nuts only for food

has anyone tried this? Seems like this would be the lightest way to pack food if you only ate nuts or is it too much fat and not enough carbs. A pound of Pistachios is 2500 calories

I did not personally try nuts only for food, but I know that it is not the best survival tactics.

Have you heard about phytic acid? Nuts are full of it.

Here's what I found:
"Phytic acid binds to minerals, especially iron and zinc, in food and prevents people from absorbing them.

It’s important to note that phytic acid does not leach minerals that are already stored in the body; it only inhibits the absorption of minerals from food in which phytic acid is present."

So it seems to be not well-balanced food.

A measure is a treasure.

I'll gladly wait for other opinions with you.

Personally, I think this might work for a weekend overnighter. Any longer than that, and most people would find a diet with no variety unpalatable after the first or second day - and nutritional values don't matter if you can't get people to eat it.

If you're going to try an all-nut diet, consider packing one of those dental emergency filling kits - sounds like you've created a higher risk that you'll chip a tooth or knock a crown loose.

Great points. I like to grab hand fulls on the trail, but they wouldn't be on the dinner menu, even for a one nighter. Olive oil is really high in calories, well worth carrying a non-leaking container to add to dinners and oatmeal.

I use nuts, dried fruit, and cereal bars as snacks during the day (I snack periodically throughout the hiking day instead of eating lunch). I would never, ever use them as a sole diet even for a short trip, though. I also vary the snacks from trip to trip.

Hiking and backpacking are supposed to be fun, not self-sacrifice! Unless your idea of fun at home is a sole diet of one thing or another, please don't ruin your recreation by forcing yourself to eat a monotonous diet!

Of course if you get satisfaction out of feeding a martyr complex. . .

This is supposed to be FUN?! Why didn't you tell me that sooner?

Actually, that reminds me of something: why does everyone say "fast AND light" as though the two are linked? I'm definitely in the light category (not ultralight, but light), but I'm definitely not in the fast category. Does that mean I'm doing it wrong? Can I just be light?

The answer, of course, is yes, you can be slow and light. In fact, if i weren't light, I'd be even slower. And more tired. Likewise I hike with some twentysomethings who don't worry about pack weight; they are, in fact, fast and heavy. (I didn't say I hiked with them for long; we just start out together, and I watch them fade into the woods ahead of me.)

It just bugs me that advertising treats fast as inseparable from light, when there's really no connection.

I agree--I get slower every year. As long as I can put one foot in front of the other, I'll keep going, although it's getting progressively more difficult.

I think we should start a slow and light club!

I'm in.

I nominate Mouse for president.
I move nominations be closed.

Well, I will certainly win any contest for the slowest!

I find as I get older that actually slowing down is difficult. If I go at my usual pace from years past I tend to go for a short sprint then pause to rest and repeat in an endless cycle. If I actually slow down I can keep going for a longer stretch. It is the tortoise and the hare cycle. The problem is that I consciously start hiking at 1.5 MPH and as soon as I forget I revert to my old 2 MPH pace. The only solution is to go out and practice more. Seriously thought I find it difficult to actually slow down.

Yeah, Gord, I have much the same problem. My muscle memory starts me down the trail at my long-ago pace; one that I can no longer sustain. It now (at 80) requires me to make a conscious effort to maintain a sustainable, slower, pace.

I went on a 28-hour overnighter a few years ago with my only food consisting of peanuts, oats, and homemade sport drink mix. It was a fast and light trip: more jog than hike and more bivouac than camp. The weather was cooler than expected so I didn't use much of the drink mix but I finished the rest of the food just as I walked to the car. My hope was that the oats would supply enough fiber to allow me to "lighten my load" in the morning but had no such luck. A more well-rounded dinner the night before might have led to more spring in my step the next day and a net wash in average total weight (including body) but all in all it was a decent experiment. Since then I've gone pretty heavy on the nuts, mostly smoked almonds now, and haven't gotten sick of eating quite a lot of them for trips up to 5 days.

The experience got me thinking about the feasibility of foraging for fiber. I haven't had much luck finding enough wild food to be worth my while: prickly pair "nopales" are about the only thing that I can reliably positively identify and find in quantity. I'm wondering if something with minimal caloric value but high fiber, such as grass maybe, could serve an important digestive role without much risk of catastrophic mis-identification.

I've survived a few nights on homemade trail mix, which besides nuts included M&M's, raisins, and sunflower seeds. It was fast, allowed me to ditch cooking stuff, but it got boring real quick. We found ourselves picking out the M&M's and raisins.

That said, I rarely cook when backpacking and bring much more variety, including heat'n eat entrees, tortillas, sometimes fresh fruit. I figure the fruit is about the same as carrying more water.

Any one-food-only diet is not healthy. OK for a few days, but that is all.

If it is more calories you want, it is better to add a few tablespoons of olive oil every meal.

Yeah I do it all the time and love it. No reduction in fitness noticed. Not just soley nuts though. I make trail mixes with high nut concentration, m&ms, raisins. I've done it with multiple 5 day backpacks no resupply. It's great carrying food thats only 140cal/oz or more imo!