Calorie Burn on a 14er

[SpringsHiker]

I burn 500-1000 kcal/hr, depending on pace, etc. (This is according to my Polar HRM). It seems to be fairly accurate, since I've been tracking calories in/out for about 10 years now... so over the years I've been able to ascertain that it's pretty accurate based on long term trends of calories consumed vs long term weight loss/gain trends.

4000-5000 calories for Longs is totally reasonable for somebody my size (210lbs) moving at a good clip. I burned 7200 on a winter ascent of Longs a couple years ago and 22,643 in last year's Leadville 100. Most 50km trail runs are in the 5500-7500 calorie range, and 50 milers are in the 11,000-15,000 range. Longs takes about as long as a typical 50km, so that seems reasonable that it would be 6000 +/-1000.

Another interesting tidbit is that most people working at a running pace can only take in about 200-300 cal/hr...so, as you can see, some deficits are going to develop over a long day.

Chris, I agree with your estimates based on the context you provided. That's the key--a hike does not burn "X" number of calories and it depends on more than body weight; the real key is effort/energy expended.

A key thing about calorie burn is that it really is a measure of energy required for any activity and it not only varies among people but even the same person on different days. Even body temperature is a factor in burning calories. Metabolism, sustained pace, heart rate, etc. are all factors that will determine calorie burn. This is why most heart rate monitors don't do a good job of measuring calorie burn for mountain hikes, especially as grade, altitude and effort increase; there is no way for the device to really measure this. Notice I said effort as opposed to pace.

One easy way to compare calorie expenditure is to do it for very common activities that share baseline reference points such as running or cycling on flat road or swimming. For running many runners use a common burn of 100 calories per mile, which is about right for a relatively low effort. If you run but can talk, not sweat very much, and could continue reasonably well after you stop, your calorie burn is low because it does not contain a lot of effort. If you run hard, your heart rate is high, and your effort is high, then you might burn double that amount. That's a 100% swing for a similar activity. Then when someone says, "I did "X" hike, how many calories was that?" there's about a dozen questions that need to be answered to make a reasonable estimate.

I have hiked hard enough on a winter 14er ascent that I lost 5 pounds during the hike. I could not eat nearly enough. I believe some of the very strenuous hikes for people with higher metabolism can burn 8,000 to 10,000 calories, but this is not true for a leisurely hike up Quandry in the summer.

[TheMooseKnuckle]

Like everyone has said it's a personal thing nobody is the same. The only real way to tell is to watch your waist size and count calories.

Let's take me for example I'm 6' 180lb's and I know my body fat is some where between 10% - 15%. If I eat let's say 2,000 calories every day for 2 weeks and hit the gym and my waist line starts to drop I'm burning more calories than I consume. If I eat 4,000 calories every day for 2 weeks and my waist line begins to rise then I'm consuming more calories than I can burn. Doing this I have determined when working out at the gym I burn roughly 3,400-3,500 calories in that day. It's not perfect seeing as you will burn more calories on a MT. than you will in the gym but this will give you a great base line to start with!

This is how profesinal bodybuilders, MMA fighters and wrestlers fine tune their diets to their body's. It's extremely effective but takes alot of dedication to track every calorie you eat. It can actually narrow it down to around 100 calories of what is ideal for your body!!!

Just remember the more muscle mass you have the higher your matabolism will be and the more calories your resting matabolism will burn! Hence a fairly lean 250lb man need's close to 2,700 calories a day to maintain his current weight while a 110lb woman is closer to 1,500 calories if both are at a resting matabolism.

[oldschool]

Some things to consider in the equation also.......I have run many trail ultra-marathons, races in excess of 26 miles, at altitude, and over rough terrain, and have found that in such races I expended approx. 1000 calories / hr during those races. A 50k race would put me in the 10,000 calorie day range! Lots of energy used. Here is the interesting part. Glycogen is the fuel our muscles need to burn, not "carbohydrates" or "sugars", "fats" or "proteins". Although they are all energy sources, our liver must transform these into glycogen. The liver is only able to produce approx. 250 calories worth of glycogen per hour. The issues here? It makes no sense to consume more than 250 calories per hour while doing a physical activity due to the fact that the body (liver) will only make 250 calories of that "food" available to your muscles. That is why most "energy" bars are about 250 calories each. Not to be a diet food, but so as to not tax your body and stomach and digestive system with more than the body can effectively use per hr. It makes no sense to consume lets say 500 calorie per hour when only 250 will get to your thighs for power. The extra food in your stomach takes energy away from your muscles you are using, draws water to your digestive track to digest, and loads your system with calories the liver can't make into glycogen. I am always in a "calorie deficit" situation when I hike/run/climb/ mtn bike. Just the way it is. The weight loss is almost alway water, which is quickly regained.

[YEONDERIN]

Here is the interesting part. Glycogen is the fuel our muscles need to burn, not "carbohydrates" or "sugars", "fats" or "proteins". Although they are all energy sources, our liver must transform these into glycogen. The liver is only able to produce approx. 250 calories worth of glycogen per hour. The issues here? It makes no sense to consume more than 250 calories per hour while doing a physical activity due to the fact that the body (liver) will only make 250 calories of that "food" available to your muscles.

Thanks for the oldschool education. That makes it clear now and explains why consuming 5000 calories a day will not make up for burning 5000/day. We can easily burn that many in an 8-10 hour hike but it takes 20 hours for our liver to convert that many calories to glycogen and actually benefit from it.

[smoove]

My friend on Longs Saturday wore a HRM that put him on the order of 5000. I was wearing a garmin forerunner that put me around 1400. His number is a bit on the high end, but mine is far too low. I ended up going with ~3500 for the day. I had a lot of time to think about things on the tenmile traverse last weekend and came up with 100kcal/mile + 300kcal/1000' as being reasonably close.

My brother has a Garmin Forerunner that also comes out way low on calories. I looked this issue up on the Interweb and apprarently the Forerunner calculates your calories burned from your speed. Obviously not very accurate at all when you're hiking (walking). Like others have said, it depends a lot on your mass and your level of exertion. I used to wear a Polar HRM and I'd say it usually had me burning 700-800/hour on an average ascent (I weigh 205). But if I pushed it, that number could easily reach 1000+/hr. I now use a Suunto HRM and it says I'm burning 10-15% fewer calories on any given exercise than the Polar did.

[TheMooseKnuckle]

I burn 500-1000 kcal/hr, depending on pace, etc. (This is according to my Polar HRM). It seems to be fairly accurate, since I've been tracking calories in/out for about 10 years now... so over the years I've been able to ascertain that it's pretty accurate based on long term trends of calories consumed vs long term weight loss/gain trends.

4000-5000 calories for Longs is totally reasonable for somebody my size (210lbs) moving at a good clip. I burned 7200 on a winter ascent of Longs a couple years ago and 22,643 in last year's Leadville 100. Most 50km trail runs are in the 5500-7500 calorie range, and 50 milers are in the 11,000-15,000 range. Longs takes about as long as a typical 50km, so that seems reasonable that it would be 6000 +/-1000.

Another interesting tidbit is that most people working at a running pace can only take in about 200-300 cal/hr...so, as you can see, some deficits are going to develop over a long day.

Chris, I agree with your estimates based on the context you provided. That's the key--a hike does not burn "X" number of calories and it depends on more than body weight; the real key is effort/energy expended.

A key thing about calorie burn is that it really is a measure of energy required for any activity and it not only varies among people but even the same person on different days. Even body temperature is a factor in burning calories. Metabolism, sustained pace, heart rate, etc. are all factors that will determine calorie burn. This is why most heart rate monitors don't do a good job of measuring calorie burn for mountain hikes, especially as grade, altitude and effort increase; there is no way for the device to really measure this. Notice I said effort as opposed to pace.

One easy way to compare calorie expenditure is to do it for very common activities that share baseline reference points such as running or cycling on flat road or swimming. For running many runners use a common burn of 100 calories per mile, which is about right for a relatively low effort. If you run but can talk, not sweat very much, and could continue reasonably well after you stop, your calorie burn is low because it does not contain a lot of effort. If you run hard, your heart rate is high, and your effort is high, then you might burn double that amount. That's a 100% swing for a similar activity. Then when someone says, "I did "X" hike, how many calories was that?" there's about a dozen questions that need to be answered to make a reasonable estimate.

I have hiked hard enough on a winter 14er ascent that I lost 5 pounds during the hike. I could not eat nearly enough. I believe some of the very strenuous hikes for people with higher metabolism can burn 8,000 to 10,000 calories, but this is not true for a leisurely hike up Quandry in the summer.

There are approximatly 3,500 calories in 1 pound of fat. So assuming you lost 5lb's of fat and not water weight, you would have burned about 17,500 calories that day.

[CG_old]

....

bwhahaha... I just like your avatar name!

[TheMooseKnuckle]

....

bwhahaha... I just like your avatar name!

Thank you sir...

I would change my signiture to... "Below the buckle hides the knuckle", but I'm fairly sure I would get banned if I did that =)

[centrifuge]

Like everyone has said it's a personal thing nobody is the same. The only real way to tell is to watch your waist size and count calories...

...It's extremely effective but takes alot of dedication to track every calorie you eat. It can actually narrow it down to around 100 calories of what is ideal for your body!!!

I actually do count all of my calories (or do my best to) in order to make sure I am eating enough calories and protein every day since I have a whole bunch of strange food allergies (pork for example). When I don't, and I am training hard I find myself loosing weight I dont want to loose, and my energy levels plummet. It is really difficult to do, and does require a ton of effort, but has definitly given me a really good idea of how my body burns and processes food. I use a free app on my iphone called 'lose it'. Its obviously intended for weight loss, but I set it to 'maintain weight' and it has done a remarkable job with estimating exercise calories and even has differentiations for 'hiking' like mountaineering, backpacking and general hiking. Obviously, for items like those there is a tremendous amount of variability, but I figure its a good baseline. As far as running, its estimations are almost always spot on with the estimations on my Nike + and when I am on the treadmill, its guestimations.

[oldschool]

Counting calories for some is the answer..the body is an amazing machine. The equation is simple.....if we consume more than we burn, we gain weight. If we consume less than we burn, we lose weight. It is not a "more is better" issue. Your HR has to be in the aerobic levels to burn fat. If workouts are in ther anerobic HR levels, weight will actually be gained, even though the perosn is "working out hard". The right types of foods, eaten in moderation, and plenty of hydration, serve me well. Of all the combinations, being super well hydrated has made the biggest difference in my energy levels and ability to maintain high levels of energy. I know lots pof people that count calories and don't lose weight...why would that be?

[SpringsHiker]

by TheMooseKnuckle » Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:10 pm

There are approximatly 3,500 calories in 1 pound of fat. So assuming you lost 5lb's of fat and not water weight, you would have burned about 17,500 calories that day.

I am quite sure I did not burn 17K in calories that day and a good portion had to be water and such. The point is that for very strenuous activity the calorie burn does become significant but you have to be careful to correctly assess the effort. I have had only a few such days in my experience and they are truly draining.

I like the avatar name too!

[Bean]

3500kcal in a pound of fat but only about 600 in a pound of muscle (once water is accounted for). Long, grueling days can shred muscle if you don't have proper nutrition.