Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 281 posts

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#211

Post by germinalphrase »

arca_vorago wrote: post #184
jon_richards wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best foods for backpacking are actually peanut butter, salami (depending on the brand), cheese, and nutella. They all have roughly the same calorie density at about 70% fat. Toblerone actually comes surprisingly close (even compared to other chocolates/candies). Raman noodles or tortillas or something like that are generally used as a carrier for those foods to keep you sane, but they aren't very good from a weig…

Take it from me, pemmican is the best thing ever, and if you are a hiker, Hunter, or general outdoorsperson, you owe it to yourself to try a few different recipes. (Wrap it extra good in bear country though!) Fun tidbit of the day: in the Marine Corps our long full pack hikes (~90lbs) were called "humps". In the old days they were death marches.

What changed about the humps? I've heard that boots are dramatically better, but you're still hauling 90 lbs...

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#212

Post by Dowwie »

busterarm wrote: post #204
Dowwie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big state, but I assume NYC?

Yeah, city.

Here are two recommendations for places within proximity to you:

The Palisades Interstate Park is just across the GW Bridge in New Jersey. It has hiking trails all throughout the park but I would recommend the northern section and the "giant steps" trail leading to the "peanut cascade".

New York's Hudson Highlands is just across the Hudson River from Bear Mountain. There's a nice scramble trail at Breakneck Ridge.

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#213

Post by kbutler »

BadassFractal wrote: post #133
zoul wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walking a few weeks in the nature is precisely the point.

Humanity will have to figure something out here. Our bodies are evolved for hunting / gathering, yet over a few thousand years we've evolved to sitting in an office chair all day. Until our bodies have adapted to what, we need to come up with a way to simulate the environment we are actually optimized for.

Treadmill. VR headset or at least a wall-projector. Nature soundtrack. Variable speed fan with heating, cooling, and automatic scent generator.

...And moving the soda machine 20 miles away.

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#214

Post by ryanmarsh »

gaius wrote: post #186
deepGem wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, how did you survive on 5 hours of sleep ? I rode my bike for 200 km in 11 hours and post that, slept like a log for 9 hours. I mean, I was knocked out. Couldn't open my eyes despite alarms.

The US Army's Ranger School is 8 weeks on 2 hours of sleep a night, apart from one night you are allowed 5 hours because there's a parachute jump the next day...

Don't forget the malnutrition and that it takes a year to recover from.

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#215

Post by frenchy »

chrisseaton wrote: post #203
gaius wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we don't use the word 'hiking' Yes we do.

I don't have many sources but I believe the word 'hiking' is a relatively recent American import. The OED lists a lot of American historical examples, but only relatively recent ones in the UK I would just call it walking, or tabbing if it's at an aggressive pace. Old people seem to call it rambling, but that makes it sound a bit lazy I think.

While it probably became popularized in North America, it seems to actually be of British origin: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hiking

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#216

Post by Declanomous »

SwellJoe wrote: post #152
dmtroyer wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed but don't waste your time with the film

I'll be the lone dissenting voice with regard to the film. I liked it. It wasn't nearly as funny as the book; it was barely funny, at all, in fact. But, it still contained some of the gentle charm of the book. At the end of it, I said to my girlfriend, "I guess I just really like movies about hiking, even when they're kinda boring." (I also really liked Wild , and liked that book, too...in that case, I think the film…

I watched the film with my parents, mostly because they like Robert Redford. I had no expectations going in to the film, and I have never read the book. My view of the film is pretty similar to yours.

Most of the people I know who have problems with the movie are really in to hiking, and really liked the book. A fair number haven't watched the movie. I think if you just watch it without any expectations, it's a solid bit of entertainment about being outdoors. It's not the best movie, but it's a good movie to watch with someone.

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#217

Post by chrisseaton »

frenchy wrote: post #215
chrisseaton wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have many sources but I believe the word 'hiking' is a relatively recent American import. The OED lists a lot of American historical examples, but only relatively recent ones in the UK I would just call it walking, or tabbing if it's at an aggressive pace. Old people seem to call it rambling, but that makes it sound a bit lazy I think.

While it probably became popularized in North America, it seems to actually be of British origin: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hiking

> Compound noun of hill walking, British origination, c. 1920s

OED, which I'd trust more than Wiktionary, says 'colloq. orig. dial. and U.S.' and gives US examples prior to the 20s.

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#218

Post by frenchy »

wyclif wrote: post #157
BarkMore wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you carry your gear for a thousands of miles, you reevaluate what you really need. A stove is not needed because food can be consumed raw. A full tent is not needed because a basic tarp and careful site selection are enough to keep a person dry while sleeping. Toilet paper is not needed because smooth rocks, leaves and other material found on the trail can be used to wipe.

The reason some experienced hikers (not talking about noobs here) carry small stoves on the AT and other trails is not because they haven't evaluated what they need. It's because "what you need" is about tradeoffs. Sure, you can consume raw food for the entirety of your hike, and some experienced hikers do this, but food aversion is a real thing. Avoiding it is worth the weight for some hikers.

You generally get more calories from cooked foods too. I suspect the raw food thing has more too do with being cheep/lazy/hard-core.

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#219

Post by overcast »

sandeatr wrote: post #187
bootload wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 8 hours a day, averaging 18 miles per day for 486 miles over 29 days is not that much." Have you done this?

I'm a thru-hiker. I'm done PCT/CDT & others. 8 hrs & 18 miles/day is pretty slow and short day. This is a novice thru hiker pace, but I doubt they were trying to set any records--

Average walking speed is 3 miles per hour. You're averaging that or greater, through trails / mountains, for 8 hours straight?

Re: What Happens to Your Body on a Thru-Hike

#220

Post by rsync »

ceocoder wrote: post #138
jon_richards wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best foods for backpacking are actually peanut butter, salami (depending on the brand), cheese, and nutella. They all have roughly the same calorie density at about 70% fat. Toblerone actually comes surprisingly close (even compared to other chocolates/candies). Raman noodles or tortillas or something like that are generally used as a carrier for those foods to keep you sane, but they aren't very good from a weig…

> Some people actually just drink cooking oil, but it's rarely worth the tiny bit of extra weight efficiency. Is this really a thing? I've read quite a bit about thruhikers and have never encountered this. If you have any more details, mind sharing?

"Is this really a thing? I've read quite a bit about thruhikers and have never encountered this. If you have any more details, mind sharing?"

Yes, but I have always heard of sticks of butter being used for this purpose - not cooking oil.

Post reply on HN