Why is a stove part of an “ultralight” system <3 days?

David,
If you find it arrogant for me to question whether I might be too indulgent in carrying a stove for this short a period when it's likely unnecessary, you possess a rather twisted view of humility. If you think that I, as a trail runner, am arrogant for seeking out the advice of others more experienced than I am in backpacking, rather than just sticking with my own gut feeling, or my sport's fashion dictates, then your view is even more confused. If people took my simple word-play ("ultralight" > "ultra-indulgence") so harshly, then perhaps they themselves feel their own behavior flawed. They can own it like adults, or whine like children; not up to me.

As far as the "Facts" go, if you believe caloric intake is the primary factor in determining whether a person is in nutritional deficit after 3 days, whether running or walking or playing chess, then I think you are mistaken. Calories do not equal nutrition, as most bagel-eaters by now know. If you believe that one can't run for 3 days (or a lifetime) on a low-calorie diet, then perhaps you might want to investigate some of the science on reduced-calorie diets, it is extremely interesting. That however was not the subject of this post, and neither was there any dietary "revelation" intended. It's precisely this obviousness (that one can go for 3 days without cooking) that led me to question why. If you yourself find this obvious, your "factual" rebuttal becomes empty if not fallacious.

I do apologize for wasting everyone's time, but I could anticipate the response I'd receive in a running forum. The response I've received here I certainly did not anticipate.

Ciao~

What you are missing is that the majority of us all have our own views. Most folks who hike with a UL mentality like doing things their own way. We find what works for US not someone else.

One person may be fine with something, the next person swear by something else.

We are not going by what a magazine or book tells us, rather personal experience.

"But I realize I have never really compared cooked and non-cooked foods as to calories per ounce, which is what counts if you are looking to travel light. Has anyone else run the numbers on this?"

I did some rough cuts a few years ago, and concluded you can achieve an equal amount of calories either way. There are so many options for carbs, protein, and fat either way that it is a draw, and basically not a factor in determining whether to go cold food or hot.

"I'd rather be labeled an earth hating waste monger and or Yuppie and use my cushy 2-ply TP than use leaves. Y-U-C-K………"

HERESY!!! Beware the wrath of Don.

"Many ultralight hikers are out there aiming for speed like a runner, and those hikers usually do not bring stuff for cooking. They usually do it more like a trail run."

True enough, but neither do they try to pull it off on a few raw veggies, which are very low in calories. Even if you have adequate body fat to supply the energy, you still have to have carbs to support its metabolism and ,after a day at most, you will have exhausted your body's supply of glycogen. At that point you will have to make it up with adequate dietary carbs or bonk. You will still be able to move slowly, but you will be doing it by cannibalizing muscle tissue.

The ONLY time I've done this was during Pennsylvania deer season when I didn't want the smell of any cooking or burning fuel to alert deer. It worked but I got d@mn sick of eating fruitcake, jerkey and Fig Newtons on that trip. :(~

Eliade,

"If you believe that one can't run for 3 days (or a lifetime) on a low-calorie diet, then perhaps you might want to investigate some of the science on reduced-calorie diets, it is extremely interesting."

Extremely interesting is an understatement. We have been taught that a certain number of calories, appropriaely divided between fats, carbs, and proteins, are necessary for a given level of exertion. If the accepted suggested caloric intake has been overstated and we can thrive on say 25% less, that's a game changer. 50% less is a whole new world. 10% less is probably insignificant. Where would I find more information on this? I'm in for sure if it will not leave me face down in the dirt…Seriously, please point me to this information.

"That however was not the subject of this post, and neither was there any dietary "revelation" intended."

But that seemed to me to be the very essence of your post, as you gave "raw vegetables and water" as an exampe of a sufficient diet. Not dried fruit, jerky, nuts, seeds, cookies, candy or nutrition bars, gorp, or any other no cook food items. Just "raw vegetables and water", which is a diet low in calories, fats, carbs, and protein (assuming say 0.75 kg of raw vegetables a day.) Sure seemed like a revelation to me…

Nutrition is not much of an element in the question of cook vs no cook (you can feed yourself well either way), but pleasure is. Stove? Binoculars? Music player? Chess set?

Have fun,
Steve

One of the tricks I learned from Scott Williamson was his Kool Aid container and rehydrated refried beans trick.

It's become a backcountry staple… though you don't want to share a tent with me…

Eliade,

I think many would like to hear more from you about this topic. I know I would. Some people learn by questioning others in challenging ways. I don't think it should be seen as hostility, although I see how some may have come across that way.

I've grown tired of the usual backpacking foods, and had been trying to incorporate more fresh fruits and veggies before I read this thread. I'd be especially interested in hearing about your multi-day trips or even just all-day runs with specific details about what foods you ate, food weights, and water consumed.

+1 I would like to hear more as well…

Eliade,

Yes, please share some experience, my interest is peaked. I'm a runner as well and this topic is one I've wrestled with on packing light foods without eating Clif bars all day.

Sorry the response you received here wasn't warm, think it was just misunderstanding.

Well, coming from the perspective of one who gladly carries a stove because I can, I'd still like to learn up on the perspective or insight of someone who's figured out how to create meals from raw foods or other no-cook items that are nutrient and calorie dense enough to work for trail use.

I'm not blind to the trolling content in Eliade's first and subsequent posts, however. So, it will be interesting to see what he can come up with — other than attitude, with which he's killin' it, no question.

What'cha got? Give us your menu for 2-3 day trail running trips without cooking. The actual menu.

I was thinking about starting a thread on chaff about this, but it might just fit here.
Thank goodness for the " trouble makers", those that go against the grain, and question and poke and prod and make us uncomfortable. Those that can spoil a movie we love by criticizing it. Those that find fault in a president we like and find redeeming qualities in one we don't like. The party poopers . Those people that can be difficult, and wrong, but won't go with the group. Those that push for green energy when most don't want to and those that point out how dangerous those "green " bulbs really are.
The world really needs these people, desperately so, and I wish there were more. When things get scary and crazy and emotional , I would much rather be among a few independent thinkers , than a group of all like minded people.
They would be the ones not to push the button in the Milgram experiment, not to follow orders and pull the trigger when others would, not to engage in a lynching by some otherwise good but overly excited citizens.
Challenging these " challengers" is good; shushing them is not in our best interest.

Sounds awfully preachy. Remind me of this post, should I forget ; )

A raw diet isn't hard to do – but a GOOD raw diet is NOT light weight. Often the nutrition comes from dense sources – oil (raw virgin coconut, olive oil, etc), nuts, moist dried fruits, etc. Which of course are not light. It fuels the body though.

It is why one might have raw pasta of squash but the sauce is heavy in vegetables bound with healthy oil and then have nut-balls with it. It isn't light but it will fill you up quickly.

Each of us has to hike their own hike, or, in this case, run their own trail. For me, I go as light as I can because it's the only way I'll get this old body up into the the Sierra High Country any more. Back in the 70's I humped an old Kelty external frame and way too much gear on my young (back then) body. Nowdays, I'm not running trails and I don't cover a tremendous amount of mileage. My simple goal is to get up into some pretty country above tree line and find some water to fly fish. I carry a stove because I like a hot meal in the evening. I'm currently carrying a base weight of 9 lbs and a few ounces and feel that I'm warm, comfortable, well fed and safe.

+1 Katharina. I was thinking of that Milgram experiment myself.

Here’s an article about someone who did the PCT and walked up to 42 miles/day eating only raw foods.

+1 Sarah.

Nobody doubts that a raw trail diet is do-able, nobody contests no-cook diet of various food sources.

The point of contention, regardless of whether or not the OP's original intent was to argue this point is whether a: "Raw + Healthy(sustainable) + Light weight" diet is feasible. That's the only question relevant to this forum.

Without resorting to dehydrating and re-hydrating foods, I don't see how it's feasible to hit all the marks.

Raw + Heatlhy = Easy. Show me the light weight part. I'd be happy to be surprised. However, I do not consider a diet consisting only of sprouts and peanut butter to be healthy. YMMV.

Assuming you are not a troll…

UL is different for everyone. Some people with very light kits take along various electronics; not my cup of tea, but I am not going to criticize anyone for doing it.

A warm meal and/or drink is often a psychological boost for many people, or part of the overall backcountry experience they seek. A simple Esbit stove is going to weigh less than the water content in a single well balance meal of fresh or packaged food (not dehydrated or freeze dried).

For most people UL hiking is getting your weight as low as possible without sacrificing comfort or safety. Comfort and safety are different for each individual. For many people UL hiking is not about covering X amount of miles, or carrying Y amount of gear. People hike for just about as many reasons, as there are people who hike.

For ~ 3 day trips I don't always take a stove, but most of the time I do. There are times a stove does not fit into the hike, so I am not advocating everyone needs a stove. Whether or not they do take one is completely up to them. There is nothing wrong with the hiker who brings a stove and cooks 3 meals a day and even some hot tea or other beverage in between. Each person determines whether a stove or cooking is appropriate, and it is not up to anyone else to determine the legitimacy of how they hike.

How do you define trail running? Are you jogging or running? If running I would expect you could easily do 50 miles or more in 10 or 12 hours depending upon the terrain. If you are not doing this mileage, at a minimum, then I would not consider you a trail runner… but a jogger.

And as a runner, you could burn up to 10,000 calories in very complex nutrients in one day on a difficult run. Fresh vegetables aren't going to replenish all the needed nutrients, and as Tom mentioned, you are going to "bonk." When you bonk, you risk the chance of injury to muscles and other internal functions, exhaustion which can lead to mental errors that could put you into; a survival situation; or physical injury due to falls, sprains, or bad decisions. The amount of fresh food needed to properly maintain your body is going to push you well beyond the total weight a typical UL hiker carries on a 3 day trip, which means you are no longer UL. Don't look at the weight of the ultralight kit, look at the total weight of everything.

Yes, many people can survive for a long period of time without food. But many hikers are not into the sport just to survive, and if they get into a survival situation, then something went wrong with the hike. Most try not to get into these situations, although many here on BPL can take care of themselves just fine in most survival scenarios.

I have posted this before on another thread but here are a couple easy to make recipes for simple raw eating:
http://blog.trailcooking.com/2011/05/26/raw-recipes-for-the-trail/

"UL is different for everyone…………….."

+1 Great post, Nick, the whole thing.

I just did my first stoveless trip last weekend and it was so nice not to have to mess with a stove. I had powdered milk with granola and dried cranberries for breakfast (FBC), and had a pita packed with cheddar cheese and pepperoni for dinner (similar to the pita pizza mentioned above) and dark chocolate for desert. Loved it, and can't wait for my next trip. However, I'd like to find a lighter-weight dinner and find an enjoyable breakfast that doesn't have a cleanup element (even if it's just a spoon and a dirty ziplock).

Most of my trips are 2-4 days. After experiencing the freedom, I'm hoping most of them will become stoveless. I'm curious how cold I can go before I miss a warm meal and add the stove back to my packing list.

For the argument that drinking/eating the heated water from the stove in the form of rehydrated food or a hot beverage is an effective source of calories, consider the math:

1 calorie = amount of energy to heat 1 mL (1g) of H2O 1 deg celsius
1 dietary calorie = 1000 calories or 1kCal.

Most stove users boil approximately 2 cups of water, we'll call it 500 mL

When eaten, in a perfect world, the body will absorb all of the heat energy within the water from its transition from heated to 37 degrees C. Obviously you're not going to consume this water WHILE it's at 100 degrees C but for the sake of the argument under ideal circumstances we'll use it and call the transition in temperature 63 degrees C.

So, you're looking at 500g of H2O and a delta of 63 degrees C, 31,500 calories….sounds significant

but…those are not dietary calories, divide by 1,000, you've got 31.5 calories, under IDEAL circumstances. In reality, you're not going to get 100% of that energy to offset your metabolic requirements, you're not going to consume the water while it's still at 100 degrees C, etc. The cream and sugar in my morning coffee has more calories than the heat provided to one meal through the use of a stove. There goes that argument.

As for it being psychological, or just plain refreshing to have a hot meal, I've got to concede that one, it can be nice. Other times I find it's a pain. My dinner is my last bastion of stove use, and this thread and the considerations it's made me run through my head, has me questioning that.

I don't think I'll be substituting 3/4 pound of bean sprouts for my daily meals though, I think I'd rather eat my stinky socks. They're probably more calorically dense anyway :)

I don't know. I don't generally go to the heavily used areas, but I have found that enough wood fuel to make a pot of coffee makes no impact on the environment. I can use dried grass if need be….of course, I ain't talking about Yosemite, more remote areas.

So here is the thing. You get into the backcountry and there are a whole lot of environments you might go into, and a whole lot of things you might be doing.
Sometimes…I like to do my "knife in the teeth, pistol on the hip and axe over the back" thing and just head off into the really remote wilderness and do my thing for a week or two, cutting down saplings, building a house, hunting deer, the whole nine yards, bow drill fire, live like my ancestors 10,000 years ago.
Sometimes, I want to go to the places our ancestors saw as the most beautiful in our world. When there, I want to make as little impact as possible, and I usually go just as light as possible, granola bars, no food needing cooking. I make a little fire to make coffee (cant live without my coffee) but I boil my water in a little pit, with grass or pencil lead thin twigs, and end of the day, no impact on the environment.
The real question that your question spurns is "where are you going?" Because there are a whole lot of places you could flat out go with an axe, a couple matches, and a rifle and build a homestead. There are also a whole lot of places you need to tiptoe like you were in your neighbor's backyard.

Unless you're on private land you own yourself, I think most would agree that the tree cutting, homestead building method is unethical, and discourteous to any other potential users.