A modest proposal to slightly decrease rescues on Skyline ..

General Palm Springs area.

Postby bobodobo » Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:13 am

I'm not an expert in these things, but one common way of measuring fitness is by measuring the amount of O2 one can consume (not just inhale/exhale) per unit time per unit of body mass. That requires some specialized equipment to determine, so in lieu of that one can estimate O2 consumption by one's caloric consumption, since metabolic output results from combining O2 with "fuel" from the body, i.e. burning calories.

According to Runner's World (http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html) the number of calories you burn above and beyond your base metabolism by running or walking on flat ground is given by

C = K1 x M x W

where

C = number of calories burned
K1 = 0.63 for running, 0.30 for walking
M = number of miles traveled
W = your weight in pounds - presumably this should include any weight carried on your back as well

There's nothing sacred about this formula but it seems to give reasonable numbers based on my use of it for evaluating my own training progress / goals.

Now of course going uphill one burns more calories. Based on just the work done in raising a weight against gravity, the formula would be

C = K2 x H x W

where

K2 = 0.000324
H = elevation gain in feet

But this assumes the body is 100% efficient at converting calories of "fuel" stored in the body into useful work, which obviously isn't true. How efficient is the human body? Most of the sources I checked suggest something in the 15% - 20% range. Let's take something in between, say 16.66% = 1/6. In that case K2 becomes 0.00194 since you burn 6 times more calories than the gain in potential energy by raising yourself and your pack. Let's round up slightly to 0.002 for simplicity, so the formula becomes

C = K3 x H x W

where

K3 = 0.002

Now if one can consider the horizontal and vertical efforts to be additive (not necessarily a good assumption, if someone has a better formula please do give your testimony):

C = ((K1 x M) + (K3 x H)) x W

One could use this formula or some improved version to estimate one's caloric output. As a criterion for when one is fit enough to consider attempting C2C, one could say:

You should train with a C/Wb of x per week for y weeks to be training enough for C2C

or

You should be able to produce C/Wb of z for n hours continuously to be fit enough for C2C.

where Wb is just your body weight, not including any weight you might carry to increase the intensity of your workout (remember W in the above formulas is your body weight plus the weight you're carrying.)

I'll leave it up to you smart folks to decide what x, y, z and n should be, and how to account for the summer heat, C2C trail conditions, etc. :wink:
bobodobo
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:51 pm

Postby zippetydude » Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:32 am

Hi Cynthia. What a gentle title! Who knew?

Anyway, interesting idea, and I think if it were done with quantifiable criteria it could alleviate physicslord's concern that guys view themselves as more competent than they are. It might be hard to get the quantities out of them though, as you noted that the people on this board are fairly modest. I'd be a bit hesitant, and I wouldn't want a fitness number after my name!

bobo's post might be a way around it, but "Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated...?"

The idea might pan out though with a little tinkering. Maybe a disclaimer like they use on Sierra Trading Post about shoe sizes - "Order 1 full size down" or "Order 1/2 size up." Only here it would be something like:

"Multiply by a factor of 10 the pain described and time required in all posts by burlyrail or fern"

or

"Your time may be equivalent to HJ's time if you're carrying an exceedingly cute small child and are equipped with the 10,000 essentials"

or even

"Your own blood loss may be significantly less than that reported by Ellen."

Fun topic. Thanks for the post.

z
User avatar
zippetydude
 
Posts: 2751
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:40 am

Postby Hikin_Jim » Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:46 am

zippetydude wrote:Your time may be equivalent to HJ's time if you're carrying an exceedingly cute small child and are equipped with the 10,000 essentials
Are you suggesting that my pack is a little on the big side?

Image

HJ
Backpacking stove reviews and information:  Adventures In Stoving
Personal hiking blog: Hikin' Jim's Blog
User avatar
Hikin_Jim
 
Posts: 4958
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:12 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Postby bobodobo » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:20 pm

zippetydude wrote:bobo's post might be a way around it, but "Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated...?"

Sorry about that... but just use the formula in boldface if you're willing accept my calculations at face value.

I could create an Excel spreadsheet for download where you just enter your weight, time, distance and elevation gain... I use something like that for my own training. Or someone familiar with java could make a script for this website.

You would think some of the fitness websites would have this all worked out but in my experience ehhh not so much... for example endomondo.com doesn't consider elevation change at all in their calorie calculations.

EDIT: I just noticed that Ze has a nice calculator published here:

http://hikingscience.blogspot.com/p/calculate-calories-burned_22.html

so maybe that's all that's needed. For a typical hike (10 miles, 5000' uphill, 160 pounds body, 20 pounds pack) the numbers came out somewhat similar... 2340 calories by my formula, 2060 for his.

bobo3
bobodobo
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:51 pm

Postby neverwashasbeen » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:44 pm

Will there be a license test and where can I take the review class prior to taking the test? :wink:

I'm pretty sure I'm between a 1 and a 2, but I'm not sure how many decimal places to take it out to. :oops:
Happy Trails!
User avatar
neverwashasbeen
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 6:34 am
Location: Palm Springs

Postby Hikin_Jim » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:03 pm

If I carry my daughter, may I average her fitness with mine? :wink:

HJ
Backpacking stove reviews and information:  Adventures In Stoving
Personal hiking blog: Hikin' Jim's Blog
User avatar
Hikin_Jim
 
Posts: 4958
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:12 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Postby Ellen » Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:02 pm

zippetydude wrote:
"Multiply by a factor of 10 the pain described and time required in all posts by burlyrail or fern"

or

"Your time may be equivalent to HJ's time if you're carrying an exceedingly cute small child and are equipped with the 10,000 essentials"

or even

"Your own blood loss may be significantly less than that reported by Ellen."

Fun topic. Thanks for the post.

z


:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ellen
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:38 am
Location: Riverside, CA

Postby fern » Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:33 pm

Ok after more than 13hrs,I know my Fitness number now..........sorry I was in so much pain finding that number that I forgot what it was! And I'm not going back up to look for it.
fern
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:05 pm
Location: indio

Postby arocknoid » Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:57 pm

Well, I confess to expectations of Juvenal content with that topic title.
Not to mention a flicker of fear of trail snack recommendations.

To veer back on track, observers of my own pace would find it neither Swift nor Tertullian.

(though i have been called the EnerGeezer Tortoise.)
User avatar
arocknoid
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:36 pm

Postby Florian » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:10 pm

Has anyone that's ever died on the Skyline been a member of this forum?

-Florian
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 4:49 pm
Location: Palm Springs

PreviousNext

Return to Mt. San Jacinto & Santa Rosa Mountains

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 5 guests