I heard this on a PBS show the other day about lewis and clark. How could they eat so much? were they that much more active than we are today? needing that much more food?
2006-06-23 04:24:58 · 6 answers · asked by thumperingss 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Higher Education (University +)
It takes a long time to follow the Lewis and Clark trail by car! It's a beautiful drive and now many years later the memories of that summer....
The whole team needed more food energy than most of usdo with our much less active life-styles. They had the plants they could find as seasoning and lots and lots of meat. Yes it was necessary.
2006-07-06 02:48:36 · answer #1 · answered by OldGringo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't they carry all of their gear on their backs? And back then there were'nt 7-11's every 5 miles, so I assume they had to carry their water with them too. Someone Hiking through rough terrain carrying 20 to 30 pounds of gear will easily run through a gallon of water every 2 hours.
Hiking to that extreme and only having water to drink will surely build up quite an appetite, so yes, 6 or 7 lbs of buffalo meat is not out of the question.
A person at rest most of the day requires about 1200-1500 calories while someone that is on a grueling hike may need almost 5 times that much (6000-6500 calories)
2006-06-23 11:47:04 · answer #2 · answered by sierrasurfer3 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the meat would have been smoked. 6lbs of fresh meat is much lighter when smoked (dried) If you were to weigh all the food you eat in a day, I think you'd be surprised how much you eat. Also consider that the more active you are the more food you need.
2006-06-23 11:31:27 · answer #3 · answered by hilarywow 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. If you went, basically by foot, to the Pacific from the East, you would eat a lot too. It is true that they expended enough energy to be able to eat so much.
2006-06-23 11:29:42 · answer #4 · answered by anaretaacronycal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont believe this!, but if they ate so much, it must of been the walking, the cold weather , I just dont know.
2006-06-23 11:29:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No salads, not much breads, etc - meat or nothing!!
NOW - - - NO CARS, NO SCOOTERS, NO SKATE BOARDS, NO BIKES, NO TRAINS, NO PLANES, ETC, ETC!!
So the walked EVERYWHERE - not everyone had a horse.
So yeah -- they were that much more active?? DUH!!
2006-06-23 11:32:04 · answer #6 · answered by GP 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋