View Full Version : Losing weight - off of me?
Bootstrap
11-03-2007, 07:17
In another thread, Marta said cyclists tend to think this way:
One predictable response is: Unless you have pared every spare ounce off your own body weight, don't worry about a gram here and a gram there on your gear. You just can't justify spending the money.
How does this apply to backpackers? I'm curious about the gain in losing weight off my body vs. losing weight off my pack. I don't think a pound off my body is worth a pound off my pack. I've lost 20 pounds since Christmas, 4 inches off my waist, but I don't think that makes me want to carry 20 pounds more on my pack.
Suppose we think of equivalence that way. If I lose 20 pounds, how much would I have to add to a backpack to come out even? Anybody want to propose a ratio here? Along the lines of "a pound off your body is worth X off your pack"?
And how about a ratio for weight on your feet, e.g. when switching from heavy boots to trail runners. If you save X ounces off your feet, how many pounds pack weight is that equivalent to?
Jonathan
Fat is like your pack, it doesn't help you get down the trail and is only encumbering you. 1lb of Fat = 1lb of Pack You can try and convince yourself otherwise, but it isn't so.
Twenty pounds off your body, is 20 pounds your body doesn't have to carry. I agree with EWS, there is a direct relationship. Just ask your knees and your feet.
But those 20 pounds you lost were distributed throughout your body. If you add an offsetting 20 pounds to your pack, that weight will be concentrated in one place; your shoulders and hips (if you have a hipbelt) will be carrying an inordinate share of the added load. That may make your shoulders unhappy, but your knees will be carrying the same load as they did before you lost weight.
I'm sure someone with knowledge of vectors and cantilevered loads can find fault in my oversimplification.
SGT Rock
11-03-2007, 07:45
How does this apply to backpackers? I'm curious about the gain in losing weight off my body vs. losing weight off my pack. I don't think a pound off my body is worth a pound off my pack. I've lost 20 pounds since Christmas, 4 inches off my waist, but I don't think that makes me want to carry 20 pounds more on my pack.It does in some ways and doesn't in others. It isn't like another 20 pounds weight on your back - it carries better since it is normally distributed better across your body and is in your body - which your skeleton and muscles are designed to carry. But that extra weight uses more energy than pack weight in another way since your body (heart, lungs, digestive system) does not have to supply blood, oxygen, and nutrients to your pack - but do to your body fat. So by reducing your body fat you reduce your energy expenditure that way. AND when you reduce that body fat - weight is still weight. Physics are against you if you think about it. Lets take a comparison of two folks.
Hiker A is lean and in shape. He has a 7% body fat content and a weight of 155 pounds. That means he has 144 pounds of lean body mass and 11 pounds of fat. Add a 30 pound pack and his 144 pounds is carrying 41 pounds of mass - about 28% of his lean body mass.
Hike B is not lean, he is the average American with about 22% body fat content. He is 185 pounds and doesn't think he looks fat compared to a lot of other tubby Americans out there. But he also has 144 pounds of lean body mass, so in essence his "engine and frame" is the same as Hiker A. If he carries the same 30 pound pack, his 144 pound frame is carrying 71 pounds of mass, almost 50% of his lean body mass which is close to twice the effort of Hiker A. Add to that his system has to provide blood and oxygen to 41 pounds of his carried mass. So while it may not feel as bad as adding 40 more pounds to his pack, his heart may not agree.
Suppose we think of equivalence that way. If I lose 20 pounds, how much would I have to add to a backpack to come out even? Anybody want to propose a ratio here? Along the lines of "a pound off your body is worth X off your pack"?No idea, but I wouldn't want to try it.
And how about a ratio for weight on your feet, e.g. when switching from heavy boots to trail runners. If you save X ounces off your feet, how many pounds pack weight is that equivalent to?
Jonathan
That last one was tested thoroughly by the Army back in the 1950s. It is 1:5. One pound on your feet is like 5 pounds on your back for effort. Then the Army promptly ignored this data and continued to make the basic combat boot heavier until about 2005.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-03-2007, 07:55
Some of us around here have experienced gaining a lot of weight in a specific area of the body -- it is called pregnancy. How much trouble lugging extra weight around is is indeed determined (at least in part) by where the weight is concentrated. If it is distributed instead of concentrated in a single area, I submit it is easier for the body to manage. There are good reasons pregnant woman are often seen with their swollen ankles elevated, rubbing their lower backs and (toward the end) looking just plain miserable. (I'm still convinced the last month of pregnancy is God's way of getting women to go thru labor and delivery willingly - by the end of the 40th week you are ready to do anything to make it stop :D......)
It's an interesting question. Here's my personal experience:
1990, age 37: 160 lbs @ start, 11 miles/day with 35 lb pack (650 miles)
2007, age 54: 173 lbs @ start, 15 miles/day with 28 lb pack (587 miles)
Obivously there are other factors besides weight that determine overall long-term hiking rate. Eg., in 2007 I allowed myself no zero days. My ideal weight is probably around 140 or so.
Weight that is well distributed is far easier to carry that weight that is not well distributed.
As such, a 10 oz hipbelt can be a joy rather than an added burdon. Or to put it another way, a heavier pack can actually be lighter.
By the same token, drinking the quart of water in you pack will lighten your total load.
If I lose 20 pounds, how much would I have to add to a backpack to come out even?
I'd say about 6.2 Lbs at sea level.
warraghiyagey
11-03-2007, 09:39
. . . If I lose 20 pounds, how much would I have to add to a backpack to come out even? Anybody want to propose a ratio here? Along the lines of "a pound off your body is worth X off your pack"?
And how about a ratio for weight on your feet, e.g. when switching from heavy boots to trail runners. If you save X ounces off your feet, how many pounds pack weight is that equivalent to?
Jonathan
Rock's foot weight ratio is the standard I've learned from others along the way. What I'm unsure of is your need for a body weight loss, pack weight gain ratio. The simple fact is your feet, ankles, knees and hips do the majority of the work and take the majority of the abuse. I'd say that your body weight loss and lowest pack weight will work together for you more than trading one for the other.:)
Appalachian Tater
11-03-2007, 11:55
What SGT Rock and Frolicking Dinosaurs said. I lost body weight roughly equivalent to my back weight. Just like it's easier to carry a liter of water in your stomach than on your back, it is a little easier to carry fat weight than pack weight. But only a little.
It is quite amusing to see people (I am referring to myself, of course) spending $50 to save a couple of ounces when they're 40 pounds overweight and can drink five pounds of liquid in a few minutes on a hot day without trying.
I go by total weight on my feet. I treat 1 pound of excess body weight the same as 1 pound of excess pack weight. Also, at the same level of fitness, and over the same terrain, if my total weight on feet is 20% less I can cover 25% more distance at the same level of effort and same amount of calories burned. The major difference is that if I am substantially overweight I have only one speed option, SLOW and PAINFUL. When I get back down to a reasonable total weight on feet I will have 2 or three options: SLOW and SCENIC, MEDIUM and MODERATE, or FAST and PAINFUL. Of course the best way to lose weight is walking, and so the best weight to be to go for a walk is whatever you weigh now. Cheers.
Of course the best way to lose weight is walking, and so the best weight to be to go for a walk is whatever you weigh now. Cheers.
Well said. :D
Weight that is well distributed is far easier to carry that weight that is not well distributed.
As such, a 10 oz hipbelt can be a joy rather than an added burdon. Or to put it another way, a heavier pack can actually be lighter.
You mean it will feel lighter. As Rock said, your heart will know the difference going uphill.
So will your knees going downhill. No matter how much weight you shift from your shoulders to your hips, your knees aren't fooled a single bit. Being overweight strains your knees anyway, and adding a pack heavier than it needs to be and walking down hill exacerbates matters.
Yes, extra body poundage doesn't feel as bad because it is not hanging on your shoulders/hips. But it tires you our just as quickly in the end, and increases the likelihood of knee/ankle injury.
There is certainly a large category of hiker that is neither overweight, nor all that interested in trail running. That hiker can definitely add a few ounces here and there in padding and creature comforts and hardly notice the difference, except in comfort, and perhaps style. I probably envy these hikers more than any other, yet I am always trying to be both of the other extremes, sometimes even at the same time. Ouch.
Pacific Tortuga
11-03-2007, 12:52
[quote=Bootstrap;441249]In another thread, Marta said cyclists tend to think this way:
I've lost 20 pounds since Christmas, 4 inches off my waist, but I don't think that makes me want to carry 20 pounds more on my pack.
How did you lose that ?, diet and exersize ? OR ?
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-03-2007, 13:00
...... your heart will know the difference going uphill.... Yes, extra body poundage doesn't feel as bad because it is not hanging on your shoulders/hips. But it tires you our just as quickly in the end, and increases the likelihood of knee/ankle injury.Good points, but I feel extra weight concentrated in a single area tires you more quickly because of the additional energy required to keep your balance and would be more likely to produce injuries as well due to the balance issues.
I believe that when most people drop 30 pounds of body weight (for example, going from 200 to 170 pounds), they also lose at least a little muscle mass (unless they are doing some extra muscle-building activity while losing the weight, like lifting weights). After all, you're not quite working your thigh muscles (and others) as hard when you go about your normal day carrying 170 pounds instead of 200. If that 170 pound person then carries a 30 pound pack, that is going to feel more difficult to them while hiking, due to a little less muscle to do the work, than it would when they were a 200 pound person carrying nothing while hiking (even if they could distribute that 30 pounds evenly around their body, because like previous posters have mentioned, that makes a difference too). In what ratio it would feel more difficult, I have no idea.
Bootstrap
11-03-2007, 13:14
I've lost 20 pounds since Christmas, 4 inches off my waist, but I don't think that makes me want to carry 20 pounds more on my pack.
How did you lose that ?, diet and exersize ? OR ?
Pretty much. Not a formal diet, but I'm eating oatmeal with fruit for breakfast every day, a big fancy salad for lunch, and try to be reasonable with what's for supper. I also snack several times a day. And I try to get large amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables.
I was doing more running until my knee started giving me trouble. I need to adjust to walking. In the meantime, I'm losing *very* slowly.
For me, exercise alone doesn't help, because I get hungry and eat too much. Diet alone helps, but the combination is best. Also, I'm not weighing myself, just measuring my waist, because belly fat correlates with a lot of diseases, and when I exercise my muscle weight tends to go up, which is always confusing if I go by weight. I was lifting weights, hope to go back to it, but when I do, my weight tends to go up while my waist goes down.
I'm loosely following a book called "You on a Diet", sort of.
Jonathan
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-03-2007, 13:37
As mapMan notes, unless weight is taken off slowly (not more than about 1 to 1.5 pounds or .5 to .7 kilos per week) and exercise is part of the program, then muscle is lost.
I've lost about 12 lbs in the past 5 to 6 weeks - while I certainly need to lose weight, this it hasn't been the healthy sort of weight loss (I'm on the 'mom frolicked off to heaven' diet :( )
Needed: Mean, nasty trainer to come over to dino abode daily and make dino work-out, do PT and eat right. Job requires steel-toed boots and ablity to dodge flying tail.
dessertrat
11-03-2007, 15:57
I'd say about 6.2 Lbs at sea level.
That's the type of answer I like. Direct and to the point.:)
Needed: Mean, nasty trainer to come over to dino abode daily and make dino work-out, do PT and eat right. Job requires steel-toed boots and ablity to dodge flying tail.A good, high-quality cattle prod in the hands of an ex-spouse or ex-lover will get you into shape in no time.
ps You are absolutely right about the strength training to go along with losing weight.
FanaticFringer
11-03-2007, 16:40
g
What SGT Rock and Frolicking Dinosaurs said. I lost body weight roughly equivalent to my back weight. Just like it's easier to carry a liter of water in your stomach than on your back, it is a little easier to carry fat weight than pack weight. But only a little.
It is quite amusing to see people (I am referring to myself, of course) spending $50 to save a couple of ounces when they're 40 pounds overweight and can drink five pounds of liquid in a few minutes on a hot day without trying.
Aint that the truth.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-03-2007, 16:41
A good, high-quality cattle prod in the hands of an ex-spouse or ex-lover will get you into shape in no time.:eek: :eek: You obviously don't know my ex's...... I'd give the cattle prod to Desert Lobster first:dance
Of course the best way to lose weight is walking, and so the best weight to be to go for a walk is whatever you weigh now. Cheers.
Very much so. And the heavier you are, the more calories you'll burn per distance walked.
But in line with something Tater said...I have forbidden myself to spend any more money to lighten my gear until I have lightened my body to something a lot closer to the ideal athletic body weight. I don't plan to add pack weight to make up for the body weight loss (probably quite the opposite, since my clothes will be a bit smaller, and I'll be packing less food to maintain myself at the lower body weight), but in a few months me plus pack should be about the same effort as myself walking around packless right now. This is mostly a bid to prolong the usefulness of my knees.
I'm with you Marta. I need to do more walking and less talking.
My knees aren't getting any younger.
Very much so. And the heavier you are, the more calories you'll burn per distance walked. <snip>
....This is mostly a bid to prolong the usefulness of my knees.
I am a firm believer in riding a bike to lose and maintain weight. It builds leg strength and over-all fitness while reducing joint problems common to runners and fitness walkers. Couple that with a healthy diet and some weight training and, at least for me, it's a winner. I'm in the camp that believes any method you do to get in shape will translate well to hiking. Lose weight, build muscle, go hike.
Tom