cook/no-cook: who has tried both and what weight diff did you find?

The no-cook option means no hot coffee.
End of discussion!

Cheers

I've done it. I usually bring an assortment of crackers, dried fruits, nuts, cheese, cured meats, and snickers. For breakfast I do cereal with dehydrated whole milk.
No cook food weight is usually slightly heavier because some of the better more palatable no cook items have a little bit of moisture weight. It's not enough to be of concern.

Sometimes I like to have the option of cooking so I will bring a small pot and cook over a fire. I will rehydrate with hot water in the collapsible silicone cup that I eat my breakfast cereal from. The total gained weight is the weight of the tiny cooking pot.

If I'm hiking near lakes in the high sierras in summer, sometimes I will only carry no cook meals and plan on eating fish every night.

I am more of a no cook or elaborate cook kind of guy. I usually don't care that much for dehydrated meals. Usually I'm either doing real cooking or not cooking at all. Lately I have gotten really into fry pan cooking. I enjoy the meals I cook with a fry pan more than with a cooking pot.

edit: sorry, I kind of rambled on there a bit…

When I go no cook there is no weight savings at all over going dried. But I choose to take things like oranges also. I'm closer to 2 pounds per day than 1.5 or less. Mid summer, no cook. Winter/rainy, cook.

I seem to be heading in the no-cook direction (much to my surprise) — even (gasp!) cold coffee in the morning.

For me, there is no inherent weight difference between the two, BUT with no-cook, I tend to bring some heavier "treats" (cheese, for example) possibly to make up for the fact that I'm not having the comfort of a hot meal. So you could probably design a no-cook regimen that would be lighter.

No-cook has primarily been a matter of expediency/time savings for me. On a relaxing trip, I would choose hot coffee in the morning every time, and a nice warm evening meal… But on a thru-hike, I want to get started quickly in the morning, and sometimes it's late by the time I get to camp, so cooking is not feasible (and it was fine).

I'd just like to add that for me, no-cook is nice when I have to watch my water. All the water I carry is then for drinking, and none for cooking or cleaning.

This is mostly in desert / dry areas. In wet places, I cook more

Lol to Roger. I'll agree with him on that one ;-)

Although a good mocha shake can work as well…. http://www.trailcooking.com/drinks/mocha-shake/

Back in the early 80's I was trying to go "lightweight" (I don't think the term "ultralight" had even been coined yet) and besides making a bunch of my own gear since none was available at the time, I went no-cook for a week long trip in the Sierra Nevada to save weight. Going no-cook I was definitely lighter than my buddies with their steaks and chocolate pudding pies with whipped cream, though I don't remember now how much lighter. I went out with a 35 lb. pack (food included), whereas my buddies were in the 60-70 lb. range.

The problem was, the only food I took was a case of Power Bars. One flavor. By the third day I was ready to eat moss and weeds just so I didn't have to eat another peanut butter Power Bar. I would trade two Power Bars for one cup-a-soup packet. The only thing that saved me was miner's lettuce and wild onions.

" Back in the early 80's I was trying to go "lightweight" (I don't think the term "ultralight" had even been coined yet) "

The Backpacker Magazine article was in 1982. That's what got the ball rolling.

–B.G.–

For me, no cook isn't always a savior in time or weight.
With a light cook system and dehydrated meals, you get a warm meal before going to bed.
I used to always sleep very cold. Now I try to eat at least 1,000 calories before going to sleep.
A warm meal just helps that much more. No problems with being cold any more.
A good warm nights sleep means feeling good in the morning and hence saves time.

Coffee as well. I love my coffee.

I usually do some cooking when I'm with family or friends, but go cookless or nearly cookless when I'm solo. For what I take, there's no inherent food weight difference between the two. You can eliminate excess packaging and water weight from either of them. You can squander extra weight, or trade it off for taste or convenience, with either of them. For any given weight, I do feel like I have more choices if I'm allowed a bit of cooking, or at least heating some water. Being able to rehydrate foods that wouldn't rehydrate well in cold water opens up the range of possibilities considerably.

Cheers,

Bill S.

For me the weight difference was equal to the weight of my cooking kit plus coffee, because the type of food I carried was identical except for coffee. AS I have grown older, my moral fiber has decayed and I have caved in to an my shameless craving for that morning cup of piping hot COFFEE. So now I carry a cooking kit, but only use it to heat water for my morning coffee, and occasional evening cup of tea. The rest of my food remains unchanged except for tinkering at the edges, as do my reasons for not cooking my food, i.e. simplicity, no cleanup hassle, and less likelihood of attracting bears.

Valerie demarcates "relaxed" trips from thru-hikes. I similarly think of "low-mileage" and "high-mileage" trips. On low-miles trips, I bring a stove. It's nice to relax in camp with a cup of tea or hot chocolate (if you spend any time in camp). On hi-mileage trips, I'm looking to save TIME and not stopping early to cook is important. As much or more so, eating cold food as I hike saves time and helps because my calories are distributed more evenly through the day.

My no-cook trips are far higher total food/fuel/stove weight because they are high-mileage trips and I need twice as many calories per day if I'm I'm doing three times the mileage. My cooking trips are lower total weight because I only need 3500-ish calories per day. Comparing cook and no-cook on equal mileage trips? A little less weight and less volume for no-cook because of the lack of the stove, pot and fuel. But within 5-10% over a week, because my no-cook menu has more moisture in it.

Then there's the duration factor: for 2-3 days, I'm not going to cook on a solo trip. But if I'm out for 10-14 days and if anyone else is along, I'm certainly cooking food for the greater variety.

>"The no-cook option means no hot coffee."

hydrochloric acid + caustic + coffee grounds = hot (salty) coffee without a stove.

As everyone mrationed a little more moisture in the food but saves the weight of stove, fuel, and pot. Also on a hot and dry backpack, warm food isn't appealing until the sun dips.

Minor consideration but unfortunately, last time I had cold food, flying insects were attracted to my tuna wrap, … while my buddy who cooked didn't get hardly any critters.

But who is going to carry "hydrochloric acid + caustic" in their pack. I'll just take a stove! ;^)

What does that change into?

"But who is going to carry "hydrochloric acid + caustic" in their pack. I'll just take a stove! ;^)

What does that change into?"

heat, salt and water as the result of the exothermic reaction. The type of salt varies depending on the acid and caustic used.

Thanks for the replies. Not being a coffee drinker I can do without any hot beverages if it's a summer trip. I've gone without cooking in the past a couple times and I liked the simplicity. But have only tried it for a couple days; now I'm thinking I'll give it a go on a trip of a week or more. I did a little analysis and found that if I just substituted more of my lunches for a dinner (dinner being the only meal I generally cook in the summer), I ended up short on protein compared to the FD dinners I usually take. So some adjustments would be needed. That also made me think I might want to make some changes to my usual lunches to boost the protein in them – and maybe the sodium as well. I sweat quite a bit usually on a summer trip, so I need a pretty good sodium intake, and those FD dinners have some serious sodium content.