Return to Answer

The most efficient "food" you can carry is the body fat you can afford to lose. In addition to getting fit for a two week backpacking trip, gaining a few extra pounds will help. How much you should gain, and if and when you should start to gain, and how much you can afford to lose beyond your normal body weight will vary from person to person.

In our younger days, we each of us always ended our trips of 2 to 2.5 weeks between 5 and 10 pounds lighter than when we started. Neither of us had excess weight to begin with, nor did we fatten-up before the trips, which was a mistake, but not a serious one.

Relying on body fat for some of your calories means that you have less to carry, obviously, but also gives you more freedom on what you do carry. We had a much more varied diet than suggested in the other answers. We took treats, too, including things like frozen orange juice (one 6 oz can of frozen juice every other day), one 1/2 bottle of champagne, a small jar of olives, a tin of sardines, and a few other items to enjoy, not merely to give sustenance. Chocolate, of course, does double duty. As does peanut butter.

The luxuries were far, far more important to the enjoyment of the trip than the burden of their modest extra weight.

Some may argue that the items we carried for variety and enjoyment were not "efficient" foods, but I disagree. Being bored with one's food, or finding it disagreeable is not efficient in the broader sense of enjoying a trip. Unhappiness is not efficient. Boredom is not efficient.

Note that the OP specified a "12 to 15 day trip." My answer would have been different for a longer trip. 18 days was our limit for the food budget I described. For a longer trip, the champagne would definitely be omitted and be replaced by e.g., more peanut butter. We would take less orange juice, maybe only a can a week - or none. We would definitely have gained a few pounds in preparation.

Losing 10 pounds for me meant dropping 7.7 percent of my body weight, a lesser percentage for my husband. This was easily replaced, and not a health problem for us, although everyone is different.

Finally, we were travelling in country that had an abundance of pure water, although later we did take a reverse-osmosis water purifier.

Addendum: Thanks to @Sherwood Botsford for adding that this is not good advice if you are travelling in sub-zero conditions, but does not say whether this is Fahrenheit or Celsius. See below for his entire comment.

The most efficient "food" you can carry is the body fat you can afford to lose. In addition to getting fit for a two week backpacking trip, gaining a few extra pounds will help. How much you should gain, and if and when you should start to gain, and how much you can afford to lose beyond your normal body weight will vary from person to person.

In our younger days, we each of us always ended our trips of 2 to 2.5 weeks between 5 and 10 pounds lighter than when we started. Neither of us had excess weight to begin with, nor did we fatten-up before the trips, which was a mistake, but not a serious one.

Relying on body fat for some of your calories means that you have less to carry, obviously, but also gives you more freedom on what you do carry. We had a much more varied diet than suggested in the other answers. We took treats, too, including things like frozen orange juice (one 6 oz can of frozen juice every other day), one 1/2 bottle of champagne, a small jar of olives, a tin of sardines, and a few other items to enjoy, not merely to give sustenance. Chocolate, of course, does double duty. As does peanut butter.

The luxuries were far, far more important to the enjoyment of the trip than the burden of their modest extra weight.

Some may argue that the items we carried for variety and enjoyment were not "efficient" foods, but I disagree. Being bored with one's food, or finding it disagreeable is not efficient in the broader sense of enjoying a trip. Unhappiness is not efficient. Boredom is not efficient.

Note that the OP specified a "12 to 15 day trip." My answer would have been different for a longer trip. 18 days was our limit for the food budget I described. For a longer trip, the champagne would definitely be omitted and be replaced by e.g., more peanut butter. We would take less orange juice, maybe only a can a week - or none. We would definitely have gained a few pounds in preparation.

Losing 10 pounds for me meant dropping 7.7 percent of my body weight, a lesser percentage for my husband. This was easily replaced, and not a health problem for us, although everyone is different.

Finally, we were travelling in country that had an abundance of pure water, although later we did take a reverse-osmosis water purifier.

Addendum: Thanks to @Sherwood Botsford for adding that this is not good advice if you are travelling in sub-zero conditions, but does he not say whether this is Fahrenheit or Celsius. See below for his entire comment.

The most efficient "food" you can carry is the body fat you can afford to lose. In addition to getting fit for a two week backpacking trip, gaining a few extra pounds will help. How much you should gain, and if and when you should start to gain, and how much you can afford to lose beyond your normal body weight will vary from person to person.

In our younger days, we each of us always ended our trips of 2 to 2.5 weeks between 5 and 10 pounds lighter than when we started. Neither of us had excess weight to begin with, nor did we fatten-up before the trips, which was a mistake, but not a serious one.

Relying on body fat for some of your calories means that you have less to carry, obviously, but also gives you more freedom on what you do carry. We had a much more varied diet than suggested in the other answers. We took treats, too, including things like frozen orange juice (one 6 oz can of frozen juice every other day), one 1/2 bottle of champagne, a small jar of olives, a tin of sardines, and a few other items to enjoy, not merely to give sustenance. Chocolate, of course, does double duty. As does peanut butter.

The luxuries were far, far more important to the enjoyment of the trip than the burden of their modest extra weight.

Some may argue that the items we carried for variety and enjoyment were not "efficient" foods, but I disagree. Being bored with one's food, or finding it disagreeable is not efficient in the broader sense of enjoying a trip. Unhappiness is not efficient. Boredom is not efficient.

Note that the OP specified a "12 to 15 day trip." My answer would have been different for a longer trip. 18 days was our limit for the food budget I described. For a longer trip, the champagne would definitely be omitted and be replaced by e.g., more peanut butter. We would take less orange juice, maybe only a can a week - or none. We would definitely have gained a few pounds in preparation.

Losing 10 pounds for me meant dropping 7.7 percent of my body weight, a lesser percentage for my husband. This was easily replaced, and not a health problem for us, although everyone is different.

Finally, we were travelling in country that had an abundance of pure water, although later we did take a reverse-osmosis water purifier.

The most efficient "food" you can carry is the body fat you can afford to lose. In addition to getting fit for a two week backpacking trip, gaining a few extra pounds will help. How much you should gain, and if and when you should start to gain, and how much you can afford to lose beyond your normal body weight will vary from person to person.

In our younger days, we each of us always ended our trips of 2 to 2.5 weeks between 5 and 10 pounds lighter than when we started. Neither of us had excess weight to begin with, nor did we fatten-up before the trips, which was a mistake, but not a serious one.

Relying on body fat for some of your calories means that you have less to carry, obviously, but also gives you more freedom on what you do carry. We had a much more varied diet than suggested in the other answers. We took treats, too, including things like frozen orange juice (one 6 oz can of frozen juice every other day), one 1/2 bottle of champagne, a small jar of olives, a tin of sardines, and a few other items to enjoy, not merely to give sustenance. Chocolate, of course, does double duty. As does peanut butter.

The luxuries were far, far more important to the enjoyment of the trip than the burden of their modest extra weight.

Some may argue that the items we carried for variety and enjoyment were not "efficient" foods, but I disagree. Being bored with one's food, or finding it disagreeable is not efficient in the broader sense of enjoying a trip. Unhappiness is not efficient. Boredom is not efficient.

Note that the OP specified a "12 to 15 day trip." My answer would have been different for a longer trip. 18 days was our limit for the food budget I described. For a longer trip, the champagne would definitely be omitted and be replaced by e.g., more peanut butter. We would take less orange juice, maybe only a can a week - or none. We would definitely have gained a few pounds in preparation.

Losing 10 pounds for me meant dropping 7.7 percent of my body weight, a lesser percentage for my husband. This was easily replaced, and not a health problem for us, although everyone is different.

Finally, we were travelling in country that had an abundance of pure water, although later we did take a reverse-osmosis water purifier.

Addendum: Thanks to @Sherwood Botsford for adding that this is not good advice if you are travelling in sub-zero conditions, but does not say whether this is Fahrenheit or Celsius. See below for his entire comment.

The most efficient "food" you can carry is the body fat you can afford to lose. In addition to getting fit for a two week backpacking trip, gaining a few extra pounds will help. How much you should gain, and if and when you should start to gain, and how much you can afford to lose beyond your normal body weight will vary from person to person.

In our younger days, we each of us always ended our trips of 2 to 3 weeks between 5 and 10 pounds lighter than when we started. Neither of us had excess weight to begin with, nor did we fatten-up before the trips, which was a mistake, but not a serious one.

Relying on body fat for some of your calories means that you have less to carry, obviously, but also gives you more freedom on what you do carry. We had a much more varied diet than suggested in the other answers. We took treats, too, including things like frozen orange juice (one 6 oz can of frozen juice every other day), one 1/2 bottle of champagne, a small jar of olives, a tin of sardines, and a few other items to enjoy, not merely to give sustenance. Chocolate, of course, does double duty. As does peanut butter.

The luxuries were far, far more important to the enjoyment of the trip than the burden of their modest extra weight.

Some may argue that the items we carried for variety and enjoyment were not "efficient" foods, but I disagree. Being bored with one's food, or finding it disagreeable is not efficient in the broader sense of enjoying a trip. Unhappiness is not efficient. Boredom is not efficient.

Note that the OP specified a "12 to 15 day trip." My answer would have been different for, say a month-long trip. The champagne would definitely be omitted and be replaced by e.g., more peanut butter. We would take less orange juice, maybe only a can a week. We would definitely have gained a few pounds in preparation.

Losing 10 pounds for me meant dropping 8 percent of my body weight, a lesser percentage for my husband. This was easily replaced, and not a health problem.

Finally, we were travelling in country that had an abundance of pure water, although later we did take a reverse-osmosis water purifier.

The most efficient "food" you can carry is the body fat you can afford to lose. In addition to getting fit for a two week backpacking trip, gaining a few extra pounds will help. How much you should gain, and if and when you should start to gain, and how much you can afford to lose beyond your normal body weight will vary from person to person.

In our younger days, we each of us always ended our trips of 2 to 2.5 weeks between 5 and 10 pounds lighter than when we started. Neither of us had excess weight to begin with, nor did we fatten-up before the trips, which was a mistake, but not a serious one.

Relying on body fat for some of your calories means that you have less to carry, obviously, but also gives you more freedom on what you do carry. We had a much more varied diet than suggested in the other answers. We took treats, too, including things like frozen orange juice (one 6 oz can of frozen juice every other day), one 1/2 bottle of champagne, a small jar of olives, a tin of sardines, and a few other items to enjoy, not merely to give sustenance. Chocolate, of course, does double duty. As does peanut butter.

The luxuries were far, far more important to the enjoyment of the trip than the burden of their modest extra weight.

Some may argue that the items we carried for variety and enjoyment were not "efficient" foods, but I disagree. Being bored with one's food, or finding it disagreeable is not efficient in the broader sense of enjoying a trip. Unhappiness is not efficient. Boredom is not efficient.

Note that the OP specified a "12 to 15 day trip." My answer would have been different for a longer trip. 18 days was our limit for the food budget I described. For a longer trip, the champagne would definitely be omitted and be replaced by e.g., more peanut butter. We would take less orange juice, maybe only a can a week - or none. We would definitely have gained a few pounds in preparation.

Losing 10 pounds for me meant dropping 7.7 percent of my body weight, a lesser percentage for my husband. This was easily replaced, and not a health problem for us, although everyone is different.

Finally, we were travelling in country that had an abundance of pure water, although later we did take a reverse-osmosis water purifier.