarbons, with extras.
Consider that the Inuit traditionally lived on fat and meat for the hunting season, and many walkers really enjoy cheese and sausage. Fats and protein. I think maybe the claim needs revising a bit.

Cheers

[Anonymous]

"There is not a lot of chemical difference between fats and carbs. Both could be called long-chain hydrocarbons, with extras."

True enough, but it takes far less O2 to oxidize glucose than a triglyceride fatty acid chain. The tradeoff is that your body gets more energy from oxidizing the fatty acid, but must supply a lot more O2 to accomplish the job. This in turn requires either a slower pace, a higher level of fitness, or both, depending on environmental factors like terrain or elevation. The body has evolved to take account of this basic reality, and will automatically prefer carbs to fats in proportion to the intensity of the effort. If carbs are not available, the body will be forced to decrease the level of intensity at some point, depending on the fitness of the individual. This is particularly noticeable at altitude. Highly trained individuals can derive a higher percentage of their energy from fat longer than less fit individuals, but even they will be forced to decrease the intensity of their effort at some point, or provide more carbs, either from muscle glycogen or dietary sources

"Consider that the Inuit traditionally lived on fat and meat for the hunting season, and many walkers really enjoy cheese and sausage. Fats and protein. I think maybe the claim needs revising a bit."

The Inuit evolved in a carb deficient environment and adapted to metabolize fat and protein over a long period of time. The protein in their diet can provide glycogen thru a less efficient pathway, but it is not the way most humans normally function. Lots of backpackers, climbers, etc, prefer sausage and cheese, and get away with it, but again, it is not the most efficient way to obtain energy. This site is devoted to optimizing gear and techniques, so surely it would be worth having a discussion about optimizing our energy sources as well, wouldn't it? Just as endless hours are spent debating how to shave an ounce here or a gram there from our base weight, it seems it would be equally productive to discuss how to minimize the amount of food we carry to supply energy. And that is where a discussion of the roles of carbs, fat, and protein in energy production is worth having. My 2 cents.

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Tom

Oh, I agree. I was trying to make the point that there is not a radical difference between them. They are not totally different food-stuffs, like, say, steak vs white flour.

Yes, I agree about altitude. It is fairly well known that as you go higher you need simpler foods. Fats at high altitude … a bit indigestible! Then you go for carbs, and even simple sugars.

> Lots of backpackers, climbers, etc, prefer sausage and cheese, and get away with
> it, but again, it is not the most efficient way to obtain energy.
Can't agree with the 'get away with it' idea. If you can process it, then fats are a very high-density food source. Up to 3,000 m most experienced walkers should be able to handle them. French bread and Brie cheese and sausage … (and brewed coffee).

But yes, informed discussion of what and where is very appropriate.

Munching on
Cheers

[d k]

Sorry if this is hijacking –

Roger's bit about fats being less digestible at high altitude is something we heard once from a nurse we met at the top of a mountain; he said he made a point of eating high fat foods there because he wouldn't gain weight from them (so he said)! A week or two back, someone posted that you couldn't digest protein at high altitude, do you should eat fats instead. What's the true story on this and where can I read more about the metabolic basis for these concepts?

[David Thomas]

>"(37 days). . . . . lost nearly 40 pounds "

Jennifer: So you lost a pound a day. Mostly a pound of fat a day, although you were also putting on some muscle?, hence losing somewhat more fat than that. So that's 4,000 calories a day from metabolized body fat.

Manfred, despite bicycling to work in the off-season, puts on some weight around town. Then on long-term hikes, he loses 1/2 pound a day, and weighs 15 pounds less a month later. And brings correspondingly less food (2,000 calories less than he's expending). It seems you were managing the same thing, but with twice the body weight loss and twice the pack weight savings.

[Anonymous]

"Can't agree with the 'get away with it' idea. If you can process it, then fats are a very high-density food source. Up to 3,000 m most experienced walkers should be able to handle them. French bread and Brie cheese and sausage … (and brewed coffee)."

Yes definitely. I should have been more precise, but I was in a bit of a rush. At either end of the day, but especially in the evening, I am a big believer in fats and protein, for exactly the reason you state. During the day is another story, IME. That is the time to utilize carbs to optimize the oxidation of body fat and spare muscle glycogen a bit. I suspect you and I will differ on this point, but that is an entirely legitimate point of disagreement. Lots of different ways to skin that cat, and to each their own. I do draw the line at chewing on whale blubber, however. ;0) Brewed coffee? Ah, yes. As of next year, when I am considering going back to a canister stove setup, brewed coffee will be the first item to find its way back into my food sack.

[Hiking Malto]

"Consider that the Inuit traditionally lived on fat and meat for the hunting season, and many walkers really enjoy cheese and sausage. Fats and protein. I think maybe the claim needs revising a bit."

you are right Roger. for any Inuit hiking multiple high mileage days they may not have an issue with a low carb diet. But for the rest of the 99.99% of mortals I stand by my statement. When I start seeing fat ladened energy gels then I might revise it further. But as always EYOC (Eat your own calories.)

[Mark]

Might be of interest Rob
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33905745

[Jerry Adams]

a little unclear what carbs were being restricted in that study. At the end, they said

"They added: "The most important message for now is probably that some carbohydrates are all right, especially the healthy whole-grain low-glycaemic-index index variety.""

That's what they need to study, reducing high glycemic index carbs. And eating lots of fiber (like fruits and vegetables). Not that this has much to do with backpacking, since most people do this a small percentage of their time.

[John S.]

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131%2815%2900350-2

[Jerry Adams]

That's interesting

"In summary, we found that selective reduction of dietary carbohydrate resulted in decreased insulin secretion, increased fat oxidation, and increased body fat loss compared to a eucaloric baseline diet. In contrast, selective isocaloric reduction of dietary fat led to no significant changes in insulin secretion or fat oxidation compared to the eucaloric baseline diet, but significantly more body fat was lost than during the carbohydrate-restricted diet."

even though reducing carbs does reduce insulin which causes fat loss, reducing fat consumption causes more fat loss

Now, what I want to see, is if eating more fiber is more effective. Less important whether you eat more carbs or fat. The reason people have more success with a low carb diet, is they're eating more fiber.

[Jennifer Mitol]

Trust me, there was probably not a more skeptical person out there re Atkins, or "paleo," (I mean, didn't we live to be like 30 then? why is that a good diet to emulate????!!!), or any diet fad for that matter (and yes, they are ALL fads).

But I will say that I'm not putting too much stock in actual clinical usefulness of a study of 19 obese people on a diet for 6 days.

What this study is good for is to look at the metabolic processes that go on during certain diet restrictions – i.e. bench science – but I just don't see the clinical/real-world significance of this with such a small study.

I mean, low-fat diets have been out there for decades with very little success – the theory being that since fat is one of our sources of satiety then cutting that out meant you'd simply eat more to feel full. So yes, while metabolically speaking lower fat intake MIGHT lead to greater fat loss, the fact remains that simply cutting fat out of a full-day's regular diet has not at all shown to be effective at weight loss.

It frankly comes down to burning more calories than you take in. The question mark, and the reason many of us struggle with weight issues, is that our bodies also seem to have minds of their own and hoard and preserve in certain stressful situations (intense exercise? extreme calorie restriction? etc). For me, I come from solid Eastern European/Siberian stock and have always felt like my body was built to raise 12 kids in a Siberian winter with no food stores…I'd be totally fine in that situation…….heck, I'd even probably gain a few….

[Jerry Adams]

the other part of the equation is how many calories pass through you

and can your diet or exercise or temperature increase your metabolic rate so you burn more just sitting there

[Sean Westberg]

Oh man that report had so many problems with it. 1. If memory serves they tossed out any weight loss that that seemed "anomalous" even though they were monitored in a metabolic chamber. Which tossed out 2 results for the low-carb experiment. 2. 2 people didn't even finish the low fat diet. But the low carb results were included for them anyway apparently. So the low carb sample was 19 and the low fat sample was 17. 3. The test authors used the term "substantial" instead of the scientific term "significant" because the results basically fell within the margin of error from what I'm reading. 4. The diet was at the absolute upper end of "low carb" due to the way the test was constructed. I get *why* (they wanted to isolate caloric differences to one macronutrient and had already dropped fat down to 7.7% of total caloric intake and needed to keep total calories equivalent), but I'm sorry, 29% of your caloric intake from carbs is not "low carb". I don't know if it'd even qualify as "watching carbs". 4a. The macros on the low carb diet are pretty out of whack from every macro ratio I've ever seen for the diet. Again, that's because of the intent of the test to isolate one nutrient but it still gives not-real-world results. 5. Diets ultimately do come down to calorie deficits. Less in than out and sooner or later you'll lose weight. Low carb just argues that your able to control your hunger urge and maintain energy better without insulin spikes and carbs in general. The experiment didn't reflect any of the surrounding issues like how comfortable or satiated a person is on a diet, how long they're likely to stay on a diet, and how difficult it is to adjust to the new diet. While the results are interesting from a laboratory standpoint, I have enough issues with the study that I'll take it with a healthy does of salt. In the end, if you get your macros and your nutrients on a long term sustainable level, and you can run a calorie deficit and don't feel miserable, I'd call that dietary change a success regardless of how you approached it.

[Bill Law]

Jennifer, I'm trying to understand "Sometimes I was too hungry" vs "I was never hungry." I got hungry just reading your story (had to get up and go eat something), and then at the end read that you were never hungry. Am I misunderstanding something?

[Dave P]

Interesting this thread came up, because I know of mushers (dog-racing is big-time sports in my part of the world) who eat sticks of butter as trail snacks during Iditarod and Yukon Quest. Dog-food tend to be heavy in fat as well, usually low or zero-carbohydrate. My own dogs are on zero-carbohydrate or low-carbohydrate diets. I have been experimenting with low-carb on and off after reading Phillip Meffatone's "Great Book of Endurance" a few years ago. The biggest hindrance is that my family grew poor, and I came from a rock-climbing background– both with heavy emphasis on carbohydrates. But I know it's doable because my grandparents lived on the Inuit diet for a few years when they were in Cambridge Bay, Yellowknife and Fort Smith. Oftentimes there were no groceries from the south, and they sustained on canned food, pemmican, fish, caribou, bear fat and seal blubbers. Besides, I know from talking to old-timers as well my girlfriend's parents, butter, bear fat et al used to be highly prized, more sought after than wheat or sugar. Even milk back then were creamier, and they selected for cows which could produce them. When I went over to Scandinavia a few years ago, I couldn't believe that "whole milk" was 5-7%. Here's it's 3.5%. But my interest in low carb for backpacking purpose got perked up by "Run on Fat: Cereal Killer 2" documentary where Sami Inkinen and his wife rowed to Hawaii on a keto diet. I think it costs about $5 USD to rent it, or twice that to download it.

[Ryan Jordan]

I've been experimenting and studying this for the past several years. I've iterated from high carb to low carb to medium carb to sort of low carb to … and settled on a happy medium a few years ago where my carbs consisted of whole slow carbs in the a.m. (e.g., tsampa) and maybe a few pilot biscuits in the snacks and some more whole grains in the evening. Other than that, lots of fats and very high protein mostly in the form of fish (salmon). Heavy on veggies and beans in the evenings. Nothing dramatic happened too much when I did this. Not a great change in performance, but definitely a lower caloric density (Cals/oz) as a result. Bummer! But I did like my food better. So I've added a few carbs back for pleasure, that I missed. Whole milk, freeze dried fruit, licorice (!), and some pasta. But definitely in smaller portions than before. That said, I train on a very low carb diet with a lot of my aerobic training performed in a fasted state (IF is a several-time-a-week thing for me). Since doing that, I've been able to very successfully hike (backpack) on a low carb (< 20g/day) diet with no issues at all. I especially like the high protein intake for very intense efforts (long days, several days, but below the aerobic threshold). However, the whole thing falls apart if I'm spending much time above the aerobic threshold (speed efforts, steep climbing, etc.) for several hours. Then I find the LC thing just can't deliver the energy required to sustain that type of effort for several hours, especially day after day.

[Dave P]

Ryan, have you gone keto yet? I haven't really read much of any backpackers who have done it without carrying tinned fish and such. Apparently according to endurance athletes, there is a 2 to 3 weeks adjustment period for 65-85% fat-based diets. Records of polar explorers support this as well– 2 to 3 weeks to adjust to the Inuit's way of eating. Flu-like symptoms occur during that transition. Problem with ketogenic is that it takes an incredibly long time to get into ketosis, and losing it is very easy.

[Ryan Jordan]

May be of some interest to the LC crowd, see Paleo Meals to Go. I've used a number of their recipes and like them a lot. Especially when you add pasta (KIDDING). No, seriously, they're good foods.

[Bryan A]

Very impressive Jennifer. Losing 40lbs is a big accomplishment. Anytime you can burn body fat instead of carrying extra food weight it a win. The question is whether you can burn that fat at a high enough rate to fuel the activity at hand, and it sounds like you did. Your original post was over a year ago, where are you at now. Have you kept the weight off? Most people regain weight they have lost and I am very interested in what it takes to keep it off.

[Steve Collins]

I switch between Keto and Slow Carb (Tim Ferris, the 4-hour body) and have been eating this way for about 5 years. I tend to do slow carb when I’m in road cycling season and Keto in the off season.

Backpacking is a bit challenging on Keto but possible. The key (for me) is getting past the initial few weeks switching away from slow burning carbs (lentils and black beans) to burning fat (olive oil, avocado, pili nuts).

 

This weekend im packing: dried venison, sharp cheddar, two avocados, bullion, coffee and homemade nut butters (with added salt, unsweetened coconut, and pure egg protein powder added).

Don’t flame me for not citing all the studies but there are a few with professional cyclists and CrossFit competition athletes that are on Keto and have done very well.  This is no fad diet – it’s a lifestyle choice.

Everyone’s body is different. I know I can burn fat and protein and I’ll be good for 15-20 mile+ days but when I started this 5 years ago I threw in some homemade bobos style oat bars and Lara bars for clean quick carbs if I needed them.

YMMV

[BlackHatGuy]

Resurrecting this thread. I went keto on Nov. 25. Have lost 25 pounds (pretty near my target weight now) while staying under 20g of net carbs (total carbs minus fiber and erythritol). 70%-80% of my daily calories come from fat, 15%-20% from protein, the rest from carbs (mostly greens). Dayhikes up our mountains without eating anything at all (including breakfast) until I’m back to the house, hard cycling sessions on my trainer, jogging around my local airport, etc. Body composition has changed significantly.

I feel great, and only feel tired when I’m sitting around doing nothing. As soon as I get up and start moving, I seem to have plenty of energy to do what I want to do. I plan to stay on keto for good. Like forever. I don’t find it difficult, I eat a variety of foods (including cookies and ice cream, just keto cookies and ice cream). I’m getting a yearly checkup/blood work in Feb, so I’ll be interested to see what that turns up since I’ve always had elevated cholesterol (but refuse to take statins).

I’m heading out for a backpacking trip to Joshua Tree in a couple of days. Nothing too drastic – two short days, and three ~14 mile days. Carrying more water than usual, of course. Staying keto for the entire trip, just put my meals together, under 20g net carbs per day. I’ll let y’all know how it works out, unless, of course, I die from lack of carbs… :-)

[W I S N E R !]

What does a typical day look like Doug?

[BlackHatGuy]

“What does a typical day look like Doug?”

For the backpacking trip (I assume that’s what you’re asking about), I start each day with coffee and an electrolyte drink (non-sugar/glucose), plus a magnesium and potassium supplement. Breakfast each day is a meal replacement shake called Keto Chow with a quarter cup of avocado oil and water, which I plan to have around 11 am on the trail. Actually pretty tasty with plenty of fat and calories. I’ve got keto bars and nut butters for during the day, and a Packit Gourmet low carb meal for dinner, topped off with some homemade chocolate chocolate chip cookies. Not really that much different than what I used to eat when backpacking (bars for breakfast and lunch, a hot meal for dinner). In the vicinity of 2000 calories per day, net carbs between 14g-20g per day.

[Author]

Posts