Jake T
Lil-Rokslider
- Joined
- May 14, 2017
- Messages
- 131
This is all stemming from a trip I have coming up where water will NOT be plentiful.
I was looking at calories per gram for different bars and different freeze dried meals. The freeze dried meals were the most calorie dense…until you factor in the water. Then they drop significantly.
Example, peak refuel home style chicken and rice. 740 cals per 146 grams. 5.1cal/g but add in the water needed (8oz, weighs 265 grams) so now it’s 740 cals per 411 grams, or 1.8 cal/g.
Another way to look at it, it takes 411 grams of weight to access 740 calories. But if I were to eat a Big Sur Bar, it only takes 142 grams to access 600 calories. 1.8 cal/g vs 4.2 cal/g
So is it flawed logic to include the water needed for these meals? Because I’m thinking I could save some weight while also decreasing the water I’ll need each day.
Thanks for your thoughts
I was looking at calories per gram for different bars and different freeze dried meals. The freeze dried meals were the most calorie dense…until you factor in the water. Then they drop significantly.
Example, peak refuel home style chicken and rice. 740 cals per 146 grams. 5.1cal/g but add in the water needed (8oz, weighs 265 grams) so now it’s 740 cals per 411 grams, or 1.8 cal/g.
Another way to look at it, it takes 411 grams of weight to access 740 calories. But if I were to eat a Big Sur Bar, it only takes 142 grams to access 600 calories. 1.8 cal/g vs 4.2 cal/g
So is it flawed logic to include the water needed for these meals? Because I’m thinking I could save some weight while also decreasing the water I’ll need each day.
Thanks for your thoughts