View Full Version : Base weight
First, please excuse my ignorance but why do folks care about base weight?
I’m glad my days of carrying almost 100 lbs of combat gear are over and my fully loaded pack is now only 28 lbs. I check my backpack once it’s fully loaded with all gear, food and water.
What is the reason behind focusing purely on base weight?
Megapixel
02-11-2020, 08:22
First, please excuse my ignorance but why do folks care about base weight?
I’m glad my days of carrying almost 100 lbs of combat gear are over and my fully loaded pack is now only 28 lbs. I check my backpack once it’s fully loaded with all gear, food and water.
What is the reason behind focusing purely on base weight?
I believe it is focused on because it’s the only constant weight through the trip. Food and water fluctuate, so while the total pack weight is also worth looking at, the base weight is the gauge of comparison & evaluation.
LoneStranger
02-11-2020, 08:31
Checking the pack weight once you're fully loaded is actually a good idea. Folks who add up their base weight plus consumables are often surprised to find that their fully loaded pack weighs more :)
Stuff has a way of sneaking in there. Good to double check before heading out so you aren't surprised on the first climb.
Traveler
02-11-2020, 08:37
Thats a great question, base weight has been a conversational/debating point for years. Base weight is commonly considered to be all the stuff in a pack without food and water. Base weight is relatively constant within a given season, for example, base weight in February will be different than base weight in August due to seasonal gear and clothing changes. Food and water weight differs by the day, if not the hour, with consumption and resupply and is not useful as a unit of measure or reference with regard to base weight, especially when looking to compare with others. Knowing base weight is handy when resupply is at hand and how much water and/or food you'll carry and what weight is manageable that will dictate resupply points.
Since base weight is one of those measurements that many if not most long distance hikers know (or learn along the way) the only real variable is what one uses as a definition, from skin out or in the pack itself. Since clothing is not optional I tend to use pack weight with carried items and ignore trekking poles and clothing that I am wearing as opposed to including everything from socks to head nets in the base weight calculation. That doesn't mean I don't have a fair idea of worn clothing weight, just that I don't use it in the base weight calculation.
The end result of the base weight metric for me is to help figure out where I can shed some weight when new gear comes into the market or when my diary indicates some gear or tool I carry is not being used much. Conversely, when adding something to carry if there needs to be an off-loading of anything so the base weight does not change much if at all. The constant goal of the base weight consideration is to try and keep the weight needle moving down.
It gives us a starting point to talk about gear. If we were to talk about total pack weight, then trip length becomes a factor. There are factors affecting base weight (season, size of person, personal preferences, etc.) but we have eliminated at least one variable, trip length, with a generally accepted term.
Now we can define thru hike and stealth camp. ;)
I don't know let's ask tipi Walter, what's that your base weight is 90 lbs. Oh ok .. lol...
hoozurmama
02-11-2020, 11:09
I know base weight is a controversial topic but I have a question about what should and should not be considered base weight. To me, unless it's something you are wearing on a normal hiking day it's not considered worn. Examples of this would be rain gear, puffy, even a fleece mid layer. I just took a look at a Lighter Pack list that had those things listed as worn. I know it doesn't matter, you're carrying it anyway and totally agree that the total pack weight must also be considered as well as base weight. I just use my number to compare to others to give me ideas on what I'm able to tweak in my kit.
Slo-go'en
02-11-2020, 11:51
Base weight matters because your hiking up to 20 or more miles a day. Everyday for months. The heavier the pack the harder it is to sustain that pace over the long haul. That's why people obsess over base weight. It's a lot easier to carry 20 pounds for 2200 miles then it is to carry 40 pounds for 2200 miles.
I think it's funny that so many hikers who are clearly way overweight make a huge point out of going ultralight. The elephant in the room is that they should drop 20 or 30 from their middles. Then carry a 25 lb pack with adequate safety gear, and you would be way ahead...IMHO
(speaking as someone who once found himself in a major storm but packing on the "stupid side of light").
Tipi Walter
02-11-2020, 12:48
Base weight matters because your hiking up to 20 or more miles a day. Everyday for months. The heavier the pack the harder it is to sustain that pace over the long haul. That's why people obsess over base weight. It's a lot easier to carry 20 pounds for 2200 miles then it is to carry 40 pounds for 2200 miles.
This is also a website forum that supports normal backpacking trips not part of an extended "thruhike"---like subforums on Parks, Forests and Wilderness Areas---and a wide variety of Other Trails. The OP, From NH, didn't mention thruhiking when asking a question of Base Weights---he just shared his current pack weight etc which could just as well been for a normal weekend backpacking trip.
But Slo-go'en is right about punching out big daily miles with a heavy pack---it's not gonna happen. EXCEPT there's scores of backpackers here on WB who are "mere" backpackers doing their frequent backpacking trips without regard to punching out a thruhike.
And so then the conversation could revolve around a heavy base weight coupled with an enormous food load to support a long trip with low mile days. Both scenarios are relevant and worthwhile.
I think it's funny that so many hikers who are clearly way overweight make a huge point out of going ultralight. The elephant in the room is that they should drop 20 or 30 from their middles. Then carry a 25 lb pack with adequate safety gear, and you would be way ahead...IMHO
(speaking as someone who once found himself in a major storm but packing on the "stupid side of light").
Laughed my ass off on this one, cause it's so true!! :eek: !!
Tipi Walter
02-11-2020, 12:54
(speaking as someone who once found himself in a major storm but packing on the "stupid side of light").
I wanna hear this story. I'm always interested and fascinated and maybe even aroused to hear how lack of gear resulted in an epic trip, as in "packing on the stupid side of light". Such stories bolster my dim view of Ultralight backpacking---so please share.
Thank you for all your answers. I will stick with max weight as reference and then enjoy the benefit of shedding weight every day until I re supply. It’s all mental to me anyway. I used to walk long distance with a lot more weight while getting shot at. This should be easy, until I hit the first steep incline anyway :)
Tipi Walter
02-11-2020, 13:10
Thank you for all your answers. I will stick with max weight as reference and then enjoy the benefit of shedding weight every day until I re supply. It’s all mental to me anyway. I used to walk long distance with a lot more weight while getting shot at. This should be easy, until I hit the first steep incline anyway :)
Yes, I'm with you regarding Max Weight. It's really the most important number by far---because it's the amount of crap I have to carry from Day 1---while also shedding weight daily until the end of the trip or whenever. My base weight could be 15 lbs and if I'm carrying 60 lbs of food and fuel, well, that 75 lb pack is what I actually have to carry.
Five Tango
02-11-2020, 14:05
The only number that really matters is the one you can comfortably carry at the outset.I know people who not only carry no stove but also don't even carry a cup.Some of us aren't willing to do that.
Slo-go'en
02-11-2020, 14:27
But if your base weight was 30 pounds and you added 60 pounds of food, you'd be lugging 90 pounds instead of 75. 90 sounds a lot worse then 75 :)
Of course time of year and location have a big impact on base weight. The colder and stormier the season the heavier the pack.
From other posts, I believe "FromNH" is planning a thru hike. 28 pounds "fully loaded" is a pretty good weight for an early spring load. Although he doesn't say how much food and water are included. Which is why we quote base weight.
I need my stove, my favorite trail dinner is grilled salmon with olives and pasta and I get grumpy without coffee.
I had my share of cold MRE with a side of gun powder and sand. My new favorite is more enjoyable. It’s all good as long as we get out there and enjoy Mother Nature’s beauty.
Five Tango
02-11-2020, 20:12
28 pounds is a good number.I will never do a thru but 28 keeps me warm and dry with enough to eat for a few days.I will fudge on water carried at times but err on the side of plenty unless I am sure otherwise.I never fudge on the coffee though,or a cup to drink it from.
What kind of stove do you plan on taking?
Lone Wolf
02-11-2020, 21:18
me and B. Jack are just gigglin' at y'all :D
Alligator
02-11-2020, 22:14
First, please excuse my ignorance but why do folks care about base weight?
I’m glad my days of carrying almost 100 lbs of combat gear are over and my fully loaded pack is now only 28 lbs. I check my backpack once it’s fully loaded with all gear, food and water.
What is the reason behind focusing purely on base weight?Why'd you weigh your pack? It being now only 28 lbs, why'd you weigh it the time before that?
I did and my personal, non combat pack used to be 51 lbs with way too much food and clothes and a sleeping bag that should have required me carrying an oversized sign to warn other of what was coming down the trail.
garlic08
02-12-2020, 09:07
From my experience over a decade ago, Western hikers talked more about base weight. It seemed more Eastern hikers used the "full load of food and water" metric.
After I hiked the PCT and CDT, seasons of easy discussions with other hikers about base weight, I hiked the AT and it was a different trail language. If asked about my pack weight, I'd give the base weight and get a confused look in return. "Oh, I mean fully loaded," they'd say. Then it was my turn for a confused look.
Alligator
02-12-2020, 10:47
I did and my personal, non combat pack used to be 51 lbs with way too much food and clothes and a sleeping bag that should have required me carrying an oversized sign to warn other of what was coming down the trail.OK, it's not an issue of weighing stuff just the stated metric.
Whether you use fully loaded (max weight) or base weight, you will know you pack is getting lighter everyday you eat. If you use base weight and weigh it fully loaded, you start to think about how you might lighten the food and water load. Which doesn't mean you have to eat rice cakes and suck water off a bandanna you collected water with. If you are pulling into camp with an extra liter of water or more, or ending the trip with too many rations. Ending the trip at your base weight as comfortable as you might want. If you are thinking just about max weight, you might be thinking that you lost food weight and that's fine without realizing you are far from your base weight. Food and water though is so strongly tied to trip length that max weight has less value as a comparison method. You saying your max weight is 28 lbs would mean nothing without knowing how many days of food, how much water, what season and where are you going. The first two variables are irrelevant with base weight. You've got your salmon and I've got my liter of whiskey which aren't going to change per se but they aren't relevant to everyone. Base weight is not perfect either though, bigger people need bigger gear, some people run colder than others, etc.
Puddlefish
02-12-2020, 10:54
It's a good measurement for comparison purposes. Comparison between different bits of gear for purchasing decisions... between two hikers to make sure they're on the same page with a common definition... between the weight of your pack in the spring/fall, summer and winter. Base and worn weight is largely weather dependent, based on expected conditions for where you are. Food/water weight is based on resource availability. Body weight is based on your personal factors.
It's so when I tell you I left Springer with a 31 pound pack, and I was out of shape and it was heavy and uncomfortable... then we can have a thoughtful discussion about pack carrying capacity, comfort, weather conditions, budget. food panic and all those other factors using a common language.
Narrator:: Puddlefish was carrying about three extra pounds of food, because he was new to distance backpacking and ignored advice to bring less food.
Starchild
02-12-2020, 17:03
Base weight is something to play around on a spreadsheet with at home off trail, but on trail base weight is not what you carry, you carry more. It might be useful seeing where the weight is, though I have seen it counterproductive as some hikers will lower their base weight by raising their consumable weight more then what they lowered it by, even considering it's a heavier variable consumable.
FreeGoldRush
02-12-2020, 18:54
If you do long hikes you quickly find that you can burn only so many calories per day. Your stamina will improve but you will hit your physical fitness limit after 3 months. So you fix what you can: Weight, hiking technique, sleep quality, food quality, etc. Improving on any of those let’s you push through prior limits on distance, speed, elevation change, etc you can do in a day.
But if you intended to ask, “Why focus on base weight and not total weight?”, it’s because base weight is a subcategory of the total weight equation. You work at them all differently.
lonehiker
02-13-2020, 20:08
How did people complete the AT (at appx the same success rate) before all the lightweight gear...
How did people complete the AT (at appx the same success rate) before all the lightweight gear...
One of the hardest parts of thru hiking is hitting the trail with a fully replenished supply of food pack after a zero day.
So to make up for the heavier gear in days of yore, hikers carried many day’s more worth of food between resupplies and stayed in town way less.
Slo-go'en
02-13-2020, 21:18
When you had to heft your pack onto a picnic table and back into it to get it on, you knew it was on the heavy side :)
A frame pack made the load a little easier to carry and some of the trail wasn't quite as crazy. Even in the 80's there was a fair amount of road walking. Shelter to shelter, 10-12 miles a day was a typical pace. MPD didn't really start to kick up until lighter gear become more common place.
XH
MPD didn't really start to kick up until lighter gear become more common place.
Perhaps (probably).
At the same time, the typical length of time to complete an AT thru hike also went WAY up (right?).
Correlation does not always equal causation but...
4eyedbuzzard
02-14-2020, 18:55
XH
Perhaps (probably).
At the same time, the typical length of time to complete an AT thru hike also went WAY up (right?).
Correlation does not always equal causation but...It's a bit hard to compare the AT in 1970, and even thru-hiking to some degree, to today. Or the gear. Or even the hikers. The trail, the gear, and the hikers were different in the 1970's and early 80's (and prior). The trail was definitely "less refined" and less defined (blazing and maintenance wasn't as good, lots of road walks, etc.). Logistically there were fewer hostels and motels and shuttle services etc. catering to hikers. So there were fewer town stops, because often the only "logistics" was hitchhiking to a strange town that you had little if any info about. There weren't trails guides like AWOL, etc. The best we had were the Trail Guides from the section clubs and Ed Garvey's notes. 7 day - 10 day resupply gaps were common, not the 3 to 5 which is often the case today. Also, most of us started later, in mid-April, so there wasn't generally the situation of taking multiple zeros for weather as is common with early to mid-March starters now. There wasn't a traveling party either, nor were there a lot of newbie hikers. Most thru-hikers back then had more hiking and prior outdoor experience and their motivation for the adventure was a bit different - more introspective vs extroverted / social. Today I see a lot of people that are planning a thru-hike - but have never spent any significant time hiking/living in the woods. I often wonder why they would set off on something without knowing if they will even enjoy it? Thru-hiking has become a romanticized "thing". I think many probably quit before ever getting out of GA for this reason alone. The reality of wet, cold, tired, hungry, while trying to set up a tent in the wind and rain is a tough reality lesson. I also think the party atmosphere leads to forming social groups (we hiked alone or maybe with one partner a lot of the time) which may often put those groups at the pace of the slowest member, and also lead to more town stops. As you note, all other things being equal, thru-hike time should be less with base weights 1/2 to 2/3 of what they were and carrying less food, better trail routing and maintenance, and hiker logistics and services - except that all things aren't equal and what resulted instead is that the "improvements" / changes simply allowed more - and also differently motivated in many cases - people to start a hike and the time to complete it.
lonehiker
02-15-2020, 10:29
How did people complete the AT (at appx the same success rate) before all the lightweight gear...
This wasn't a question.
Laughed my ass off on this one, cause it's so true!! :eek: !!
Oh, I think heavier hikers like lighter packs on their shoulders too.
For me, the whole purpose of separating base weight from consumables is to help focus on gear selection, and to determine the appropriate pack for the mission. If I'm hiking into a lake for a week of fishing, that's likely a much bigger, heavier load than what I'd use on a long distance hike on trails like the AT. Both in terms of the gear (Lodge frying pan ...) and the amount of consumables I'd be carrying. That load likely calls for a pack with a robust suspension.
Three season, long distance hiking, on trails where one gets up, eats, packs up, hikes all day, then sets up camp, eats and goes to sleep, and can resupply every 3-4 days, does not call for a lot of stuff. Most end up carrying nothing they don't need. And the stuff they do need does not have to meet MILSPEC, cause one is not exposing their gear to the same stuff as a combat soldier. In that scenario, those lightweight packs, with their minimal, or non-existent suspensions start to look good, But it takes a disciplined approach to gear selection to get down to the max weight those packs can handle comfortably. Cause those packs are miserable to carry if one exceeds their max load specs. At some point they feel like all the weight is on yer shoulders.
Otoh, a 10 day hike, without resupply, may not change much in terms of the gear going in the pack, but one's certainly going to carry approx twice as much food and stove fuel. Those lightweight packs won't cut it. Both in terms of volume and max weight. One's more likely to need a higher volume pack with a more robust suspension for the load to be transferred from shoulders to hip belt. Those packs weigh twice as much as the lightweight ones. So one's adding weight to carry more weight. But if ya gotta carry the weight, ya need a pack designed to carry it.
And hiking into that lake for a week of fishing! I may just want to pack a camp chair, a pan and utensils for cooking fish, a more comfortable sleep system, a hatchet for cutting wood, a bottle of whiskey ... And I'm likely to be carrying more food, cause I'm not resupplying during that week, and I'm not a good fisherman ... I'm looking at packboards.
In any scenario, when I'm planning a hike, I figure out what my consumables needs to be, then focus on base weight to to choose the lightest, lowest volume equipment, in the lightest pack appropriate to conditions.
Worn weight and body weight do not factor into any of that. But as it adds up to what is impacting one's musculoskeletal should not be ignored. I wear the lightest clothing, appropriate to conditions I can afford, and I generally wear trail runners instead of boots, but none of that has anything to do with pack weight. And any xtra weight around my middle when I hit the trail will be burned up in some attempt to make up for the calorie deficit I generally deal with out there, so it's just stored calories ...
In any scenario, by selecting the lightest, lowest volume gear that fits one's requirements, one can potentially employ the lightest, smallest volume pack, and be more comfortable hiking all day up and down mountains.
Burn fewer calories too.
Tipi Walter
02-15-2020, 13:49
For me, the whole purpose of separating base weight from consumables is to help determine the appropriate pack for the mission.
But rocking a 25lb pack down the trail sure beats humping a 100lb one. As long as one has everything they need in their pack, and in their head, to deal with stuff that happens.
LDog
AT 2000 miler
https://lighterpack.com/r/38fgjt
I use the same pack for whatever "mission" I'm performing. Whether it's a weekend trip or a 24 day trip---the pack is the same because a near empty 7,000 cubic inch pack rides beautifully and feels great on a short trip---and also feels great on a longer trip.
And rocking a 25 lb pack down the trail might not be such a rocking experience if you're out for 3 weeks and desire to stay out for that amount of time with 50 lbs of food and fuel---and a snow shovel and microspikes and a full winter kit.
Remember, this Base Weight discussion is not only limited to thruhiking the Appalachian Trail---and not all backpackers on Whiteblaze are long trail thruhikers---as this website also includes Other Trails and different wilderness areas and expedition trips and backpacking in general. As in The General Forum. And some AT backpackers are using the AT as part of a long backpacking trip with significant pack weight.
I think the Base Weight number is a not-so-clever attempt to feel good about backpacking and to set up a number which in reality is never really achieved. Let's say your Base Weight is 20 lbs with no water or food. Well, you will rarely if ever backpack with no water or food---so the BW number is a sort of spreadsheet "feel good" thing that will always be lower than your real-world on-trail backpacking number.
If a person is really obsessed, he/she/it/they/him/her could weigh the pack on Day 1 with everything and on Day 10 (or whatever) before resupply---and then average out the weight number. Let's say you start out a winter trip with a 50 lb pack on Day 1 and on Day 10 end up with a 28 lb pack---then do some math to reach a daily average weight over those 10 days.
I thought I was careful to point out multiple scenarios where lightweight packs ain't the right tool for the job, and that one should expect to employ the pack that best matches the requirements. I have since edited it to make that more clear. And to make more clear how base weight can best be employed.
Slo-go'en
02-15-2020, 19:44
I think the Base Weight number is a not-so-clever attempt to feel good about backpacking and to set up a number which in reality is never really achieved. Let's say your Base Weight is 20 lbs with no water or food. Well, you will rarely if ever backpack with no water or food---so the BW number is a sort of spreadsheet "feel good" thing that will always be lower than your real-world on-trail backpacking number.
Base weight is the lightest the pack will ever get. That's a given and is why it's called the base weight. Once you know that you can brag about how light your base is or how heavy it is.
Food and water are a separate category. These items have their own "Base weight" to consider.
Base weight is the lightest the pack will ever get. That's a given and is why it's called the base weight. Once you know that you can brag about how light your base is or how heavy it is.
Food and water are a separate category. These items have their own "Base weight" to consider.
Hikers used to brag about how heavy their packs were.
Really :-)
Traffic Jam
02-15-2020, 20:11
I’ve never concerned myself with base weight. I put everything in my pack, including food and water, don the pack, and get on the scale. If it’s over my limit, I take things out. If I’m feeling particularly physically fit and want to carry extra weight, I leave it in.
Traffic Jam
02-15-2020, 20:15
Oh, I think heavier hikers like lighter packs on their shoulders too.
Exactly.
And losing 60 ish lbs didn’t result in being able to carry much more weight either...maybe 3-5 more pounds. It just made it easier to climb up hills with a pack.
Alligator
02-15-2020, 22:30
Anytime you make a choice between two non-consumable items based on weight, you are intrinsically making a base weight decision. Identifying that category is more useful than ignoring it. Here's why.
You can lose weight from your body (best option if not underweight), from consumables (food and water), or base weight. Next best place to lose weight is from base weight. If your food is dialed in, you'll have eaten everything by the end of the trip except emergency rations. So if you make a food choice that helps lose an ounce, whatever gets picked gets eaten before the end of trip and the savings ends. Base weight savings last the whole trip. If you're not thinking about base weight but you find your overall pack weight is too much, grabbing an apple out of your pack vs that extra shirt you don't need is the wrong choice to lower weight. As well, you can bring too much food but for newbies it's much more likely they'll bring too much gear and extra weight in the gear department will outpace extra food weight. Not to say don't consider food weight, cans are heavy right?
Base weight is a number that you achieve every hiking day and if it is a good number for you, you've minimized it, then you'll be happy every day. I do use a spreadsheet with weights of all my gear to calculate it. To think that somebody who does that is somehow unaware of their food and water weight is a faulty premise. If on the other hand, you've never done that, I think you might be in for a surprise or two about what you're carrying. And think about this, you can only carry so much but if you cut down some gear weight, that's more food for you to stay out even longer.
Hikers used to brag about how heavy their packs were.
Really :-)
That seems to be the underlying message to many of these replies.
Puddlefish
02-16-2020, 12:38
That seems to be the underlying message to many of these replies.
These threads always devolve into bragging about how heavy, how light, how my generation is wonderful, and your generation does everything wrong, and some form of "I read your words that say otherwise but let me tell you what I imagine you're really thinking!"
Just par for the course.
4eyedbuzzard
02-16-2020, 12:50
Hikers used to brag about how heavy their packs were.
Really :-)
That seems to be the underlying message to many of these replies.
These threads always devolve into bragging about how heavy, how light, how my generation is wonderful, and your generation does everything wrong, and some form of "I read your words that say otherwise but let me tell you what I imagine you're really thinking!"
Just par for the course.
The trail changes. Gear changes. Human desires and behaviors change. Can't say I miss carrying a heavier pack though.:-?
And as George Carlin once noted, "Ah, the good old days - back when botulism was a sauce."
Night Train
02-17-2020, 09:48
The trail changes. Gear changes. Human desires and behaviors change. Can't say I miss carrying a heavier pack though.:-?
And as George Carlin once noted, "Ah, the good old days - back when botulism was a sauce."
Heavy packs are like divorces, everyone should try them at least once to appreciate life.
Tipi Walter
02-17-2020, 12:08
Heavy packs are like divorces, everyone should try them at least once to appreciate life.
I've been using butt heavy packs for the last 40 years so I'm in one LONG divorce proceeding with Miss Nature except we'll never really separate. And what's amazing is she lets me sleep with her every night.
One Half
02-17-2020, 13:02
Hikers used to brag about how heavy their packs were.
Really :-)
True story!
One Half
02-17-2020, 13:29
Losing body weight is a great way to "cut down on weight." And can be a place where you can make big changes depending on where you start with that.
But, IMHO, the next best place to lose weight is in the "base weight" especially with the Big 4. I cut out 6lbs IIRC from my big 4 without changing out my pack. So with changing nothing else that would take a 30 pound fully loaded pack to 24 lbs. That's a huge deal. 20% weight loss!
Food and water weight will change from trip to trip, water sources and time between resupplies. But "base weight" is a good place, it is where you "start" kind of like "home base." (I realize BW may change based on season).
Longboysfan
02-18-2020, 13:43
I think it's funny that so many hikers who are clearly way overweight make a huge point out of going ultralight. The elephant in the room is that they should drop 20 or 30 from their middles. Then carry a 25 lb pack with adequate safety gear, and you would be way ahead...IMHO
(speaking as someone who once found himself in a major storm but packing on the "stupid side of light").
Interesting...
I'm usually carrying 35 or so fully loaded - 5 days on my section hikes.
I've used the hikes to lose weight - 10 to 12 for the last two hikes.
Takes me about 4 months to gain it back. :mad:
Tipi Walter
02-18-2020, 14:13
Interesting...
I'm usually carrying 35 or so fully loaded - 5 days on my section hikes.
I've used the hikes to lose weight - 10 to 12 for the last two hikes.
Takes me about 4 months to gain it back. :mad:
Reminds me of a quote from 1983 AT thruhiker George Steffanos---The The Hail Came---his journal of the hike.
He mentions he's losing weight every day on the trail and says by the time he hits Maine he will weigh 25 lbs.
I'm not a thru hiker. Part of me really loves the idea of thru hiking but the other part of me also knows that I probably don't have it in me to wear the same dirty clothes day after day, sleep in a wet sleeping bag and eat terrible food for six months. So I thoroughly enjoy my ''section hiker'' status. But that doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to my base weight. I for one feel that it's an important aspect of my hike preparation, regardless of the number of miles I plan to do. I think we should all strive to be as light as possible. As others have mentioned here, heavy packs slow us down, they wreak havoc on our bodies and they simply make the adventure very unpleasant. RocDoc is not alone, I think we've all hiked on the stupid side of light at one point or another and since none of us likes to be cold and hungry, we (hopefully) learn from our mistakes.
I revise my base weight before each hike and every time I ask myself the same question; can I do without this or that? Very rarely is the answer yes. I refuse to leave home without a basic first aid kit (5 oz) or my map and compass (2 oz). That's a weight penalty I feel I can't hike without. My life is worth so much more than that 7 ounces so I consider them as my luxury items. Some here will say that you pack your fears and heck yeah, they are right. I am afraid of getting lost! Yes, the AT (and most trails) are so well marked that you'd have to try really hard to get lost while hiking but no one gets lost ''ON'' the trail, hikers get lost when they step off the trail to relieve themselves, to take a cool picture, or to stealth camp. But I digress...
In order for me to be able to bring those ''unnecessary'' items (as some like to call them), I have made a commitment to myself that when I replace a piece of gear it's replacement has to be lighter than the previous one. Unfortunately, UL gear is often cost prohibitive so it takes time but as it stands right now, my base weight is at 16 lbs which is a HUGE improvement from the 27 lbs I had to lug around on my first section hike. And remember guys, this is base weight we're talking about, then I had to add food and water. And of course being the noob that I was and having read all these stories about hiker hunger, I had brought enough food to survive the zombie apocalypse! That made for a loooooong and very unpleasant hike.
So yes, base weight is important. If you feel something absolutely needs to be in your pack, put it in. Then have a look to see if there might be something in there that you can do without. If yes, great, if no, well... Try to buy the lightest gear that you can afford but don't leave stuff that is important to you at home just for fear that the UL Gods will be mad at you.