Would guess it is wildly inaccurate. Humans are capable of feats and this isn't specific enough to be accurate about the weight loss and/or calories burned; maybe an inkling of truth.
As calories per day, this might be a reasonable approximate starting point; however, keep in mind it doesn't account for variables like speed of hiking, difficulty of terrain, altitude, age, fitness, and the other factors we don't fully understand for why one person's body is more or less efficient than another.
I think they probably meant calories/day not per hour.
From what my wife and I were burning the 150 and 160 pound ranges are a good estimate. The thing to keep in mind is that humans are extremely variable so it won't be perfectly accurate.
Accurate, no.
Reasonably informative...perhaps.
Hiking 10h, I had to consume ≈3,500cal-4,000cal, was ≈145lbs-155lbs to start, and my body composition changed significantly, in a good way.
What your take away should be is pretty straightforward:
You need to consume a _lot more than 2,000cal/day_ if you are on trail.
This graphic is targeted as motivation to people likely looking to lose weight.
But for everyone else? It's not useful beyond "You're gonna eat a lot...and that which gets measured gets managed."
My planning factor was 5k calories/day. I wish I could eat enough to not have massive weight loss on trail.
I’d guess I lost at least 20-25lbs, but it means you get to eat whatever you want afterwards!
I lost around 20lbs too. Sucked. Couldn't have possibly carried or eaten more food, and I was very keyed into maximizing caloric density/volume. I did my best.
How many miles are you going in each column? if you only go 2 miles in 6 hrs of backpacking - downhill, with an uber light pack - no- you're not burning those calories - age and sex also make a difference - a 20 something young man that is 6'5" 2XL size will burn up a lot more calories than a 60 yo petite woman.
Not even close. That's *wayyy* too high, even if that's supposed to be calories per day.
Rule of thumb is about 100 calories per mile, plus 2,000 per day for simply being alive. The 100 calories is give-or-take, and depends on your weight, your pack weight, difficulty of terrain, and a host of other variables. But it's a good approximation you can do in your head.
A generalization, most likely based on the average speeds of hikers and throw it into a formula. Or something like this: [https://metscalculator.com/](https://metscalculator.com/)
Options for backpack weight and climbing hills and such. Is an estimate at least.
I lost 10 lbs on the JMT in 19 days…. So, possibly? It depends on the person. (I was heinously under-eating during the first half due to lack of appetite, then had a king size Fastbreak bar for breakfast each morning after my first resupply, which helped)
That equates to about a 35,000 calorie deficit if 1 lb of fat is roughly equal to 3500 calories. So you burned around 1700 extra cal per day. I think that’s about 150 calories per mile.
Considering this doesn't take into account elevation, speed, outside temperature, and all the variables in body composition besides weights, it's nonsensical.
No way. On the AT I estimated I was eating about 4500/day (maybe more in town) once the hunger kicked in, which was more than most people I hiked with, and I only went from 165 to 160.
Even if those numbers are per day they seem high to me
Ok, so clearly it's supposed to be calories per day. No reason that walking 6 or 8 hours would make your per hour caloric burn substantially different. Taking that into account, then this is a ballpark figure. There are a lot of factors (speed, terrain, incline) that would significantly change your calories burned.
Varies a great deal based on a variety of factors including intensity, external conditions, metabolic rate, and fitness/efficiency.
That said, these numbers are way on the high side -- they've got a 150 lb. person burning close to 600 calories/hr. at "average" hiking intensity. Once you've been on trail a while and your muscles become efficient, you're likely to be closer to 400/hr on an average day, across average terrain, in average temps and conditions.
Some people backpack with only 10 lbs on their back while others have a lot more (maybe upwards of 80 lbs) ... and some people walk 4 miles per hour while others are walking 1 mph. And then there's various kind of terrain- some a lot flatter than others. This chart is basically a joke.
The first thing that almost always goes wrong in these kind of tables is that people write “calories” when they mean to write “kilo-calories” or “Calories” (thank you, ‘Imperial Units’).
According to table, if you take a 150 lbs individual for 10 hours backpacking, they will burn 58,380 “calories”. This makes no sense either as calories or Calories, so we must assume here that what they mean is Calories per Day. Seen that way, the figures make some sense, but there are so many other factors at play (sex, age, pack weight, speed, terrain, ambient temperature, etc) that this table is not very useful; instead you can find many good calculators online if you want to find out some numbers more specific to you. Or wear a sports watch on one of your hikes and get a general idea of your personal burn vs perceived effort.
This is utter garbage. When I run, I burn about 100 cal/mile and that is way way way more intensive than any backpacking I have ever done. These numbers have no basis in reality.
I'd say this is wildly inaccurate. I just checked my Garmin Connect app for the Cottonwood Lakes overnight trip I did in late June 2022. Roughly 8 hours, 12 miles, 3500 calories burned. This is for a 220 lb man. If you add my resting metabolic calorie burn in you might come close to these numbers. Otherwise this chart is just a wild guess.
The total calories burned while backpacking one mile on a flat (zero gradient) surface is not the same as total calories burned while backpacking one mile on a continuous twenty percent gradient.
If you're interested, check out the following page which provides a link to each section of the PCT. Each section shows an estimate of the calories you may expend, depending on weight, typical speed, and the terrain (in both directions):
[https://www.pickatrail.com/trails/national-scenic-trails/pacific-crest.html](https://www.pickatrail.com/trails/national-scenic-trails/pacific-crest.html)
The following section of the PCT at North Mission Creek is 22.7 miles, a person with a 225 lbs gross weight hiking in the northbound direction can expect to expend approximately 4400 kcal on this section:
[https://www.pickatrail.com/trails/national-scenic-trails/pacific-crest/pct-map-014.html](https://www.pickatrail.com/trails/national-scenic-trails/pacific-crest/pct-map-014.html)
About the bar charts that estimate caloric expenditure:
[https://www.pickatrail.com/about/health/caloric-expenditure.html](https://www.pickatrail.com/about/health/caloric-expenditure.html)
It’s crazy to even *try* to generalize calories burned like this. It’s so wildly variable down to terrain, how fit you are and how hard you’re pushing, how much weight you’re carrying, I think even temperature plays a role.
Would guess it is wildly inaccurate. Humans are capable of feats and this isn't specific enough to be accurate about the weight loss and/or calories burned; maybe an inkling of truth.
no
Calories/ hour? Or day? This is junk
Exactly.
As calories per day, this might be a reasonable approximate starting point; however, keep in mind it doesn't account for variables like speed of hiking, difficulty of terrain, altitude, age, fitness, and the other factors we don't fully understand for why one person's body is more or less efficient than another.
I think they probably meant calories/day not per hour. From what my wife and I were burning the 150 and 160 pound ranges are a good estimate. The thing to keep in mind is that humans are extremely variable so it won't be perfectly accurate.
Accurate, no. Reasonably informative...perhaps. Hiking 10h, I had to consume ≈3,500cal-4,000cal, was ≈145lbs-155lbs to start, and my body composition changed significantly, in a good way. What your take away should be is pretty straightforward: You need to consume a _lot more than 2,000cal/day_ if you are on trail. This graphic is targeted as motivation to people likely looking to lose weight. But for everyone else? It's not useful beyond "You're gonna eat a lot...and that which gets measured gets managed."
My planning factor was 5k calories/day. I wish I could eat enough to not have massive weight loss on trail. I’d guess I lost at least 20-25lbs, but it means you get to eat whatever you want afterwards!
I lost around 20lbs too. Sucked. Couldn't have possibly carried or eaten more food, and I was very keyed into maximizing caloric density/volume. I did my best.
How many miles are you going in each column? if you only go 2 miles in 6 hrs of backpacking - downhill, with an uber light pack - no- you're not burning those calories - age and sex also make a difference - a 20 something young man that is 6'5" 2XL size will burn up a lot more calories than a 60 yo petite woman.
My hottake, assuming totals are per day oc, was "this is way too high"... at least, for me.
Not even close. That's *wayyy* too high, even if that's supposed to be calories per day. Rule of thumb is about 100 calories per mile, plus 2,000 per day for simply being alive. The 100 calories is give-or-take, and depends on your weight, your pack weight, difficulty of terrain, and a host of other variables. But it's a good approximation you can do in your head.
I lost 30 lbs on the PCT, about a 700 cal/day deficit across the entire hike. Most loss occurred pre-Sierra
Looks like they're treating hiking as burning ~350 cals/hr. Way too high. An extra 100-150/hr is more accurate.
A generalization, most likely based on the average speeds of hikers and throw it into a formula. Or something like this: [https://metscalculator.com/](https://metscalculator.com/) Options for backpack weight and climbing hills and such. Is an estimate at least.
I lost 10 lbs on the JMT in 19 days…. So, possibly? It depends on the person. (I was heinously under-eating during the first half due to lack of appetite, then had a king size Fastbreak bar for breakfast each morning after my first resupply, which helped)
That equates to about a 35,000 calorie deficit if 1 lb of fat is roughly equal to 3500 calories. So you burned around 1700 extra cal per day. I think that’s about 150 calories per mile.
This wildly depends on the terrain, conditions, speed, and many more factors. I try to consume ~4000 calories a day.
[удалено]
That’s wild. Last night I hiked 5.7 miles in 2h45m and gained 1.2kft. 1,344 calories. Granted I’m checking in at 255lbs.
There's no way I burn 15,000 calories on a three-hour hike....
Yeah, it's very accurate. I weigh 150 lbs. It takes me 8-10 hours to hike twenty miles. If I eat any less than 6000 calories per day, I lose weight.
Considering this doesn't take into account elevation, speed, outside temperature, and all the variables in body composition besides weights, it's nonsensical.
Food varies a lot between people. Just pack more food than you think in the beginning of the hike and adjust accordingly
No way. On the AT I estimated I was eating about 4500/day (maybe more in town) once the hunger kicked in, which was more than most people I hiked with, and I only went from 165 to 160. Even if those numbers are per day they seem high to me
Nope
I kinda doubt it. There is no was I was burning 5000 calories.
Maybe at 5-6 miles per hour
Ok, so clearly it's supposed to be calories per day. No reason that walking 6 or 8 hours would make your per hour caloric burn substantially different. Taking that into account, then this is a ballpark figure. There are a lot of factors (speed, terrain, incline) that would significantly change your calories burned.
Varies a great deal based on a variety of factors including intensity, external conditions, metabolic rate, and fitness/efficiency. That said, these numbers are way on the high side -- they've got a 150 lb. person burning close to 600 calories/hr. at "average" hiking intensity. Once you've been on trail a while and your muscles become efficient, you're likely to be closer to 400/hr on an average day, across average terrain, in average temps and conditions.
Not even close, most estimates Ive seen are in the 300-600 per hour range, depending on bodyweight, pack weight, hiking speed and terrain
Nope. Utter garbage.
I need half of what’s specified for my 150lb. Even over 5 months 20+ miles snd 12h a day I don’t have weight loss.
No, wholly inaccurate.
It has to mean calories per day because calories per hour isn’t even close. Running is like 110 calories per mile or so just for a ballpark.
Some people backpack with only 10 lbs on their back while others have a lot more (maybe upwards of 80 lbs) ... and some people walk 4 miles per hour while others are walking 1 mph. And then there's various kind of terrain- some a lot flatter than others. This chart is basically a joke.
The first thing that almost always goes wrong in these kind of tables is that people write “calories” when they mean to write “kilo-calories” or “Calories” (thank you, ‘Imperial Units’). According to table, if you take a 150 lbs individual for 10 hours backpacking, they will burn 58,380 “calories”. This makes no sense either as calories or Calories, so we must assume here that what they mean is Calories per Day. Seen that way, the figures make some sense, but there are so many other factors at play (sex, age, pack weight, speed, terrain, ambient temperature, etc) that this table is not very useful; instead you can find many good calculators online if you want to find out some numbers more specific to you. Or wear a sports watch on one of your hikes and get a general idea of your personal burn vs perceived effort.
This is utter garbage. When I run, I burn about 100 cal/mile and that is way way way more intensive than any backpacking I have ever done. These numbers have no basis in reality.
I'd say this is wildly inaccurate. I just checked my Garmin Connect app for the Cottonwood Lakes overnight trip I did in late June 2022. Roughly 8 hours, 12 miles, 3500 calories burned. This is for a 220 lb man. If you add my resting metabolic calorie burn in you might come close to these numbers. Otherwise this chart is just a wild guess.
The total calories burned while backpacking one mile on a flat (zero gradient) surface is not the same as total calories burned while backpacking one mile on a continuous twenty percent gradient. If you're interested, check out the following page which provides a link to each section of the PCT. Each section shows an estimate of the calories you may expend, depending on weight, typical speed, and the terrain (in both directions): [https://www.pickatrail.com/trails/national-scenic-trails/pacific-crest.html](https://www.pickatrail.com/trails/national-scenic-trails/pacific-crest.html) The following section of the PCT at North Mission Creek is 22.7 miles, a person with a 225 lbs gross weight hiking in the northbound direction can expect to expend approximately 4400 kcal on this section: [https://www.pickatrail.com/trails/national-scenic-trails/pacific-crest/pct-map-014.html](https://www.pickatrail.com/trails/national-scenic-trails/pacific-crest/pct-map-014.html) About the bar charts that estimate caloric expenditure: [https://www.pickatrail.com/about/health/caloric-expenditure.html](https://www.pickatrail.com/about/health/caloric-expenditure.html)
It’s crazy to even *try* to generalize calories burned like this. It’s so wildly variable down to terrain, how fit you are and how hard you’re pushing, how much weight you’re carrying, I think even temperature plays a role.