Midgets unfair advantage in the lightweight game?

[Wolf - 23000]

Do smaller hikers have an unfair advantage in the lightweight game? Think about it. Everyone always asks how much do you carry? Well a 5 foot nothing hiker is going to be able to use smaller sizes clothes, sleeping gear, packs, etc meaning less weight on his or her back. At the same time an average six-foot plus hiker has to carry larger, heavier equipment which translates to more weight on his or her back. Just something to think about the next time someone talks about hiking lightweight. Remember size does matter.
Wolf

[snaplok]

Lol Do you know that midgets make up a small percentage of the population?

In backpacking, size does matter.

[Sierra Echo]

Do smaller hikers have an unfair advantage in the lightweight game? Think about it. Everyone always asks how much do you carry? Well a 5 foot nothing hiker is going to be able to use smaller sizes clothes, sleeping gear, packs, etc meaning less weight on his or her back. At the same time an average six-foot plus hiker has to carry larger, heavier equipment which translates to more weight on his or her back. Just something to think about the next time someone talks about hiking lightweight. Remember size does matter.
Wolf

It would be just as heavy to them as our stuff is to us.

[Mrs Baggins]

It's about percentage of body weight....my husband is 6' 1", 220 lbs and his pack is usually about 25 lbs. I'm 4' 10", weigh 125 lbs, and MY pack also weighs about 25 lbs. That weight is when we start out - all of our food and full 2 liter water bladders. My food, my tent, my bag, my pad, my cup, water bladder.....it's all pretty much the same as his. We both carry Hubba tents, we both carry REI subkilo bags (his is "long", mine is "regular"), we both use Neo Air pads that are full length for our sizes. We eat the same stuff. He's carrying 1/9th of his body weight and I'm carrying 1/5th of mine. Now how exactly does that make it "easier" for a small person?? I'm an adult, not a child, and I cannot use "child size" things. To carry 1/9th of my weight I'd have to get down to less than 14 lbs for everything - - that ain't ever gonna happen. I'm not a "gram weenie" and I like the gear I carry.

[Seeker]

but the midget has to take many more steps per mile to carry it...

to continue the humor, fat people have the advantage... i weigh 190#... my base weight is about 12-13 lbs, so that's 6.5% of my body weight. If i were to use my ideal weight, 160, i'd be at 7.8%... i'm better off being fat!

[JAK]

More precisely it is proportional to your lean body weight, or ideal body weight, or some such think. The ideal height and build for going ultralight is probably tall and lean, but not too tall or too lean. I am assuming we are talking about 'ease of travel' over long distances, multiple days, and moderate to severe terrain. If it was pure speed, then we are really talking about running, and that would favour an even leaner build, but less tall.

If more weight needed to be carried, as in the fur trade, or carrying supplies for some expedition, then a shorter and stockier build would be favoured, but not too short, and still very lean in terms of body fat.

The trouble with percentage body weight, is most North Americans, including most hikers, are carrying excess body fat, which greatly reduces the weight they can carry comfortably. I would argue that it is the single most important factor in terms of fitness for backpacking, more so than height or build or age and even endurance fitness.

[JAK]

Somebody had to play the straight man.

[Hatter]

It is at times difficult having a 16 ½ " torso, the lack of room to properly adjust weight can get annoying, but it is the price I must pay being as statuesque as I am (a whole 5'3".) In reality though the weight savings I might gain from using a short sleeping bag are not nearly as useful as having larger back to properly distribute the weight, or longer legs to get somewhere faster.

[Old Hiker]

You just waaait!!! My 5'2" wife is going to smack your knee-cap so haaaaaard!!

[snaplok]

but the midget has to take many more steps per mile to carry it...

to continue the humor, fat people have the advantage... i weigh 190#... my base weight is about 12-13 lbs, so that's 6.5% of my body weight. If i were to use my ideal weight, 160, i'd be at 7.8%... i'm better off being fat!

But fat people also require more energy to move that mass while maintaining the same weight.

I still don't know how they measure ideal weight. At my height(5'8") I should be 157lbs tops, when I got down to 170 you could see my rib cage. Comfortable is 190 but I have an active build. I would be good to wear smaller clothes just to shave a few ounces. I guess the same can be said for smaller feet too. Curse my size 10.5's.

[Deb]

Do smaller hikers have an unfair advantage in the lightweight game?

Haha, good question.

I am a vertically challenged person at 5-1. It is true that I can get away with using some really scaled-down gear.
For example: My pro-lite XS at 36 inches long -it weighs 9 oz. - would not be suitable for most people.
In the summer my favorite sleeping gear is a down microfiber throw. 20 oz, 48x60. I bought it in the home section at Boscov's for $29.

Also on the plus side: one-person tents seem spacious.

[Skyline]

I should think that shorter folks would have enough other issues carrying weight that any weight savings re: gear would not compensate.

[mudhead]

No wonder Mags runs so light.

[Mags]

No wonder Mags runs so light.

I'm a tall 5'6" damn it!

Being serious...it ain't about the height per se..it is about the general body size. You can be short like me..but if I was my pre-hiking (pre-1996) shape and at 195lbs..I ain't saving no weight. Of course, shorter sleeping pads DO save weight, too.


My 2010 self wears smaller clothes and it shaves a few ounces.

Overall, though, I don't think it makes THAT much a difference.

Unless you are my 5'3" girlfriend of course. Why? Because I carry the shelter, stove, and most of the food!!!!

[bigcranky]

Yeah, I always have to laugh at the weight cutoffs for Ultralight -- they seem to be made for 150 pound guys. I think my clothing bag weighs more than Mags' entire pack (and I'm carrying pretty much the same clothes.)

[Old Grouse]

Do shorter folk run less risk of being struck by lightning?

[Tipi Walter]

In the same vein, I always thought the UL crowd would benefit from total tooth extraction(how much weight could be saved?), and the removal of the pinkie fingers and small toes as near-useless appendages, therefore lightening the load. Beyond this, it would be possible to become a "castrato" and remove unnecessary hung weight when it is determined that such excess flesh serves no real purpose other than reproduction, something unneeded in a world of 7 billion. Of course, a shaved head is a must gram-wise, and possibly the removal of all finger and toe nails.

DEEP PARING
Beyond this, it's possible to go even further for the serious ultraligher. Remove one lung and one kidney and then tabulate skin out weight. Without following these suggestions, you just may not be seriously into ultralight backpacking.

[sbhikes]

Being short and small, ultralight finally makes backpacking normal weight for me. There's no real advantage to being short.

[Mags]

Walker talks about body mods to save weight....

Wonder if he read this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/fa...22FITNESS.html

Also, my head is shaved...but mainly due to genetics.

[Tipi Walter]

Walker talks about body mods to save weight....

Wonder if he read this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/fa...22FITNESS.html

Also, my head is shaved...but mainly due to genetics.

That's a relevant article, and it reminds me of a recent report on ultra runners down in Mexico(or somewhere--maybe Navajo)who cover great distances by running barefoot--found to help in leg health and proper stride placement, etc etc. Barefoot running might get rid of the need to remove toenails.