Having to force down dinner - have you experienced it?

[John B]

Happens to me every time. No clue what causes it, but I have very little appetite when hiking, especially for the crap that passes for food when hiking. I make sure that I take in plenty of water, though, and at least a power bar for breakfast and lunch.

[jefals]

I used to get terrible toe cramps. I'm 69 now, and I remember getting this all the way back to my college days. then the last 10 or 15 years, also in my hands.
for the last couple of years I've been taking calcium and magnesium and the cramps are history!
I've experienced the same re. appetite. probably I'm just too tired to want to eat much, the first few days...

[Heather_VT]

I also typically have no appetite on the first few days of a backpacking trip, especially when it involves higher elevations. I just try to snack throughout the day (as much as I can, anyway) rather than try to force myself to eat larger meals. I've learned to bring a variety of snacks because sometimes even my favorite options are not palatable on those first few days.

[LittleRock]

Yes, I have experienced this phenomenon as well. I eat dinner every night, but the first few nights it always seems more filling than it ought to.

My theory is it's just a shock to your system. In "normal" life you're eating enough (often more than enough) so that your body doesn't have to burn much fat. When you all of a sudden start walking with a full pack all day, your body is forced to start burning through your fat reserves quickly. But it isn't used to switching back and forth between fat and food as primary energy sources, so when you try to eat a full meal after you stop, your stomach has trouble processing the food calories. After a few days your body adjusts.

[Bronk]

Interesting discussion so far. Someone asked why I am worried, it is because I fear having a lack of energy the next day. Though in this case, I can't say my third day was any harder for not eating.

From my long distance running days, I know our bodies only store about 2000 calories of glycogen energy. So I was worried that my sugar stores may be depleted if I can't eat. Does backpacking rely heavily on fat burning? Then I could see why perhaps I am not really hungry and that it would not be as big of a concern not eating a meal or too.

On my thru attempt I lost about 50 pounds. More than 30 pounds in the first 30 days. Once I got down to skin and bones I didn't really get hungry per se. But I would get very tired. When I was hiking and started to run out of gas I knew I had to eat something.

[Gambit McCrae]

I suffer from this as well, it really bothers me as I a m a first class fata$$ while in civilization. But first 2-3 nights on the trail, a big dinner is just not in the plans. I pack for it, but hardly ever eat it. What DOES help though is if I eat thru out the day. But my go to plan is walk all day, no food just water. and then eat at night. Day 3 I start cramming it in.

[Lnj]

I did a little short weekend trip at Grandfather Mountain last fall. It was actually first Back-Pack trip. I had all kinds of great food packed and we never ate anything but slim jims and granola bars the whole time. No breakfast, no dinner, just munched. I attributed it to nerves and excitement, but this thread makes much more sense. About to go on another weekend trip to do the PMT, and now I will save the wasted weight of even packing any real food. We will be back home before the hiker hunger hits. That's one big negative of a section hiker. You are always off the trail by the time you get your trails legs and body adjusted to being there.

[Connie]

I think the shorter trips, 4-5 days, are better for me for all the reasons stated in this thread.

Outdoors, hiking, my body has to adjust as described in this thread, because I don't always "eat-when-hungry" in town, I think is the healthy way to eat in town. After the initial loss of appetite for that adjustment, I "eat-when-hungry" and start snacking on healthiest trail food I can find for pushing through any occasions of more than walking with a backpack, maybe a steep section of the trail.

If I go more days, I need better food than I can carry in my backpack: meaning, more variety and fresh or fresh cooked food. This is an effect, called "rations". I can push more days, but that is the standard for "rations".

There are many nutritional studies about "rations" that are really only limited choices of food, that isn't fresh or fresh cooked and does not have the availability of the nutritional variety of unlimited food choices.

I have seen "better" backpacking food made available packaged: it is "pricey".

If it was important for me to do a "thru hike" rather than "section hike" I would have boxes mailed, in a timely manner, throughout the thru hike so I can get more fresh food and fresh prepared food in the mailed box, or, have a supported hike every 3-5 days, or, 4-5 days, adjusting my food to make the long trail hike about optimum health.

If someone did that kind of thru-hike, that is purposely keeping a journal about feeling unwell, or, feeling famished, or, cravings, I think that would be a great nutritional study.

I know there are nutritional studies for endurance sports, so "why not" for long distance walking in difficult terrain and climate? Is there existing information like this?

There are incidental comments in hiker journals.

There are thread topics, here.

I would ask, has anyone worked out the details of optimum nutrition for long distance hiking? I haven't achieved this.

I like to feel healthy, as a consequence of experiencing the outdoors.

If it isn't that, I would rather not, so I section hike.

[BuckeyeHiker]

I have found that I tend to have less appetite, can't force myself to drink more than a couple sips at a time and have to only need to dig one cathole over a 3 or day hike. None of which has ever been an issue. I figure my body is just adjusting to something out of the normal routine. Sounds like its about the same for everyone.

[Pedaling Fool]

The Hiker Appetite is a real phenomenon on the AT, but you gotta wait for it. My appetite also takes a nose dive in the beginning, but as time goes on it gets better...and then one day it (the Hiker Appetite) hits you like a load of bricks.

It took me between two and three weeks before the Hiker Appetite hit me and I remember it so well, I was at NOC and we ate dinner at the restaurant, but nothing special, just a regular meal and later hit the sack, then I woke up for breakfast and was so freakin' hungry, luckily was still at NOC and when I went to breakfast, I immediately went for the breakfast bar, I can't say how many times I went back to that bar and how much coffee I downed, but it was a lot, so much that I should have had that stuffed/bloated feeling after eating too much, but I didn't and I shot up that mountain after breakfast with no problem, normally I would've had heartburn and feeling like everything was going to come up, but it didn't.

From that point on I could never eat enough to get that bloated feeling, I could fill up, but not have a bloated feeling. That was a great feeling

BTW, I think I got the Hiker's Appetite more than most because I don't visit towns nearly as often as most, so I did a lot more rationing of food, I was barely eating a 2,000 calorie per day diet and carrying a 60-lb pack. Most people stop in towns every 3-5 days, where I would go at least a week, but usually longer.

[Pedaling Fool]

BTW, here are some articles on how aerobic exercise can lessen your appetite...sounds great, just keep doing exercises and you'll eat less...If it were only that easy, watch out for that boomerang effect

http://www.today.com/health/exercise...gest-1C6971256

http://www.self.com/fitness/2011/10/...-and-appetite/

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...eat-less/?_r=0

http://www.livestrong.com/article/27...ress-appetite/

[Dogwood]

Yes, I have experienced this phenomenon as well. I eat dinner every night, but the first few nights it always seems more filling than it ought to.

My theory is it's just a shock to your system. In "normal" life you're eating enough (often more than enough) so that your body doesn't have to burn much fat. When you all of a sudden start walking with a full pack all day, your body is forced to start burning through your fat reserves quickly. But it isn't used to switching back and forth between fat and food as primary energy sources, so when you try to eat a full meal after you stop, your stomach has trouble processing the food calories. After a few days your body adjusts.

I like it. I was trying to say something similar previously. You said it better. You are onto something.

[1azarus]

I have to ask why you would want to 'force down dinner?' You need to stay hydrated and keep your electrolytes balanced, but on the first few nights out I would not worry about maintaining calories. Enjoy the small weight loss, one of the many benefits of hiking. Your body will let you know when you need to consume more calories.

hello! I only find myself in the position of having to "force down dinner" when I've tried a new meal and can't stand what it tastes like. I was surprised to see no one else mention that as their appetite issue. What are the choices? either you carry your fully hydrated meal with you for a few days or you choke it down? You can't really dump it behind the shelter... So, I tend to choke down the occasional bad news meal...

[SkeeterPee]

hello! I only find myself in the position of having to "force down dinner" when I've tried a new meal and can't stand what it tastes like. I was surprised to see no one else mention that as their appetite issue. What are the choices? either you carry your fully hydrated meal with you for a few days or you choke it down? You can't really dump it behind the shelter... So, I tend to choke down the occasional bad news meal...

Exactly what went through my head. First time this happened to me I had it for breakfast the next morning. This time I could not even eat it for breakfast so I packed it out in my trash. In cooler temps I suppose I could have eventually eaten it. Not sure how good of idea it is to keep on 70F days.

[Hosh]

Still new to backpacking having taken only 3 trips. but twice have experienced not being able to eat much of supper. Wondering what causes this? Have you experienced it?

First was a single night with a 9 mile hike. I could not eat that night, but the meal was good the next morning. I also had leg cramps so perhaps was not ready for the hills.

This stuff is amazing http://www.stopslegcramps.com/ worked for both me and a friend who has chronic leg cramps when he stops for lunch while downhill skiing

[Connie]

If I have to push, I like CytoMax sticks for not having leg cramps.

I don't just slam it down. The flat packages have instructions.

It somehow interrupts build-up of lactic acid? It works.

[AfterParty]

Drink more water

[Acacia]

I have no appetite as well, even for chocolates, which I love.

I think Little Rock is right about the body burning fat first, then adjusting to burning food.

On the other hand, my sleeping improves immediately.

[Leo L.]

Usually, I have low appatite when I've done work at or beyond my personal limit. This usually happens more often within the first few days of a hike, but can happen after many days out, too.

To my understanding, this is a way the body saves energy by staying focused on getting energy from inside (burning "sugar" from the liver), which is much easier to get than by burning food (which, in turn, takes great effort to diagest down to a level that the body can start to burn it).
So, to start to refill the energy reserves, your body first needs quite some energy (and lots of water, too) for the diagesting process. The body "estimates" the future energy demand based of the most recent events, and if the body "thinks" that he is better off fast-burning existing glycogene than going into the long process of diagesting, you end up not feeling hungry after a long day out.
You may as well take this as a sign of exhaustment.

To my limited knowledge, the order how the body gets its energy is, (1) glycogene, (2) fat, and (3) finally muscle, and all the while burning stuff, the body keeps storing energy by converting food into glycogene, and fat (if glycogene storage is full) as Long as there is food in the process. A complicated process thats going on all the time, continually switching its working point.

For a lesser trained body it can be pretty painful to switch from glycogene to fat burning (and a well trained body doesn't have that much fat to burn, either).
Of course, burning muscle mass is just the last resort of survival, full of pain and other severe troubles.

[Pedaling Fool]

BTW, here are some articles on how aerobic exercise can lessen your appetite...sounds great, just keep doing exercises and you'll eat less...If it were only that easy, watch out for that boomerang effect

http://www.today.com/health/exercise...gest-1C6971256

http://www.self.com/fitness/2011/10/...-and-appetite/

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...eat-less/?_r=0

http://www.livestrong.com/article/27...ress-appetite/

I've also had this experience of suppressed appetite on my cycling trips, the only difference is that while my appetite increased over time, I never experienced the ravenous appetite, like one gets on the AT; of course that's because food doesn't need to be rationed.

It's a common experience of people that over-exert themselves, as noted in the various links I posted above, here's just one excerpt that attempts an explanation:

So for a study published online in June in The International Journal of Obesity, researchers at the University of Western Australia in Perth and other institutions set out to compare the effects of easy versus exhausting exercise on people’s subsequent desire to eat.To do so, they recruited 17 overweight but otherwise healthy young men in their 20s or 30s and asked them to show up at the university’s exercise physiology lab on four separate days. One of these sessions was spent idly reading or otherwise resting for 30 minutes, while on another day, the men rode an exercise bike continuously for 30 minutes at a moderate pace (equivalent to 65 percent of their predetermined maximum aerobic capacity). A third session was more demanding, with the men completing 30 minutes of intervals, riding first for one minute at 100 percent of their endurance capacity, then spinning gently for 4 minutes.

The final session was the toughest, as the men strained through 15 seconds of pedaling at 170 percent of their normal endurance capacity, then pedaled at barely 30 percent of their maximum capacity for a minute, with the entire sequence repeated over the course of 30 minutes.

Before and after exercise and rest, the scientists drew blood from the men to check for levels of various substances known to influence appetite. They also provided their volunteers with a standardized liquid breakfast at the end of each 30-minute session.

Then, about 70 minutes later, they let the men loose at a table loaded with a sweetened but bland porridge. The researchers wanted to avoid rich aromas or other aspects of food that might influence the men’s desire to eat; they hoped to isolate the effects of pure appetite — which needs to be robust to make porridge enticing.
As it turned out, gruel was quite appealing to the men after resting or pedaling moderately; they loaded their bowls. But their appetites were noticeably blunted by each of the interval workouts, and in particular by the most strenuous 15-second intervals. After that session, the men picked at their porridge, consuming significantly less than after resting or training moderately.

They also displayed significantly lower levels of the hormone ghrelin, which is known to stimulate appetite, and elevated levels of both blood lactate and blood sugar, which have been shown to lessen the drive to eat, after the most vigorous interval session than after the other workouts.

And the appetite-suppressing effect of the highly intense intervals lingered into the next day, according to food diaries that the men completed. They consumed fewer calories during the subsequent 24 hours after the very intense 15-second intervals than after any of the other workouts.

These results parallel those of another recent study of exercise intensity and appetite, published last year in the journal PLoS One, for which obese teenage boys were asked to spend 24 hours within an enclosed metabolic chamber that constantly measured their energy intake and output. The boys made three visits, once resting throughout their stay, and on the other two occasions exercising on a stationary bicycle at either a moderate or highly intense pace until they had burned about 330 calories.

Afterward, they were allowed to eat whatever they chose from a varied buffet, and being teenaged boys, they chose plenty, more than replacing their energy output each time. But after the intense session, they ate significantly less over all, consuming about 10 percent fewer calories than after resting or pedaling moderately.

The upshot of both of these studies is that intense exercise “leads to a short-term suppression of food intake,” said Aaron Sim, a postgraduate researcher at the University of Western Australia, who led the study of adults and interval exercise.

That conclusion would seem to be fine news for anyone hoping to deploy exercise to trim a waistline. But Mr. Sim cautions that the studies available to date, including his, are very short-term, covering only one session of the various exercise options. “Whether or not” weeks or months of intense training “would have an impact on long-term weight management remains to be determined,” he said.