Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Talk about anything.

Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew

Post Reply
User avatar
gairym
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chamonix, France (but a Yorkshire lad).

Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by gairym »

An interesting article about the negative consequences of crappy eating habits during long distance / endurance activities (hiking in this case but equally aapplicable to us lot).

https://www.backpacker.com/news-and-eve ... ling-find/
jam bo
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:54 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by jam bo »

You can’t outrun a bad diet..
User avatar
thenorthwind
Posts: 2574
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 6:07 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by thenorthwind »

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

When I'm at home my meals are pretty healthy but admit I have a tendency to eat crap in reasonable quantities as well. When I'm doing multi-day rides I tend to cram the high energy stuff in too, but thing is, it only takes me 24-48 hours before I crave something fresh and green (or at least not beige). America is the worst for that: particularly if you only have access to 'gas stations' but even when I've stayed in cities it can be hard to find actual fresh food :roll:

112 days is a reasonably long time - far longer than I've ever travelled continuously for - but I'm not surprised eating no/minimal fresh food for that length of time has a detrimental impact.
User avatar
In Reverse
Posts: 1819
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by In Reverse »

Based on purely anecdotal evidence I'd say the number of pints (or bottles of Tuscan vino rosso) are more problematic on multi-day rides...
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2600
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Alpinum »

Interesting, I even got a bit exited. Until I had read the study itself and had a look into the cited papers.

Case study, n = 1. No control group. No baseline data. From here on we know, the data and information drawn is not valid.
But well... it's still interesting, so further goes...

The case study suggests hiking to be exercise and compares to papers
including high intensities
In this case
Minutes with HR above 80 % HR = 28 min/day with 487 min/d of hiking.
What was high intensity again?

Quite a few of the cited papers have nothing to do with this case study eg.
Early et al. 2007
(meta study) which are in themselves questionable since some corner points like exercise intensity are simply defined with
light, moderate and high
. We have no clue what this means and if or how it can be compared to the thru-hiker.

It once talks about 5500 kcal/d in the introduction and once of 3315 kcal/d in table 1. I wonder what went wrong here.

Since I was baffled about the amount of vert gain/day rsp. per daily distance - number's more apt to the greater ranges than the Pacific Crest - I looked them up.
I you hike the PCT in 92 days, like the subject did, you gain 1621 m/d. Actually a bit less, since the subject jumped a total of 212 km of the total 4270 km. According to https://pctmap.net/2014/03/04/elevation ... rest-trail and the PCTA the total vert gain is 149,175 m (give/take a little) and not as stated in table 1 of the paper 251,203 m. Probably the subject had used the Fenix in ultra battery mode during which the GPS signal pick up is rare, weak and wanders (under movement). Tracking in this mode leads to inaccurate readings. Again, I know this from own experience with Fenix and Instinct.

From own experience 8 h/d under similar circumstances (and distance/vert gain - remember, a bit less than 1621 m/d, not 2730 m/d) I (2 cm shorter than subject, mostly 2 - 6 kg heavier, lighter backpack, so total mass would come very close) I need about 3500 - 4000 kcal/day. I usually go with less and loose some body mass (mainly muscle mass when hiking) on longer trips (my max is 60 days).
My guess, 3315 kcal is the more accurate number for the subject, but they messed it up with getting elevation gain wrong in, weirdly, only one of two places.

Bone mineral density would've been really interesting, but once I read through the 4 numbers, I realised that there's simply no way of telling how significant the changes are.
The subject (individual) is a "highly fit", male "runner".
How often he runs and how his usual diet looks like - not a single word.
The subject could've kept a diet and running diary for the time between the data collection.
But again, nada. Well... one could say, the data can't be used anyways, so why bother at all...

A bit of a mess it seems.
No baseline measurements, just two data collections a couple of weeks pre and post hike, one single time. Of one subject. No confidence interval, standard deviation, nada.

Whilst interesting data, I wouldn't trust them since other, basic numbers are messed up too.
Just another academic trying to publish as much as possible to gain credits.

The subject itself seems interesting.
the subject performed daily push‐ups to maintain upper body strength, completing 282 push‐ups per hiking day during the first 56 days. On the 57th day, 1000 push‐ups were performed, after which, shoulder pain developed. For the following 13 days, daily push‐ups were reduced to 66 per day. After this, all push‐ups were discontinued in an attempt to preserve all energy.
Imagine his dairy (which he didn't keep) readings for day 57. "Woke up early. Slept well under stars [...] and during a quick wash, I felt the muscle loss, it's getting worse. I have to do more push ups! I'll do 1000!! That will save me from becoming a beanpole!!!"

Well, thanks Gairy, I had some fun and learned a few things during digestion of a huge (and as some may say unhealthy) breakfast. I'm off riding soon.

Let's just bear in mind to do and eat whatever we like and whatever goes with our very own health and environmental conscience and not what others believe is healthy or not for us, perhaps leading to an age of eg 89 instead of 85 y.
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2600
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Alpinum »

In Reverse wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:19 am Based on purely anecdotal evidence I'd say the number of pints (or bottles of Tuscan vino rosso) are more problematic on multi-day rides...
Well, this case study has about as much evidence.

Nothing problematic if you enjoy the pint, the wine, the "unhealty" pizza. Just don't live by the pint and pizza alone and all will be good for many years. And don't believe it's not good for you. If you enjoy it, it is good for you.
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2600
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Alpinum »

One last thing
gairym wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:17 pm (hiking in this case but equally aapplicable to us lot)
This is highly uncertain.
Different level of exertion, different type of stresses.
I think we would be surprised to see just how different bikepacking is to backpacking.
I know from multiple multi week trips (max is 60 days) in both fields how different their effect is on basic things like digestion, muscles and fat. After about 4 weeks there's signs of how we start to become, what I like to call activity mutants. Change of shape and size of muscles is quite impressive (and fast).

And I'd like to emphasise how tame walking is. Homo Sapiens is specifically made for walking. Evolution has made us so capable in walking and running (and sweating) we can outpace any animal in the African bush (where we come from). Yes, a human on a bike is the most efficient way (in the animal kingdom) to cover (even) ground, yet how many animals have tried cycling?
Anyways, we were meant to walk and run.
I always burn through more calories when out riding and my body gets beaten up (mountain biking).
User avatar
gairym
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chamonix, France (but a Yorkshire lad).

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by gairym »

Gian,

I can't help thinking that you're overthinking this all a sniff.

The idea that we might not actually benefit (health/fitness-wise) from a long distance bike trip due to the poor show we end up shoveling in in large quantities is worthy of a bit of consideration.

It not being a faultless peer reviewed paper that stands up to strict scientific research standards of scrutiny doesn't detract from this at all.

Was more just a conversation starter..... :-bd
Lazarus
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:49 am

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Lazarus »

From here on we know, the data and information drawn is not valid.
No we dont - even an anecdote may be true - for example I have done no research but I am certain getting pissed a lot does indeed impare cycling performance even with a sample size of one anecdote. My science is rubbish my conclusion is not

I also think its a bit harsh[or if you prefer not valid] to argue an assistant professor and research assistant dont know how to do science when they got the peer reviewed paper/case study published but each to their own

You also could do with reading up on Single Subject Experimental Design - not that this is a good example of this as they did not do follow up to see when /if baseline was restored."the researchers didn’t do enough follow-up to say how long the effects of Heinbockel’s thru-hike persisted".Its a perfectly vlaid model.

Finally
Evolution has made us so capable in walking and running (and sweating) we can outpace any animal in the African bush
You genuinely think a human is the fastest land animal in the African bush ? I dont even think we can go the furthest in day but we certainly cannot "outpace" every animal there
User avatar
In Reverse
Posts: 1819
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by In Reverse »

Lazarus wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:02 pm getting pissed a lot does indeed impare cycling performance
Improves banter performance though, which is usually the more important metric on this type of trip. :cool:
Lazarus
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:49 am

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Lazarus »

Only if you are both equally pissed :wink:
User avatar
Bearbonesnorm
Posts: 23904
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: my own little world

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Bearbonesnorm »

Finally

Evolution has made us so capable in walking and running (and sweating) we can outpace any animal in the African bush

You genuinely think a human is the fastest land animal in the African bush ? I dont even think we can go the furthest in day but we certainly cannot "outpace" every animal there
Yes, I think evolution has actually made us slow, soft, fat and generally somewhat sh1t in the physical stakes.
May the bridges you burn light your way
User avatar
Wotsits
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Wotsits »

I think Gian is referring to this sort of thing-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

Edit: On the broader point I agree with Gairy, I know it’s all about keeping fuelled on long distance events, but it can’t do anyone any good eating high calorie crap for weeks on end, even if they’re burning it off..
Ever Feel Like You're Being Orbited?!
Lazarus
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:49 am

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Lazarus »

Ah right cheers

That link has the african wild dog could we outpace one of them?
User avatar
Wotsits
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Wotsits »

I don't think it's a case of 'outpacing' them..

The 'four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen from northeast Kenya' who hunted down a cheetah may be the men for the job though!
Ever Feel Like You're Being Orbited?!
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2600
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Alpinum »

gairym wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:12 pm I can't help thinking that you're overthinking this all a sniff.
Yeah, you can call it overthinking.
Nitpicking, checking on references, questioning and eventually stumbling across mistakes. This doesn't mean I don't agree with the basic theory at hand.

Indeed I completely agree:
You are what you eat.
A solid hike won't change that.

But to me these are two single issues. One is a theory I choose to believe in (until enough evidence prooves otherwise) and the other is facts which try to proove the theory I choose to believe in. Now, as you'll have registered, I'm simply not trusting these facts for good reasons. That's all.
gairym wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:12 pm It not being a faultless peer reviewed paper that stands up to strict scientific research standards of scrutiny doesn't detract from this at all.
Not really, no. But under this circumstance it's as worthy as watching the documentary Supersize Me. Not surprising, nothing new. But yes, always fun to discuss and as I posted earlier, interesting data.
Lazarus wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:02 pm getting pissed a lot does indeed impare cycling performance
Yes, I agree, yet to take your example and apply it to the study it would be more like for the first collection of data (endurance test) you don't know how often you got pissed, just less than during the second phase, where you got regularly pissed and ran a test after a couple of months.
To conclude anything from it is fun for a discussion in a pub, but in my point of view not enough to validate scientific statements.
Then you also have to put the difference of the results into context. The gains/losses are marginal and we don't even know if they're significant (n = 1).

After all it's a scientific paper, not a discussion of two friends over a pint.
One the other hand, good for the (any) paper, since it will start discussions and makes room for more.
Lazarus wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:02 pm You genuinely think a human is the fastest land animal in the African bush ? I dont even think we can go the furthest in day but we certainly cannot "outpace" every animal there
Yes.
The theory behind what I 'think' of it is called persistance hunting.
Animals in the African bush can go faster, but only for short bursts. Then they need to rest due to the risk of overheating (African bush, not Wales and its annual horse vs. human race, which is too short anyways), they regulate temperature by panting, which isn't as effective as sweating. Those that sweat (eg zebras) don't do it as efficiently as humans.
Humans on the other hand can control body temperature in the heat better due to the way we sweat (check for Carrier's theory in the '80). Once the animal is tracked down by the human hunters, it runs away again. This goes on for a while and at some point the animal is rushed to exhaustion and killed (more) easily. This is what I meant by 'outpace'.
This (next to other techniques) is how our predecessors survived and strived. Mind, "next to other techniques".

Just because Bunn and Pickering don't agree with Carrier, but especially Liebenberg and Liebermann (the former known for above theory which was made popular with McDougall's book Born to Run), it doesn't mean it never happend. Some say it was likely, some say it was unlikely.

From an outside point of view, both sides have good arguments and most likely, both are right within a certain, not identical area (steppe vs. savanna vs. bush etc.).
As so often in sciences, there are multiple groups (of theories) constantly challenging each other, which is a part of how science works. Which is what I'm doing.

Funny how nobody agrees, that some facts in the paper are wrong.
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2600
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Alpinum »

Lazarus wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:02 pm I also think its a bit harsh[or if you prefer not valid] to argue an assistant professor and research assistant dont know how to do science when they got the peer reviewed paper/case study published but each to their own
Since you've taken your time to write back this much, how about reading about the wrong numbers they used (some of which I pointed out). They made mistakes, not me.
Just because it got published it doesn't make false data right. I can well imagine why it got published, because it offers room for more.

You might want to read into why publishing papers (especially in physiology) works the way it does today.
Lazarus wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:02 pmYou also could do with reading up on Single Subject Experimental Design - not that this is a good example of this as they did not do follow up to see when /if baseline was restored."the researchers didn’t do enough follow-up to say how long the effects of Heinbockel’s thru-hike persisted".Its a perfectly vlaid model.
What are you trying to say?
I think you're referring to techniques that make sense in a different field. Simply because a single subject designs works or even has to be applied in psychology (iirc) it doesn't make it valid for physiology.
Guessing with vlaid you mean valid, what is a perfectly valid model? The SSED?
Again, what makes sense in one field doesn't make mean it necessarily makes sense in a different field.
Horses for courses.

You also agree with me on the lack of a baseline, which would've been really easy to establish, yet they didn't. If you still find it a good paper, okay. I'm simply more sceptical.
User avatar
Cheeky Monkey
Posts: 3915
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:48 pm
Location: Leeds ish
Contact:

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Cheeky Monkey »

I'm not going to agree or not, I haven't read enough of the original material to do so, but I'm enjoying the discussion.

Keep it up :cool:
woodsmith
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:49 am

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by woodsmith »

Alpinum wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:05 pm One last thing
gairym wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:17 pm (hiking in this case but equally aapplicable to us lot)
This is highly uncertain.
Different level of exertion, different type of stresses.
I think we would be surprised to see just how different bikepacking is to backpacking.
I know from multiple multi week trips (max is 60 days) in both fields how different their effect is on basic things like digestion, muscles and fat. After about 4 weeks there's signs of how we start to become, what I like to call activity mutants. Change of shape and size of muscles is quite impressive (and fast).

And I'd like to emphasise how tame walking is. Homo Sapiens is specifically made for walking. Evolution has made us so capable in walking and running (and sweating) we can outpace any animal in the African bush (where we come from). Yes, a human on a bike is the most efficient way (in the animal kingdom) to cover (even) ground, yet how many animals have tried cycling?
Anyways, we were meant to walk and run.
I always burn through more calories when out riding and my body gets beaten up (mountain biking).
Having hiked both the Pacific Crest Trail (2650miles) and the Great Divide( 3000 miles) I have some insite into the effects of extended duration hiking. A friend described thru hiking as "6 weeks of getting fit followed by a long slow decline into malnurishment"
One thing that was noticable and commented on by many hikers that the decline was felt to begin after a couple of months. It feels like those initial 60 days your body is falling back on its reserves of fat and general pre-hike health.
I (male 5'7", 50 - 52 yrs) ate a good diet compared to many other hikers of 4000 cal/day and still lost a kilo/month over the 5 months of each hike.
To call walking tame is to exhit zero knowledge of what thru hiking in the American west ( the subject of the article)is like: Extended periods over 10,000 ft, outrunning forest fires, thunderstorms, post-holing waist deep for mile after mile was far more physicly exhausting than any bikepacking I've done.
The difference between the two disciplines in my experience is that hiking tends to be at a more continuous, steady level of exhertion ( I will regularly walk at 3+ mph 3 or 4 hours without a pause, whereas biking tends to have lots of spikes of max effort, periods of recovery and steady effort, interspersed with far more stops.
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2600
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Alpinum »

Cheeky Monkey wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:44 pm I'm not going to agree or not, I haven't read enough of the original material to do so, but I'm enjoying the discussion.

Keep it up  :cool:
 :-bd
Yeah, thanks again Gairy.

The question the stands out most for me is how applicable such and similar findings (within hiking) are for bikepacking.
I usually burn through more calories when bikepacking in similar terrain as if when I'm hiking. It seems so even if I cover similar distances in the mountains. There's the bike weight I've to move up which adds, but the descends are done much faster, yet if the terrain is really tricky, the effort is shorter, but much more intense. Once the terrain is really techy, I'm just about as fast hiking (quickly).
If the terrain is easy enough, has a trail to follow, eg prepared for equestrians and doesn't go with the silly inclines found in the greater ranges (like the PCT), we can cover a greater distance on less fuel than when hiking.

But what do I know. I exhibit zero knowledge about hiking in the American west, since I made a certain statement that another person who hiked there doesn't agree with.
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2600
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Alpinum »

woodsmith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:06 pm I (male 5'7", 50 - 52 yrs) ate a good diet compared to many other hikers of 4000 cal/day and still lost a kilo/month over the 5 months of each hike.
We measure exertion differently.
Loosing only 1 kg per month shows how tame it is :wink:
I regularly find myself on trips where I loose up to 2 kg/week. Yes, per week. Not because I'm living of 2000 kcal, but because many other outdoor activities (not just bikepacking) are more exerting than hiking. Well, at least in my case.

Since you are older than 50 and have hiked the PCT and CDT you must have hiked for multiple weeks in the Hindukush, Garwhal Himal, Karakorum, Himalayas, Andes, Alaska Range, Alps etc. and drew comparison to the PCT?
Or are you one of those persons who have summited the 7 summmits but otherwise don't do any mountaineering?
You'd be the first person of quite a few I know, who think the PCT was the what-ever-hardest etc.-you-call-it.
PCT:
No bushwhacking (or very, very little), little route finding (only in high snow years), very well described, many other hikers around, no high elevation, medium sun intensity, regular resupply options etc.
Yes, it's very, very long, but that just makes it easier, since after a few weeks it becomes so natural to just walk.
You may be successful in convincing your neighbour how tough the PCT is. I still think it's tame hiking. If it was so hard, you'd not see so many covering those huge distances, many of which fairly new to hiking. If you meet them in the greater ranges they are shocked to see that a long day can be as little as 15 km, rather than 50 km.

See, altitude itself doesn't add to exertion. Au contrary. Not acclimatised, you simply get tired quicker due to the low air pressure and your body adapting to it. In this phase you're burning through less calories. It becomes even tamer.
Once fully acclimatised, you can rev it up again. To be fair, the distance above 10000 ft on the PCT is very, very reduced and the hike into the High Sierra (only segment such and higher altitudes) is not exactly a rush as often found when traveling in the greater ranges.
From my view point it's tame. The trail is well maintained, the grade is generally very easy going, little climbing; if you'd hike 34.2 km a day and finish the PCT in 125 d, no zero day (rest) included, you'd have to climb/descend only 1193.4 m. Now, since I've started hiking in various regions of this planet (just about 33 years ago), mostly in some wilderness and/or mountain range, this elevation gain, 1193 m in 34.2 km is low. Actually less than half of what I would expect in that distance. Easy. Of course, stomping (post holing) through snow is hard, but then mostly you simply need Alpine start and hike when the snow is still hard.

Funny how I mention 60 days and this suddenly is used by you for the onset of some physical miracle, pulled from its context.
If I had mentioned 40 days, I'm sure you'd have gone with 40 days as the onset. Or 80 etc.
Not very convincing such argumentation.

But I think I've stirred up enough.
I shall close with what I said before. You are what you eat.
Thinking about it again, this also answers my question of how "applicable such and similar findings (within hiking) are for bikepacking."
lune ranger
Posts: 2380
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Peoples Republic of Devon

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by lune ranger »

Alpinum wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:44 pm
woodsmith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:06 pm I (male 5'7", 50 - 52 yrs) ate a good diet compared to many other hikers of 4000 cal/day and still lost a kilo/month over the 5 months of each hike.
We measure exertion differently.
Loosing only 1 kg per month shows how tame it is :wink:
I regularly find myself on trips where I loose up to 2 kg/week. Yes, per week. Not because I'm living of 2000 kcal, but because many other outdoor activities (not just bikepacking) are more exerting than hiking. Well, at least in my case.

Since you are older than 50 and have hiked the PCT and CDT you must have hiked for multiple weeks in the Hindukush, Garwhal Himal, Karakorum, Himalayas, Andes, Alaska Range, Alps etc. and drew comparison to the PCT?
Or are you one of those persons who have summited the 7 summmits but otherwise don't do any mountaineering?
You'd be the first person of quite a few I know, who think the PCT was the what-ever-hardest etc.-you-call-it.
PCT:
No bushwhacking (or very, very little), little route finding (only in high snow years), very well described, many other hikers around, no high elevation, medium sun intensity, regular resupply options etc.
Yes, it's very, very long, but that just makes it easier, since after a few weeks it becomes so natural to just walk.
You may be successful in convincing your neighbour how tough the PCT is. I still think it's tame hiking. If it was so hard, you'd not see so many covering those huge distances, many of which fairly new to hiking. If you meet them in the greater ranges they are shocked to see that a long day can be as little as 15 km, rather than 50 km.

See, altitude itself doesn't add to exertion. Au contrary. Not acclimatised, you simply get tired quicker due to the low air pressure and your body adapting to it. In this phase you're burning through less calories. It becomes even tamer.
Once fully acclimatised, you can rev it up again. To be fair, the distance above 10000 ft on the PCT is very, very reduced and the hike into the High Sierra (only segment such and higher altitudes) is not exactly a rush as often found when traveling in the greater ranges.
From my view point it's tame. The trail is well maintained, the grade is generally very easy going, little climbing; if you'd hike 34.2 km a day and finish the PCT in 125 d, no zero day (rest) included, you'd have to climb/descend only 1193.4 m. Now, since I've started hiking in various regions of this planet (just about 33 years ago), mostly in some wilderness and/or mountain range, this elevation gain, 1193 m in 34.2 km is low. Actually less than half of what I would expect in that distance. Easy. Of course, stomping (post holing) through snow is hard, but then mostly you simply need Alpine start and hike when the snow is still hard.

Funny how I mention 60 days and this suddenly is used by you for the onset of some physical miracle, pulled from its context.
If I had mentioned 40 days, I'm sure you'd have gone with 40 days as the onset. Or 80 etc.
Not very convincing such argumentation.

But I think I've stirred up enough.
I shall close with what I said before. You are what you eat.
Thinking about it again, this also answers my question of how "applicable such and similar findings (within hiking) are for bikepacking."
How many calories a day do you set aside to fuel your ego?
If you are going through hell, keep going.
WSC
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2600
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Benefits of exercise vs negatives of diet

Post by Alpinum »

lune ranger wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:03 pm How many calories a day do you set aside to fuel your ego?
I have no device to measure that.
Some scientists say that thinking burns loads of energy.
I remember reading an interview with Sergej Zimov and his pleistocene park in Siberia and he said by thinking about his theories, he believes to burn through as many calories as a Tour de France racer.

If we relate the ego to the thinking, well, it must be loads.
Add in the regular 2000 kcal a day and my today's ride with 2500 kcal and yeah... lots of calories...

Truth is, I don't put any aside for my ego and don't seem to loose weight.
I must be fuelling it through your answers.

On a more constructive side, I've been thinking about this thread when riding uphill today, you know, the moments when thoughts swivel about.
What can we eat to stay healthy during long trips?
What is healthy, calorie dense food?

I like to think of nuts, especially macadamia.
Dried fruits are full of sugar (not the best of sugars though). I like to think that air drying them leads to loss of some vitamins, but you still get much more vitamins per weight compared to non dried fruits.
Freezedrying conserves molecules better than air drying and thus freeze dried meals from some sources should do the trick (better than eg mash potato, noodles etc.).
Suppliments in form of pills come in handy. I like the composition of Burgerstein Sport and when I had a strenuous day, add a sachet of Actilife magnesium sticks with L-carnitine to lots of water.
I guess some powders (electrolytes) have a composition that helps you stay healthy(er). I've a box of Winforce Carbo Basic Plus Polar Berries (use it rarely, if I do it's mostly for long day rides and some 2 - 3 day trips) which contain a high amount of flavinoids, which could be beneficial, but it's not really energy dense (but tastes good).
Post Reply