Emergency food-fat vs carbs

[Yorkshire Boy]

I've seen a fair few people carrying meat based products (Spam, beef jerky etc...) in their emergency bags.

I'm only a novice but I've heard the best form of energy for physical exertion are carbs, specifically sugar.

Why don't people just pack sugar as an emergency survival food?

 

[Grease]

I usually do some of both. Meats, candy, nuts, granola, dried fruits, etc. are all good trail snacks.

 

[Hammer67]

Marathoners, etc. used to be all about the "carbo-load" but that thinking has changed quite a bit. Sugars are generally most useful for short-term energy gain. The body tends to use them up quickly. For longer-term endurance/warmth, you need to throw a few logs on that fire once you get it going with some sugars.

That said, I keep a few GU packets in my emergency kit for just such occasions when I might need a boost.

Part of what makes these discussions murky is when people frame them as being about "survival" food. If I'm really in a survival situation, I'll eat anything, and I think I speak for most people. However, if we're really just talking about camping, and I'm planning out food for physical exertion such as a backpacking trip, then that's a whole different deal. Personally, I'd like it if "camping" and "survival" were kept conceptually seperate, but it seems pretty popular these days to refer to the former as the latter.

 

[Yorkshire Boy]

Sure enough eating sugar doesn't make you full and it's not comforting, but it's light for the calories and keeps you going.
1 kilo of sugar should keep you going for a while. I kilo of sugar vs other foods for the weight and calories (plus water and fuel needed to cook). Perhaps a nutritionist can give a break down?

I know that eating fatty food makes you sleep warmer, this is an obvious plus during winter in Britain.

I guess I was thinking about getting energy with the least amount of trouble.
Sugar doesn't require any cooking, far better weight for weight than noodles and doesn't require water.

Perhaps a good compromise is just to load up on Snicker bars (fat and sugar).

I read a book by an SAS man called Robin Horsfall and he said that while on selection he stuffed himself with Mars bars and had fish and chips and Guinness for dinner.

 

[Hammer67]

Sure enough eating sugar doesn't make you full and it's not comforting, but it's light for the calories and keeps you going.
1 kilo of sugar should keep you going for a while. Perhaps a nutritionist can give a break down?

I know that eating fatty food makes you sleep warmer.

I guess I was thinking about getting energy with the least amount of trouble.
Sugar doesn't require any cooking, far better weight for weight than noodles and doesn't require water.

Perhaps a good compromise is just to load up on Snicker bars.

Energy requirements, and thus food requirements, are going to differ depending on what you need - short or long-term energy? Sugars deliver the former. Do you need a short busrt of energy to get from A to B? Then by all means, pound a Snickers or two. But if you need to hike twenty miles with a pack in cold weather, and still have the energy needed once you get there to set up camp, then throwing a little more diversity (fats and proteins) into the mix will help a lot with your body's ability to maintain longer-term energy. Only eating sugars is like just burning kindling. Sure it will burn, but it burns fast and leaves you hungry again.

But again, take the "SPAM as Survival Food" thread. Is SPAM a good survival food? Hell yes it is, as are Snickers bars, and most any other food because the definition of "survival food" is "food that will keep you alive." And all of those things definitely will. But personally, if I was planning ahead for a survival situation, would I just pack SPAM? No, not any more than I would just pack Snickers. But like I said above, that thread ended up mostly being about whether or not people like SPAM, the cultural history of SPAM, and taking SPAM camping - none of which had much to do with the original question of whether or not it would be useful survival food, which could have been answered in one word - YES.

I read a book by an SAS man called Robin Horsfall and he said that while on selection he stuffed himself with Mars bars and had fish and chips and Guinness for dinner.

I'm not surprised. There are thousands of such stories, about people surviving on all kinds of things, and far worse - read about Magellan's voyage across the Pacific. They survived on rats and chewing on hard leather that was stripped off the rigging. They would have likely slit each others throats for a Mars bar and a Guiness...

 

[Yorkshire Boy]

Thank you for your replys.

I was thinking about these 72hr packs that people make.

For three days we can exist without food... it doesn't feel nice and is off putting.
But this isn't what people pack for, they always include some food (sometimes meat) and sugary drinks/powders.

But with one kilo of sugar we get X amount of calories (3000 or more), far better than other foods.

An interesting documentary (with two twins) on fat vs sugar (not survival related but everyday living), some suprising results... [video=youtube;5-3TiXw_nTk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-3TiXw_nTk[/video]

 

[Blue Sky]

I think you'll find fat is much more calorie dense than sugar. So, if your plan is to pack as many calories as possible in the least amount of weight, fat-based is the answer. In reality, a mixed approach is probably better in the long run. If your activity is mixed, so should your energy sources be.

Edited to add: the problem with Spam and the like, is that they contain a lot of water. That's just added weight with no calories at all. In a car bag, no matter, but if you have to carry it there are better choices.

 

[SVTFreak]

Fat is 10 calories per gram. Protein and carbs are 4 calories per gram.

You're body needs all three. Stay away from straight sugar if possible. You'll need long term energy. If planning ahead, best to try to properly balance the macronutrient breakdown to allow optimum performance, physically and mentally (brain needs fat for its source of energy to function correctly).

 

[jdj_livefreeordie]

I think you'll find fat is much more calorie dense than sugar. So, if your plan is to pack as many calories as possible in the least amount of weight, fat-based is the answer. In reality, a mixed approach is probably better in the long run. If your activity is mixed, so should your energy sources be.

Edited to add: the problem with Spam and the like, is that they contain a lot of water. That's just added weight with no calories at all. In a car bag, no matter, but if you have to carry it there are better choices.

Truth:
fat = 9 kcal/gram, carbs and protein = 4 kcals/gram

Things like peanut butter with high fat and some carbs/protein with minimal water weight are ideal

 

[Yorkshire Boy]

Fat is 10 calories per gram. Protein and carbs are 4 calories per gram.

You're body needs all three. Stay away from straight sugar if possible. You'll need long term energy. If planning ahead, best to try to properly balance the macronutrient breakdown to allow optimum performance, physically and mentally (brain needs fat for its source of energy to function correctly).

I'm not a nutritionist.
But a high fat diet over carb based diet, might not get you so far.

 

[Hammer67]

I'm not a nutritionist.
But a high fat diet over carb based diet, might not get you so far.

I don't think that anyone who is bothering to respond is arguing in favor of any one type of food exclusively. If you look at all the previous responses, what people are saying is that balance is important.

But are you really asking an open-minded question here, or just wanting to assert what seems to be your opinion that sugars/carbs are the only thing that's important?

 

[Yorkshire Boy]

I don't think that anyone who is bothering to respond is arguing in favor of any one type of food exclusively. If you look at all the previous responses, what people are saying is that balance is important.

But are you really asking an open-minded question here, or just wanting to assert what seems to be your opinion that sugars/carbs are the only thing that's important?[/QUOT

I'm wondering what's the best energy to survive over a 3-7 day

 

[Yorkshire Boy]

To digest fat it takes an x amount of energy

 

[willseeyalater]

Native people in the arctic regions survive well with lots of meats and fat but are susceptible to diabetes when they eat to many carbs. They are a good demonstration of long term survival in a harsh climate to which they are adapted physically and culturally. Those of us who are less adapted to that situation will crave the carbs when we are hungry so it makes sense to plan some good carbs that have a lower glycemic factor than straight sugar. Sugar is sort of like gunpowder in that it burns up quick while whole foods like raisins and nuts release their sugars slower giving us a longer burn more like a chunk of oak on a campfire. Now a pound of bacon or a 10 oz.steak (or even a can of Spam if that is what you have) is more like a well banked campfire with a reflector and rock ring, it will hold off hunger for much longer, keep us alert and let us get work done. Maybe a vegan could scrounge enough roots, berries and nuts to get by but, bless their hearts, they don't pack much extra on board to survive a week or more with no food if everyone had to.

 

[Chris Pierce]

I like peanut butter dried fruit and nuts are good too. Jerky.
What do you usually eat during the day? Are you physically active generally? If so, look for non-perishable foods that are similar to what you eat now.

 

[swonut]

Since you said carrying it, the food that maxed the calories/($*ounce) was little debbie cosmic brownies. Cheap, light and packed with calories. I'm also betting that they last for a long time in a bag. I'm thinking you'd be hard pressed to come up with something better than a 3.59 box of 12. When I hiked, the magic food was a big bag of cashews-- Pricy, but it was quite the mental boost in a cold October rain.

 

[Yorkshire Boy]

Fat is less efficient than carbs regarding energy.

 

[Bo T]

In a survival situation fat is king. The majority of people will go much further on 20 kg of fat than they will on 20 kg of sucrose. One of the primary survival foods is pemmican. A blend of @ 70% fat and 30% protein. As long as you avoid trans fatty acids you will be OK. Sugar, on the other hand, not so much.

 

[willseeyalater]

Fat is lower octane if you will but it burns longer than an equal caloric amount of sugar. We did simple science experiments in high school measuring calories by burning several types of food under a measure of water to see how the water temp rose in a given time. I can't remember the formula but that is the general method of determining caloric amount. A marshmallow would burn like crazy for a brief time but a medium sized potato chip burned longer and more evenly. So if I was having to choose what to take on a trek between carrying ten pounds of assorted sugary carbs or ten pounds of peanut butter(3lbs), Spam(6lbs) and dried apples(one pound) there is no reason to not take the latter. If I have to only choose what I can scrounge up then anything edible is an option and I can decide what has more value out of what is at hand. If I have a fixed amount of cash on hand or goods to barter with for food then it is important not to waste my resources on jelly donuts if there is better food to be had.

 

[shockjockey24]

Beef jerky, peanut butter and instant oatmeal are my food companions in the woods and I've never really needed anything else (for a few days at least...a few weeks would be a different story )