Male vs Female Thru-Hikers...an observation

imported
#1

Why do the male thru-hikers look so skinny and sickly at Harpers Ferry while the female thru-hikers generally look much healthier and even stocky?

Mike B

#2

Its on account of women folk vampirically stealing the life force energies of the menfolk. Or psychically. The men are too dumb to realize, and they just get pared down little by little.

It’s either that or the fact that the physiologies differ tween the sexes, but I’m leaning towards the first explanation.

:tongue

Whoa

#3

Us stealing the life force energies of the menfolk? How?

I would say we look so much better because we are so smart we know how to take care of ourselves.

Or it’s because men burn calories faster and have less body fat to start with so they start burning muscle while we’re burning fat, loosing our boobs (oh no!), and building muscle, but I like the first explanation better.

Apple Pie

#4

Hmm, sounds like trail goggles to me. :wink:

Skittles

#5

Thats what we observed in 02 also. The men looked like POW’s and the women looked like they could kick some ass!!

Virginian

#6

I’ve read that if you take a group of random women and a group of random men and place them in an extreme environment, the women as a group will outperform the men. I also think the shape of a woman helps them on the trail with wider hips, they are able to carry more weight on their hips than men and carrying weight on the hips is much more easier and efficient then shoulder weight. And I think women overall are more prepared for the trail then men. You see semi-homeless and poor men on the trail with poor equipment on the trail. All the thru-hiker women seem to be well prepared with quality gear, I’ve never really seen a bum female on the trail.

Mike B

#7

we just have more fat cells to lose… then we build muscle.

the guys (well some) have less fatty tissue and lose muscle.

But I like the theory that we are sucking the life force from the guys…

:girl Hammock Hanger

Hammock Hanger

#8

maybe it’s because we move slower, therefore taking longer to burn up and burn out. I wannbe a trail bum.

bluevist

#9

My theory is that women seem to eat better. You never see a female eat ramon every single day, they are much more creative with their meals. Also when they get to town they eat healthy, salads, fruits and vegitables. Men seen to stick with Pizza and Beer. If they stayed out longer I think men would get rickets.

Blue Jay

#10

Men have a much faster metabolism. Just sitting still, men burn calories much faster than women. Put us both on the trail, and a man eating the same amount (calorically) as a woman will burn up that fuel more quickly.

3D

#11

I have also commented on the changes and differences between physical effects on men and women. I have also noticed that tall men seem to look more gaunt then shorter men who appear to weather the rigors of a long hike better. That could be due to the taller frame just given the appearance of greater loss. I also notice that people tend to stabilize and actually pick up a little weight toward the end of the hike.

Big B

#12

“If they stayed out longer I think men would get rickets.”

:lol

I’m a tall man - 6’4" - and while I have a bit of fat I’d be comfortable losing, I’m sure I’m going to end up on the gaunt end of the spectrum. I spent my college life at 180, and I have a sneaking suspicion I’m gonna end up back there. All scarecrow-like and bony. And when I hug shorter people my collar bone’ll be poking into their cheek.

{shiver}

Whoa

#13

It’s really all quite natural. Men on average have 16% or so body fat, while women have 21% or so on average. So more body fat means you stay warmer at night, have more fat to burn, and stay a lot more healthy on a long endurance activity like a thru hike. The higher body fat of women is due to millions of years of evolution. Females are required to be less physically active then men to take care of the young, so they need that extra body fat to keep warm.

Women are built much better for carrying weight than men, built much better in the lower body. This due to the requirement of carrying extra weight around for 9 months during pregency(speaking of which, you could consider pregancy to be a 9 month thru hike with your pack on all the time, because they can’t take it off). So if you’ve had two children, then you have effectively thru hiked for 9 months twice. If you have had none, then you are built to do it so you will survive better than the men on a thru hike with a pack on your back.

Men are built for the hunt, not to carry weight. They are built lean and mean, for speed and to travel long distances for the hunt (but with no pack on their back). The indian males killed the buffalos, the women skinned them out, carried the hides and the meat.

Also that below waist build on women is also for carrying children when they are very young, because just because pregancy is over doesn’t mean the little ones don’t need to be carried, they do for several years.

As far as women sucking the life force out of men. Yes, that is somewhat true, but the men give it so willingly and want to/beg to give that life force away.

See you out there.:cheers

Maintain

#14

I don’t know about the other women out there, but eating salad, vegetables, fruits? Don’t think so, it’s burgers, pizza, coke, icecream and pie of course. Trying to be a bit healthier this time around…

Apple Pie

#15

I lost a load of weight in 2001, maybe weight i needed to lose? This time around I’m going out there already quite slim, I’m hoping that I don’t lose to much, otherwise the only thing that will climb Katahdin will be my damn spirit. Any guys out there got any suggestions for trying to maintain body weight? Or is it virtually impossible? I’d love to know because I’m only 5’7 and weigh about 156lbs. Any feedback is appreciated.

Ross

:cheers :cheers :cheers

Ross

#16

Ross, your stats are confusing, 57 what? If 57 years old, that’s fine. But there are height and weight tables, at 57 inches high (just 3 inches shy of 5 foot), you are quite bulked up (heavy). On the other hand, if you are 6 foot five inches high, then you are indeed quite slender.

Regarding bulking up and slimming down. It’s really just a formula, one which we all have a lot of problems with—there is an obesity epedemic in this country—too much food and not enough exercise for too many people.

The formula is: Calories eaten (input) minus calories needed for work (output) equals calories packed on (retained) as fat.

So eat a lot, and hike a little. Keep pack weight down because the heavier the pack, the more calories you need to carry it.

See you out there.:cheers

Maintain

#17

Yes, then with 4 kids I’ve done my share of carrying the pack. And let me tell yo with 10 pound kids it was one hell of a heavy pack!!!

BlueVist, what do you mean you want to be a trail bum… you R a trail bum woman!!!:girl

Hammock Hanger

Hammock Hanger

#18

Just to clarify that i’m not a 57 inch circular blob. I’m 5ft 7" and weigh 156 lbs. I’m slim yet well built, i’m not skinny.

Cheers for that. So i guees the answer is to eat foods with loads of calories, but also have other dietry benefits (in other words, not a diet of chocolate and more chocolate). I’ll do my best.

Ross :cheers

Ross

#19

You forgot beer, you well built stud. Quality food in town. I only lost a few pounds. You need to ask Aswah the Horrible how to gain weight while hiking.

BW