Weight Loss -- [Was: Re: [at-l] Pack Liners]

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

Wow, I had a little trouble following that :) but I think that any loss of 
muscle is the byproduct of inadequate intake of calories/nutrients relative 
to those being expended. A hiker can easily exceed burning 4000 
calories/day so if you don't take in 4000 calories, they have to come from 
somewhere. You body is programmed to retain some fat as reserve so when you 
get down to a certain level it will start converting your less used muscle 
tissue to make up the deficit. Quite a few thru-hikers report reaching a 
point in their hike of having low/no energy only to discover they weren't 
eating enough and their body was 'eating itself'. When they upped their 
intake, their energy level was restored.

BTW there is a handy activity/calorie burn calculator at 
<http://www.caloriesperhour.com/>.

At 12:08 PM 8/24/2005 -0400, David Hicks wrote:
>In the past, my observations suggest is that during long distant hikes there
>is some difference weight change for many, if not most, women vs. for 
>many, if
>not most, men.  However, that idea may be dated.
>
>I suspect it has mostly to do with % of body fat, extent of muscle mass, and
>location of that muscle mass -- at the start of the long distant 
>hike.  Hence,
>the differences have to do with what ever is "typical", by gender, for
>"typical hikers" (whoever they are) and how much the"typical hiker" is
>representative of the "typical" person in the general population.
>
>General assumptions on my part:
>
>One will lose fat during a long distant hike, if they have any to lose.
>
>One will develop muscle mass in the lower part of their body (assuming that
>one is not in great hiking shape when one starts).
>
>One will atrophy muscle mass it their upper body, if it is well developed
>prior to the hike.
>
>One will generally "tone up."
>
>Assuming one eats well, one will not atrophy needed tissue.
>
>So, general assumptions about women vs. men is somewhat irrelevant to any one
>individual, if his/her body type, % of body fat, extent and location of 
>muscle
>mass is not consistent with that assumptions about the "typical" woman, or
>"typical" man.  There was a time I speculated that (given inferences in
>genetic factors as well as given the lower participation of women in sports
>and physical labor) women tended to have a lower ratio of muscle mass and 
>less
>developed shoulders, arms, neck, etc.  However, given everything I see/read
>about the current state of weight problems and the extent of inactivity of 
>our
>general population, I have no clue as to the typical" person in the general
>population.
>
>So, leaving "typical' alone and thinking amount an individual long distant
>hiker:
>If (s)he has  highly developed arms and shoulders (s)he will likely lose some
>of that muscle mass while building muscle mass in the lower part of his/her
>body.  If (s)he has a higher % of fat (s)he will likely lose it, while
>building muscle mass, in general and primarily  in the lower part of his/her
>body.  Hence, (s)he might lose weight (lots of fat lose), or gain weight
>(little fat lose w/ more new muscle), or stay about the same weight with a
>more toned body -- as muscle is heaver that fat per volume.
>
>Chainsaw
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Wandering Bull" <wandering.bull@gmail.com>
>To: "Leslie Booher" <lbooher@pure.net>
>Cc: "AT-L Trail" <at-l@backcountry.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 5:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [at-l] Pack Liners
>
> >>
>
>I've heard that and it seemed to be somewhat true...but there were
>women who did lose quite a bit of weight on their thru-hikes that I
>met.
>
>SNIP
><<
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AT-L Mailing List.  Debating the c-ll ph-ne since 1995.
>
>Go here to unsubscribe or change your options:
>
>http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l