View Full Version : I carry _% percent of my body weight
couscous
08-04-2010, 12:04
07-17-2010, 22:20 .. Wolf - 23000 .. "How often have you heard someone say I carry 5 - 10% of my body weight. I'll tell you - There is very few post that are base on body height/weight." - from Midgets unfair advantage in the lightweight game? / post #46
~~
Interesting point. Being "gravitationally challenged" and able to pack for specific weather conditions does allow those of us who only section hike really experiment with ultralight backpacking. My personal best was section hiking Sep 28-30, 2007 on the North Country Trail with a total pack weight of less than 4% of my body weight. (8# 6oz including a Gossamer Gear Squall Classic, Thermarest Prolite 3 pad, Bozeman quilt in a Gossamer Gear Whisper 3.8oz pack and 3-days of food). Three weeks ago on the AT for a 5-day section hike it jumped to 8% of my body weight as I added 3 more liters of water due to the 98°-102° temps, took 2 more days of food, and used a hammock.
~~
Maybe those of us who will never see the scales stop before 200 have an unfair advantage in one of the lightweight games? :-?
As I get thinner on a long hike you could argue that the percent of my pack to body weight increases. However, I'm not carrying around all that body fat anymore, so even though the percentage weight of my pack goes up, the overall percentage of excess weight to my body is reduced. So I suppose that you have to argue that your pack weight is a percentage of your ideal weight, not your actual weight, and then add all your blubber to your pack weight.
kayak karl
08-04-2010, 13:03
As I get thinner on a long hike you could argue that the percent of my pack to body weight increases. However, I'm not carrying around all that body fat anymore, so even though the percentage weight of my pack goes up, the overall percentage of excess weight to my body is reduced. So I suppose that you have to argue that your pack weight is a percentage of your ideal weight, not your actual weight, and then add all your blubber to your pack weight.
agree. numbers and percentages are useless. so many variables just in gear. time of year, type of hike, number of days (food). if just base weight, define base weight (another can of worms). then back to sbhikes, body fat %, weight loss and muscle gain.
just keep your records and compare yourself to yourself ???
max patch
08-04-2010, 13:09
30% on my thru.
Don't know what it is now other than it is less.
Tipi Walter
08-04-2010, 13:26
agree. numbers and percentages are useless. so many variables just in gear. time of year, type of hike, number of days (food). if just base weight, define base weight (another can of worms). then back to sbhikes, body fat %, weight loss and muscle gain.
just keep your records and compare yourself to yourself ???
Agree totally here. Dazzling us with numbers only works for short snippet trips, like short resupply treks carrying minimal food. Show me someone who carries 14 or 16 days worth of food without resupply on a long two week trip, and I'll show you someone who is carrying 30-50% of his body weight. And then for a January trip where you need extra fuel and parkas and down, etc, and you end up with some neat numbers.
At some point in my thru-hike this year I realized that my total typical pack weight was a bit less than what I'd lost off my body in the first month or two ... I lost around 30 pounds (desperately trying to keep it off now, but always still so-o-o hungry!), and typical (total) AT pack weight after getting out of the snow was probably in the mid-twenties. I guess that made my pack percentage something like 16% of body weight (roughly), whereas at the start (heavier body and heavier pack) it was probably more on the order of ... 16% !
Just short of Pearisburg, however, when I was still carrying more clothing and gear, more food typically by then too, and had lost some weight, perhaps then it was more like a "whopping" 17 - 18%.
couscous
08-04-2010, 13:34
.. then add all your blubber to your pack weight.
100,000 calorie hiking fuel reservoir .. sounds so-o-o much better. :rolleyes:
My skin-out weight, in clothing and gear and food and water is about 10% of my lean body weight.
My skin-in weight, in body fat, is about 30% of my lean body weight.
So I could lose at least another 30 pounds of butter, but I'm doing it for the environment. Carbon-sequestration. We gotta start somwehere eh.
Old Grouse
08-04-2010, 14:18
So I could lose at least another 30 pounds of butter, but I'm doing it for the environment. Carbon-sequestration. We gotta start somwehere eh.
Ooooh, I like that excuse!
sevensixtwo187
08-04-2010, 15:05
Usually around 15-18% ... but I like my creature comforts! :D
Oddly, I actually feel stronger when I'm a little bit fatter than I should be. But my pack is around 20lbs with food and water in it and then my excess calorie reserves is around another 25lbs. :( So I guess I carry about 30% of my lean weight or about 15% of my lean weight once I lose my calorie reserves.
couscous
08-04-2010, 15:44
Adipose tissue - the real biofuel! ~ I simply find it interesting that when you ask hikers about pack weight, most immediately jump to "try to limit your pack weight to less than 20-25% of your body weight" ... age, height, weight, distance, duration, weather and terrain are not considered. But, if you ask them about their pack, it immediately switches to base weight and total weight. There are many ultralight games... base weight, skin-out base weight, total pack weight, total skin-out weight, total pack weight/days until resupply, total skin-out weight/days until resupply, etc. etc. Doesn't matter what you carry as long as you have fun. One of the guys completing his thru-hike on Katahdin 3 days ago had a base weight of 7 lbs. - another had a base weight of 12 lbs. and was wearing sandals. Restless Legs was very impressed, but I don't know that he recorded their trail names.
The Solemates
08-04-2010, 15:50
carry weight was 13% of my body weight at the start of our thru
at the end of our thru it was 10% of my body weight
I calculated everything as a percentage of my lean body mass. It's just so much easier that way. For example, I like to read about 13% of my lean body mass in books each year, usually picking them up at garage sales. Now if I was on the moon, it would still be 13%. See what I mean? I once dated a girl that was more than 75% of my lean body mass. She was a nice girl and all, but a man's gotta have standards.
kayak karl
08-04-2010, 16:24
Adipose tissue - the real biofuel! ~ I simply find it interesting that when you ask hikers about pack weight, most immediately jump to "try to limit your pack weight to less than 20-25% of your body weight" ... age, height, weight, distance, duration, weather and terrain are not considered. But, if you ask them about their pack, it immediately switches to base weight and total weight. There are many ultralight games... base weight, skin-out base weight, total pack weight, total skin-out weight, total pack weight/days until resupply, total skin-out weight/days until resupply, etc. etc. Doesn't matter what you carry as long as you have fun. One of the guys completing his thru-hike on Katahdin 3 days ago had a base weight of 7 lbs. - another had a base weight of 12 lbs. and was wearing sandals. Restless Legs was very impressed, but I don't know that he recorded their trail names.
numbers are funny. i do a 50% markup on my prices, but when asked i say my markup is 33.3% of total:)
when comparing #'s its got to be APPLES to APPLES.
SGT Rock
08-04-2010, 16:36
More representative of what you are looking for is a measure against lean body mass. So say I weigh 180 and have a LBM of 144, then I'm carrying 36 pounds of body fat and then add my pack, say an 18 pound pack. So now I'm carrying 54 pounds with a lean body of 144. Ouch...
Lets say you have a fit guy like Wolf 23000 who is probably 180 but with a 167 pound lean body mass. So he is carrying 13 pounds of fat and an 18 pound pack. So now he is carrying 31 pounds with a lean body of 167. That could explain why two people of the same size are carrying pack of the same weight, but one is carrying about 1/3 of his lean body mass and the other is carrying only about 1/5.
Wolf - 23000
08-06-2010, 08:19
Couscous I think you are seeing my point. Many of the articles written by the "pros" are written under ideal conditions requiring very little skill and by hikers that are not very big guys. When have you ever seen a 6 ft plus hiker write a light weight article? Or someone write about lightweight hiking in winter whether. Never. They are all "gravitationally challenged". At the same time new hikers and some old are reading articles or post about hikers gear list and are amaze.
As for the lean body mass/body fat well SGT Rock does have a point because what your body is compose of makes a huge different but even extra body fat can have its advantages. The more body fat you have mean more for your body has to burn up along with the food your already in taking. It also give you insulation - a person who is skin and bones is more like to get colder faster.
I'm a good size guy actually 216 according to my last month APFT but anyway but thanks for putting me at 180 pounds SGT Rock :). - about the same weight as couscous. If we tried carried the same pack, gear and the amount of food SGT Rock does, it wouldn't be pretty. both of us would be cold, half starve and very limited in what I could do. Someone who is smaller has a huge advantage if you just post pack weight. By the way, SGT Rock I haven't felt the need to carry 18 pounds in a very long time other than EXTREME winter hiking.
sbhikes, I've done multiply thru-hikes. The most I've lost on a thru-hike was a total of 6 pounds during my 1996 PCT thru-hike. If you are getting thinner, I suggest carrying more food. Losing large amount of weight in a short spam is not healthy.
Tipi Walter, I'm not sure where your getting your information but your wrong that someone would have to carry 30 - 50% of their body weight. I haven't needed to carry 14 - 16 days of food but carrying 7 days of food hiking the JMT in 2008 my pack weight was 6.6% of my body weight. Even if I added 7 or 9 days of food my pack total weight would still be less than 15% of my body weight - 20% at the most.
Wolf
Two Speed
08-06-2010, 09:56
Agree totally here. Dazzling us with numbers only works for short snippet trips, like short resupply treks carrying minimal food. Show me someone who carries 14 or 16 days worth of food without resupply on a long two week trip, and I'll show you someone who is carrying 30-50% of his body weight. And then for a January trip where you need extra fuel and parkas and down, etc, and you end up with some neat numbers.Only true for those who use a dumpster for a backpack. Other folks can make a 2,500 cubic inch pack work for 10 days with no problems.
How's it going, Tipi? Gotta catch up w/you soon.
couscous
08-06-2010, 10:14
When have you ever seen a 6 ft plus hiker write a light weight article?
Glen Van Peski .. founder of Gossamer Gear .. would be one, he's 6' 4" .. too skinny to be 200#. Glen laments about competing with Ryan Jordan, 5' 8", on pack weight since all his gear has to be longer/larger than Ryan's. Backpacking Light Podcast (http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/podcast_van_peski_sub_3_pct) - about 13 minutes into the podcast. I've used his Lighten Up! (http://www.gossamergear.com/cgi-bin/gossamergear/Ultralight_makeover_DVD.html) DVD to en-LIGHT-en people about backpacking.
Fiddleback
08-06-2010, 11:25
Percentage of my actual body weight or percentage of what my body weight should be..? Or does the ratio have any meaning at all if I'm "in shape"?
Then again, I can be in shape for other activities and still have my butt kicked when carrying a pack on the trail...
Just give me a super lightweight pack and a loop hike that is all downhill (moderate grade, of course).:rolleyes:
FB
Wolf - 23000
08-06-2010, 12:30
Glen Van Peski .. founder of Gossamer Gear .. would be one, he's 6' 4" .. too skinny to be 200#. Glen laments about competing with Ryan Jordan, 5' 8", on pack weight since all his gear has to be longer/larger than Ryan's. Backpacking Light Podcast (http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/podcast_van_peski_sub_3_pct) - about 13 minutes into the podcast. I've used his Lighten Up! (http://www.gossamergear.com/cgi-bin/gossamergear/Ultralight_makeover_DVD.html) DVD to en-LIGHT-en people about backpacking.
Has Glen Van Peski written anything or is really known? If you look at both Glen Van Peski and Ryan Jordan both of them are fair whether hikers. Both of them have bailed out several time due to bad whether but out of what I've seen written I do respect Ryan Jordan. I met him once a while back. What he was saying I agree with.
Wolf
With 3 days food & 2 Ltrs water (24 lbs):
Compared to what I currently weigh 12.1%
Compared to what I SHOULD weigh: 16.0%
So, I suppose I should loose some weight, but I'd prefer to only carry 12% instead of going all the way up to 16% :p
AAAK, I just figured it out, I'd have to go down to a 18Lb pack, with 3 days food & 2 L water to get a 12% pack if I was at "Ideal" wt.
Back to work, both on my pack & me!
couscous
08-06-2010, 13:02
Glen is more known on the PCT. Ryan did the Arctic 1000 in 2006 - 1000km/600 miles without resupply in Alaska. He had one meal in Anaktuvuk Pass, but two dinners and a breakfast left in his pack at the end of the trip. Anyway, "Their route traversed the most remote (westernmost) region of Alaska's Brooks Range, starting at the Chukchi Sea near the Native village of Kivalina and ending at the Alaskan Oil Pipeline Highway ("Haul Road") near Wiseman. This region is notable for two key characteristics: it is the largest contiguous roadless, uninhabited, and unprotected wilderness in America, and it contains America's remotest spot (defined by its distance from the nearest roads or habitations) in an area that is more than 15 times the area of the remotest spot in the contiguous U.S., which lies SE of Yellowstone National Park." -- not a place that fair weather hikers would normally pick.
Wolf - 23000
08-06-2010, 16:15
Glen is more known on the PCT. Ryan did the Arctic 1000 in 2006 - 1000km/600 miles without resupply in Alaska. He had one meal in Anaktuvuk Pass, but two dinners and a breakfast left in his pack at the end of the trip. Anyway, "Their route traversed the most remote (westernmost) region of Alaska's Brooks Range, starting at the Chukchi Sea near the Native village of Kivalina and ending at the Alaskan Oil Pipeline Highway ("Haul Road") near Wiseman. This region is notable for two key characteristics: it is the largest contiguous roadless, uninhabited, and unprotected wilderness in America, and it contains America's remotest spot (defined by its distance from the nearest roads or habitations) in an area that is more than 15 times the area of the remotest spot in the contiguous U.S., which lies SE of Yellowstone National Park." -- not a place that fair weather hikers would normally pick.
couscous,
On the PCT, back in 1997 I was known for carrying a Mickey Mouse bookbag to thru-hike the entire PCT. A bookbag that at one time a 6 grader used to carry his books - I was carrying less than 4 pounds of gear.
My point is being I'm sure Glen is known on the PCT and Ryan's trip as impressive as it maybe it's not really well know by many.
Glen being a skinny 6'4 is going to have several disadvantages compare to Ryan Jordan and pack weight - he needs to carry larger sizes, a longer tarp, sleeping gear, etc. As I said before, I do respect Ryan Jordan but he should be able to carry less than Glen.
Wolf
couscous,
On the PCT, back in 1997 I was known for carrying a Mickey Mouse bookbag to thru-hike the entire PCT. A bookbag that at one time a 6 grader used to carry his books - I was carrying less than 4 pounds of gear.
My point is being I'm sure Glen is known on the PCT and Ryan's trip as impressive as it maybe it's not really well know by many.
Glen being a skinny 6'4 is going to have several disadvantages compare to Ryan Jordan and pack weight - he needs to carry larger sizes, a longer tarp, sleeping gear, etc. As I said before, I do respect Ryan Jordan but he should be able to carry less than Glen.
Wolf
How much food (in lbs) did you carry, and how much time did you get to spend in the woods before going off the trail for resupply?
SGT Rock
08-06-2010, 19:55
I know 18 pounds is heavy for you Wolf LOL. I've seen your pack picture. I was just shooting from the hip to illustrate my point. I'm also less than 180 and my lean body mass is higher than 144 LOL.
Wolf - 23000
08-06-2010, 20:03
How much food (in lbs) did you carry, and how much time did you get to spend in the woods before going off the trail for resupply?
rickb, that was 13 years ago!!! How much food weight were you carrying 13 years ago? I must have been carrying enough because I didn't lose any real weight.
On the PCT, I normally carried 5 days of food - sometimes more, sometimes less depending on the stretch of trail. I don't like to spend my time hitching off trail so I tried to do it as little as possible.
Wolf
I carry 100% of my body weight...
No else has elected to carry me after all.. :D
LIhikers
08-10-2010, 21:12
BEWARE, wise a$$ answer to follow, you've been warned so skip it if you like............
I carry 100% of my body weight. After all, I can't leave any of my body at home, so I have to carry it all. :D
Danielsen
08-11-2010, 21:22
BEWARE, wise a$$ answer to follow, you've been warned so skip it if you like............
I carry 100% of my body weight. After all, I can't leave any of my body at home, so I have to carry it all. :D
Well, I don't know if you can't leave ANY of it... just how many fingers and kidneys do you really need? ;)
For those who trim their straps and toothbrush handles, I suppose things like your external ears could be considered extraneous as well. Maybe some of the teeth in the back of your mouth, too, if you cook your food longer. In fact, if you switch over to an all-smoothie regimen, you can probably leave your entire dentition at home. Going bald is, naturally, par for the course.
And then of course some could leave behind some not-so-lean body mass.
The possibilities are seemingly endless for the truly hardcore. I mean, how important is it truly for you to reproduce, and have you ever considered becoming a blood donor? :banana