Base Weight Vs. Consumables Discussion

" It is possible to go on a high fat diet to save weight, but it is debatable to what level it is worth it for several reasons."

As long as you include enough carbs to support its metabolization, it is the most efficient diet for extended, slower paced trips.

I think Brett summarized the situation really well.

Personally, I am not prepared to go on a high fat diet just to save weight (I'm pretty sure my body would not respond well). I also like my fiber (which doesn't weigh much) and prefer a nice mix of simple and complex carbohydrates (along with protein and fat). The water in food, on the hand, I would like to eliminate (or reduce as much as possible). Unfortunately, it is one of the few things that is not on the label. Instead, you have to work backwards. Using the numbers he listed, you have to figure out what food is efficient for the type of calories you are getting. While butter or olive oil may be very efficient for getting calories, I want to know foods that are efficient for getting carbohydrate calories (which make up the bulk of my diet) and protein calories (which I also like). Oatmeal seems pretty good, but I have no numbers to back it up (or other foods to compare it with).

http://www.nutritiondata.com/

This is my favorite site for getting in depth food information. Enter the food of interest and most of the time water weight can be found (right hand column near the bottom).

Great subject.

On short trips my food is similar to Ben's but different lunch. On longer trips, then I switch my dinners to something else. But to be honest, I have to have food that tastes good to me. There is nothing worse than after hiking 20+ miles and trying to swallow stuff that makes you gag.

One thing I have found is re-packaging saves a lot of weight.

Unfortunately for me, most of my hiking requires a lot of water to be carried. Usually I get to sources with about a liter left, which is my comfort zone. And sometimes I get there with no water.

I know it sounds weird but, I actually like MH freeze dried meals. Living a 700 ft and traveling to 10000 ft altitudes tends to blunt my appetite for the first few days of my typical 5 day trips. I repackage the 2 person portions into 2 separate meals. Just by repackaging the freeze dried meals I save 11 oz of waste packaging. I avg. 17 to 20 oz a day. Coco, nature valley bars, M&m peanuts, hard cheese, salami ect. make up the balance. Not enough Cal's or very nutritious but I eat everything. By the end of a 2 week trip I loose 8-9 lbs in body weight. Judging by inches lost from my waist it is mostly fat lost. My ave weight is 175lbs. I drink about 6 liters a day, camel up and never carry more than 1.5 L at a time. Hope to experiment in making my own boil in bag concoctions in the future.

Tom said:

"That's about what I'm aiming for, with 8000+ odd kJ a day intake."

Only 8000 kJ/day? That seems marginal for backpacking.

You're kind of right. Much of my day for the trip I'm planning atm will be spent fishing so not overly active… sort of. Almost everything on the tucker list is over 1000kJ/100gm, but I'm struggling to get 8000 kJ + for 500 g day.

You know what would be really cool is if BPL had it's own customized calorie calculator on this site (any staff listening?). Instead of just the normal height, weight ,age, activity level parameters they could add things like:
Length of trip- 2 days out vs. week out vs. thru hike
Terrain (Sierra high country mountains vs. Florida flatlands
Miles walking per day, etc.

Things like that. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard for a Techie who knew what variables to insert in the calculations. We need this on BPL!!!!!!

I don't think it's possible to create an accurate calculator for what you're wanting Mark. There are far too many variables that cannot be accounted for. The result would be a guesstimate at best and anyone on here can provide that for you.

The Harris Benedict equation is one of the better proven formulations to estimate caloric needs. Here is a website that does most of the calculating for you:

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/

I absolutely refuse to put crap into my body just to increase caloric intake. I'll take a little extra weight to eat like I do at home. A cold kitchen is easy for me to do on shorter trips. It saves a lot of weight in regards to stoves, pots, cups, ect. On longer hikes i'll take a stove with me… mostly because I start to miss warm foods. There are healthy foods with plenty of calories in them.

I think many have a mindset that "hey i'm working hard here… I can eat whatever I want and it won't matter." That's not always the case. Eat what it takes to maintain, not to gain.

I would really love to see food list being posted. There are so many defferent ways in which one choses their food for a certain trip. I know my food deffers a lot if I am going to be going out for only a few days compared to how it is on a long hike like the PCT. Mainly do to availability of food alnog the way.

Maybe the staff here at BPL could just extend the criteria of the food fourm to include food list? That well get people posting em'.

Cheers

"Here is a website that does most of the calculating for you"

Ben,

How would you apply this to backpacking?

You use the formula to determine your Basal Metabolic Rate, then multiply it by a figure determined by your daily activity level. ie. if you are sedentary, BMR x1.2 Or if you are active, BMR x1.6

There is an online calculator which uses your BMR to determine how many cals you require per hr of backpacking.

Where is this calculator – could we have a kink?

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

this will give you your estimated Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) then multiply by activity level:

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/

One limitation of the equation is that it estimates day in and day out Kcal needs and may not be sufficient for the +20 mile days.

Here is a link to estimated Kcal needs per hour including various walking speeds:

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htm

Yeah, a lot of these calorie calculators are calibrated for couch potatoes, for whom an "active" day involved mowing the lawn. They tend to underestimate.

I remember reading an estimate of the caloric usage of a hiker doing 18 miles a day with 3000 feet of elevation gain came out to something like 6500 calories.

That's impressive.

Being a Type 1 diabetic I am extremely aware of the fluctuations in blood sugar levels in my body. Twice I almost died due to miscalculations of how much food I needed to take and balancing that with the right amount of insulin to take coupled with exertion levels. Most people don't need to think about what is actually happening in their bodies so they take along foods simply on caloric amounts. But it is very important also to think about the "glycemic index", the rates at which the sugar (there are many kinds of sugars in food, but all of it is converted into glycogen in the body) in the foods you eat are absorbed into the bloodstream. The faster it is absorbed the more quickly you bonk. So you could have a food with very high caloric rating, like a chocolate bar and find yourself bonking quite soon afterwards because the glycemic index of simple sugars like that is very high, peaking very quickly and giving you quick energy, and quickly falling afterwards. A granola bar of the same caloric value would absorb more slowly into the bloodstream and give you available energy for a longer period. Then something like a stick of butter or a slice of salami would absorb slower still. Foods rich in fiber tend to have low glycemic values, as foods rich in fat. Simple sugars and starches are the worst offenders (white bread has an awful glycemic index) while complex carbohydrates (like oatmeal) do much better. Having a low glycemic index further helps you to stay warm longer at night simply because the food burns longer in your system.

It is for this reason that food which is healthy for you is important even on a hike, especially a long hike. Foods that are healthy for you (ie. not processed) tend to be foods which have a good glycemic rating. Foods with a high glycemic rating are also the foods which tend to make you fat. They are inefficient and require you to take more weight in food simply to keep the energy levels up.

I'm not sure about this, but I think slow-burning food probably does a lot to keep you going longer all day and therefore you need less food.

I found calorie calculators virtually useless due to the varied and complex factors involved. Perphaps you can use it as a roughly initial estimate. What counts is personal experience…

What we need is food that optimally fuels our body, is healthy, palatable and… light.

Understanding some basic (sport) nutrition principles is useful, and those ideas go beyond maximizing your cal/oz.

Some resources I found very interesting:

The Paleo Diet for Athletes: A Nutritional Formula for Peak Athletic Performance

Fat – Fueling for Endurance

> But it is very important also to think about the "glycemic index"

Sure, but even more convenient is the “glycemic load”.

> I'm not sure about this, but I think slow-burning food probably does a lot to keep you going longer all day and therefore you need less food.

For low levels of exertion fat becomes the main source of energy, but fat oxidation requires the catabolism of carbohydrates. Your body adaptation determines the efficiency of these processes, and the maximum exertion levels for what fat is the main fuel.

"For low levels of exertion fat becomes the main source of energy"

Exactly. And that's what hiking is for most folks-low to medium level aerobic activity which burns ~70% fat/30% glycogen (after the first 30-40 minutes while you burn off your stored liver glycogen reserves). If you eat carbs as you hike, this will shift the ratio of calories burned back more towards glucose. It becomes a push-pull effect.

"but fat oxidation requires the catabolism of carbohydrates."

Ketones can be substituted, and protein can supply the raw materials to provide glucose, so this isn't strictly true, otherwise Innuits would be in big trouble!

Thanks Marco and Lynn. I'm unclear about how a lot of this works so I have to ask, is my assessment above correct? I'm mixing up glucose and glycogen, aren't i?

"I'm mixing up glucose and glycogen, aren't i?"

I dunno. Glycogen is simply stored glucose in liver and muscles, as opposed to the free glucose floating around in your blood. Think of glycogen as polyglucose. When blood glucoe levels drop, your body mobilises the glycgen to release glucose into the blood. Once you've burned off all your glycogen stores and your blood glucose drops, then other systems kick in to convert protein to glucose and churn out ketones for energy.

Some diabetics find ketogenic diets to help stabilse their blood glucose fluctuations. Kinda makes sense…the less carbs you eat, the less adjustment of you insulin you need to make, but not many doctors are recommending such a diet (yet).

Lynn said:

"Some diabetics find ketogenic diets to help stabiles their blood glucose fluctuations."

That should read some Type 2 (adult onset) diabetics find ketogenic diets to help stabiles their blood glucose fluctuations. A ketogenic diet for Type 1 (youth onset) diabetes would probably cause some serious problems.

Just a side note; a typical diet for a type 1 diabetic isn't anything special or different than what people have been told to eat for the last fifty years.

Fat – low unsaturated fat intake
Carbs – low glycemic index, complex, whole grain
Protein – extra lean and low fat, limit red meat (if eaten)to once a week

The actual percentages of fat, protein, and carbs that someone requires will varry with each person and is affected by many variables specific to each individual.

"A ketogenic diet for Type 1 (youth onset) diabetes would probably cause some serious problems."

Not really, the physiology is the same as for type 2, but a type 1 will always need SOME extra insulin. A ketogenic diet merely reduces the insulin requirements, and leads to more stable blood sugar levels and lower HbA1c.

Lynn wrote:
“Not really, the physiology is the same as for type 2, but a type 1 will always need SOME extra insulin. A ketogenic diet merely reduces the insulin requirements, and leads to more stable blood sugar levels and lower HbA1c.”

Sorry Lynn but you’re incorrect. I’ve been a type 1 diabetic for 22 years and I can assure you that type 1 and type 2 diabetes are very different in both their treatment and how they affect your body from a physiology standpoint.

Type 1 Diabetes:
Cause: Auto Immune disease where the patient’s immune system attacks and destroys its pancreas.

End result : Body produces no insulin.

Treatment : Patients are required monitor their blood glucose levels six to eight times a day and to take inject able insulin daily to live.

Type 2 Diabetes:
Cause: Poor diet, obesity, and a lack of physical activity. This over taxes the pancreas causing lowered insulin production.

End result: Body produces insulin but no enough to process current glucose in the blood sugar.

Treatment: Patients are required to increase physical activity, follow a healthy diet,and lose weight in order to lower stress on pancreas and reduce blood glucose levels. Patients are required monitor their blood glucose levels one to four times a day. Some type 2 diabetics require oral medication to control blood glucose. Type 2 diabetics that do not follow a diet and exercise plan can cause their pancreases to completely fail and become type 1 diabetics.