Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting Getting in shape for BP hunting

Ain't gonna happen.

Try following my instructions exactly. I tried to make them usable. Let me know if there's any confusion after you've tried that.

TAK, you seem like a pretty smart guy, but dont draw assumptions about me when you know absolutely nothing about me, my training or the injuries Ive spent 20 years dealing with or recovering from.

Well, what about it Elk? Let's here about it. Maybe you encountered an idiot for a crossfit instructor. I have no doubt there are a few out there. Don't just come here and toss a bomb with no explanation.

"Crossfit" with excessive substitution or scaling isn't "Crossfit".

A strong guy will not do anything but lose hard-earned strength doing main page crossfit. A weak guy or beginner will not build any strength of significance doing main page crossfit. The contest winners aren't doing main page crossfit. Take a look at their stats, there's absolutely no possible way to maintain a 300# C&J doing main page crossfit. That can only happen with a WHOLE LOT of barbell work.

To even have a glimmer of hope that crossfit will do something beneficial for you, you better go in with a lot of barbell work and gymnastic training under your belt.

Greyhound hunters will get in good running or cardio shape because that's what they like to do, and they'll shuttle loads. Draft horse hunters will lift weights because that's what they like to do, and they'll bring it all out at once. At the extremes of physiology, the draft horse will win the race from carcass to airstrip as he only need travel 1/3 as far. The guy in the middle who trains both is a force to reckon with. The common thread tying all of them together is tough feet, and that comes from hiking on steep ground with weight.

I would like to think I fall under the draft horse bracket. A little off topic but Vek has mentioned about pants not fitting in the thigh area. My pants all fit fine, then I trained hard lost 25 pounds using my own routine and I had to buy new pants because they were too tight in the legs. Draft horse indeed..

Remember we are talking backpack hunting here. Almost anyone can go hike up in the hills and kill a large chunk of red meat. Its getting it out of there thats the hard part and training should focus on that part of the hunt more than anything. It does not take an extreme amount of cardio to haul out 100+ pounds, for me its mostly downhill after the kill. Leg, core strength and foot toughness is the most important part every BP hunter needs to focus on. The point is crossfit is not required to BP hunt, but anything helps. I for one enjoy getting my training done in the mountains I hunt. That will keep some people to stick with it and more motivated than doing crossfit or any other routines. Some do not have the time or the mountains though, so crossfit or any other program will keep them motivated more than doing it on you own.

BTW, this is more addressed to the OP than anybody else.

E,
Unlike you I am willing to look at opposing sides of a question. I will post another article, this time specifically directed at the FFG. It says somethings that you agree with and some I do and don't. The main area of contention I have with the FFGs is when it comes to red meat they are exclusively referring to domestic grown meats, which for the most part are much different then wild big game. They have additives that wild game is essentially void off. They are for the most part fattened up on grains, however admittedly wild BG may or may not be subjected to a diet of domestic grain. Originally it wasn't. Is it the additives and over feeding on domestic grains that are causing the heart problems? Hoping someday there may be an answer. These "experts" recommend lean meat. Hmmm, perhaps those "Voyagers of Discovery"-great book by the way-were onto something.

Pay particular attention to the comments re grains and your pasta as it relates to metabolic disorders, diabetes and heart disease.

Also some "experts" at Harvard are of the opinion that the food industry may perhaps have to much input on what America should be eating. Again underlined for quick reference.

We can argue until the cows no longer have a home, but weight loss or gain for the most part consists mainly of do we consume more calories or less calories than we expend. I obviously consume less when I lean more toward protein. I also feel better, grave food less and have more consistent energy levels from not having sugar levels fluctuate as much. If carbs are the answer, why does every diabetic diet restrict and monitor carb intake like it is the holy grail of living with the the disease. You eat carbs your sugar will elevate no matter if you are diabetic or not. To the pancreas it is not any different than sugar.

You prefer to live by 1970s science, be my guest. I don't intend to do so.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/dietary-guidelines-2010/index.html

The long-awaited new U.S. dietary guidelines are a step in the right direction, but they don�t go quite far enough to spell out what Americans need to do to stay healthy�not a surprise, some critics say, given the strong influence of the food industry on U.S. food policy.

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released on January 31, 2011, are used to direct federal nutrition and education programs that reach tens of millions of Americans, including school lunch and food assistance programs. The 95-page document is the culmination of a two-year process of scientific evidence review and public hearings that drew thousands of comments from individuals and public health experts, as well as from powerful food industry groups�the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Sugar Association, the National Milk Producers Federation, and the National Cattleman�s Beef Association, among them.



The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 has two pages of �Key Recommendations� that spell out specific food components that Americans need to cut back on�among them, sodium, saturated and trans fat, added sugars, and refined grains. But the document could have been much more direct, telling people which foods to avoid�for example, to cut sugary soft drinks, red meat, white bread, French fries, and other American staples.

Interestingly, the same two page section of the report very clearly spells out what foods to increase�vegetables, fruits, whole grains, seafood, and low-fat or fat-free milk and milk products.

It�s possible that the yet-to-be-launched consumer education materials will be more user-friendly and direct. A separate handout with �Selected Messages for Consumers,� provided on the Dietary Guidelines website, does tell people to �drink water instead of sugary drinks,� but it is silent on red meat.

As expected, based on a report of the Dietary Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee last summer, the new guidelines encourage Americans to eat more foods that deliver healthful nutrients and fewer foods chock full of empty calories and salt, to exercise more and curb screen time, and to maintain healthy weights. In some places, though, the healthy eating messages are obscured. And, critics say, the guidelines still don�t go as far as they could to promote eating patterns that lower heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic disease risk. (Read about the problems with 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.)

An ongoing complaint of public health experts is that the guidelines, which are updated every five years, come not just from the agency responsible for promoting the nation�s health�the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services�but also from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), which is responsible for promoting and marketing agricultural products.

�I had hoped that the USDA would be able to give Americans the clear advice about diet that they deserve,� says Dr. Walter Willett, Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, and chair of the Dept. of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health. �However, the continued failure to highlight the need to cut back on red meat and limit most dairy products suggests that �Big Beef� and �Big Dairy� retain their strong influence within this department. Might it be time for the USDA to recuse itself because of conflicts of interest and get out of the business of dietary advice?�

While the 2010 guidelines� development was informed by an expert panel of nutrition scientists (including Dr. Eric Rimm, Associate Professor in the Dept. of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health), the scientists do not have any say in the wording of the final document.

"We wanted our messages to be as food and diet based as possible, as opposed to focusing on nutrients," Rimm says. "We still have a huge obesity problem in children and adults, so it's clear that our previous messages were not getting out to the public. We hope that the planned consumer education materials based on the new Dietary Guidelines will be much easier to interpret."

Encouragingly, the new Dietary Guidelines acknowledge for the first time that overweight and obesity are social�not individual�problems. Although brief, one chapter of the guidelines offers strategies that schools, communities, health-care providers, policy makers, and food producers can use to make it easier for individuals and families to eat right and stay active.

Some of the nutrition recommendations in the new Dietary Guidelines represent important steps in the right direction:

Eat more foods from plants. The guidelines emphasize eating more vegetables, beans, fruit, whole grains, and nuts, and they highlight healthful plant-based eating patterns, including the DASH diet and the Mediterranean diet, as well as vegetarian and vegan eating plans.
Read more about the health benefits of eating fish and omega 3 fatty acids.

Eat more fish. Recognizing the role of omega 3 fatty acids in preventing heart disease, the guidelines encourage Americans to eat more seafood�two servings (8 ounces) per week�in place of red meat or poultry.
Not all protein packages are the same. The document notes that some protein foods, such as meat, poultry, and eggs, are higher in so-called �solid fats��the saturated and trans fats that Americans need to cut back. It recommends replacing them with protein foods that contain healthy oils, such as fish and nuts, or choosing leaner forms of meat.
Read more about how to include healthy fats in your diet.Total fat is fading away as a focus. This version of the guidelines appropriately emphasizes total calories in the diet, rather than the percentage of calories from fat in the diet. And it is appropriately focused on replacing bad fats with healthful fats from plant sources and fish.
Other recommendations do not go far enough to reflect the latest nutrition science�or bury key messages:

Continued fixation on 35 percent of calories from fat. Although the new guidelines appropriately decrease the emphasis on percentage of calories from fat, they still set 35 percent as the upper limit�a problem, especially given the way that the guidelines are used to set standards for schools and other federal food programs. The cap on fat can distort menus, since it means that a large intake of refined grains is still allowed. And often this cap on fat is wrongly applied to individual foods or meals, so that broccoli with olive oil would be seen as too high in fat, whereas mashed potato with butter would not.
Too lax on refined grains. Though the new guidelines encourage Americans to cut back on refined grains and replace them with whole grains, they still suggest that it is okay to consume up to half of our grains as refined grains. That's unfortunate, since there�s been even more research evidence in the past five years that refined grains, such as white bread, white rice, and white pasta, have adverse metabolic effects and increase the risks of diabetes and heart disease. (1,2) The Healthy Eating Pyramid, from the Dept. of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, puts refined grains in the tip, meaning that they should be used sparingly, if at all.
Too lenient on red meat. The guidelines still continue to lump red meat together with fish, poultry, eggs, nuts, seeds, beans, and soy products in one food group, newly termed the �protein foods� group. Though they highlight the benefits of replacing some meat or chicken with fish, they gloss over the substantial evidence that replacing red meat with poultry, beans, or nuts, could help prevent heart disease, and that lowering red meat can lower the risk of diabetes. (3,4) The Healthy Eating Pyramid, in contrast, puts red meat in the �use sparingly� tip, to emphasize that it�s better to get proteins from more healthful sources, such as nuts, seeds, beans, fish, poultry, and eggs. The guidelines also don�t provide adequate warning about processed meats, which have been most strongly linked with cardiovascular disease and diabetes, at least in part due to their high added sodium content.
Read more about the research on calcium, milk, and health.

Read more about the research on vitamin D and health.

Too much dairy. The guidelines recommend increasing intake of low-fat milk and dairy products�recommendations that don�t reflect the evidence. There is little, if any, evidence that eating dairy prevents osteoporosis or fractures, and there is considerable evidence that high dairy product consumption is associated with increased risk of fatal prostate and ovarian cancers. To be sure, calcium is an important nutrient, but we don�t need as much calcium as these guidelines recommend�and milk and dairy are not the only, or best, sources of calcium. Also, while the guidelines are clear about low-fat dairy, they are notably vague about regular fat dairy products such as cheese and ice cream. Based on the scientific evidence, the Healthy Eating Pyramid recommends limiting dairy products to one to two servings per day, or consuming a vitamin D and calcium supplement instead.
Read why the IOM's recommendations are too low on vitamin D and too high on calcium.

Too little vitamin D. The guidelines, as expected, follow the lead of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and recommend 600 IU of vitamin D a day for children and most adults, and 800 IU for adults over age 70�a recommendation that�s too low. There�s ample evidence that to reach adequate blood levels of vitamin D, most Americans need at least 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day�an amount that is hard, if not impossible to achieve, from food alone.
Read why�and how�to make 1,500 milligrams your daily sodium budget.

Stopping short on sodium. Given that nearly 70 percent of U.S. adults should consume no more than 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day, (5) it�s a shame that the Dietary Guidelines does not make 1,500 milligrams the daily sodium max for all Americans. Instead, the guidelines keep 2,300 milligrams as the upper limit for everyone except people in high risk groups.
Lack of clarity. While the guidelines are clear about foods that should be increased, such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, the guidance becomes vague when discussing foods to reduce. Instead of talking about reducing �solid fats� the guidelines should emphasize reducing red meat and dairy products, such as butter, regular milk, cheese, and ice cream. A table in the Appendix does list more specific strategies for consumers, so perhaps the planned consumer education materials will be more direct than the Dietary Guidelines themselves.
It remains to be seen how these new Dietary Guidelines will be turned into nutrition messages for the general public. Typically, the scientists who help inform the guidelines� development are not involved in the communication effort�and their science-based guidance sometimes gets lost in translation. Take the MyPyramid logo, which became the public face of the 2005 guidelines. Vague and abstract, it doesn't clearly illustrate what foods are healthier choices than others; you need to visit the USDA's website for those details. The MyPyramid website is cited frequently throughout the new Dietary Guidelines report, but there are no pictures of MyPyramid itself, so perhaps the much-maligned logo is in for a face lift? Stay tuned.

References
1. Sun Q, Spiegelman D, van Dam RM, et al. White rice, brown rice, and risk of type 2 diabetes in US men and women. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:961�9.

2. Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91:502�9.

3. Bernstein AM, Sun Q, Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Willett WC. Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Circulation. 2010;122:876�83.

4. Aune D, Ursin G, Veierod MB. Meat consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Diabetologia. 2009;52:2277�87.

5. Application of lower sodium intake recommendations to adults�United States, 1999-2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58:281�3.

Terms of Use
The aim of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Source is to provide timely information on diet and nutrition for clinicians, allied health professionals, and the public. The contents of this Web site are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this Web site. The information does not mention brand names, nor does it endorse any particular products.


Contact Us | Harvard University | Reporting Copyright Infringements | Privacy | Site Index
Harvard School of Public Health � 677 Huntington Avenue � Boston, MA 02115
Copyright � 2012 The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Jeebus. The heavy artillery!



Protien is a more "grounded" energy for me than carbs.

I carry a Snickers bar in my elk pack for emergencies.... such as the truck is 5 miles away, I'm completely whipped, and it's getting dark. I'll spike my energy with sugar and caffeine in those circumstances, but otherwise I try to keep things on a more even keel.

You want to connect with how different foods make you feel? Go healthy/organic/vegetarian for a few years. BTDT. That provides a baseline. I think the garbage scows that are 70% of American eaters don't even know how crappy the chit they eat makes them feel, because they don't know how good it is possible to feel.

E,
Another article: This time from the "experts" at the Mayo Clinic.

Carbohydrates as an energy source have their benefit when used weeks before and endurance event. For a quick pick me up on the trail they have little benefit over other food sources. Now is a hunt an extended endurance event? Well it can be, but for the most part it isn't with the possible exception of the walk in and the carrying of game out. For the most part it is walk and look, stop and spend some time looking, move on and spend some more time looking and get back to camp or the vehicle. In the vast majority of cases it is not a marathon or triathlethon.


Carbohydrate-loading diet
By Mayo Clinic staff
Definition

A carbohydrate-loading diet, also called a carb-loading diet, is a strategy to increase the amount of fuel stored in your muscles to improve athletic performance. Carbohydrate loading generally involves greatly increasing the amount of carbohydrates you eat several days before a high-intensity endurance athletic event. You also typically scale back your activity level during carbohydrate loading.

Purpose

Any physical activity you do requires carbohydrates to provide you with fuel. For most recreational activity, your body uses its existing energy stores for fuel. But when you engage in long, intense athletic events, your body needs extra energy to keep going. The purpose of carbohydrate loading is to give you the energy to complete an endurance event with less fatigue, improving your athletic performance.

Carbohydrate loading is most beneficial if you're an endurance athlete � such as a marathon runner, swimmer or cyclist � preparing for an event that will last 90 minutes or more. Carbohydrate loading isn't necessary for shorter athletic activities, such as recreational biking or swimming, weightlifting, and five- or 10-mile (eight- or 16-kilometer) runs.

Diet details

The role of carbohydrates
Carbohydrates, also known as starches and sugars, are your body's main energy source. Complex carbohydrates include legumes, grains and starchy vegetables, such as potatoes, peas and corn. Simple carbohydrates are found mainly in fruits and milk, as well as in foods made with sugar, such as candy and other sweets.

During digestion, your body converts carbohydrates into sugar. The sugar enters your bloodstream, where it's then transferred to individual cells to provide energy. Some of the extra sugar is stored in your liver and muscles as glycogen � your energy source.

Increase your energy storage
Your muscles normally store only small amounts of glycogen � enough to support you during recreational exercise activities. If you exercise intensely for more than 90 minutes, your muscles may run out of glycogen. At that point, you may start to become fatigued, and your performance may suffer.

But with carbohydrate loading, you may be able to store up enough energy in your muscles to give you the stamina to make it through longer endurance events without overwhelming fatigue � although you still will need to consume some energy sources during your event.

Two steps to carbohydrate loading
Traditionally, carbohydrate loading is done in two steps the week before a high-endurance activity:

Step 1. About a week before the event, adjust your carbohydrate intake, if needed, so that it's about 50 to 55 percent of your total calories. Increase protein and fat intake to compensate for any decrease in carbohydrates. Continue training at your normal level. This helps deplete your carbohydrate stores and make room for the loading that comes next.
Step 2. Three to four days before the event, increase your carbohydrate intake to about 70 percent of your daily calories. Smaller athletes should consume about 4.5 grams of carbs per pound (kilogram) of body weight, while larger athletes should consume about 3.5 grams per pound of body weight to get adequate carbohydrate intake. Cut back on foods higher in fat to compensate for the extra carbohydrate-rich foods. Also scale back your training to avoid using the energy you're trying to store up. Rest completely the day before your big event.
Sample carbohydrate-loading meal plan
Here's a sample carbohydrate-loading meal plan for an athlete who weighs 170 pounds (77 kilograms). Based on 4 grams of carbohydrates per pound of body weight, the meal plan consists of about 70 percent carbohydrates. You can tweak this sample carbohydrate-loading meal plan to suit your own tastes and nutritional needs. Keep in mind that 1 gram of carbohydrates has 4 calories.


Carbohydrate loading may give you more energy during an endurance event. You may feel less fatigued and see an improvement in your performance after carbohydrate loading. But carbohydrate loading isn't effective for everyone. Other factors can influence your athletic performance or interfere with the effectiveness of your carbohydrate-loading strategy, including your fitness level and the intensity level of your exercise. Even with carbohydrate loading, you still may feel muscle fatigue. You may not perform as well as you'd hoped, or you may even have to drop out of your event before finishing it.

If you're a man, a carbohydrate-loading diet can increase the levels of glycogen stored in your muscles from 25 to 100 percent of your normal amount. However, carbohydrate loading may not be as effective if you're a woman. Fewer research studies exist about carbohydrate loading in women, and they've yielded mixed results. A woman may need to consume more calories than usual during carbohydrate loading to get the same benefits as a man does. A woman's menstrual cycle also may affect the effectiveness of carbohydrate loading for reasons not yet clear.

Even if you've practiced carbohydrate loading, you still need to replenish your body's energy during the event to maintain your blood sugar levels. You can do this by periodically consuming sports drinks, gels or bars, fruit, or even a candy bar during your event at the rate of 30 to 60 grams an hour. And don't forget to eat carbohydrate-rich foods after your endurance event, too, to replenish your glycogen stores.

Risks

Carbohydrate loading isn't right for every endurance athlete. It's a good idea to consult your doctor or a registered dietitian before you start carbohydrate loading, especially if you have diabetes. You may also need to experiment with different amounts of carbohydrates to find something that works best for your situation.

A carbohydrate-loading diet can cause some discomfort or side effects, such as:

Weight gain. Much of this weight is extra water, but if it hampers your performance, you're probably better off skipping the extra carbs.
Digestive discomfort. You may need to avoid or limit some high-fiber foods one or two days before your event. Beans, bran and broccoli can cause gassy cramps, bloating and loose stools when you're loading up on carbohydrates.
Blood sugar changes. Carbohydrate loading can affect your blood sugar levels. Monitor your blood sugar during training or practices to see what works best for you. And talk to your dietitian or doctor to make sure your meal plan is a safe one for your situation.

It's all out there, if one is willing to have an open mind and try new things.
Some just can't get handle on the whole picture.

You sir, are an idiot.

OK a little knowledge that was thrown my way.

On a Mt. Goat hunt in AK two years ago, I spent a 14hour day up to the top and back to base camp. 65 or 66 at the time. 10hours of it was with the wench on my back. Without the pack I could have done two round trips in the same time frame. We had a Goat and I was fading fast. However, I still had some gas until I got to the tent, and then I went mentally on empty when I sat down on the bed. I was finished.

The guide, 30years younger and ex Army Ranger, seemed to little be effected by the whole thing. Anyway I asked him if anyone had ever been able to stay with him. He replied only one and he was a marathon runner. Which kind of took me by surprise. Obviously it isn't always about pure strength. The mind plays a major role in where you can go.

I would have eaten a tea bag whole if that was all we had. We had more than that and I should have eaten more, but sleep was more important, and then I found out I couldn't sleep. I just laid there for the better part of three or four hours. Sleeping a little then waking up, then sleep a little and wake again.

Never did feel right for a week and went to the Dr. here at home. Finally was diagnosed with Lymes, which I must have taken with me to AK and the effort brought it on full bore.

I like crossfit (pretty well) Joe, but Vek isn't all wrong. If you want the level of strength the crossfit games competitors exhibit, mainsite crossfit programming won't get you there by itself.

And if you're coming off the couch, it's very unlikely (unless you got stupid lucky drawing genetic cards) that you'd be able to do the mainsite workouts without scaling. And it'll take a LONG time to build the required strength level just doing scaled mainsite programming.

Anyways, I think the guys who train heavy with weights, fast with short metcons, and long periodically (especially including plenty of actual weighted backpacking) are probably setting them selves up for the best success. I also subscribe to well designed non-random programming, as well as periodization throughout the year. At the very least, that's what I've been doing this year, and it's got me feeling and performing better than two years of a straight crossfit box did, or just running and backpacking did the two years before that.

C'mon Joe, Vek's a bit pig-headed but he's not an idiot. He's FOS about scaled-crossfit not being Crossfit, 'cause he didn't invent or define the term, Greg Glassman did and he says it is. That's about like me trying to tell Dr Ken Cooper what is and isn't "aerobic".

So, Rich Froning does more that just the Crossfit WOD? Well DUUHHH! Who'da thunk it? Little 145# Chris Spealer made a good showing last year doing one WOD a day last year. IIRC he was fifth.

Vek is right about deciding whether or not you want to be a Clydesdale or a greyhound. You ain't gonna be both.

If someone is doing bodybuilding 3x10 bullschit on hammer strength machines his functional strength (read ability to hump a heavy assed ruck) will markedly increase doing Crossfit.

If someone is doing real-deal Westside barbell stuff and is locally competitive powerlifter, will he get weaker doing Crossfit? Well DUUUHHHHH? He'll be more all around fit however. He will also be carrying around less weight.

This question of how much barbell work is needed is an ever recurring theme on the Crossfit Board. Those who've been around for awhile always answer, "If you ain't as strong as you want to be, get Starting Strength, read it and start lifting till you stall". After cycling in and out of Crossfit/Starting Strength if you want something a bit more advanced try Greyskull Linear Progression next round. This schit ain't rocket science, it's all been figured out by now.

NOBODY in the SOF community, with a shred of credibility( those guys who carry 80-100# rucks around all the time after jumping out of an airplane with 'em in the middle of the night) will tell you that Crossfit shouldn't be the foundation of your fitness program.

FINALLY! Someone who gets it.

So..... complicated.....

Last night i did crunches and pushups. I climbed a tree and ride my bike today. Tomorrow or the next day I'll do my conditioning hike with a pack on. Simple!

"Excessive substitution or scaling" seems like a reasonable qualifier. A bunch of skinnyfats herfting empty barbells into the air and bouncing weights all over the gym is silliness, not crossfit.

Different folks have different definitions of strong. To me, strong is at or near a fully developed linear progression per Starting Strength or similar. Starting from scratch with mainpage crossfit cannot ever, in any duration or volume, get you there. It can't get you remotely close. Starting from a state of strength, mainpage programming won't keep you there.

But, as stated before, folks prioritize strength differently. I've hunted with guys who've never touched a weight or done much in the way of structured exercise, but due to their good genes and general baling wire body composition, they had zero problems. I'm not so blessed.

Ok but saying that scaling ain't crossfit,
http://journal.crossfit.com/2009/06/scaling-how-less-can-be-more.tpl
I scale when needed.
I do crossfit.
I have had some serious strength gains.
Ergo, the feces you vomit onto this board is just that.

Battue, I've read all of that stuff over the years. With the proper understanding, it can be pretty helpful.
Like I've said before, I've followed the stuff that comes out of the University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter for well over 15 yrs. closing in on 20 yrs. I've read so many studies, like what you've referenced for so long I've lost track of how many. I spent a couple of semisters working as an intern in a medical library with lots of spare time to read these things by the dozens.
What's missing here two points I want to make.
First, the whole idea of the FFGL's was to get people to change to more healthy eating habits. The recommendations where based on hundreds of studies done by the major universities, not by the food industries or the deparment of agriculture's wishes. Sure, they had some imput, but their imput had to be based on major studies accredited by the scientific community.
This whole area of bias started way back when Quaker Oats funded a study that showed the major positve impact that oatmeal made on blood chemistry. Simply because it was funded by them, it's critics yelled foul. No proof was forth coming. Later studies by accredited unversities and checked for accuracy found them to be accurate and unbaised.
So, unless somebody comes forth with such proof, and none have, they stand as the real thing.... up to this point.
That's because reasearch into food is both complicated and or our knowledge changes as we learn more. A perfect case in point is the Glycimic Index that claimed to prove that white bread and other refined grains were as bad as sugar. But later reasearch found that this is only so if these things are eaten along with nothing else. Since nobody eats that way, the GI is worth nothing. For example, the whites of a baked potatoes are absorbed as fast as white sugar according the the GI. But mix that with a little fresh carrot, and it hits the other end of the scale. Know anybody who sits down to a meal and eats like just one food item ? Nobody does.
The main point to the FFGL's is that it suggests that we go from where we are in our food choices and go somewhere else. Where are we on the average ?
Most in the US and Canada get 43% of our calories from fat, We get another 35-40% or more from proteins, and the rest from all forms of carbohydrates.
The FFGL's recommend we get 50% of our calores from complex carbohydrates and as few as possible from sugars. It recommends no more than 35% from fats, with a strong perefence for non animal fats. The rest should comne from proteins. Not just meat, or fish, BTW. Many plant based foods, like whole wheat items have lots of proteins. But they need to mixed with legumes, memebers of the pea family to complete them. Something animal based proteins don't lack. Currently, BTW, there is no blanket forbidding of red meat. Only that it be eaten in moderation. In fact, currently, the recommendations are for a wide variety in the major food groups but not alot of anything in particular.
So, if you are really interested in eating healthier, you start there. Concerns about salt, are fine if needed. Getting the seven fruits and vegetables are a good idea too.
All of this isn't rocket science. Just read the food labels on the packages of food you buy. To get no more than 35% of your calores from fat, eat nothing that has more than 6 grams of fat per serving. Don't worry about complex carbs, because getting anywhere near 50% of your calores is very difficult to do. Heck, I have to eat between meals to do that. Just avoid sugars as much as possible. Avoid alot of proteins. Again, study after study of professional and college athletes have shown that even they need only a little more than one gram of protein per seven pounds of body weight. Spread your protein consumption over the course of the day, not all in one meal.
This idea of one gram of protein per pound or Kg or body weight is a fad pushed by the body builders and those that sell protein suppliments. There are no accredited studies that confirm any of this. Quite the opposite. E

Deep breath there, buddy. You write as if I owe you money. "Crossfit" done with excessively scaled weights or substituted exercises rapidly devolves into something strongly resembling generic calisthenics.

"Serious strength gains" means something to you and nobody else. For example, if you quintupled your back squat from 45lbs to 225lbs, you are still little-girl weak. Crossfit will cause serious lat and tricep development due to heavy emphasis on various chin, dip and upper body gymnastic and calisthenic movements. Crossfit will not build nor support a strong squat or clean due to a complete and utter lack of consistent squat or clean work at loads required to maintain strength. Which do you think is more useful under a big pack?

Do you think you'll tire faster doing death march backpacking movements that are 1/4 your strength limit, or 3/4 your strength limit?

Good advice.

It is funny to me that this same thread repeats itself every summer, when it's mostly too late for hunting season anyway. It also seems to me like there are a couple of different levels of "fitness" being discussed. When Vek says CF will make strong guys weak, I think he is talking about guys who are lifters who are already 95th percentile when it comes to strength.

Here's my persective on CF having just been exposed to it the last couple of weeks. Bear in mind that I was thinking it over this morning while on a serious full body off-trail "experience" in pretty rough country. Also, I have zero background in the kind of weight lifting Vek talks about so I can't compare that at all. If you're short on time, CF does seem like an efficient way to exercise your body, and yes you can be sucking wind in a serious way within a few minutes of CF calisthenics. It is also very clear how easily you could injure yourself. The technical stuff is tricky, and it would be really easy in an environment where you are pushing yourself as hard as you can to let form go out of tiredness and injure yourself doing a movement incorrectly. I can also see how CF could very efficiently sculpt a good looking physique.

How do I think that translates to packing in the mountains? If you've got no mountains handy, you could do a whole lot worse. You'd build a good general level of fitness. On the other hand, I'm skeptical that it builds "long term tough". Maybe that is a mental thing as much as anything... but when you are accustomed to training for 45 mins to an hour doing movements that are broken down into very short duration segments, it doesn't gear itself to the kind of thinking that says "it's going to take me at least 2 full hours to climb up to that ridge and I'm going to keep cranking away until it is done". I'm not sure it gears the body to that kind of performance either. It also isn't going to build all of the different little stabilizer muscles in the legs and feet that come over time hauling a pack over uneven terrain. Neither will running bleachers for that matter.

Monday night we did that Tabata interval Joe posted above. Or I should say I did the pretty small percentage of it that I could do. It made muscles hurt and made me suck wind a few times. Do the math though, and it was less than 20 minutes of working out. Then on Tuesday morning, we went mountain biking on a route that had us steadily climbing interspersed with plenty of extra steep and tricky parts that required maximum output to negotiate. That was at least an hour, maybe more. It hit the legs just as hard if not harder than the previous evening, and made my body really suck wind quite a few times against a background of continuous exertion that had me breathing heavily the whole time. No doubt in my mind that the bike ride was better mountain packing prep than the CF workout was.

I really am not far enough into CF to have a well educated opinion. Right now, I think of it as supplemental icing on the cake to the real work of pushing myself hard in the mountains on a daily basis. If I didn't have the advantage of being able to get out daily, I wouldn't feel too bad about mostly doing CF supplemented with longer hikes on as realistic terrain as I could get under a heavy load on the weekends.