High-fat diets

[potato]

I'm curious if anyone here has done research into high-fat diets, specifically for backpacking/through-hiking.
Pound for pound, you get more than twice as many calories from fat as you do from carbs and protein. I'm aware that all 3 are needed in order for your body to function, but I wonder if you can get 70+% of your calories from fat, and train your body to burn primarily body fat for fuel, relying less on glycogen stores and therefore carbs. Then maybe you could get away with 1 - 1.5 pounds of food for every day on the trail...

Several sources seem to indicate that you can have good endurance with this type of diet, but you'll suffer if you're doing something high-intensity, and therefore recommend eating more carbs. But these are all cycling and marathon and ironman websites where people are racing and really pushing it. Seems like through-hiking (many hours of low-intensity cardio) is an ideal activity for this type of high-fat diet.

http://www.marathonguide.com/training/a ... lOnFat.cfm

I wonder how far some people have been able to travel without a resupply, or if anyone tries to push this.

[retired jerry]

Good idea - I've heard of thru-hikers adding fat for that reason, like olive oil or butter.

I was calculating calories and I have a question

Under carbs, they list grams of fiber, so I assume grams of fiber are included as carbs

But I thought that fiber wasn't digested, but just passed through, so if you're counting calories, you shouldn't include grams of fiber

So to calculate calories, you should take grams of carbs, subtract out the grams of fiber, and then multiply by 4 calories per gram of carb

[potato]

Good question... I think you don't subtract out the fiber. I think the Total Carbohydrate number should just be the edible portion.

For example, this label:
http://quitehealthy.com/nutrition-facts ... 378811.gif

Total calories: 250
Fat: 6g
Carbohydrate: 40g (also says 5g dietary fiber)
Protein: 12g

so if you use 40g carbs, your total calories are 6x9 + 40x4 + 12x4 = 262
if you use 35g carbs, you get 242, so I guess neither way matches up very well

Let's try a different label:
http://amazingasset.com/wp-content/uplo ... -facts.jpg
Total calories: 330
Fat: 4.5g
Carbohydrate: 68g (9g dietary fiber)
Protein: 8g

using 68g carbs: 344.5 calories
subtracting the fiber: 308.5 calories

Again it's unclear. I don't know. I'll have to ask my wife maybe i'll try google first.

Edit: this is probably a better explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fi ... d_calories
Seems like the fiber is broken into soluble and insoluble, one being 2ish calories per gram and the other zero, and they're not really specifying how much of each one you're getting...?

[retired jerry]

So in that label

There are 6 g of fat
40 g of carbs
indented are 5 g of fiber and 18 g of sugar
12 g of protein

From the wikipedia link, starch and sugar have 4 calories per g, soluble fiber has maybe 2 calories per g but people don't agree about that number and 0 calories for insoluble fiber

if you assume 6 g fat (9 cal/g), 35 g carb not including fiber and 12 g protein (4 cal/g) you get 242 calories total. The label says there are 250 calories total.

if you assumed 2 cal/g for the fiber you'de get 252 calories total which is close enough to the 250 on the label, especially if they rounded. So, maybe they assume that fiber has 2 calories per gram.

But, they could have come up with 250 calories total with other round-offs, so it's not clear.

Sorry to be such an engineer and dwelling on trivial details

[potato]

No need to be sorry, remember I am an engineer too. But my wife has a degree in nutrition science so she is really the one to ask. But yeah I'd guess your calculation is on the right track... good to know.

I just looked more closely at the breakfast I eat every day... 2 eggs, olive oil (I assumed 1 tbsp), cheddar cheese (I assumed 1 oz.).
That's 369 calories total, 78% from fat, 20% protein, 2% carbs. I'm not a "low carb" enthusiast by any means and would have a hard time giving up beer, pizza, and ice cream... and usually I get plenty of carbs at lunch... but it is interesting to me that I've been eating nearly 80% calories from fat for 1 meal a day for maybe a year now. And maybe it has changed my metabolism somewhat because it took a lot of hiking and some caloric restrictions to get down to 160 lbs, but since TT360 in early September I haven't hiked as far and I've been eating as much as I want, without gaining a pound.

Maybe I will try eating lunches with 50+% calories from fat and see how that feels.

[sparklehorse]

I wonder how far some people have been able to travel without a resupply, or if anyone tries to push this.

Ryan Jordan (of Backpackinglight.com) and two companions attempted a 600 mile trek across Alaskan tundra in 2006 without resupply. Jordan sprained an ankle along the way and was air-lifted out. The other two soldiered on, one stopped at 550 miles, the other continued to 624.

http://backpackinglight.typepad.com/2006_arctic/

From the Wikipedia entry for Ryan Jordan:

>>Jordan uses the term ""Super-ultralight backpacking" to describe a style of ultralight backpacking undertaken with a pack weight of less than five pounds (2.3 kg). In addition, Jordan is well known for promoting a style of backpacking by which long distances are walked without outside assistance or resupply. His own efforts have included more than seven 300+ mile treks without resupply, mostly taken in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains, including a circumnavigation of the Wind River Range, two north-to-south traverses of the ecosystem.
With Roman Dial and Jason Geck, Jordan attempted a 600+ mile traverse of the Western Arctic in June 2006 without resupply, beginning at the coastal village of Kivalina. Their starting pack weights (including food) were about 55 pounds each. After 185 miles, Jordan injured an ankle and was flown to Kotzebue by a bush pilot. Geck continued to Anaktuvuk Pass, a distance of 550 miles from Kivalina, and Dial reached the Alaskan Oil Pipeline Highway, a distance of 624 miles from Kivalina. This trek was the first successful attempt by any party to complete a foot traverse of America's most expansive roadless wilderness without resupply.<<

Side note: as I recall they used a single Bushbuddy wood burning stove, an item mentioned in another thread here at PortlandHikers.

G

[potato]

That's pretty incredible. The idea of traveling 300+ miles without a resupply is exciting to me for some reason... I guess simply because you could be alone and self-sustaining for a month at a time

[Koda]

http://backpackinglight.typepad.com/2006_arctic/

Their route traversed the most remote (westernmost) region of Alaska's Brooks Range, starting at the Chukchi Sea near the Native village of Kivalina and ending at the Alaskan Oil Pipeline Highway ("Haul Road") near Wiseman. This region is notable for two key characteristics: it is the largest contiguous roadless, uninhabited, and unprotected wilderness in America, and it contains America's remotest spot (defined by its distance from the nearest roads or habitations) in an area that is more than 15 times the area of the remotest spot in the contiguous U.S., which lies SE of Yellowstone National Park.

I cant help but wonder now where the most remote spot is in Oregon? (defined by its distance from the nearest roads or habitations)

[CampinCarl]

Boom

Project Remote

Looks like someone is doing this! Way cool and uber-geeky

Edit: They will even calculate "remote" areas near you!

Remote Areas Near You

[potato]

On a recent 3-day trip to Crater Lake, one of my main foods was a mixture I made that was roughly 2 parts almond butter, 2 parts coconut oil, and 1 part chocolate almond spread. So, it was pretty high-fat. It's not a glamorous meal (it looks like poop in a ziplock bag and you just use a spoon to scoop it out), but I found that I was able to eat ~1000 calories of the stuff at breakfast time pretty easily. Tasted OK. Compact and lightweight. It never made me feel very full, but I also didn't get hungry for quite a long time after eating it. Felt like a slow-burning, timed-release fuel source. Very steady. Will definitely do again...