Very interesting thread. I have to follow a mainly wheat free, sugar free, caffeine free,low GI, fairly hight protein diet diet at all times, so I am always interested in new food ideas. Calories are obviously very important, but there seems to me more to food than just that.

The last couple of trips I have been eating my oatmeal breakfast cold and not bothering to make a morning cup of herbal tea.

Most of us take a non cook lunch/snacks, so going totally non cook, in theory, would just mean making a few adjustments and eating this stuff all day, day after day, after day :) For many people the evening ritual of using a stove and eating a cooked meal is a big part of the experience of hiking. For many, myself included, a hot meal and drink can be a powerful psychological boost after a wet cold day, or many wet cold days in a row (here in NZ). Also as Dave said hot food and liquid does more effectively raise core body temp. Cold calories will also do this - not sure how much the difference would be.

I can definitely see myself doing a totally non cook trip, but not running for three days with just a bag of carrots and water bottle :).

Konrad ... Yuppies only use jetboils ;)

I just find it ironic how some preach against a few oz extra weight in a piece of gear

Yet they use stoves themselves when u clearly dont need one .... You just want is ... Unless theres snow to melt

Same goes for tents vs tarps, tp vs leaves, etc ...

We wont even talk about group gear .... Now THATS defensive

At the end of the day everyone does what they want

I'd rather be labeled an earth hating waste monger and or Yuppie and use my cushy 2-ply TP than use leaves. Y-U-C-K.........

You can all have the imaginary crown o' of King of Wankers and use them leaves ;-)

What!? You bring food with you when you're trail running or backpacking!? That's not ultralight. I can survive for three days on wild berries and pine needles...

What!? You wear clothing when you hike!? This guy I know hikes with just one wool sock...

What!? You carry gear when you hike. That's not super ultra light. You should hire a porter when you hike. Carrying your own gear is so nineteen-90s.

Actually in Peru we had multiple offers of free mules (even though they normally charge for them), because people felt so sorry for us carrying our own packs. They thought we were insane, stupid, or very poor. I'm still not 100% sure which.

Although, once we hit the major up and down section of the particular trail we were on, I understood why.

I consider a stove a luxury because I can usually cook over a campfire. I often skip cooking entirely though, and bring a selection of food wide enough to allow that flexibility. If temps are in the 50's or lower (F), I'll be much more likely to want hot food.

Javan - I'm glad you didn't fall for the old "free mule" trick. They give you the mule for free and then gouge you on the feed.... ;-)

It occurred to me that maybe the reason many of us bring stoves and cook hot foods is that it's not so much the "why arne't you as light as possible?" issue as it's the "why aren't you as fast as possible?"

If you are trying to run a trail for 3 days, you don't want a lot of stuff loading you down and for sure food you can easily nibble and digest is a better choice than something requiring a stove.

But if you are out walking for 3 days, a few ounces for a stove doesn't matter much and a heavy meal will be welcome at the end of the day. You'll be able to digest heavier foods better than someone who is running and you might feel hungrier, too.

Many ultralight hikers are out there aiming for speed like a runner, and those hikers usually do not bring stuff for cooking. They usually do it more like a trail run.

"What!? You bring food with you when you're trail running or backpacking!? That's not ultralight. I can survive for three days on wild berries and pine needles..."

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I've actually done this, as I'm sure others have, just for the challenge. Three days was the longest I ever cared to try.


3 days in Northern Michigan, eating just veggies (wild leeks, watercress, burdock root, fiddleheads, morels, cattails, spring beauty) and the occasional fish. A fun experience, but not conducive to high mileage days. I'm sure I wasn't meeting caloric requirements either, but interestingly did not feel hungry due to frequent snacking and the fullness factor.



3 days in subzero weather with no food. The ice augur and rod negated any benefit in terms of weight savings. 3 straight days of fish cured me of any desire to try this type of adventure ever again. It was so cold that any fish I caught froze instantly, but stored well thereafter.

In the end, backpacking is just a hobby for most of us, so there's no reason personal preference shouldn't be as good an answer as any. My preference, for convenience and enjoyment is to bring a small cooking system. My stove setup weighs as little as 1.5- 2.5 oz, and (as Dave C mentioned) I can save significant weight by bringing only dehydrated foods. One day's food for me is usually about 16-18 oz, with an average caloric density of 160 cal/oz. This would be hard to match with an uncooked diet. I can't stand energy bars, and would have to eat almost exclusively nuts and nut butter to get close. But even more importantly, there is nothing I enjoy more than a nice hot meal at the end of a long day of backpacking.


Minimalist cooking system I picked up from fastpacker Matt Kirk's blog. Not all runners eat uncooked food. 1.5 oz for the pot, and <0.5 oz per meal for fuel. I think the advantage of dehydrated food offsets the weight of this system. Most of the time though, for convenience, I just bring a 0.5 oz alky stove.

Whatever you decide, I hope you enjoy it. That's what it's all about.

Reading this thread has me wondering about whether cooking or not cooking is actually lighter. I have often gone stoveless for short trips just for simplicity's sake. It's nice sometimes not to have to deal with the stove and the pot and whatnot - just pull out the foodbag, stick your hand in and dinner is ready! But I've always cooked dinner on longer trips, and breakfast as well in colder weather. But I realize I have never really compared cooked and non-cooked foods as to calories per ounce, which is what counts if you are looking to travel light. Has anyone else run the numbers on this?

David,
If you find it arrogant for me to question whether I might be too indulgent in carrying a stove for this short a period when it's likely unnecessary, you possess a rather twisted view of humility. If you think that I, as a trail runner, am arrogant for seeking out the advice of others more experienced than I am in backpacking, rather than just sticking with my own gut feeling, or my sport's fashion dictates, then your view is even more confused. If people took my simple word-play ("ultralight" > "ultra-indulgence") so harshly, then perhaps they themselves feel their own behavior flawed. They can own it like adults, or whine like children; not up to me.

As far as the "Facts" go, if you believe caloric intake is the primary factor in determining whether a person is in nutritional deficit after 3 days, whether running or walking or playing chess, then I think you are mistaken. Calories do not equal nutrition, as most bagel-eaters by now know. If you believe that one can't run for 3 days (or a lifetime) on a low-calorie diet, then perhaps you might want to investigate some of the science on reduced-calorie diets, it is extremely interesting. That however was not the subject of this post, and neither was there any dietary "revelation" intended. It's precisely this obviousness (that one can go for 3 days without cooking) that led me to question why. If you yourself find this obvious, your "factual" rebuttal becomes empty if not fallacious.

I do apologize for wasting everyone's time, but I could anticipate the response I'd receive in a running forum. The response I've received here I certainly did not anticipate.

Ciao~

What you are missing is that the majority of us all have our own views. Most folks who hike with a UL mentality like doing things their own way. We find what works for US not someone else.

One person may be fine with something, the next person swear by something else.

We are not going by what a magazine or book tells us, rather personal experience.

"But I realize I have never really compared cooked and non-cooked foods as to calories per ounce, which is what counts if you are looking to travel light. Has anyone else run the numbers on this?"

I did some rough cuts a few years ago, and concluded you can achieve an equal amount of calories either way. There are so many options for carbs, protein, and fat either way that it is a draw, and basically not a factor in determining whether to go cold food or hot.

"I'd rather be labeled an earth hating waste monger and or Yuppie and use my cushy 2-ply TP than use leaves. Y-U-C-K........."

HERESY!!! Beware the wrath of Don.

"Many ultralight hikers are out there aiming for speed like a runner, and those hikers usually do not bring stuff for cooking. They usually do it more like a trail run."

True enough, but neither do they try to pull it off on a few raw veggies, which are very low in calories. Even if you have adequate body fat to supply the energy, you still have to have carbs to support its metabolism and ,after a day at most, you will have exhausted your body's supply of glycogen. At that point you will have to make it up with adequate dietary carbs or bonk. You will still be able to move slowly, but you will be doing it by cannibalizing muscle tissue.

The ONLY time I've done this was during Pennsylvania deer season when I didn't want the smell of any cooking or burning fuel to alert deer. It worked but I got d@mn sick of eating fruitcake, jerkey and Fig Newtons on that trip. :(~

Eliade,

"If you believe that one can't run for 3 days (or a lifetime) on a low-calorie diet, then perhaps you might want to investigate some of the science on reduced-calorie diets, it is extremely interesting."

Extremely interesting is an understatement. We have been taught that a certain number of calories, appropriaely divided between fats, carbs, and proteins, are necessary for a given level of exertion. If the accepted suggested caloric intake has been overstated and we can thrive on say 25% less, that's a game changer. 50% less is a whole new world. 10% less is probably insignificant. Where would I find more information on this? I'm in for sure if it will not leave me face down in the dirt...Seriously, please point me to this information.

"That however was not the subject of this post, and neither was there any dietary "revelation" intended."

But that seemed to me to be the very essence of your post, as you gave "raw vegetables and water" as an exampe of a sufficient diet. Not dried fruit, jerky, nuts, seeds, cookies, candy or nutrition bars, gorp, or any other no cook food items. Just "raw vegetables and water", which is a diet low in calories, fats, carbs, and protein (assuming say 0.75 kg of raw vegetables a day.) Sure seemed like a revelation to me...

Nutrition is not much of an element in the question of cook vs no cook (you can feed yourself well either way), but pleasure is. Stove? Binoculars? Music player? Chess set?

Have fun,
Steve

One of the tricks I learned from Scott Williamson was his Kool Aid container and rehydrated refried beans trick.

It's become a backcountry staple... though you don't want to share a tent with me...

Eliade,

I think many would like to hear more from you about this topic. I know I would. Some people learn by questioning others in challenging ways. I don't think it should be seen as hostility, although I see how some may have come across that way.

I've grown tired of the usual backpacking foods, and had been trying to incorporate more fresh fruits and veggies before I read this thread. I'd be especially interested in hearing about your multi-day trips or even just all-day runs with specific details about what foods you ate, food weights, and water consumed.

+1 I would like to hear more as well...