How Many Calories did that Hike Burn Off?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Tom Rankin

Tom Rankin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,835
Reaction score
760
Location
Bloomville, New York
Ever wanted to know?

I just read an article in ADK's July-August 2011 Magazine that details calorie consumption while hiking. I'm not sure if it's online, but here are the facts and figures (give or take 10%):

  • 270 calories per mile on flat terrain
  • 260 calories per 1,000' of elevation gain
Subject to being:

  • 45 years old (add/subtract .4% per year under/over)
  • 150 pounds (scale up/down to your weight)
  • 70 inches tall (add/subtract 1% for every inch over/under)
  • And the bad news for women: Multiply the result by .85
If you want a .xls Spread Sheet for all that, try this:

http://viewsandbrews.com/TFR/calories.xls

I think it works as an .xls file, but I use Open Office, so I'm not totally sure. If a geek or two wants to confirm that, I'd appreciate it. :D
 
Tom Rankin said:
Ever wanted to know?

I just read an article in ADK's July-August 2011 Magazine that details calorie consumption while hiking. I'm not sure if it's online, but here are the facts and figures (give or take 10%):

  • 270 calories per mile on flat terrain
  • 260 calories per 1,000' of elevation gain
Subject to being:

  • 45 years old (add/subtract .4% per year under/over)
  • 150 pounds (scale up/down to your weight)
  • 70 inches tall (add/subtract 1% for every inch over/under)
  • And the bad news for women: Multiply the result by .85
If you want a .xls Spread Sheet for all that, try this:

http://viewsandbrews.com/TFR/calories.xls

I think it works as an .xls file, but I use Open Office, so I'm not totally sure. If a geek or two wants to confirm that, I'd appreciate it. :D
Click to expand...

I tried in excel but it doesn't seem to be an xls file. I haven't read the article but does that formula seem off to anyone else (maybe by a factor of 2-3?) I mean just punching in a simple hike of the hancocks I'm getting a 3800 calorie workout (adjusting for my age/weight/height I get 310 cal/mile and 297 cal per 1k elevation)??

For comparison this article http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html suggests for running we burn around (0.75 x body weight) cal/mile so I'd have to run 28 miles on flat terrain to burn the same number of calories. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the formula?
 
I can confirm, does not work in excel. The fields and values show up but the formulas do not.

Maybe the discrepancy between the data is because one may include the "resting" calories burned and the other is focusing on the calories burned due to running alone (and the resting calories would be the constant). I mean if the latter data was the case then how would anyone ever get to their 2000-2500 calorie RDV without running a marathon daily?
 
FoTH 3rd ed (1974) has an appendix entitled "Food Requirements for Climbers". http://plumasmuseum.org/shop/cart.php?target=product&product_id=441&category_id=66

Couldn't find the text online**, so here is a summary:

* The efficiency of work above the basal metabolism is between 20% and 40%--the table below assumes 30%.
* All numbers are approximate.

* Basal metabolism: 1100 cal/day/100lbs_body_wt

Table 11. Energy Rate Over and Above Basal Metabolism (FoTH, p443)
* Ascent: 110 cal/1000 vertical feet/100lbs_total_wt
* Walking 2 mph (smooth level pavement): 45 cal/hr/100lbs_tot_wt
* Walking 3 mph (smooth level pavement): 90 cal/hr/100lbs_tot_wt
* Walking 4 mph (smooth level pavement): 160 cal/hr/100lbs_tot_wt
* Eating: 20 cal/hr/100lbs_body_wt
* Sitting quietly: 20 cal/hr/100lbs_body_wt
* Driving a car: 40 cal/hr/100lbs_body_wt
* Sawing wood: 260 cal/hr/100lbs_body_wt
* Swimming 2 mph: 360 cal/hr/100lbs_body_wt
* Rowing in a race: 730 cal/hr/100lbs_body_wt
* Shivering: up to 220 cal/hr/100lbs_body_wt
tot_wt=total (body+clothing+pack) weight
(Source: Carpenter, T. M., Tables, Factors, and Formulas for Computing Respiratory Exchange and Biological Transformations of Energy. Carnegie Institute, Washington, C.C. 1939.)

Note: rough trail requires more energy than smooth pavement.

And there is a final factor: 6-10% of the calorie content of food is released as heat (Specific Dynamic Action=SDA) and not available for work. Thus add 6-10% to the total of the above.

Example:
170 lb day hiker carrying 30 lbs up Mt Washington (4 mi, 4000 vert ft):
1870 cal: basal
51 cal: eating 1.5 hr
204 cal: driving 3 hr to trailhead
880 cal: 4K vert ft ascent
180 cal: walking 2mph for 2 hr, ascent
34 cal: loiter on summit for 1 hr with pack off
180 cal: walking 2mph for 2 hr, descent
204 cal: driving 3 hr back home
-------------------------
3606 cal subtotal
288 cal SDA
-------------------------
3394 cal total

2 hrs up and 2 hrs down seems a bit fast to me, but the table doesn't go below 2mph. I have read that running and walking are about 67 cal/mi/100lbs regardless of speed which could be used to predict walking energy requirements (2mph = 134cal/hr/100lbs, 3mph = 200 cal/hr/100lbs, 4mph = 268 cal/hr/100lbs) (This is in approximate agreement with Bombadil's quote from Runner's World.) These numbers are clearly higher than those in the table.

Becca M said:
unfair!!!!! doesn't our lower muscle mass mean the muscle mass we *do* have should be working that much harder?????
Click to expand...
The above FoTH quote doesn't mention the sex of the hiker. However, on the average women tend to be lighter than men so their average total requirements would be less.

Doug


** I didn't find the text, but I did find a nice online copy of Routes and Rocks; Hiker's Guide to the North Cascades from Glacier Peak to Lake Chelan, by the Mountaineers, 1966. http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/pdf/routes_rocks_nomaps.pdf
 
Last edited:
Consulting a GPS: 1.2 calories
Consulting a map and compass: 2.7 calories (energy required to turn dial).
Giving DougPaul a green square: 0.1 calorie per 100lb body wt. at sea level under 1 atmosphere pressure, no wind.
 
There are three kinds of people...those who are good at math, and those who aren't.

I count how many pieces of pizza I eat on the drive home...I figure that's about what I burned on the hike.
 
IndianChris said:
...and don't forget the temperature. More calories burned in summer than in winter probably.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, you burn more calories in winter than summer, all else being equal simply due to your body needing to burn more calories to maintain core temperature. This not does take into account added weight of pack or more difficult trail conditions (which is not always true...e.g. descents in winter can be easier.)

When people I know have tried to lose weight, I've often suggested (somewhat jokingly) that they turn their heat down to 50 degrees. Theoretically, you should burn more calories without changing your diet.
 
Raven said:
If I'm not mistaken, you burn more calories in winter than summer, all else being equal simply due to your body needing to burn more calories to maintain core temperature. This not does take into account added weight of pack or more difficult trail conditions (which is not always true...e.g. descents in winter can be easier.)
Click to expand...
This may be one of those "it depends" issues. If one compars heat losses when standing around with the same amount of insulation, of course it will take more energy to stay warm in winter. However, if you are moving and have excess heat to dissipate it might not matter. (Don't know--just speculating.)

We also adjust the amount of insulation to that required to be comfortable over a wide range of temps which would tend to reduce the metabolic change as a function of temperature.

There was a comment on a recent TV program to the effect that people living and working in the Antarctic require a higher intake (4000-5000? cal) because of the cold. This would suggest that we use both strategies--increased metabolism and increased insulation.

Doug
 
All things being equal, everything is variable. Even you. From day to day, week to week, and on and on. You cannot figure it out with any degree of accuracy. The best you can do is get somewhere in the neighborhood. You'll probably spend more energy trying to figure it out. That when Kohn's Law sets in. It states that the more time you spend trying to analyze what you are doing, the less time you have to actually do it. Stability is achieved when you spend all of your time analyzing the nothing you are doing.

JohnL
 
Never count calories hiking ... only fair, I don't count what I eat before, during and after either. I know the score would favor intake over expenditure.:eek:
 
Tom
Is weight your weight or your weight plus pack weight?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top