How does pack weight affect calories & level of intensity?

[ozoohappy]

Does anyone know how much pack weight during a hike affects calories burned and intensity? Just curious. Also, does anyone have any apps they like for this besides Map My Hike? I am 5'2" and carried a 20# pack all day today...whew! I'm pooped!

[Colinm39 · Accepted solution]

---

@ozoohappy wrote:

Does anyone know how much pack weight during a hike affects calories burned and intensity? Just curious. Also, does anyone have any apps they like for this besides Map My Hike? I am 5'2" and carried a 20# pack all day today...whew! I'm pooped!

---

@ozoohappyI can only relate it to walking, but a hiking with a 20lb pack would give me the same calorie burn as a very brisk walking at 4.5mph. You would need a HRM or a manual activity to get the benefit of the hiking calories. One of my Fitbit friends has to use a HRM to record the benefit because Fitbit is not designed for that type on intensity.

Why is it an excellent form of activity, other than breathing in nature ?, here is a quote from a website.

"Hiking with a pack works every major muscle group in your body, building muscle tone, while improving your cardiovascular fitness. Though many people only think you are developing your quads and glutes, hiking requires and develops a strong sense of balance and powerful core muscles. Hiking with poles tones and firms your arms as well."

[ozoohappy]

Thanks, Colin! I also did a little more digging into the Map My Walk/Fitness/etc. family of apps and you can classify a hike, on hills, with a light, medium or heavy-weight pack. I am definintely feeling more muscles than "usual" after today's adventure. This could become a happy habit! I appreciate your input. 🙂

Happy Trails!

[Gershon]

Carrying a light pack may improve walking efficiency and reduce the calories burned from the research I've read. That's the party line from research. I suggest letting your stomach be the guide and eat slowly until your hungar pangs disappear. 

[Heybales]

---

@Gershon wrote:

Carrying a light pack may improve walking efficiency and reduce the calories burned from the research I've read. That's the party line from research.

---

That's true if it slows you down to most efficient speed of 3.5 mph.

But, that difference in efficiency would be more than made up from carrying extra weight. Or an incline.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

So if it caused you to drop from 4 mph to 3.5 mph, you'd lose 8 calories per mile per 100 lbs because of efficiency if weight stayed the same.

But an increased 20 lbs of weight at 3.5 increased 10 calories per mile per 100 lbs. So net increase of 2 cal/mile/100 lbs. And the heavier weight is better workout for the muscles, so side benefit too.

But if you can keep from slowing down and do the 4mph with extra weight - extra 12 cal / mile / 100 lbs.

[Gershon]

I'm not going to disagree too strongly, as what you say makes sense, however, the reliable looking research I've read shows differently.

Normally, when we walk, our legs achieve 65% efficiency. When we are wearing a light pack, it changes our center of gravity and we achieve 85% efficiency. This means that a person can burn fewer calories and theoretically use less effort with a pack than without one. 

With a pack under about 20 to 25 pounds, I don't even feel it on my back. 

Unfortunately, there is little research on walking except for racewalking and disabled people. It's hard to tell what is right. 

If you Google "walking efficiency studies" you may run across the same articles I did. I'm not going to defend my position too strongly, as I'd rather just go walk. The only place it may make a difference is a person adds too many calories to their diet using the theory they are burning many more calories by carrying a pack.

[Heybales]

---

@Gershon wrote:

Normally, when we walk, our legs achieve 65% efficiency. When we are wearing a light pack, it changes our center of gravity and we achieve 85% efficiency. This means that a person can burn fewer calories and theoretically use less effort with a pack than without one. 

---

Found it.

http://www.learningmethods.com/downloads/pdf/walking,.carrying.loads,.and.efficiency.pdf

Kenyan women show the increased efficiency up to 80% when carrying 20% of their weight on their head.

At that point they burned the same as when walking without the weight at normal 65% efficiency.

Only group found able to do that increase.

I love the Competitive Runner review - some total assumptions that no one is studying them (how did he learn about them then), that the males imitate their mothers without knowing and apply it to running, and missing one big fact it's only when the women carried the heavy load on their head did they get more efficient. But his other observations are interesting, though I'd love to see put in to practice running. No arm swing, huh.

Also interesting observations on the walking method some have of big toe push-up bobbing up and down as you walk.

[Gershon]

That's the one. Good job.

Since reading that, I've been walking straighter and keeping my eyes on the horizon to minimize bob. People bob between about a half inch and two inches on each step. I'm also using a metronome to play with my stride rate. It appears the maximum speed is at a rate of 120, although now I'm working on inceasing the rate. 115 is 3.5 mph for me, and it seems to be efficient compared to a faster and slower rate. I've read that a rate of 120 bpm releases endorphins in the brain after 20 minutes of walking which are useful for an additional 20 minutes. Then it starts to have a negative effect. I haven't experienced the negative effect part. The tempo has something to do with brain waves.

I've thought about carrying a water jug on my head, but people think I'm crazy already. Maybe at night. 🙂

You might try Googling legs as a reticulated pendulum. It's interesting reading, but I didn't find anything useful except not to lean forward from the waist. Instead, lean forward as if you have a poker running through your feet and your body. This is similar to Chi walking, which is for racewalking as I understand it.

You could also Google naval research combat boots 1990. The modern combat boot is among the best footwear ever made.

The reason I'm so interested in this information is I'm planning an extremely long road walk, and I'm trying to get every advantage there is. I'm very interested in information that contradicts me. If I wasn't, there'd be no reason to talk to anyone.

See you down the road,

Gershon

[Heybales]

Maybe start with that other carrying method where load is on back, strap around front of head. Get the muscles strong, and then move up to carrying it on your head.

I actually recall years ago for backpacking a strap to accomplish that.

What's interesting on testing stride length and cadence and such, is using a HRM and seeing how HR responds to changes in effort.

I have a playlist with songs from 110-130 beat pattern, and walking to that beat, I can see the HR change with same pace on treadmill. I don't recall what was most efficient, as far as lowest HR. But it did change on the extremes. I know running it's 88-92 for me, biking it's 95 cadence as best.

Is the walk with backpack across say a continent?

[Gershon]

I saw one of those big packs with the head strap in the late 60's. The guy was probably carrying 70 pounds. He didn't look like he was having fun. I'm only planning on carrying 20 pounds in a 30 or 40 liter pack. I shouldn't even feel that.

The long hike is still in the planning stages and is about 7,000 miles long. It touches all the lower 48 states.I haven't set a final goal for the time yet, but I think it can be done in 200 days. It may not happen depending on life. The route is all planned. It's all on roads, which accounts for the high daily miles.

From my running days, I learned my breathing is a good indicator of the heart rate. I like to walk at a speed just before having to open my mouth. I figure many miles of walking while breathing through my mouth may lead to some issues like a sore throat. 

It's beginnng to look like 3.5 mph and 115 bpm is the best speed, but that's so boring for training walks. Today, I tried 122 bpm, and walked at 3.82 mph, which is the same speed I did at 120 bpm. One reason for considering 3.5 mph is to conserve sweat, which is the same as carrying more water, but less fatiguing.

An intermediate goal is to walk 50 miles in under 15 hours. I hope to try that early this summer.

See you down the road,

Gershon