22,000 ft elevation gain (2 c2c's)

[magikwalt]

Wow! With two speed demons (Z & P) input for my HR training and Ellen's advice on fueling there may be hope for us one eyed fat guy type hikers yet. I do enjoy when when the talk turns techy and provides insights into better health on the trail.

Maybe a seperate blog on health stuff??

[Ellen]

Howdy Alan

I got the calorie expenditure information from one of Katch, Katch, and McArdle's books to demonstrate to Z-dude that there is a big difference in calorie expenditure between going uphill and downhill.

I agree that the charts can be misleading. It doesn't matter whether a person jogs a mile slowly or runs quickly, they'll burn the same number of calories.

Calorie expenditure for running is higher than for walking, however, because you're moving your body weight up through space. A 150 lb person who runs 3 miles at 6 mph burns 340 calories. The same person expends about 225 calories if they walk three miles at 3 mph.
http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html

It makes sense that going uphill, the additional calories burned are proportional to altitude gained.

The bottom line is that I can hike Skyline to the tram and enjoy Mexican food and beer afterwards

Miles of smiles,
Ellen

[magikwalt]

That last line in Ellen's post shows me she focused on the right stuff...beer and food.

[AlanK]

Ellen -- I agree with you, especially on the beer and Mexican food!

I meant that some energy expenditure charts are confusing because the meaningful information they contain can be presented much more succinctly. They are still correct.

Running is less energy efficient than walking for the reason you mentioned. From a physicist's perspective, in both cases you raise your center of mass against gravity with each step. You raise it more in running, hence more energy used.

[zippetydude]

Thanks Alan, interesting observations. I appreciate the chance to bounce these ideas off the amazingly sharp people here on this forum.

Otherwise, I'm relegated to my own ruminations... In fact, during my runs, I often do pointless but interesting math problems in my head, speculating on the mathematical aspects of Skyline. Perhaps you can guide my trail-crazed thinking.

For example, rounding off for purposes of simplicity, if Skyline is approximately 8000 feet of vertical displacement, and a hiker weighing 125 lbs climbs Skyline, he exerts the equivalent of lifting his weight (125) 1 foot upward 8000 times. So, if we multiply these two numbers, we get 1,000,000 pounds lifted one foot. Is this making sense?

So, for anyone who weighs at least 125 (and most of us qualify pretty easily there!) we've essentialy used the mountainside as a machine (ramp, not stairmaster,sorry Cynthia!) to lift 1,000,000 pounds one foot high. Right?


If that's right, then on Monday when you get back to work and people ask what you did this weekend...I betcha nobody else standing around the water cooler says, "I lifted a million pounds on Saturday." Boohoohooahhahhahh! (I'm not sure how to spell that, see Dilbert for correct spelling.)

Is this making sense, or am I just sounding like Crazydude. Even worse, what if I AM Crazydude? Scary. Well, there's only one way to find out . . . I'll have to moon the sheriff's helicopter and ask them if they recognize me!

z

[AlanK]

Z -- From Cynthia's description, you have a long way to go to be Crazydude. The only people who need fear you are your co-workers when you tell them you did 1,000,000 ft-lbs of work. Or more, depending on your weight.

Getting back to energy expenditure: I looked up some old notes. My rule of thumb is that a 150 lb person consumes 100 Calories per mile of horizontal running plus 150 Calories per 1000 feet of elevation gain. Going downhill, I just call it less than 100 Calories per mile.

So, in climbing the Whitney Main Trail, the 11 miles would cost 1100 Calories and the 6000 feet would cost 900 more, for a total of 2000. Going down would consume a healthy fraction of 1100 more. From Palm Springs to the summit of San Jacinto would cost something like 1700 + 1600 = 3300 Calories, plus some more back to the Tram.

When I planned our JMT thru hike last summer, I quickly realized that I was going to be running a substantial caloric deficit because I was unwilling to carry more than a bear cannister full of food. My son, who is a lot lighter, carried the same weight as me and probably gained weight on the hike. Which is why, when it was over, I was eating/drinking everything in sight at the Portal while he was content.

[AlanK]

Z -- Here's how to equate your 1,000,000 to my 8 * 150 = 1200 Calories.

1,000,000 ft-lb = 1.36 MJ = 325 Calories. Your body is something like 30% efficient, so you burn 1080 Calories to carry 125 lbs up 8000 ft. Now, 1200 Calories was for a 150 lb person. Scaling down by 125/150 gives 1000 Calories, basically the same number. (The difference is in the 30%, which is a guess.)

[Perry]

I just ordered 10 pounds of maltodextrin from www.morebeer.com which is actually a brew supply in Riverside. It's way cheaper than buying sports drinks that contain maltodextrin, and fructose can be found in bulk health food sections at grocery stores. Salt is cheap, and a little bit of salt substitute (potassium) is also cheap. Citric acid slows absorption and is added to most commercial drinks as part of the flavoring. So altogether, this is my preferred way of doing self-aided climbs and runs. My mix is more salty than Gatorade or any commercial drink.

[magikwalt]

I had been wondering if it was possible to mix your own. Is there a standard recipe you are following or is it every home brewer for himself?

[Ellen]

Howdy Perry

If you provide your sports drink recipe, do you offer a gaurantee that forum members will be able to keep up with you?

I basically like most malt-containing bevereges -- beer and chocolate malts

Miles of smiles,
Ellen