How much food would Lindgren have eaten in his 360 mile week?

i know you probably posted in jest, but ...

on a backpacking trip this summer i walked 210-280 miles a week for 2 months. i didn't lose weight. i wasn't eating anything near the amount of calories i was "supposed" to eat -- with a pack on, maybe 125-150 cal/mile. not only would it totally have sucked to carry that much food, but i just couldn't eat that much, anyhow. and when i got into towns to fix the deficit, again there was no way of catching up. i'd eat a normal size meal and have a full stomach. soda worked for some extra calories, but ...

i had some 3-4 day periods where i pushed distance due to bad info on a re-supply point -- like, hiking 130 miles in 3 days with maybe "20 miles" of food (plus berries and wild apples, mountain sorrel for taste) -- and i wonder if there's some kind of adaptation where the body becomes better at absorbing what it gets once it experiences a period of "not getting."

if you want to be serious about this, i think there's more work to be done -- or at least med & exphys lit reviewing to be done -- regarding exercise and caloric expenditure. i didn't start with much fat, and even though my weight stayed the same, i had a movement of muscle from my upper body down to my lower body. still ...

if anyone really knows about this kind of thing (like masters, phd, post-doc work), then i'd be interested in hearing it.

hiking is not 125-150 cal/mile, probably more like 80-90.

I think there is a change the body undergoes when it doesn't get enough food-I've ran back to back to back 15+ mile days off of little food and they body seems to utilize its fuel better after. This can be good or bad-you need less food afterwards but if you eay a lot you will put on weight more easily.

Well, the running alone would burn over 6000 calories, and it would also significicantly elevate his metabolism for the day, so I would venture he would need over 10,000 calories for the day.

i had always assumed about 90-100 calories per mile, walking over easy terrain, at my weight. add the backpack, add not so easy terrain ...

after just now looking through several websites to get a better picture ... it's still not so clear. the range is 77-233 calories/mile ("walking" to "hiking" to "backpacking")

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

- "walking" 20 min/mile

- 77 calories - 87 calories (155lbs w/o, 175lbs w/ pack)

http://www.caloriecontrol.org/exercalc.html

- gives about 150 kcal/20 min (at 20min/mile) hiking.

- 150 calories

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist2.htm

- shows 450 kcal/60min (at 20min/mile) hiking

- 150 calories

http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi

- 20 min "backpacking" at 155 lbs (assuming 20min/mi)

- 164 calories

http://www.nutribase.com/exercala.htm

- gives about 700 kcal/hr

- 233 calories (which seems quite excessive)

maybe skurka knows.

probably as much as during his sub 2h marathon, who knows how much he really ran.

There is a post from the Portland Cement Prick on its way in 3,2,1....

and if he really ran 360 per week (I don't believe that but he probably ran 180 or so at one point), think about the time it would take.

At 6 minutes per mile it would take him 1 hr to run 10 miles. So even at 6 minute per mile pace it would take him 36 hours or running. Even if he was on a break from school spending 36-50 hours on running would be quite the time commitment.

Interesting post on the number of calories that would take. Good way to look at it.

Had a college team-mate who ran 200+ (I'm recollecting 220 on some weeks) ... for several consecutive weeks + big mileage before and after. so its doable. this was shortly after the Lindgren era but that was certainly an influence. What Lindgren did has been compromised by what he has said regarding other things. Regardless, Lindgren was way ahead of his time - however he achieved the things that he did.

I do remember the introduction of water stops and many not taking. Can't remember if 'food items' were added or combined with water - they were later.

Wow, Okayz, that sounds awesome.

What hike did you do?

A couple of friends and I have talked about doing the PCT (Pacific Crest Trail).

Weird that you didn't lose much weight, I'd have though you would've lost a crapload from lack of fatty foods and all that mileage.

Lantermanc wrote:

Wow, Okayz, that sounds awesome.

What hike did you do?

A couple of friends and I have talked about doing the PCT (Pacific Crest Trail).

Weird that you didn't lose much weight, I'd have though you would've lost a crapload from lack of fatty foods and all that mileage.

i don't want to hijack this thread. so i'll be quick.

i hiked the a.t. for the second time, actually. this time going southbound. i've eaten a vegan diet for the last 10 years, but had to go vegetarian at times on this second trip. i walked the whole thing (no hitches into town, etc.), so i stopped at more gas stations than supermarkets (to keep the off-trail mileage down), and i preferred a little milk in my food to a lot of trans-fats. most vegan options were super transfatty.

mrs. freshleys made some sweet 300+ calorie vegan honeybuns; 2 for a dollar. other than that it was quick oats, rice, and mashed potatoes. with some oil and salt.

the only reason i brought in personal info in the first place is because i'm a little bit baffled by it. my first hike i started at 135lbs (6' ... right out of college. no muscle. little fat). ... and finished at 145lbs. so i gained 10 pounds. this second trip i started at 155 lbs (more muscle, biking/running/hiking shape, even less fat). finished at the same weight. as i said before.

i helped a friend to lose weight once. my advice was basically being more healthy in his diet. -then- watching calories. and walking 2 hours or more a day. with weight at times if he wanted. we walked because it was least likely to cause injury, and because that's what he liked -- he had a treadmill and netflix, which made it a kind of joy to him. he lost 45 pounds in 3 months.

these two personal anecdotes -- mine and his -- seem mildly contradictory. excepting the fact that he had fat to lose whereas i had muscle. it's been in the back of my mind -- wondering how to reconcile it -- and since the OP brought up lindgren, i thought i'd chime in.