High Sierra Topix

You'll get more accurate results if you factor in heart rate which will allow you to use the Journal of Sports Science formula. (Or just use an HRM to do the Calorie estimation.) See for instance http://fitnowtraining.com/2012/01/formu ... es-burned/ .

Mike, You could actually gain calories if you hand the shovel to your wife, and then sit on the porch drinking a nice beverage..

Dave, thanks

Russ, You know there is absolutely no difference in fat chance or slim chance!

You can exercise all you want, but if your diet is out of whack, you won't have too much to show for it, especially during the holidays.

Not an a fitness expert but as a physiology teacher I think this needs a repeat. And exercise doesn't mean you earned he right to eat a little extra, like many people do. If calories burned exceeds calories absorbed you'll lose weight, it's physics more than physiology. Obviously there are different ways to go about it but cutting calories in tends to be the most efficient (but less fun)

Get a dog. Our border collie has to walk 5 miles a day or she goes berserk. I have actually been urban exploring with her. My goal is to walk every street in my unincorporated town. It has been quite amazing. We have a flock of wild turkeys and a number of roaming deer. And once a week we go to the river; urban but pretty nice - could almost guess that I was walking in Henry Coe park. Hard to not go walking when all I have to do is go out the door.

Mike,

Regarding walking uphill, this paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306638/

shows that walking up a 7.5% incline at 2.9 mph has about twice the metabolic cost as walking 2.9mph on the flat.

Dave

rlown wrote:what about if you're 140lbs and carrying a 36lb pack?...

The same as a 176 lb person. You burn about the same calories whether the weight is on your back or inside your skin.
BTW if you are 140lbs naked on the scale, do not forget to add the weight of your clothes and shoes. The pack is not the only weight your body is carrying.

Many now recommend calculating calories per mile instead of per hour -- more accurate. Per hour does not factor in speed (you burn more calories the faster you hike, but then you are covering the miles in less time). Using per mile is independent of speed.

Factoring in slope is more problematic. If it is round trip then ignore slope. The extra effort involved in going uphill is mostly offset by the lesser effort needed going downhill. Not completely offset, but close enough for quick estimates.

Of course, the old adage says the best exercise to lose weight is pushaways at the dinner table.

Been wearing a fitbit lately and have found that drinking beer and reeling in fish lefthanded are great ways to get lots of steps in!

rlown wrote:oh.. you haven't experienced Metoprolol or Lisinopril yet.

What's with Lisinopril? I've been on it a couple years, no issues. I had no idea my BP was so high, diet always good, plenty of exercise, no weight issues. Doc told me it was genetics.

John

I have just been trying out a lot of those on-line calorie calculators to see what they say the calories I burn in a typical backpack day. I sort of already know this based on the calories I actually take in my rations and weight loss over the summer season. Problem is, these calculators seem to under-estimate the calories I burn. I have a spreadsheet for my rations so I know exactly how many calories I take, what I do not eat when I come back, and how much weight I loose for the summer. According to those basal metabolic calculators, my base calories are only 1200 calories a day. I ration 2,200-2,400 calories per day on trips and over a 10 day trip will loose about 1-2 pounds. But I then eat normally back in town, so over the entire backpack season will lose 5-8 pounds. It takes me until about Christmas to gain that back.

The on-line calculators assume sidewalks or smooth surface trails. The missing pieces of the puzzle to apply these to backpacking is the elevation gain and off-trail travel. I think we do a lot of mini-elevation gain off trail stepping over obstacles. I also think individual basal metabolic rate varies with people, even if they are of the same age, weight, height and gender. Another unknown is how your digestion actually uptakes calories. According to those charts, I am supposed to gain weight with what I eat backpacking, not loose weight!

Regarding the statement that elevation gain and loss equal out: I disagree that uphill miles and downhill miles even out the difference between walking on the flat and going up and down. For me, going downhill is a bit easier, but I still have to exert a lot of effort to counter balance gravity and that takes energy, especially with a pack on my back. I mean, I am really leaning on my poles, exerting energy.

Just saying that all that theory is interesting, but simply paying attention to my weight, and tweaking my exercise and eating off-season works for me. My upper limit is 118 pounds. At that point, if I still gain, I exercise more and eat less. My alarm bell is 120- at which point I do an actual short term diet. Interesting, but I do not really NEED to know exactly how many calories my walking or bicycling burn. I think we over-value exercise for weight loss. I have to walk 5 miles at 3.5 mph (my dog walk) to burn off one piece of apple pie or two servings of wine. Exercise is more important simply to keep our muscles in shape so we can continue backpacking, particularly as we get older.