View Full Version : Is 9lbs ultralight anymore?
Downhill Trucker
01-12-2011, 04:51
My section hike packweight is at 9lbs even right now. I use a DIY hammock, which I will not give up. This is without food, water, and fuel. I cook with freezer bags using alcohol.
Should I be looking to trim, or just content with this?
Dude, don't worry about other people's definitions. Take what ya need and enjoy the hike!
Downhill Trucker
01-12-2011, 05:21
I completely agree. I'm just curious if 9lbs is considered ultralight anymore. Seems like we just keep getting lighter and lighter.
Should I be looking to trim, or just content with this?
Are you on a quest for the holy grail? Really, why are you asking WB if you should trim weight.
To someone else carrying 25 lbs, then 9 lbs would be ultralight I guess, but same as one person carrying 60 lbs compared to another with 30 lbs.
No offense intended here, but I just don't understand why so many people have to have a set rule/definition for everything...ultralight, what constitutes a thru hike, what is an unsupported thru hike, why hikers drink/smoke, etc etc. It is simply just walking in nature. It doesn't matter how others do it, their reasons for doing it, how fast or slow you go. It shouldn't be something you have to conform to or be the coolest person with the coolest gadgets and gear. If that is your thing, then you will always be playing catch up to someone else. I believe in HYOH (Hike your own hike) and I just don't even consider the competiveness or the cool factors because to me it detracts from the experience of just being out there and enjoying myself. I do things that I am comfortable with and don't worry how some self declared experts think is the right or only way. Of course I look for advice and tips on gear choices, safety issues, etiquette, places to see and such and figure out what works for me. If 9 lbs is good for you, great. If not, adapt to your comfort level.
Of course some may disagree, which I am fine with. To each their own. Just my 2 cents and humble opinion. Good Luck with your journey! Enjoy!
2.0, well said.
If your goal is to be ultralight, then just keep reducing weight. If your goal is to enjoy the outdoors, then get out and enjoy it. I think the better question is, what's your definition of ultralight?
Rocketman
01-12-2011, 08:29
My section hike packweight is at 9lbs even right now. I use a DIY hammock, which I will not give up. This is without food, water, and fuel. I cook with freezer bags using alcohol.
Should I be looking to trim, or just content with this?
I would be absolutely content with a 9 lb base.
The great prize of lightweight backpacking is the memory that you have of wonderful places seen and people met.
The merit badge for reaching 5 lbs is insignificant compared to the above great prize.
HYOH
Two Tents
01-12-2011, 08:43
Downhill Trucker, man that is the question I wondered about too. I figure ultralight is figured to be the lowest weight that an individual can go and still have all they need for that trip and conditions/needs expected. That would mean the lightest gear you have that can get the job done. Every trip will vary in what equipment will be needed. So for me there is no one set weight to shoot for. I have a gear room and go through it get what I think I will need and what the weight it comes out to is what it is. That being said I can put together an 11lb base for 3 season long distance hike. Any lower than that and I start leaving stuff I'm gonna miss. I am always looking to check out gear that is lighter and usually end up buying it if it fits my needs. So for me its kind of a never ending thing. HYOH.
john gault
01-12-2011, 09:07
I can't help but to think that the OP is bragging. Not based exclusively on this thread, but also on all the times I've been witnessed to other hikers brag on who's carrying the lightest pack.
I could care less how much/little someone else is carrying, but the obsession is a little annoying, again not just all the threads, but you can't get away from this discussion and it really pisses me off when someone tries to convert me when they see my heavy-ass pack. Or how they seem to nearly faint when they ask me how much I'm carrying. As annoying as when you meet a militant bible-thumper trying to save me.
I could care less how much/little someone else is carrying, but the obsession is a little annoying, again not just all the threads, but you can't get away from this discussion and it really pisses me off when someone tries to convert me when they see my heavy-ass pack. Or how they seem to nearly faint when they ask me how much I'm carrying. As annoying as when you meet a militant bible-thumper trying to save me.
I think the same thing. On the forums. In hostels. On the trail. My pack is as light as I can make it. I don't need to know how much it actually weighs, nor does anyone else. I wish I could build a superlight HUGE and heavy-looking pack and leave my down gear fully lofted...just to give UL snobs a heart attack.
garlic08
01-12-2011, 09:21
This is actually addressed in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_hiking. They say, and I've heard this elsewhere, that less than 20 pounds base weight is "light" and less than 10 pounds is considered "ultralight". I think as you approach 5 pounds you get into the latest "superultralight" or SUL range.
I don't think has changed in the 10 or so years I've been reducing my pack weight.
By the way, congratulations on reaching 9 pounds. I think I've sort of bottomed out right around there. It's the lowest I can go and be safe and comfortable with my strength and skill level. Any lighter for me would mean needing more reserves than I have in case of needing to put in a 50 mile day to get out of a tight situation, for instance.
I consistently carry 35-40 pounds, and that feels light to me. I don't think my daypack is even 9 pounds! I wouldn't mind getting down to around a consistent 30-35 for 5 days loaded....
garlic08
01-12-2011, 09:33
I can't help but to think that the OP is bragging. Not based exclusively on this thread, but also on all the times I've been witnessed to other hikers brag on who's carrying the lightest pack.
I could care less how much/little someone else is carrying, but the obsession is a little annoying, again not just all the threads, but you can't get away from this discussion and it really pisses me off when someone tries to convert me when they see my heavy-ass pack. Or how they seem to nearly faint when they ask me how much I'm carrying. As annoying as when you meet a militant bible-thumper trying to save me.
I think that may be why there is a separate "ultra light hikers forum" here, so you don't have to read it. It is too bad, though, that there are those on the trail who can't leave others alone.
By the way, there are plenty of hikers who brag about who can carry the heaviest pack and sometimes I even get a little grief about carrying too little. Just smile and keep hiking, 'cause we all know our way is better.
nitegaunt
01-12-2011, 09:48
Guess I'll chime in here, too. I really don't see the need to go incredibly light unless you have some sort of physical problem where you can't carry the weight. My pack weight when loaded up for a few days worth of trail is about 25 pounds including food and water and all. I didn't really work to get it to that weight. It just happens if you take what you need and have quality equipment. Basically, I have decent big three, a Gregory pack I've had for about 6 years, and I use drops for water and an alcohol stove. The rest is just the essentials. There's not much to reduce so I'm not going to go crazy counting ounces and cutting my toothbrush in half. But I understand that to some it is a game and that's fine. As long as it doesn't end up making you uncomfortable then go for it.
If you're happy with your pack weight, hike with it. If you feel the compulsion to trim it, trim weight.
The best gear is the gear that gets you out there.
I'm more concerned about my body weight and what kind of shape I'm in. My pack weight is important, but secondary.
I'd rather be in good physical shape and carry a 25-30 lb pack than overweight and out of shape with a 9 lb pack.
it's a lot cheaper to lose weight and stay in shape than it is to buy UL gear.
Hikes in Rain
01-12-2011, 10:13
All depends on your comfort level. John Miur hiked long distances with just his overcoat, a loaf of bread in one pocket, and a handful of tea in the other. The Bible and other works are full of stories of folks who set out on journies with much less.
I wouldn't be comfortable on what's supposed to be a vacation going that austere. So I carry enough to be so. I'm still above 9 pounds, so by my (current, but still evolving), yes, it's ultralight.
Well done. I'd like to see a list. I'm always looking for ways to improve.
it's a lot cheaper to lose weight and stay in shape than it is to buy UL gear.
Amen! Of course many people on this forum say you don't need to do any physical prep for a thru-hike. ;)
FWIW, it seems most people out on three season backpacking (as oppoosed to a summer weekend) rarely dip below the 7-8 lb level.
There are exceptions, but look at Trauma's, Skurka's or Williamson's list.
If you really want to get into labels, 5lbs or less is considered by many to be Super Ultra Light. Personally. I think you should wear tights and a cape if you aspire to this label. :D
There is a cuben fiber cape coming to market...
kayak karl
01-12-2011, 10:31
pack weights are subjective also. some weight extra clothes, others do not. others don't count what's in there pockets :)
i agree with others. as i up grade gear i go for lighter options. cuben tarp and rain pants for example.
ps. what does Dewey's pack weight?:rolleyes:
Its the same argument I see in long distance cycling. Guys will send huge $'s to trim a few ounces off their bikes so as to go light and yet they sometimes aren't at all concerned about their body weight and how much extra weight they are carrying.
Not saying that u aren't in terrific shape and proper body weight for your size because I don't know you but it just amazes me when both cyclists and hikers look for a magic weight number concerning their gear and sometimes neglect the machine (human body) and its condition and weight.
I would be more concerned with body weight and conditioning and less concerned---- within reason--- the weight of your pack.
Your body weight and conditioning level and the weight of your pack will let u know what u need to do---so just listen to it.
That's fine if people want to spend crazy amounts of money and effort for ultralight gear. It's a hobby. Hobbies are like that. Stuff like base weight should be personal. While comparing numbers and creating definitions, why don't we pull out our peckers, compare the price tags of our clothing, see who has the keys to the fanciest car and house...
Fiddleback
01-12-2011, 11:21
Length of outing and the temps/weather conditions to be faced are two of many trail variables that would affect base weight, I think, so the question is hard to answer.
Remember, any fool can be uncomfortable. And pack weight is just one factor of 'comfortable.'
FB
HiKen2011
01-12-2011, 11:23
That's fine if people want to spend crazy amounts of money and effort for ultralight gear. It's a hobby. Hobbies are like that. Stuff like base weight should be personal. While comparing numbers and creating definitions, why don't we pull out our peckers, compare the price tags of our clothing, see who has the keys to the fanciest car and house...
Well put, you're my hero!;)
pcasebere
01-12-2011, 11:27
"The bag's not for what I take, Colson - it's for what I find along the way." -MacGyver (Pilot)
see who has the keys to the fanciest car and house...
I have '99 Sonoma with 110k miles, a new clutch and semi-permanent coffee stains on the seat fabric. :banana
2002 Tundra here with over 120,000 miles---pecker is older model but with less miles on it!! lol
Neither are ul gear but think I will keep both and hike my own hike! lol
Quit worrying about ounces and pounds---take what you --need--and enjoy your hike.
58starter
01-12-2011, 12:11
hope it does not rain, snow, or the wind blow too hard on the 9 lb pack. He might just float away.
ps. what does Dewey's pack weight?:rolleyes:
Dewey shares "his" pack with me. It weighs any where from 15-30 pounds depending on time of year and how many days I'll be out. I'm lucky he's willing to let me use "his" pack with "his" hammock and quilts and stove and so forth.
The real trick is Dewey's weight. He is 8 ounces himself, but he typically carries another 4-8 ounces of clothing and personal gear. And his company is worth every ounce of it. ;)
Camping Dave
01-12-2011, 23:40
I think the same thing. On the forums. In hostels. On the trail. My pack is as light as I can make it. I don't need to know how much it actually weighs, nor does anyone else. I wish I could build a superlight HUGE and heavy-looking pack and leave my down gear fully lofted...just to give UL snobs a heart attack.
I take my youngest backpacking, and he carries just an uncompressed sleeping bag and water bottle. Weighs nothing but looks darned heavy all puffed out. Lightweight preachers have stopped and criticized me for making him carry so much weight. Leads to some good "instructional" moments when it turns out his pack AND my pack weigh less than the critics'.
mcskinney
01-12-2011, 23:44
I can't help but to think that the OP is bragging. Not based exclusively on this thread, but also on all the times I've been witnessed to other hikers brag on who's carrying the lightest pack.
I could care less how much/little someone else is carrying, but the obsession is a little annoying, again not just all the threads, but you can't get away from this discussion and it really pisses me off when someone tries to convert me when they see my heavy-ass pack. Or how they seem to nearly faint when they ask me how much I'm carrying. As annoying as when you meet a militant bible-thumper trying to save me.
Isn't this the ultra-light section of the forum? I missed the part where the OP tried to convert you? hmmm, someone has a pack weight problem don't they... sent me your gear list and I'll try to help you trim some weight. I picked up a good method in another thread :)
I just love showing up for an overnight group hike with an 18 liter 12 lb total weight pack and hiking with people carrying 95 liter 60+ lb packs. It's always a conversation starter. Everyone asks how I do it, but it's really a rhetorical question. However, I hate the hike, cause they always need to break twice an hour.
Two Tents
01-13-2011, 09:24
I wish I could build a superlight HUGE and heavy-looking pack and leave my down gear fully lofted...just to give UL snobs a heart attack.
That reminds me a while back there was a funny video clip of a hiker with a pack that was m!aybe 8-10 feet tall (maybe not that) way funny! I don't know if it was air filled or what. I wish I could remember the model of pack it was--Pl 79,000 or something. I used the search and couldn't find it. Some help from someone who remembers it? Please post in this thread Thanks
Buffalo Skipper
01-13-2011, 09:43
I am off this weekend for 3 nights on the Florida Trail with some scouts. Last night I weighted my pack. Minus food/water/fuel, I was down to just under 19 lbs. The same weekend last year I was at a total weight of right around 40 lbs. I want to shave (hack) another 4-5 lbs off my winter (north FL winter) weight, which I can do by throwing another $600 at the problem.
Am I ultralight? Doesn't matter. I am out of shape enough that I am not comfortable carrying a 40 lb load. I have some "luxuries" and comforts that I will not do without, so I will probably never get to a 20 lb loaded weight, but that is OK with me.
My older brother thru hiked the AT back in '76. It is a dream of mine that I might someday be able to do that also, though I imagine it was easier for him to do that at 19 than it will be for me at 50 or older. He had a 65-70 lb pack after pick ups in town. I would be overjoyed if I could do that at 30 lbs. Talking to him today (he no longer backpacks), he insists he would do it exactly the same with 65+ lbs.
As it has been said, everyone is different. If it is light enough to get you out the door, with enough comforts to keep you out there, then I say:
GO FOR IT!
Two Tents
01-13-2011, 11:35
That reminds me a while back there was a funny video clip of a hiker with a pack that was m!aybe 8-10 feet tall (maybe not that) way funny! I don't know if it was air filled or what. I wish I could remember the model of pack it was--Pl 79,000 or something. I used the search and couldn't find it. Some help from someone who remembers it? Please post in this thread Thanks
Found It---http://www.wendmag.com/blog/2009/02/24/flextrek-37-trillion-extremely-funny-backpack-technology/
Found It---http://www.wendmag.com/blog/2009/02/24/flextrek-37-trillion-extremely-funny-backpack-technology/
LOL "The Black Geyser Perfect Storm edition I Series"
That version of the 37 trillion Extreme was the first , now discontinued, version.
The new and improved 37 Trillion Extreme i features the patent pending Super Gyro Extreme balancing frame.
Some might have noticed the slight flex (that was a feature, BTW..) in the first version. So for big wall climbers and for some scrambling applications the Super Gyro Extreme frame was incorporated to give unsurpassed stability for just 6 lbs extra weight.
Will be available at your nearest REI stores soon.
Franco
Bags4266
01-13-2011, 21:34
op should go to backpackinglight forum, he might get better reception there.
Chance09
01-13-2011, 21:50
i'll answer your question. NO 9 lbs isn't UL anymore.
Buts it's a damn fine base weight and makes for pretty comfortable hiking. No need to try and trim weight to be UL. It's a mindset. Yeah you could go lighter but the lighter you go the more $$$ it usually takes so why bother. At the end of the PCT my 10 lbs base weight wasn't even noticeable. People would stop and take their packs off even if they stopped moving for a few min. I didn't bother mine was so comfortable.
Also if it's 9 lbs for your section hike, it would prob be 9 lbs for a thru too. Pretty much the same gear.
I'm more concerned about my body weight and what kind of shape I'm in. My pack weight is important, but secondary.
I'd rather be in good physical shape and carry a 25-30 lb pack than overweight and out of shape with a 9 lb pack.
it's a lot cheaper to lose weight and stay in shape than it is to buy UL gear.
Clap. Clap. Clap.
I let myself get in terrible shape this year and now I'm kicking myself and trying to make a mad 1 1/2 month scramble to drop some pounds before my thru-hike. I've dropped pounds from my pack and that's great but it's insignificant considering how much I've put on.
Actually my base weight is negative 5 pounds. My pack has a helicopter blade which actually produces lift.
My section hike packweight is at 9lbs even right now. Should I be looking to trim, or just be content with this?
Yes is the answer to the question you ask :D
Clap. Clap. Clap.
I let myself get in terrible shape this year and now I'm kicking myself and trying to make a mad 1 1/2 month scramble to drop some pounds before my thru-hike. I've dropped pounds from my pack and that's great but it's insignificant considering how much I've put on.
You'll miss your body fat by New England.
You'll miss your body fat by New England.
I gained almost 10 lbs from Gorham to Katahdin!
4eyedbuzzard
01-14-2011, 13:30
Hard to compare base weight from one hiker to the other, especially if one is geared up for the Mid Atlantic vs one geared up for New England. Different sleeping bag and clothing requirements.
Trailbender
01-31-2011, 17:08
I can't help but to think that the OP is bragging. Not based exclusively on this thread, but also on all the times I've been witnessed to other hikers brag on who's carrying the lightest pack.
I could care less how much/little someone else is carrying, but the obsession is a little annoying, again not just all the threads, but you can't get away from this discussion and it really pisses me off when someone tries to convert me when they see my heavy-ass pack. Or how they seem to nearly faint when they ask me how much I'm carrying. As annoying as when you meet a militant bible-thumper trying to save me.
While I agree that the Bible is a bunch of crap, there is no need to carry a heavy pack when you don't have to. I could see if you had a monster pack for a long unsupported trip or something, but cutting weight and being more efficient is better. I am not ultra light by any means, but I find the less my pack weighs, the more I enjoy the hike.
restless
01-31-2011, 18:09
Go heavy or go home.
SwitchbackVT
01-31-2011, 19:58
That video is hilarious... "Humiliate your surroundings...devour nature!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nM6wfjuirE&feature=player_embedded
sixguns01
01-31-2011, 20:51
This MAY be the wrong forum for a question like this. I asked if someone could define UL backpacking in the Ultralight Forum (which I thought would be the appropriate place) of WB and 90% of the response were angry and belligerent. One good poster stated that many here are "MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY" people. It seems many are angry at UL packers as if UL look down at them and the only serious backpackers carry 30-50lbs.
It's like how skiers were angry toward snowboarders in the late 80's and early 90's. Change is scary.
For the record, I don't consider myself an UL packer and I love skiing.
Try backpackinglight.com for info like that. More focused on UL packers a bit more welcoming.
I've heard under 10lbs thrown around a lot. 9lbs is awesome. Good work!
Wolf - 23000
02-04-2011, 01:37
Hard to compare base weight from one hiker to the other, especially if one is geared up for the Mid Atlantic vs one geared up for New England. Different sleeping bag and clothing requirements.
True, but either place carrying a 9 pound pack is really not that hard. I'm sorry if this offends someone. It is not my intent but I don't consider 9 pounds as UL.
Wolf
earlyriser26
02-04-2011, 06:43
When I go out for just a day my pack weighs 15 lbs. At these silly weight levels it just doesn't matter.
njordan2
02-04-2011, 07:34
I consider 50lbs for one week to be ultralight.
Trailbender
02-04-2011, 08:49
True, but either place carrying a 9 pound pack is really not that hard. I'm sorry if this offends someone. It is not my intent but I don't consider 9 pounds as UL.
Wolf
Generally 14 or less is light, 10 or less is ultra light, 5 or less is SUL. Everyone is gonna have different definitions of them, though.
Zeno Marx
02-04-2011, 09:26
but I find the less my pack weighs, the more I enjoy the hike.I can't say I've ever noticed this correlation; not once. Not bagging on you for feeling so. Your comment gave me something to consider.
Trailbender
02-04-2011, 11:40
I can't say I've ever noticed this correlation; not once. Not bagging on you for feeling so. Your comment gave me something to consider.
Yeah, a heavier pack slows me down, and I don't like being constantly aware that I have a pack on. I would rather walk around and enjoy being in the woods. My pack is not really all that light yet, but I am still working on it. It is pretty good at the moment, though, somewhere around 13 lbs base.
AUhiker90
02-04-2011, 14:00
A heavy pack burn more calories and on a long hike all you think about is food anyway so why make it worse. 9 lbs. is pretty light i was runnin with 9 or 10 and i found it quite enjoyable. Rather carry more food and less gear than a ton of gear and skimp on the food.
Wolf - 23000
02-04-2011, 15:09
Generally 14 or less is light, 10 or less is ultra light, 5 or less is SUL. Everyone is gonna have different definitions of them, though.
Trailbender,
You are right, everyone is going to have their own definition of what is light, Ultra light and SUL but at what point do we say the definitions have to change with the times? Over 50 years ago Grandma Gatewood by those definition would be define as an Ultra light hiker. Gear has become a lot lighter sense then.
Is it really 9 pounds really lightweight or ultralight if hikers were doing it 50 years ago?
Wolf
The definition of "base weight" still confuses me. Am I correct that this means the weight of the pack and its contents minus food and water? "Skin out" weight would then add what is being worn as well?
Thanks for the clarification so I can compare apples to apples.
Hikes in Rain
02-05-2011, 08:34
Add fuel to that (or perhaps just consumables) and that's the definition I've always used.
I agree with a combo of some replies. How in shape you're in is very important. And it's all about what you're comfortable/happy with. I tried the UL thing but it's not for me. I don't mind carrying some extra weight to have a pack that fits well/organizes well, the shelter I'm most comfortable in and the extras that most ULers wouldn't carry. It all works for me, and I am happy on the trail, and happy at my site. Going UL means making sacrifices on bringing things you don't necessarily need, but are nice. I don't make those sacrifices anymore fr the most part. But then again, lately I'm not going long distances for days/weeks at a time. If/when I do, I'll lighten up a bit....just a bit.
My section hike packweight is at 9lbs even right now. I use a DIY hammock, which I will not give up. This is without food, water, and fuel. I cook with freezer bags using alcohol.
Should I be looking to trim, or just content with this?
9 pounds? really 9 pounds? I've carried 18 pounds in just beer , up hill , both ways, in the snow.....
I agree with a combo of some replies. How in shape you're in is very important. And it's all about what you're comfortable/happy with. I tried the UL thing but it's not for me. I don't mind carrying some extra weight to have a pack that fits well/organizes well, the shelter I'm most comfortable in and the extras that most ULers wouldn't carry. It all works for me, and I am happy on the trail, and happy at my site. Going UL means making sacrifices on bringing things you don't necessarily need, but are nice. I don't make those sacrifices anymore fr the most part. But then again, lately I'm not going long distances for days/weeks at a time. If/when I do, I'll lighten up a bit....just a bit.
I agree, I'm also not a speed hiker for the same reason. I'm out to enjoy myself. Although I have dropped quite a few pounds with some simple ideas from the UL bunch, I'm just not interested in seeing how light I can go. Anything under 35lbs is ultralight to me. I have no problem carrying that kind of weight in a good pack. Carrying less weight doesn't affect my enjoyment much at all, but doing without some of those creature comforts does.
Az
I agree, I'm also not a speed hiker for the same reason. I'm out to enjoy myself. Although I have dropped quite a few pounds with some simple ideas from the UL bunch, I'm just not interested in seeing how light I can go. Anything under 35lbs is ultralight to me. I have no problem carrying that kind of weight in a good pack. Carrying less weight doesn't affect my enjoyment much at all, but doing without some of those creature comforts does.
Az
AZB, great way to put it. I don't think I could ever be "UL" but I will say that my total weight, including food and 2 liters of H2O for a 3 night trip is under 23lbs. It's what I am comfortable with. I think the trick is to stop being caught up in what other people think is ideal. It's not a competition, it's a hike. Do your own thing. Furthermore, I am entirely self sufficient. I don't stay in shelters and have never had to yogi stuff from anyone. To me, being comfortable means being 100% self sufficient.
-d-
Do your own thing. Furthermore, I am entirely self sufficient. I don't stay in shelters and have never had to yogi stuff from anyone. To me, being comfortable means being 100% self sufficient.
-d-
Precisely!
And since I enjoy bushwhacking and exploration, self sufficiency is even more important! You never know when you might get lost. For a couple days. :eek:
Az
Stir Fry
03-28-2011, 07:01
What you need is baffels in your pack that you can fill with Hydrogen. Then you efective pack weight will be about 3 lb. " Now that ultralight."
What you need is baffels in your pack that you can fill with Hydrogen. Then you efective pack weight will be about 3 lb. " Now that ultralight."
Lol.
That's old tech. The future is anti grav generation. A hoverpack.
Az
earlyriser26
04-02-2011, 07:18
I'm more concerned about my body weight and what kind of shape I'm in. My pack weight is important, but secondary.
I'd rather be in good physical shape and carry a 25-30 lb pack than overweight and out of shape with a 9 lb pack.
it's a lot cheaper to lose weight and stay in shape than it is to buy UL gear.
+1 Totally agree. My goal this year is to cut my total all-in weight by 65 to 85 lbs. Down 55 since Jan. 1 30 left to go. Trim another ounce if you like. When I hit the trail this year I will feel like I have wings. My pack, that weighs 35 lbs fully loaded could be a negative 50 lb net.:banana
I'm pushing the north side of my fifties, and my musculoskeletal system is compromised by years of abuse - My love of extreme sports has always been much greater than my ability to do them, and my knees, shoulders, and ligaments in my lower back suffer from time to time...
To me, cutting pack weight has been about making backpacking possible and maybe even comfortable. So, I have been struggling with needs vs wants, comfort, cost, safety...
It's clear that my base weight for a thru-hike will be more than for a local multi-day hike - ie. I'll be packing stuff like chargers for camera and phone I wouldn't require for a shorter hike. And hiking with my partner, vice alone, involves certain compromises - not the least of which is a shelter which will provide her the privacy she wants. Still, I'm looking at 17-18 lbs with everything minus food & water for the shoulder seasons of my thru. Don't really care what category that falls under cause I'm pretty happy with that.
In the meantime, I'll be out hiking around Michigan, tweaking the systems, and working on core strength!
markmack
04-02-2011, 11:12
To someone else carrying 25 lbs, then 9 lbs would be ultralight I guess, but same as one person carrying 60 lbs compared to another with 30 lbs.
No offense intended here, but I just don't understand why so many people have to have a set rule/definition for everything...ultralight, what constitutes a thru hike, what is an unsupported thru hike, why hikers drink/smoke, etc etc. It is simply just walking in nature. It doesn't matter how others do it, their reasons for doing it, how fast or slow you go. It shouldn't be something you have to conform to or be the coolest person with the coolest gadgets and gear. If that is your thing, then you will always be playing catch up to someone else. I believe in HYOH (Hike your own hike) and I just don't even consider the competiveness or the cool factors because to me it detracts from the experience of just being out there and enjoying myself. I do things that I am comfortable with and don't worry how some self declared experts think is the right or only way. Of course I look for advice and tips on gear choices, safety issues, etiquette, places to see and such and figure out what works for me. If 9 lbs is good for you, great. If not, adapt to your comfort level.
Of course some may disagree, which I am fine with. To each their own. Just my 2 cents and humble opinion. Good Luck with your journey! Enjoy!
well said!!