High Sierra Topix

...oh and if we meet on the trail and we recognize each other from this forum...tempt me all you want with your food...I've learned how to turn off emotional attraction to anything...

All eating is emotional (Feeling) based.....that's why it's called being hunGRY...like anGRY.
Conditioned as babies...when we CRY -- we are taught to eat...food CRAvings...who feels reGREt over something they didn't want to eat, but ate anyway?

Repressed emotions inside of us affects our taste buds. Some simple quotes:

"We crave SWEET foods to take away the BITTERness of LIFE"

"We crave HEARTY foods to take away the emptiness of a broken heart"

The above also affects how water tastes (Taste is an individual thing).....going contrary to comments of earlier poster. Try some of my pH 9.5+ water...

but now I'm talking about patterns in words, and unorthodox knowledge...and that is better left unwritten for now...



That's me with my GLASS bottle of water!

And an extra thank you to the poster who called out attention to UV Strength above 11,000 feet - that is something I was not aware of. Though I recall a bad sunburn in the late 90s when I climbed half-dome with a tank top...

I have a small portable UV meter.

As stated earlier, I have been based in Medellin, Colombia the last 5 years and thus live at 5,000 feet/1500 meters/~ 1 mile high most of the year. I never wear sunglasses, don't even own a pair any more...I used to believe all the anti-UV hyperbole...but have since weaned myself off sunglasses. In recent travels 2010 in Peru - Lake Titicaca (High altitude), and Macchu Pichu, etc..., didn't use any sunglasses nor did I bring them. It was sunny all the time.

I am aware of snow blindness which can occur....

When I lived in SoCal I owned a pair of pricey Maui Jims, lost them, then replaced them with a brand - Rudy Project...so...I don't plead ignorance with fancy sunglass marketing. But lack of knowledge of our bodies is the reason we need so many "tools/gadgets"

I will take into this new information into consideration. But -- one benefit of not eating is a reduced IRON content over time. Our urine is yellow because of HEME removal. The presence of iron and other trace metals in our body is what causes sunburn (and red blood). It has to do with (electromagnetic) properties of these metals in our body reflecting the UV rays...

So...no eat...gradually less iron and B-12? (Which is cobalt I think)...among other vitamins / unnecessary minerals.

Now, someone will remark about anemia...but that is not a concern...but again, one needs to learn certain things to overcome this fear.

Another bonus..less sweet blood (sugar)...no bug bites / bug attraction -- no insect repellent needed. No need for bear box then due to food or fragrant repellents. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here.

------

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/uv.php?wfo=fgz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So how much more UV radiation am I receiving in Flagstaff, versus in Phoenix?

As mentioned earlier, UV radiation increases with altitude. This increase has been shown to be between 4-5% for every 1000 feet ascended. Thus, for the same day in June, the amount of UV radiation would be approximately 27% higher in Flagstaff than in Phoenix (about 6000 feet elevation difference). If you were going from Phoenix to the top of the San Francisco Peaks (approximately 12,000 feet), you would experience an increase in UV radiation of about 50%!

If you were to do this on a day in the winter with snowfall on the ground at Flagstaff, you would also have to factor in the affect of the reflection of UV radiation on the snow, and your UV exposure would go from 27% higher (just due to the elevation difference) to approximately 100% higher due to snow on the ground (snow is approximately four times more reflective than desert). While skiing up at 10,000 feet, you would receive about 200% higher levels of UV radiation than you would receive on the same day in the winter in Phoenix.

This underscores the important fact that protection from the sun should be even more of a concern for anyone who is planning activities at higher elevations, even in the winter.

circusoflife wrote: Haven't responded… because I've noticed no one has commented about the documentaries.... anyway... ignorance/fear of unknown is your loss.

Hey Circus – welcome back. Nice to know you are indeed serious about your intended odyssey and not the troll as many here suspected. Perhaps the reason many have not responded to your posted “documentaries” is that: 1) we doubted your sincerity, 2) Many here have spent multiple Sierra days above 11,000 feet and know firsthand what to expect and where you are in error: IE, the sun can all-too-easily harm your eyes sans glasses, and 3) Realize the high energy expenditure entailed in hiking all day/ energy stores needed. The fact that you proposed two wilderness weeks without food - water only, no sunglasses, and at altitude goes against everything we have learned. While applauding your efforts, I still believe you may be making some wrong, possibly life-threatening decisions, and that hopefully you have a back-up plan in place when things go astray.

circusoflife wrote:Have written about 55 reviews on Amazon about things I've seen, 83% helpful rating - 836/1008 votes or so. But I won't post any of those documentaries, because apparently, nobody here wants to click and even watch a few minutes...too eager to respond as a knee-jerk reaction -- which I wrote / warned about.

Just a thought: While many here strongly disagree with your wilderness nutrition ideas, still many are somewhat intrigued. Name-calling, whining, and derision seem a foolish way to convert anybody to your way of thinking.

circusoflife wrote:Another bonus...less sweet blood (sugar)...no bug bites / bug attraction -- no insect repellent needed.

No bug bites...Really? Statements like this confirm my suspicions that you are somewhat out of your element/comfort zone when discussing this upcoming, high-altitude, Sierra journey. The High Sierra is not Flagstaff. I eagerly await your trip report afterwards but anticipate that by you going sunglass-less, without any bug protection, and without solid nourishment for two weeks Sierra, you will encounter problems you may not be adequately prepared to deal with up there. Your written words today could be writing checks that your body may not be prepared to cash later on.

Best of luck though!

Mark

Since I’m the one that called your post a troll, I think I should be the one to reply. You sound like an interesting and alternative lifestyle kind of person that, to use a Thoreau-ism, “marches to the beat of a different drummer.” I DID read your post prior to the one about the ph level of the water in the lakes in the Sierra, your post about walking barefoot. Well, given the fact that you posted two threads, which are really way out of the norm, I’m kind of surprised that you are a bit miffed at people’s reaction. I would think that a person that thinks in drastically alternative ways would get used to the fact that they are “different,” and that kind of reaction and misunderstanding from others comes with the territory.

I think people here responded the way that they did because they are concerned with your (and others) well being. With so many folks and so many decades of experience represented by them, I think that they (and me included) are quite skeptical of your plans. No on wants to see you get hurt, incapacitated, or have anything happen to the SAR folks that have to go out there to get you. Their job is risky enough. If you chose to follow through with your plans, and are successful, I say more power to you, but you have to ask yourself if the risk you put yourself through is worth it to others who might be dragged into this as well.

I still remain skeptical of your plans, but if you are sincere and you follow through with it, well… When I’m on the trail this summer and I see a guy drinking water out of lakes and walking barefoot, I’ll introduce myself and share some food with you...if you would be so inclined. No hard feeling intended, but I have to call things as I see them. I don’t say things on the internet that I wouldn’t say to a person if they were standing right in front of me.

we're wasting bandwidth here.. If COL does this, good for him.. Given he's mostly naked, I hope he has a pocket to put the coins in to cover his eyes when he dies. I'm not intrigued. You're just being dumb. SAR won't know about him missing. If they do, that kind of defeats his purpose.

troll vs. idiot are two different things..

circusoflife,

You may want to tell someone what you want on you're tombstone before you're "journey"..

i was kind of serious.. lock the thread. Dumb is dumb. waste no effort; he's on a path and he's not gonna change. If he survives, we'll all talk.

Rlown wrote:
lock the thread. Dumb is dumb. waste no effort; he's on a path and he's not gonna change.

We are not about censorship here on HST, all of us can make a decision to listen to what
a member has to say, or you can just choose to ignore it. He is not violating HST rules or
protocol.
Just because his ideas are way outside of the norm, doesn't mean we should belittle or
condemn what his beliefs are, otherwise what would this have to say about HST community.

As I read col the only nutrition one needs is water with the right chemical background? Need for calories is a myth? The only reason people die of malnutrition is bad water?

Why have people been consuming food since Adam and Eve?

So if some young whippersnapper or old demented person reads this thread and decides to follow this regimen and suffers serious consequences this forum bears no responsibility?

For once I agree with Russ. This thread is stupid! Also dangerous to people with soft minds!

Mike

OR wrote:
So if some young whippersnapper or old demented person reads this thread and decides to follow this regimen and suffers serious consequences this forum bears no responsibility?

For once I agree with Russ. This thread is stupid! Also dangerous to people with soft minds!

Nope, same as folks giving out info on routes to others who are totally under qualified
to do such routes, should HST bear the responsibility for such advice if the member get
injured, no.
Recently a respected member gave a person who obviously had not idea what a class 2/3
climb is about, the advice to climb Cathedral Peak, which has a class 4 block at the summit.
When first reading this I made the mistake reading Cathedral Pass, but was bugged by it
and when coming back to re-read it, Balzaccom had already address this.
Which is more dangerous, the OP, which is not giving advice, and flies in the face of
everything most everyone here believes, or a member giving a difficult route to newbie
which could cause injury or his death, should HST be responsible this, not.
This is an open forum, people joining are responsible for what they do with the
information they take from here, we are not selling anything here.
Under HST rules which say "Posting of any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous,
hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may be offensive
or violate any applicable laws will not be tolerated." None of these have been
violated by the OP.