Hi Mary & Mike,

Many thanks for your advice.

Last August I made a spreadsheet with all the ingredients (changed some because -as said before- I couldn’t find everything here in Spain) and their specs regarding nutritional info (calories, proteins, carbs and fat), cost and quantity (according to the information on the store-bought item); then it calculated the nutritional info per used amount and, last, the same information for 2 bars of 50 grams each. Liked the result, because the proportions of Proteins (12.56%), Carbs (55.09%) and Fat (32.35%) were very close (if not exact) to the recommended amounts. So, I was really pleased.

Then I did do a sort of first intend to make my own Groovy-rific bars. I didn’t use any of the extracts and changed the tapioca for wheat flour (like you said Mary); I also used hazelnut butter instead of almond butter (as Mike just said), but the rest was as Mike recommended in his book. BTW. I did find brown rice syrup (melaza de arroz) and coconut oil (although the one I found is not stiff when cold). See next picture of all the ingredients (+ the spreadsheet and the book):



I followed all Mike’s instructions (although, since I don’t have a food processor, I chopped the walnuts, almonds and cashews separately):



Then I mixed the different chopped nuts with the spelt flakes, raisins and cranberries:



After heating the coconut oil, I added the brown rice syrup, hazelnut butter and chopped dates, mixed everything in the same large bowl I used for the first *operation* and then pressed the whole bunch in two glass baking dishes, put these in the fridge and after an hour, this was the result:



Well...... it didn’t work out as well as I would have liked. When I tried to cut the bars, the whole mixture resulted to be too crumbly:



What went wrong? After a lot of thinking, I realized I made several mistakes when converting imperial measurements to the metric system. I went by weight instead of volume, so I didn’t use enough rice syrup and hazelnut butter. I could’ve “killed” myself. (After Mike’s last recommendation: >The coconut oil gets stiff unless it's warm, so it acts as a binder<; this might be another reason, “my” coconut oil isn’t stiff at all). Anyhow, although the end result wasn’t satisfying (because the bars don’t stick together – nothing to do with the recipe) the taste of same is really delicious, so I’ll definitely try again (making sure I’ll use the correct amounts) and maybe changing the coconut oil for canola (rapeseed) or safflower oil, like Mary suggested. I won’t use olive oil.

With regards to tweaking the recipes, don’t worry; I’ll surely do so (once I’ve got my first batch figured out according to the instructions). Thinking of adding coconut flakes as a dusting, for instance.

Can't wait to try again.

Many thanks again.

Wow! That was some dedication to documenting it visually!

Y'know what also might help, bump up the finely chopped dates a little more. The date "paste" is sticky and makes a good "binder"

The other option is to add a few eggs and then bake it for a little while. That'll turn em into bars.

Keep me posted as to yer progress!

Hi Mike.

I’ll sure keep you informed about progress. Thanks for the advice regarding chopping the dates a little more or adding eggs and baking. I never asked my wife (my culinary knowledge is almost nonexistent), but I’m sure she’ll be able to come up with ways of thickening the mixture as well. I suppose the old saying: “there are many roads that lead to Rome” will be applicable here (with regards to binding the bars).

Are there any natural thickeners (I suppose they’re called starch or pectin) that could be used as well? If so, which are more calorie-dense? If I’m going to add other ingredients, apart from being healthy, they might as well serve other purposes.

BTW, I just realized you said the coconut oil is stiff (unless it’s warm), does that mean you can’t pour it? If so, I suppose it isn’t sold in bottles and if that’s true, how is it presented? As a block, like some fats? Maybe I could try to look for coconut fat? Or am I completely lost?

Coconut oil in the USA comes in a jar, and it's hard like cold butter at room temperature. It is white and foggy looking on the shelf at the store.

It will turn to liquid if it gets warmed up. Low heat in a pan will make it a clear liquid.

I would NIX any oil, the natural oil in the hazlenut butter will be plenty. And - Adding more dates finely chopped and added to the warm hazelnut butter during the creation should be enough.

bon apetiit!
Mike C!

Henk: In the States, coconut oil is a solid at room temperature, similar to (though firmer than) butter or vegetable shortening, though sold in jars that you just scoop out of. Seems to me you'll want a fat that is a solid at room temp for the binding you're looking for.

@Mike

Merci beaucoup! Once again!

Same to you Addie.

Make sure your shorty socks are at least ankle high. The really low cut ones let dirt and pebbles get in under the sock (there is an opening between the ankle bones and Achilles tendon). That hurts and slows you down while taking the junk out.

Another issue that I discovered the summer I switched from boots to trail runners: Unlike boot tops, sock tops are not mosquito proof! It's worse when you are sitting because the pants bottoms ride up. I discovered this after a trip in Wyoming's Wind Rivers, discovering that itchy ankles are a bit of a distraction while driving back to the Pacific NW!

Alternatives: use repellent (especially in camp), spray sock tops with permethrin or wear shorty gaiters. The last works best for the bugs and also for keeping junk out of the shoes.

TFD,

That made me hungry. Good documentation. I also rely upon my wife for all things culinery. She did give a thumbs up to Mike's treats in his book when I showed them to her.

Mike, thanks for the sock tip. I read it in your fantastic book a while back, but was glad to feel that it was OK to wear more than one pair. Been wearing a thin liner (that I used to wear by itself) with a slightly thicker light sock. That combo makes a significant difference low 30ish F temps for me.

"Are there any natural thickeners (I suppose they’re called starch or pectin) that could be used as well? If so, which are more calorie-dense?"

You might try powdered full fat milk, like Nido. It's calorie dense and when added as a powder makes a good thickener. The fat in it will also help bind the other ingredients.

Hi Tom. Good idea. Sure gonna try that.

Hi George. Wife asked what I was up to when she saw all those bowls&dishes coming out of the kitchen cupboards. I explained and she laughed (didn’t believe I was able to do something that *difficult*. When I finished she didn’t laugh anymore (kitchen looked like a battleground), but she sure liked (LOVED) the taste of the bars; well, the crumbs. (Be assured I, obviously, did all the cleaning up).

OFF TOPIC: Every time I use the Huaraches I get a bit more accustomed to them but they’re definitely NOT comfy.

I think it's a mistake to compare Fritos to nuts based only on calories per ounce. The calories in nuts are mostly fat, while Fritos are a nice mix of complex carbs and fat. Fritos are superior to nuts for steady energy.

If you can't find the reduced sodium Fritos at the store, another option is the Fritos "Big Scoops". For some reason these have less sodium per serving (110mg vs. 170mg) and are available in big family size bags at Wal Mart for cheap.

Excelent tip. Note that chewing a few beans allows the flavor to keep for quite a while. Since I grew up in an old italian family, I was pretty much weaned on hot, right from the roster, coffee beans. A bean or two in your cheek will hold flavour for about an hour while hiking.

I own Mike's new book and recently read it cover to cover. I really enjoyed it. I'm not a UL backpacker yet. We're hoping to adopt many of the techniques described in Mike's book this coming season.

One of the tips I found intriguing was the recommendation to choose a camp spot somewhere other than established tent pads.

I certainly see the advantages as described in the book: There is added flexibility in being able to hike longer and picking a site at the last minute, you can find a softer spot, a more secluded spot, a spot with better drainage, or better protection from the elements, etc.

However, this advice seems to go against traditional "Leave No Trace" philosophies. I belong to a outdoor club in Southeast Michigan, and I'm not sure how I would defend such a practice to staunch supporters of traditional LNT camping.

It's also unclear to me how various park services view this practice. Is it frowned upon or completely banned outright in some areas? How does one find out? I did some Google searching for National Parks policy on camping but didn't find anything conclusive.

Can others help shed light on this topic, or point me to some previous discussion threads that may enlighten me?

Thanks,

Jeff

Reply to Jeff:
-----------------------------

1 - The idea and ethics behind STEALTH camping mean you will ONLY sleep at your camp. Both cooking and eating will be done along the trail. So you will have a minimum impact on the site where you will sleep.

2 - This is a technique for wilderness environments without the prescribed rules one might find in a busy national park.

3 - Some places (like Yellowstone National Park) require that you camp in a designated campsite. These rules were made for "traditional" campers. Other places (like Grand Canyon National Park) will issue the user a special bivy permit if folks are choosing a route in terrain without established sites.

4 - An impacted site that one might find along a trail in a well used environment is set up for BIG tents and lots of people. These usually have trash, used toilet paper and habituated animals around. I avoid these sites.

5 - I feel strongly that a skilled camper (ore a small team) can camp for one night in a hidden spot in the woods, and they should have almost zero impact. They can carefully pick a small spot to sleep, and if they need to set up a UL shelter (like a tarp) they can do it with almost ZERO impact. The stealth technique requires that the campers leave their site in a way where nobody would know they camped there. This is an excellent LEAVE NO TRACE technique, and I advocate it strongly.

6 - Wilderness areas (like the Wind River Range in Wyoming) allow camping with pretty much no rules. They ask that you camp a certain distance from lakes and rivers, and that you don't make campfires during certain seasons. This is the environment where STEALTH CAMPING can be done without worrying about permits or federal rules.

Edited by mikeclelland on 11/29/2011 14:37:58 MST.

The Real Reason to Stealth Camp, especially in the National Parks is that all of the camping sites in said NP's are all stuffed in copses of trees where there aren't views. True, the NP's in the SW you WANT the shade, but everywhere else, you want the SUN and the Views. Nearly everyone in NP's are in tiny corridors. Get outside of the corridor and you won't see a soul.

Yea yea, I know said NP's 'thinking' is that no one wants to see your tent. The fact of the matter generally is that it is all of you and maybe 2 other folks and "seeing" your tent is not a problem at all. In the National Forest its far more likely to be you, and ONLY you unless in a VERY popular spot like Image Lake or name your favorite spot... << HERE >>

If folks would eat/wash at lakes and then camp on ridges, not only are the views better, the sun rises sets earlier/later making it more enjoyable, the bugs fewer, but humanity is non existent as well.

The true fact of the matter for the predominant vast majority of the places anyone goes backpacking, walk a 200 feet off the trail and you can leave as many traces as you want and NO ONE will EVER see it. Just to put leave no trace in perspective. Its 99.99999% Wilderness and a TINY TINY TINY portion where everyone goes. No, its not OK to destroy, but most folks get to their "destination" and plop down literally and figuratively speaking in the same spot that EVERYONE else does and that is why the environment gets "ruined" around said spots.

Most parks maintain designated camp sites to reduce impact of the hordes. Yosemite rules require your campsite to be a proper distance from roads, trail, water and use only existing fire rings below 9600 ft. Beyond that, you are free to camp as you please.
"Stealth" only applies to camping in an off limits area. Many persons feel "safer" camping in designated sites with bear boxes. Places like Yoho or Jasper, with very short seasons, would be hashed were it not for the quota system and designated sites. stephan

Edited by khumbukat on 11/29/2011 20:33:15 MST.

"STEALTH" is used to define a *hidden* campsite.

If you hide your camp you won't impact other hikers who would want to have a wilderness experiences. It's NOT to break rules or be sneaky.

If you have a small low-impact site away from a view corridor and well away from the trails, then other visitors will be able to hike along and enjoy the feeling of solitude.

BTW, when we camp in a previously unimpacted spot, we make sure to replace any stones or pinecones we may have moved to make a sleeping pad. That way the next guy who comes along won't be able to tell we camped there...and can have the same experience we did.