View Full Version : 'New' Average AT thru-hike pack/fso weights
Omarwannahike
11-02-2007, 15:19
Hello all,
Though ultralight seems to be thrown at the lightest item any given manufacturer can make these days; such as a 3 season tent at 4.5 lbs being called UL. Is there a consensus in what a non UL setup up weighs?
I see that many UL packs for example hold up to 30 lbs, that on it's own sounds like what most people seem to carry without being UL and that many bags are 1.5 lbs the same applies to many hiking gear, the norm has become lighter.
With say a week's worth of 3k calories a day meals, is there a number I shoot be gunning for?
Thanks and sorry for the mini-ramble
Bootstrap
11-02-2007, 15:35
I'm just learning from these more lightweight hikers, I've been trudging with too much stuff.
But for food, I think a generous amount is 2 1/2 pounds per person per day for reasonably big eaters. On average, groups seem to use more than 1.7-1.8 pounds per person, based on postings I've seen on the Internet, but I'd be hungry at that weight. On my last trip, I think 2 pounds per day would have been about right for me. So for 3 days, you're at 6-7 1/2 pounds for food, and 2 liters of water will set you back another 4 pounds.
So I'm starting with 12 pounds before I even start to consider gear. If I got all my gear down to 13 pounds, I'd still be at 25 pounds. I'm currently working on getting *down* to 30 pounds for some upcoming hikes.
Jonathan
AT-HITMAN2005
11-02-2007, 15:39
seems like most people throw around the 2lbs per day of food number. but with resupply on the trail so easy you can keep it down to 3-4 days at a stretch, less in some places.
The Solemates
11-02-2007, 15:42
seems like most people throw around the 2lbs per day of food number. but with resupply on the trail so easy you can keep it down to 3-4 days at a stretch, less in some places.
and dont carry 2 L of water. I never have more than a liter on the AT where water is plentiful.
Omarwannahike
11-02-2007, 15:47
I have a spreadsheet of food, but the main calculation on it is cal per ounce. in one 'theoretical' calculation I can get something like 3600 calories out of 1.8 lbs of food (9 lbs for 5 days) that includes enough variety not to go crazy (over a week) and plenty of snacks (no cooking lunch) the only draw back I can see is that breakfast and dinners have to be cooked. This doesnt give an option of leving the stove behind for the high summer months.
One thing's for sure: you won't wanna carry 7 days of food. Food weighs a LOT. Keep it under 40 lbs coming out of towns and you're fine. Don't obsess about gear weight. Don't spend hundreds on expensive ultralight gear.
Save it and use your current gear. If you find you're just not making it, you can always purchase better gear along the way. I ended up switching back to my heavier versions of everything, believe it or not. Heavier pad, heavier tent, heavier pack, just preferred them over the ultralite stuff which wasn't working as well. Still finished, and regretted all the unnecessary purchases. Just sayin'.
Appalachian Tater
11-02-2007, 15:57
Your appetitite going out for a week is totally different from thru-hiking. I couldn't eat as much as two pounds of dehydrated/freeze dried food a day if I tried the first couple of days out hiking.
A 20 ounce Mountain House weighs about 7 ounces. Four of those weigh less than two pounds, which is more food than I would want thru-hiking, even though it probably wouldn't be enough calories. So your food could vary from a pound a day to more than two pounds depending on what type of foods you carry. This also shows why on a long hike, you need olive oil unless you want to lose weight.
and dont carry 2 L of water. I never have more than a liter on the AT where water is plentiful.
"Where water is plentiful" is the catch. On the AT in the mid-Atlantic region this summer, that situation was extremely rare.
This also shows why on a long hike, you need olive oil unless you want to lose weight.
I didn't lose or gain any weight on my hike (150 lbs, and yes I hiked every mile heh) and I didn't carry any nor did I even look on the sides of packages to see how many calories I was eating. Didn't weigh the food either.
Trust your body, it will tell you what you need, is what I say. Oh, and eat a Ben and Jerry's whenever you see one that is the other secret.
Bootstrap
11-02-2007, 16:32
seems like most people throw around the 2lbs per day of food number. but with resupply on the trail so easy you can keep it down to 3-4 days at a stretch, less in some places.
You seem to be disagreeing with the following statement I made:
So for 3 days, you're at 6-7 1/2 pounds for food
But you're also agreeing with the figures I used to compute it. So I'm confused.
Jonathan
maxNcathy
11-02-2007, 16:36
25 pounds will do it if you try.
dessertrat
11-02-2007, 17:05
and dont carry 2 L of water. I never have more than a liter on the AT where water is plentiful.
That depends upon the size of the person and the specific section of trail, I think. I was glad to be carrying two and even three liters at certain times.
wrongway_08
11-02-2007, 17:24
My winter weight with food and water is 28 lbs.
Summer weight will be around 24 or 25, depending.
maxNcathy
11-02-2007, 17:33
This spring my total weight will be 19 pounds maximum...Gossamer gear G5 pack and Spinnshelter...etc
My winter weight with food and water is 28 lbs.
Summer weight will be around 24 or 25, depending.
You're lacking an important detail, like how many days you plan on hiking!
AT-HITMAN2005
11-02-2007, 17:51
You seem to be disagreeing with the following statement I made:
But you're also agreeing with the figures I used to compute it. So I'm confused.
Jonathan
i wasn't disagreeing just kind of putting in my .02 and maybe supporting it at the same time?:confused:
Hey cheeks, what kind of pace were you able to keep up? I'm asking bc I'm around the same size as you and don't know how much I should stress pack weight and food.
Thanks
Kaptain Kangaroo
11-02-2007, 19:11
Ryan, I was also around the same size (155lbs). I maintained the same weight during my thru but I certainly still did lose some body fat & gained leg muscle. My pace was just over 4 months (Springer to Katahdin) & I certainly would not say I had to push the pace, just did consistent miles & didn't take many zero's. I started with 22lbs base weight (ex food & water) on March 3rd & reduced this to 18lbs with summer weight gear. Usually carried 3-4 days of food & around 2lbs per day. Towards the end of my hike I could definitely tell that I had very little in energy reserves & was hiking on the food I ate that day. I really did need to make sure I ate plenty & bought high calorie food (i carried olive oil & used lots)
Everyone is different & during a thru-hike you will get to understand the performance of your body & what it needs. But if you don't carry much excess body fat I would suggest that you do focus on carrying plenty of food from the beginning & eat as much as you can in town.
Getting your pack weight down to a sensible level (around 20lbs ex. food & water) will make every part of your hike more enjoyable. And you don't need to go ultra-light if this does not suit your style or preferences. You can be very comfortably equipped with a 20lb base weight.
Cheers,
Kaptain Kangaroo
Speaking from a regular hiker perspective (not a thru hiker) I just did 7 full days in GSMNP... not including what I was wearing, but just what was in my pack... including 64 oz of water... I was at 33#.
I think that somewhere in your original post (and you are right, it did ramble a bit) you were also asking about what a truly UL pack weighs. I don't think of it in terms of ounces. I think of it in terms of the pack's construction. If the pack is advertised to handle multi-day hiking trips and yet has no suspension system or relies on the rigidity of your foam sleeping pad to handle most weight transfer, then that is likely an "ultralight" pack. If it's got some kind of stays built in (a suspension system) to handle the transfer of pack weight to your hips, then that doesn't seem "ultralight" to me, no mattter how many ounces the pack weighs. Also, if a pack has lots of different compartments and pockets, that too does not seem ultralight to me. It's a matter of philosophy. Ultralight is about simplifying -- finding multiple uses for the stuff you bring so you can cut down on the total amount of stuff you carry. If you do that, then you're less likely to need all those pockets for organization and since your stuff presumably weighs less, your pack can weigh less too.
As for your having heard the figure 3000 calories per day as a rule of thumb for the amount of food to carry, I think a lot of folks could get by on that for a week or two, if they don't mind losing some weight. But that's not enough for an AT thru-hike. Folks eating that much per day on the trail on a thru-hike have to do a lot of gorging when they are in trail towns (and many hikers do just that) to maintain their weight, unless they have some kind of freak metabolism. I eat 4300 calories per day, every day, on two week hikes (with no gorging) and that's enough to stay at a constant weight for me.
I would call my own setup "light," not ultralight, and I would not try to use a pack that was rated for only 30 pounds if I were planning to carry an entire week's worth of food like you are. My pack can handle 40 pounds comfortably and I've never come close to carrying that much, but I bought a pack that could handle that much because I wanted one that could handle 7 or 8 days of food (even though 5 is the most I've had to carry so far) plus three or four liters of water (in case of scarce water) in addition to my 14 to 16 pounds of base weight (depending on whether it's summer or three-season hiking I'm doing).
Hey cheeks, what kind of pace were you able to keep up? I'm asking bc I'm around the same size as you and don't know how much I should stress pack weight and food.
Thanks
I was one of the slower hikers on the whole AT, from my guess. I did the whole trail in 6.5 months, but that included about 1 week off plus an average # of zeros.
I hated hiking more than 20 miles a day, but was happy to put in a solid 15 when the terrain was normal. I went into the hike thinking I could average 15-18/day but don't count on it. And I don't think your pack weight has as much affect on your daily mileage as some people would advise.
One thing I learned on the AT was how astonishingly different everyone is in their preferences and comfort levels. The other thing is that gear rarely had much to do with anyone's success or speed and as long as they were under 40, they could do whatever they were capable of.
Footslogger
11-03-2007, 00:04
One thing I learned on the AT was how astonishingly different everyone is in their preferences and comfort levels. The other thing is that gear rarely had much to do with anyone's success or speed and as long as they were under 40, they could do whatever they were capable of.
==============================================
No statistics to prove it ...but I'll bet you that many of the "over 50" crowd would tell you that pack weight made a significant difference in their ability to cover miles and enjoy their hikes.
Like you, I took over 6 months to complete my hike in 2003 (3/29 to 10/9) and the fact that I downsized and lightened my pack made a world of difference in my speed and the number of miles per day I was able to cover.
'Slogger
Two Speed
11-03-2007, 06:43
:eek: Warning! Thread Drift Immanent! Warning!:eek:
:eek: I was one of the slower hikers on the whole AT, from my guess. . . The other thing is that gear rarely had much to do with anyone's success or speed and as long as they were under 40, they could do whatever they were capable of.Ummm, technically that's kinda circular logic. In addition, it looks like you did what you were capable of, so you did what you . . . were . . . ummm . . . capable of . . . which had what do with your age? Ya see how that's kinda screwy?
This terminates this thread drift warning. You may resume running in the aisles with sharp scissors if you wish to do so. Good luck and good hunting!
Kerosene
11-03-2007, 07:29
==============================================
No statistics to prove it ...but I'll bet you that many of the "over 50" crowd would tell you that pack weight made a significant difference in their ability to cover miles and enjoy their hikes.
Like you, I took over 6 months to complete my hike in 2003 (3/29 to 10/9) and the fact that I downsized and lightened my pack made a world of difference in my speed and the number of miles per day I was able to cover.
'SloggerAs a new member of the "over 50" crowd (actually, I'm not yet 51, so I guess I'm on the cusp), my opinion is that a lighter pack doesn't really impact how many miles I can do in a day, but has a huge impact on how I feel after a long mileage day. It's especially noticeable in my feet after a single day, but after several days I notice that my body in general feels a lot better than when I used to lug 40-50 pounds, even though I'm a lot older.
No statistics to prove it ...but I'll bet you that many of the "over 50" crowd would tell you that pack weight made a significant difference in their ability to cover miles and enjoy their hikes.
I can cite personal statistics to support this. Lighter is better. Within reason, of course.
SGT Rock
11-03-2007, 07:49
Take it for what it is worth. Everyone is different on this. With a liter of water and 4 days of food my winter FSO for my thru is 34 pounds.
Bootstrap
11-03-2007, 08:36
As a new member of the "over 50" crowd (actually, I'm not yet 51, so I guess I'm on the cusp), my opinion is that a lighter pack doesn't really impact how many miles I can do in a day, but has a huge impact on how I feel after a long mileage day. It's especially noticeable in my feet after a single day, but after several days I notice that my body in general feels a lot better than when I used to lug 40-50 pounds, even though I'm a lot older.
I think there's some set of numbers that matter for each of us, and these numbers vary based on our physique, our equipment, our attitude, and the phase of the moon.
For me, there's a limit somewhere in the 40-45 pound range, I can carry more than that, but it's a *lot* harder. I recently went a few miles down a side trail and got water for myself and my father in a dry region, and wound up carrying 8 liters of water for just a few miles. It was *much* harder. Some of this was weight distribution, some was absolute weight, some was the limits of my pack.
To me, dropping from 40 to 35 makes a noticeable, but not crucial difference. I can hike at similar paces, but I'm more tired at the end of the day carrying 40. I haven't yet gotten down to 30 for a real weekend backpacking trip. When I do test loads of 30, I feel almost like I'm walking instead of backpacking. That said, I *definitely* intend to drop to less than 35 for 3-4 day trips. If I can get lighter, that's great, but I also don't want to obsess about it too much. Maybe I'll get lighter over time.
Jonathan
Though ultralight seems to be thrown at the lightest item any given manufacturer can make these days; such as a 3 season tent at 4.5 lbs being called UL. Is there a consensus in what a non UL setup up weighs?..........ETC,...........
In my own little JAYBIRD world...UL tent equals SUB-3lbs
UL sleeping bag is SUB-3lbs (mine is 2lbs!)
UL backpack is SUB-3lbs (mine is 2lbs 10oz)
good luck with your hike (UL or not):D
You can extend the maximum weight of an ultralight pack by packing it well. You can also rip the seams with less than the maximum weight by packing it poorly. Also, I think it is a myth that ultraweight has to be expensive. Packs are a good example of that. Cheap light nylon wind breakers are another. Ironically, such myths are often perpetuated by folks wanting you to spend more. I consider myself more of a minimalist than an ultralight. But even more so than a minimalist, I am cheap. Thrift is a virtue.
Bootstrap
11-03-2007, 17:56
You can extend the maximum weight of an ultralight pack by packing it well. You can also rip the seams with less than the maximum weight by packing it poorly. Also, I think it is a myth that ultraweight has to be expensive. Packs are a good example of that. Cheap light nylon wind breakers are another. Ironically, such myths are often perpetuated by folks wanting you to spend more. I consider myself more of a minimalist than an ultralight. But even more so than a minimalist, I am cheap. Thrift is a virtue.
What cheap backpacks do you consider particularly good? And what nylon windbreakers?
I grew up backpacking with all the wrong army surplus canvas stuff, plus a nice duck/goosdown bag. A few years ago I took a credit card into an REI and told them I was hiking the Grand Canyon, so they sold me the kind of equipment that is pretty common on Sierra Club trips around this area, heavy stuff from traditional brands at a reasonably high price.
I'd love a good thrifty tarptent. Haven't seen one except for the ones I make myself. Not even used.
Jonathan
mountain squid
11-03-2007, 18:19
Heavier pad, heavier tent, heavier pack, just preferred them over the ultralite stuff which wasn't working as well.
:-? hmmmm.....yes.....well..... most people don't have robotic pack mules to haul their stuff with either...:D :) :rolleyes:
CONGRATS!!!! Cheeks. Tell Steps Small I said 'Hello and Congrats'.
See you on the trail,
mt squid
Omarwannahike
11-05-2007, 11:07
TO: Map man
Thanks for the info so far. I wouldn't mind losing some weight while on the trail, though my health is paramount.
A follow-up question to this is the amount of items that thru-hikers take along with them. ie, 3 pairs of socks, 2 t-shirts, or 1? etc, etc. Water-proof matches.
Omarwannahike
11-05-2007, 11:11
good luck with your hike (UL or not):D
Thanks a lot, reminds me of 'Hike your own hike'
mountain squid
11-05-2007, 11:54
I have 2 Duofold polyester t-shirts - switch out in towns.
I have 2 pr Coolmax socks plus an ankle pr of Coolmax socks. (The ankle pr is my 'always dry' pr.)
I wear zip-off pants during day and at night have nylon shorts for sleeping.
I have some matches tucked away with 'kitchen' gear, but I don't think they are waterproof. Otherwise, I use a lighter which I keep in pants pocket.
See you on the trail,
mt squid
gearfreak
11-05-2007, 12:31
I use a ULA Catalyst (2 lbs. 14 oz.) for it's light weight and ability to carry one weeks worth of food, if necessary. I also carry a Big Agnes Seedhouse SL 2 (3 lbs. 4 oz.) and my weight including 2L of water (but no food) is 21 lbs. 12 oz. Cutting the water to 1L (which I can get 5-6 miles out of) drops 2 lbs. 3 oz. Food for me averages 1 lb. per day. Instant oatmeal for breakfast, PB and tortillas for lunch, MH meals for dinner with PowerBar nut naturals and trailmix in between. One packet of Gatorade split between lunch and dinner and I'm good to go. Typical 3 day carry weight = 22 lbs. 9 oz. (Note: I only hike sections, up to one week at a time, and may not require the calorie intake for that period that a thru hiker would require). :cool:
Omarwannahike
11-05-2007, 14:25
Thanks Gearfreak, good info there.
Omarwannahike
11-05-2007, 17:02
Hi all,
Again it's me, pre-occupied with weight already? Yes, no. Donno.
My big four at the moment:
Osprey Talon 44 39 ounces... this is about the only pack I have had that felt good on me. Considering how small stuff shrinks to pack now-a-days, I might end up with something smaller.
Sleeping Bag Montbell UL Alpine Down Hugger #5, long 20 ounces .... yes I am 6 feet tall and a bit round ;)
Montbell UL Comfort System Pad 90 9.6 ounces ... I am one of those, that sleeps anywhere as long as it's laying down.
The portable home is all Six Moons thinking of the Wild Oasis 13 ounces (going down from the Lunar Solo 23 oz) Footprint and stakes for the tent are 6.3 ounces
For a two flavor Big 4
The Oasis Big four is 5.4 pounds or as I might call it, 'The don't complain about getting wet in the middle of the night 'cause there is no floor' Big four
The Lunar Big four is 6.03 pounds
How is this sounding?
For a two flavor Big 4
The Oasis Big four is 5.4 pounds or as I might call it, 'The don't complain about getting wet in the middle of the night 'cause there is no floor' Big four
The Lunar Big four is 6.03 pounds
How is this sounding?
If you have to ask about going with close to SUL gear, don't, as it usually means that may get youself in more trouble than you're capable of getting yourself out of. A warmer bag, pad and a shelter with a floor can easily prevent many life threatening situations. I'm not being mean, but you can lower your packweight as you build your skills.
Omarwannahike
11-06-2007, 09:45
I see it as taking advantage of the newer technologies and materials without actually going the UL (ie Pepsi can stove) way. I do appreciate your concern, all experienced hikers should pass that as well as knowledge down to us young'ins.
I sleep cold, though in bedroom enviroments. I don't think I would risk not having a tent floor, besides the risk to myself, there is also the supplemental risk to food and gear which puts me, in the case that I would stay dry, at peril anyway.
I see where you're coming from. Outside of injury, staying dry and warm are the two biggest "dangers", as one wet windy night in cool temps can kill you if you don't stay dry.
Practice is the key so, once you get your gear and a windy thunderstorm hits, head outside bunker down for the night.
Have fun!
Omarwannahike
11-06-2007, 10:33
You read my mind!
I have a few 'safe' ugly spots that I can head to in case of a good windy storm rolling in.
I will post what I find when it happens.
YeOldeBackpacker
11-06-2007, 17:23
and dont carry 2 L of water. I never have more than a liter on the AT where water is plentiful.Unless it is like the current situation where the is no water available since most of the springs are dry
shelterbuilder
11-06-2007, 19:34
Unless it is like the current situation where the is no water available since most of the springs are dry
I know that I'll hear about it from some of you, BUT even when the springs are dry, if you camel-up at water sources, you still don't need to carry more than 1 liter at a time in order to make 5 to 10 miles. Why go lightweight, only to load yourself down with "extra" water weight? Carry the maps so that you can find each and every water source that's out there, and don't be afraid to go down lower than the site of the spring to find water.
canerunner
11-06-2007, 21:38
As a new member of the "over 50" crowd (actually, I'm not yet 51, so I guess I'm on the cusp), my opinion is that a lighter pack doesn't really impact how many miles I can do in a day, but has a huge impact on how I feel after a long mileage day. It's especially noticeable in my feet after a single day, but after several days I notice that my body in general feels a lot better than when I used to lug 40-50 pounds, even though I'm a lot older.
Welcome to the club, youngster! :D I'm 58, and like you, I used to carry a lot more weight in my younger days. Made a lot of miles with a 50+ pound pack on my back. I too have seen the light (pardon the pun).
I'm now hiking with a lightweight setup, and I'm currently down to about 6 1/2 pounds for my big four, plus whatever clothes, food and water I carry. If I hike in colder weather, I have a slightly heavier sleeping bag that I carry that raises me to about 7 1/4 pounds.
I just finished a loop hike of the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wlderness area, and I left home with a pack weight of about 23 pounds, and that included 3 liters of water and food for 6 meals. I had done the same hike in 1978 with a pack weight of over 45 pounds, and I could REALLY tell the difference, even though I'm 30 years older!
Weight is a huge influence on how many miles you can make, and on how you feel after making those miles. I'm already looking at ways to reduce my load a little more without breaking the bank. I have already decided to exchange my current shelter for something lighter and more versatile. I'm thinking seriously about one of the tarptent type shelters, and will probably make my own.
I want to be able to make my miles, and still enjoy the hike as I go. I have learned to take every day as a blessing, and enjoy every one I'm given.
Why go lightweight, only to load yourself down with "extra" water weight?
Because it really sucks to be dehydrated... and sometimes you just don't know where the next water source will be.