New day hiking treat

[JJ505]

I've been crashing or I guess the term is "bonking", so was looking for a treat that I could enjoy and give a few to my dog as well. So I got this: Kashi Oat Cereal (Warm Cinnamon flavor). A bit more adult than Cheerios, I guess--also much crunchier. They did help quite a lot with the problem as well. Snickers (that's the dog) likes them as well, not saying much, she's a Corgi-- they eat everything.

Note: they also have a honey flavor and a blueberry cluster one.

Info:
120 calories per 3/4 cup
Carbs 26 grams
Protein 3 grams

[bikebum1975]

Sounds good. Yep to bonk does mean an energy crash and its big time to not just feeling hungry but zero energy to move.

[scrabbler]

Sounds good. Yep to bonk does mean an energy crash and its big time to not just feeling hungry but zero energy to move.

Exactly. "Bonking" isnt needing a snack. It's a "I barely have the ability to open this Snickers bar that will pull me back to reality" situation.

[JJ505]

Ok, perhaps you could tell me what I was experiencing then, a little hard to do because I'm not experiencing it right now. I wouldn't say I was tired but all over weakness, however I wasn't lightheaded. I do not have diabetes. Eating carbs did help.

[RockDoc]

Would you mind telling me where the nutrition is? All I see is not food, but energy separated from food. There's GMO corn, sugar, toxic industrial seed oil, and some added chemicals (for freshness). Basically GMO carbs and sugar. That's not nutrition, it's just energy...

Whole oat flour*, degerminated yellow cornmeal*, invert cane syrup*, oat fiber*, honey*, salt, cinnamon*, expeller pressed canola oil*, ginger*, cardamom*, natural flavor, mixed tocopherols (vitamin E) for freshness.

[ChristianMackenzie]

No matter if it was crashing or bonking, as far as the calorie content is helping to reactivate and getting you back to fitness. That's what matters the most.

[Time Zone]

Would you mind telling me where the nutrition is? All I see is not food, but energy separated from food. There's GMO corn, sugar, toxic industrial seed oil, and some added chemicals (for freshness). Basically GMO carbs and sugar. That's not nutrition, it's just energy...

In general, GMO carbs are no worse nutritionally than non-GMO carbs, although they can be better (e.g., golden rice). And if ready energy is the problem, it seems that the OP found a solution that worked for them.

Personally, while I like the taste of Kashi cereal, it doesn't agree with my system that well, and for that reason, I shy away from it.

[Puddlefish]

Kashi just has better advertising. It has the same basic content as mainstream cereal with a few marketing terms thrown in.

[Dogwood]

Maybe you should change your or your dogs name to Kashi. Its kind of a cool word meaning beacon of light.

[Dogwood]

Hand out Kashi samples on trail. That's how Moonpie got her trail name on her PCT NOBO.

[MuddyWaters]

Ok, perhaps you could tell me what I was experiencing then, a little hard to do because I'm not experiencing it right now. I wouldn't say I was tired but all over weakness, however I wasn't lightheaded. I do not have diabetes. Eating carbs did help.

I have no idea what you were feeling. But I'll second that bonking is basically not having the energy to take another step. Especially uphill. I remember reaching a shelter once, the blue blaze trail to the shelter had a very very slight rise from the AT a little ways, and I could barely get up it.


At the shelter I went downhill for water, and i could not get back up. I mean it took me several minutes rest for every couple steps.

At the shelter I got some calories in me rested for 45 minutes drink a liter of water, and I was good to go for the rest of the day. Knocked out about six more miles and a 1500 ' climb without issue.

That was the first time I really bonked like that. Since then I learn to tune in to when the trail starts to feel harder than it should to me.....theres something wrong.

[Dogwood]

In general, GMO carbs are no worse nutritionally than non-GMO carbs, although they can be better (e.g., golden rice)...

Organic foods have been shown to have higher levels of anti oxidants such as in fruit, higher levels of omega 3 fatty acids in eggs, chicken and beef, higher levels of phosphorus, ...

But like fat free, gluten free, low fat, keto, paleo, vegetarian, "superfoods", blah blah blah marketing hype and Capitalism can get corrupt health claims of organic. Good example, is the common practice of adding copious amts of sugar, organic or otherwise.

Omega 6 omega 3 imbalances arising from the western SAD diet is receiving greater scrutiny and examination of causing health issues.

[Time Zone]

Organic foods have been shown to have higher levels of anti oxidants such as in fruit, ...

It's my understanding that antioxidants are no longer considered an unequivocally good thing anymore - that more is not necessarily better. A brief explanation can be found here:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/mor...-antioxidants/

There are also issues with the definition of organic, attribution, relative benefit, and so forth:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/org...meat-and-milk/

I agree with your middle and last paragraphs, though. It seems that the current best practice, food-wise, is to eat a balanced diet/variety of foods, mostly plants, and not too much overall. The current battle between which is worse for you - high fat or high sugar - is interesting and bears watching. Right now sugar is in the ascendancy as the culprit. Many good arguments have been advanced as to why this is and how we misplaced blame before. But dietary advice from experts suffers from the Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome, so you wonder if what they're saying now will still be considered correct in 25 yrs.

[Dogwood]

Good links. Im not going to derail the thread...again...too much.

The first was mainly referring to exogenous antioxidants, those taken supplementally or external to antioxidants naturally included in food which are still very important for a multitude of health reasons. However, it's another term corrupted by marketing, over applied, and perhaps correlated with unsubstantiated out of context false promises. Agreed antioxidants are generally best consumed in a whole food matrix unprocessed state unless some deficiency or specific medical condition requires or benefits from supplementation.

[Dogwood]

Your second statement I generally agree on most points but promoters of Organic making health claims is not based only on PUFA or omega 3 content as your second link author chooses to largely only focus. This is common, focusing on particular nutrients and selling a food product solely on it. Snickers protein bar is just one small example. Coming from such a source claiming to be evidence based and skeptical and thinking that's what science is as if either constitutes fairness or non biases is particularly problematic and blatantly misleading. Skepticism in itself is no gauge of truth. Nor is labeling something as science, currently common to support positions. If it's labeled science based it has to be true...NO! The tobacco industry offered lots of info labeled "scientific" or study based yet was highly misleading and resulting in false conclusons to support the industry during Senate commissioned inquiries with scientists - medical doctors - on the tobacco industry payroll.

I like Michael Pollan's advice as well but I don't think he used balanced to describe his views. Who's defining what a balanced diet is can make for widely different dietary guidelines.

What I like most in your links and perspectives is a wilingness to not only discuss nutrition with civility but being open to being a critical thinker. Dietary choices can be staunchly defended ith a closef mind resulting in heated exchanges much like politics or religion.

This really isn't the Forum for going very deeply into these discussions unless it can be related to hiking. Anywhere else I think I'd enjoy having a deeper nutritional conversation.

[Dogwood]

Your second statement I generally agree on most points but promoters of Organic making health claims is not based only on PUFA or omega 3 content as your second link author chooses to largely only focus. This is common, focusing on particular nutrients and selling a food product solely on it. Snickers protein bar is just one small example. Coming from such a source claiming to be evidence based and skeptical and thinking that's what science is as if either constitutes fairness or non biases is particularly problematic and blatantly misleading. Skepticism in itself is no gauge of truth. Nor is labeling something as science, currently common to support positions. If it's labeled science based it has to be true...NO! The tobacco industry offered lots of info labeled "scientific" or study based yet was highly misleading and resulting in false conclusons to support the industry during Senate commissioned inquiries with scientists - medical doctors - on the tobacco industry payroll.

I like Michael Pollan's advice as well but I don't think he used balanced to describe his views. Who's defining what a balanced diet is can make for widely different dietary guidelines.

What I like most in your links and perspectives is a wilingness to not only discuss nutrition with civility but being open to being a critical thinker. Dietary choices can be staunchly defended ith a closef mind resulting in heated exchanges much like politics or religion.

This really isn't the Forum for going very deeply into these discussions unless it can be related to hiking. Anywhere else I think I'd enjoy having a deeper nutritional conversation.

[Dogwood]

... But dietary advice from experts suffers from the Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome, so you wonder if what they're saying now will still be considered correct in 25 yrs.

Science facts are sometimes more opinion or simply what's currently factual. Facts are subject to no longer being factual. Science is not immune from this. "Good"science is constantly evolving and sometimes science just gets it wrong. That's not what proponents of Scientism like to readily admit.

I can tell you you are absolutely correct as evidenced by my own brother's constantly evolving professional nutritional advice as a Nutritionist. OMG he drowns in his nutrition academia BS as if what he's currently nutritionally doing is right yet two yrs from now I bet he will tell me het got it wrong two yrs ago but now has it all put together.

Instrumental in understanding M. Pollan, T. Colin Cambell, what you and I have discussed and food and nutritional marketing is Nutrionism - reductionist theory. Campbell goes into detail in The China Study.

[Puddlefish]

Antioxidants were part of a 1980s theory on aging. It never panned out for anything whatsoever except "superfoods" marketing. People very much want to belong to cliques, they're willing to believe in all sorts of unproven theories based on non causal data. "I ate a box of cookies before bed, and had trouble sleeping" equates to gluten allergy, when in reality, they had acid reflux caused by being overweight, and eating right before lying down. "I drank a glass of milk and I farted" turns into a self diagnosed lactose intolerance. "I ate a non organic peach and got a headache." Suddenly, they've become part of the great internet team that supports their self diagnosed food delusions.

We're still learning a lot about nutrition, and it's worth studying and learning. Eat the proper portions for your activity level, eat a variety of foods that aren't obviously nutritionally vacant, and you'll be about as well off as anyone else.

As for keeping up your energy levels more consistent on a hike, eat something that's slower to digest periodically. Complex carbs, release energy over hours. Simple carbs as soon as 15 minutes. I'll often bring small dark chocolate candies to pre-reward myself before attempting a big slope, and some energy is available before I reach the top. But, I'll eat a few servings of old fashioned oats in the morning, so my trail energy diet isn't exclusively sugary crap without fiber. I also lost a lot of excess weight during my AT attempt, so what shape you're in at the moment matters a lot.

[Malto]

Ok, perhaps you could tell me what I was experiencing then, a little hard to do because I'm not experiencing it right now. I wouldn't say I was tired but all over weakness, however I wasn't lightheaded. I do not have diabetes. Eating carbs did help.

The first time I bonked was on the AT in Ga, I could hardly move forward. I forced some food and water in me, and laid down right next to the trail for an hour. I got up, energy partially restored and off I went. The key to haveing energy is less about what type of carbs to eat, but how they are eaten. Meter in the caprices, carbs, hourly and you will not bonk. I have trailed all types of carbs from pure sugar, Oreos, Chocolate cover donuts, Maltodextrin(my favorite) to high quality complex carbs. They can all very effective FUEL you. nutrition is a whole separate topic.

[JJ505]

I really eat a very good diet. Do not consider these a good diet, more a treat-- like M&Ms etc. that lots of hikers eat while hiking. Geeze, you guys seemed to have turned this into the idea I was recommending some sort of damn health food. Other people mention snacks of various kinds. As for why these vs say honey oat Cheerios (think they are similar-- they taste better, imo). But oh well.

Don't think I would change my name to Kashi, geeze it's an occasional treat. But make of it something more I suppose.

That said, nah doesn't sound like bonking exactly from what some of you (aka Malto) have described, perhaps just not eating enough for the exertion level, but I doubt there is actually something wrong. Why don't i think so? Because the problem exists nowhere else in my life.