View Full Version : Is gear weight harmful?
From your personal experience and observation and reckoning;
do people suffer or risk more harm by having too much gear weight, or too little?
Most people suffer or risk serious harm from too much gear weight
Most people suffer or risk serious harm from too little gear weight
Most people don't suffer or risk serious harm from either too much, or too little
Lone Wolf
01-06-2009, 11:02
let it go. gear weight is not harmful :rolleyes:
Serial 07
01-06-2009, 11:04
great minds...
Lone Wolf
01-06-2009, 11:05
let it go. gear weight is not harmful :rolleyes:
inexperienced cyber hikers are though...
Pedaling Fool
01-06-2009, 11:05
Hikers are wimps.
everyone has to find what is right for their own body, not everyone has to hike in a 2lb backpack, some people are better off in their 35lbs.... i add weight to my dayhiking bag, my whole body feels better under 35lbs than it does under 5lbs
if you are going to talk about pack weight being harmful, then lets all stop hiking, because no matter what we carry, hiking its self can be harmful, you might fall and trip: it doesn't matter how much your pack weighs, you will still fall down... hiking is hard on the feet and knees.... i can go on and on.....
Tipi Walter
01-06-2009, 11:13
Ask the hut boys around Mt Washington in the Whites. They routinely carry up to 150 pounds short steep distances. Check out Norman Clyde of the Sierras, circa 1930s and 40s. He routinely carried 90 pound packs and lived outdoors for months at a time.
Loss of comfort? Yes, but danger? no
Tipi Walter
01-06-2009, 11:19
There is even some documentation that load bearing increases calcium uptake blah blah making for stronger bones. Hauling big weights over long periods increases bone density and size, etc.
Pedaling Fool
01-06-2009, 11:27
everyone has to find what is right for their own body, not everyone has to hike in a 2lb backpack, some people are better off in their 35lbs.... i add weight to my dayhiking bag, my whole body feels better under 35lbs than it does under 5lbs
if you are going to talk about pack weight being harmful, then lets all stop hiking, because no matter what we carry, hiking its self can be harmful, you might fall and trip: it doesn't matter how much your pack weighs, you will still fall down... hiking is hard on the feet and knees.... i can go on and on.....
This reminds me of something I've often wondered about: What's more damaging to the knees (impact), hiking or running.
I can only speak for myself, I use to have bad knees, especially the right one. The doc told me it was part of aging and I would eventually need surgery (this was over a decade ago before I was an avid runner and hiker). Some one turned me onto weightlifting and my knees are stronger now than ever before. I hike with between 50-70 lbs and run about 30 mile a week - I don't take stuff like advil.
If you only do one exercise, say hiking or cycling(in my case) certain muscles will get strong, but other muscles will not be used much and they deteriorate in time. It would be like only doing curls for your biceps, but nothing for your triceps.
When you think of some people that are extremely overweight, carrying an extra
100 pounds or more, a 100 pound backpack doesn't seem quite so unreasonable.
Still, 18 to 36 pounds is enough for me.
Johnny Thunder
01-06-2009, 11:53
The only way that packweight is harmful is when hikers make uninformed decisions to lower the weight of what they carry. I've seen people leave tents at home. Packweight. Or, stoves in cold weather. Packweight.
Pedaling Fool
01-06-2009, 11:56
When you think of some people that are extremely overweight, carrying an extra
100 pounds or more, a 100 pound backpack doesn't seem quite so unreasonable.
Still, 18 to 36 pounds is enough for me.
True, but the health problems of those people go way beyond just the extra weight. There's no direct correlation between a healthy person carrying an extra 100 lbs compared to an unhealthy person that carries 100lbs of fat.
garlic08
01-06-2009, 12:07
I'm an ultralighter and voted 'no harm either way' on the poll. I don't believe in the "serious" risk for most, more a matter of style and comfort.
But I do believe that if you carry every piece of gear you could possibly need in any conceivable circumstance, you'll probably go so slow you'll need it! Conversely, I believe it's easy enough for an ultralighter to hike out of danger quickly and safely. With a 4 mph pace and 30 mile+ days, an experienced ultralighter can often outpace lightning storms on high ridges, beat a snowstorm over a pass, get safely to low ground, get off high snowfields, etc, leaving the heavy hikers to deal with the adverse conditions with their really good gear.
Blue Jay
01-06-2009, 19:47
Actually too little gear weight is very harmful. If it goes too far into the negative range you float away in the wind.:eek:
Hikers always suffer with too much gear in any season.
Hikers may suffer or face danger with too little gear in adverse winter weather
too much gear + trying to do too many miles = bad
too little gear + not being able to do enough miles to outrun storms and such = also bad
TrippinBTM
01-06-2009, 22:31
Harmful. You're much more at risk for twisted ankles and knees when your pack is overloaded. Seen it with my own eyes, many times (including on myself).
Tipi Walter
01-06-2009, 23:05
I'm an ultralighter and voted 'no harm either way' on the poll. I don't believe in the "serious" risk for most, more a matter of style and comfort.
But I do believe that if you carry every piece of gear you could possibly need in any conceivable circumstance, you'll probably go so slow you'll need it! Conversely, I believe it's easy enough for an ultralighter to hike out of danger quickly and safely. With a 4 mph pace and 30 mile+ days, an experienced ultralighter can often outpace lightning storms on high ridges, beat a snowstorm over a pass, get safely to low ground, get off high snowfields, etc, leaving the heavy hikers to deal with the adverse conditions with their really good gear.
What kind of outdoorsman or backpacker would want to rush thru a wilderness on 30 mile days or get out of a snowstorm? I thought the whole point of living outdoors is to experience all conditions. And for the ultralighters who cannot outrun "bad" conditions, what happens to them? I guess there's always the handy cellphone for vehicle extraction. It works some of the time. And why not a 1 mph pace and 7 mile days?
If you only do one exercise, say hiking or cycling(in my case) certain muscles will get strong, but other muscles will not be used much and they deteriorate in time. It would be like only doing curls for your biceps, but nothing for your triceps.
I know w/ cirque de soleil the performers know exactly which muscles they don't use in their performance so they are required to spend an equal amount of time on those muscles as they do in rehearsals and performances in order to remain completely toned
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
God people..it ain't about the gear.
John Muir walked in a wool coat, carried tea and a loaf of bread.
But you did not see him write about the wonders of his wool coat.
Conversely, Ed Abbey packed heavy at times. You don't see him write too much about the wonders of his backpack.
There are many people who backpack. Some prefer camping. Some prefer hiking. Which is better?
I think some of you truly don't know the answer. :)
(HINT: There isn't a best...)
Tipi Walter
01-06-2009, 23:30
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
God people..it ain't about the gear.
John Muir walked in a wool coat, carried tea and a loaf of bread.
But you did not see him write about the wonders of his wool coat.
Conversely, Ed Abbey packed heavy at times. You don't seem write too much about the wonders of his backpack.
There are many people who backpack. Some prefer camping. Some prefer hiking. Which is better?
I think some of you truly don't know the answer. :)
It's always healthy to counter the mileage obsessed and to add a differing voice to the hikers who need to rush thru an area because of inadequate gear. Not everyone wants to speed thru an area. To repeat Weary's good quote: "I hike mostly because I like to explore wild places, not to see how easy or fast I can get out of wild places." To counter garlic08, there are actually people who go out to experience conditions he may want to avoid.
Weary is a wise man.
What some people fail to realize there is not just one way to enjoy wild places.
And if you think walking all day is rushing, than that is like saying camping all day is being lazy. ;)
Both statements are patently false.
I've often thought of going out on the Bay and just sailing or paddling around for a few days, maybe even weeks, without going anywhere, and then coming back in to the same place I started. Of course it gets tricky at night, but the idea is the same as with hiking. Sometimes I see more by going slow. Sometimes I see more by going fast.
It's bad both physically--
In the form of... shin splints... blisters... wear and tear on pack suspensions and gear.. fatigue....
AND MENTALLY!
Any gram weenie will have to admit that-- Obsession about gear weight is addictive and bad for your health.
I carried 72 pounds 4 miles once... after that I decided time for an upgrade... now I carry scotch instead of beer. :)
does'nt every one have less pains when they carry less?
Some take great pains to carry less. :)
Tipi Walter
01-07-2009, 00:38
does'nt every one have less pains when they carry less?
The more carried the longer you can stay out. Fuel and Food. Four season tent in 60 mph open balds. Ask SpiritWind about windy open balds.
this is real simple. one simply needs to balance the the lugging comfort weight vs. the living out of the pack comfort weight vs. the bank account comfort weight. it takes practice, but everyone figures out what works for them. no bigee.
I think in winter especially there can be at least two distinct modes of travel.
With skis, and flat terrain like a frozen river or lake or trail you can go fast and light and pick your days and nights, but you can't go long in this mode because the food gets heavy, and you would tire and need to slow down which needs more insulation, and with more days the weather is less predictable and things can go wrong like broken skis. But fast and light ski trips are certainly an option in winter, and you can go a long way in 2 days.
Then there are longer trips, where you might go the same distance or perhaps farther, but much slower, perhaps with a toboggan, with more gear and more food and more clothing, and enjoy more days and more severe weather, and you can still bring your skis for the odd night ski.
So if in winter two distinct modes, why not the rest of the year also.
The recommended maximum total backpack weight is ¼ or 25% of your own body weight. Carrying too much weight can lead to a condition called "Pack Palsy".
Here's an article with case studies:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1272174
garlic08
01-07-2009, 02:29
What kind of outdoorsman or backpacker would want to rush thru a wilderness on 30 mile days or get out of a snowstorm? I thought the whole point of living outdoors is to experience all conditions....And why not a 1 mph pace and 7 mile days?
Totally different styles of hiking and traveling, and that's OK.
It's like seeing skiers and boarders on the same mountain, both doing basically the same thing, but they could hardly be more different.
The poll results so far are interesting, that most of us think no harm is done either way. Good deal.
The recommended maximum total backpack weight is ¼ or 25% of your own body weight. Carrying too much weight can lead to a condition called "Pack Palsy".
Here's an article with case studies:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1272174I wish they wouldn't express it in terms of percent body weight. Perhaps as a percentage of lean body weight might make sense.
I am 225 pounds. 25% would be 56.25 pounds. Back when I weighed 180 pounds, even 160 pounds, I carried 60 pounds without much complaint, but now that I'm older, and heavier, things are different. If I had kept at it consistently it might have been different. I think height squared is a good rule of thumb. 36 pounds for 6 feet tall. 25 pounds for 5 feet tall. Of course there are some pretty stocky 5 footers that could carry most 6 footers, and their packs.
Perhaps 1/3 of your lean body mass, less 1/3 of your body fat. I'm would guess my lean body weight is 150#, so that would be 50#, less 25# for my 75# of body fat. That leaves 25# for pack weight. Seems about right.
Geeze I can't believe I'm 33% fat. If I was 50 pounds lighter...
Pedaling Fool
01-07-2009, 09:53
does'nt every one have less pains when they carry less?
Yeah, heavy weight sucks in the beginning, but your body and mind acclimates. But the best thing, for me, I feel like I'm walking on the freakin' moon after a hike.
The weight of your gear isn't the most important aspect of a thru-hike. Having the right stuff and being happy with what you carry is. Be it a 45 lb. pack or a 20 lb. pack. so many thru-hikers believe that if they carry the minimum weight they will have an easy hike. Those folks soon learn that a thru-hike isn't an easy task, don't matter what weight you carry.
Pre 1980 hikers all had to carry 40 to 50 lb. packs. They hiked, enjoyed it and made it to Katahdin. Too many hikers think that if they go light weight they will have an easy hike and make it to the end. They soon learn that it's not what you are carrying on your back, it's what you carry in your head that get's you to the big mountain.:-?
Johnny Swank
01-07-2009, 11:52
What Mags (and others) said. There's as many ways to hike the trail as there are hikers.
One thing I really, really want to get into with this AT Thru-Hiker study is looking at injury (and completion) rates related to daily mileage, pack weight, and few other factors. I'm a ways from getting into that, but am really looking forward at digging into that side of the data.
OHH NO! Another discussion(argument) about pack wt. This is a beaten horse! If someone can't see benefits of WISELY lowering pack wt. I give up trying to persuade them. They can hike with all the gear wt. they want. It is, after all, their hike. REMEMBER, this IS NOT about, here is the way I hike, it is the right way, and the only way for all people all the time. BS.
I can't reply to what most AT hikers R doing because I don't know what "most" is or if I've ever met "most" AT hikers, but can a hiker suffer or risk serious harm by carrying too much gear wt. ABSOLUTELY. Conversely, can a hiker suffer or risk serious harm by carrying too little gear wt., which I take to mean not carrying the appropriate type or amount of gear for the conditions or not having the proper knowledge of how to incorporate their gear into a low wt. hiking style. ABSOLUTELY.
Tipi, even though U see some U.L. gear manufacturers marketing their gear as a way to travel light and fast it does not mean that all U.L.'ers seek to minimize their gear wt. in order to always go fast, put up big miles, necessarily avoid conditions, or rush through an area. No matter what the wt. of our gear may be, I think, just like U, part of the wonder of hiking is to explore and experience what we R doing in the most intimate way possible.
I can't reply to what most AT hikers R doing because I don't know what "most" is or if I've ever met "most" AT hikers, but can a hiker suffer or risk serious harm by carrying too much gear wt.
i met 'most' a couple years back. he hiked with 'least' i think.
Tipi Walter
01-07-2009, 20:59
Yeah, heavy weight sucks in the beginning, but your body and mind acclimates. But the best thing, for me, I feel like I'm walking on the freakin' moon after a hike.
This reminds me of an old Eric Ryback quote from a AT thruhike back in 1969: "Later, when I was arranging my equipment and food, people came up and questioned me about my trip. This was the first real indication I had that I was doing something unusual; they were amazed that I was able to maintain myself in the mountains for over 2 1/2 weeks with just what was in my pack, plus water from mountain streams. I knew all my physical resources would be needed because there was a cable ladder to climb and because I was carrying over 60 pounds again."
Or this quote: "Looking at that food was one of my greatest pleasures on the whole trip. It was the last package I would pick up before I finished my trek. I wondered how I would make all of the food fit into the pack. It was for 20 days, the largest supply I had picked up. With the experience of 1,600 miles behind me, the heavier the pack, the more secure I felt. I knew I could go into the woods and stay for as long as the food lasted before coming back to civilization again."
Tipi, even though U see some U.L. gear manufacturers marketing their gear as a way to travel light and fast it does not mean that all U.L.'ers seek to minimize their gear wt. in order to always go fast, put up big miles, necessarily avoid conditions, or rush through an area. No matter what the wt. of our gear may be, I think, just like U, part of the wonder of hiking is to explore and experience what we R doing in the most intimate way possible.
Yeah, you're right about exploration and sleeping out. Nothing more intimate than sleeping with old Momma Nature. My nitpicking and sour rants come from sitting indoors by a screen for too long, though my trail reports also contain some pretty serious screeds. Just a tired old professor wannabe. A high ridge winter wind will get me back on track.
the heavier the pack, the more secure I felt.
Eric Ryback was at the ADZPCTKO and ALDHA-W Gathering this past year. I think he is happy to be involved in the community he helped to inspire.
Heck of a nice guy. Down to earth, humble , very positive, and seemed happy to be hanging with all these people that he helped inspire (which I think surprised him as well!)
At a symposium on gear of THEN vs.NOW, he said he wished he had the lighter gear for his journeys. :D He also said a wonderful comment along the lines of "I'm tempted to go and call my wife and tell her I won't be home for 5 months". Needless to say, that comment received much applause, good cheer and cemented him as someone who is part of our tribe.
One thing that showed through in his PCT slide show from his trek? It does not matter what the time period was or what gear was used; the unmitigated joy of spending time in the wilderness came through. The smiles he had and the views he showed were timeless.
All people who travel in the wilderness should be lucky to have this same sense of joy.
No one cared about his gear. No one droned on about how much tougher he was or, conversely, how he should have gone lighter.
All in attendance just marveled at his pioneering journey. And we all realized what was true in 1970 was also true in 1985, 1998, 2002 or beyond: Being out in the wilderness is a gift, a joy, a time to be cherished.
As we start 2009, I hope everyone gets to spend some time outside in the manner that is best for you.
I was at Eric Ryback's presentation at the ADZPCTKO this year. Mags, U said it all a lot better than I usually do! Well put! Lets me not forget just how very fortunate we all are!
BitBucket
01-08-2009, 22:42
Here's another perspective on carrying excess weight...
"Gaining weight puts a lot of extra stress and strain on your knees, which must bear the brunt of those excess pounds. The added pressure increases wear and tear, contributing to osteoarthritis (OA). On the flip side, losing weight can help you take a load off, literally. One study (Arthritis and Rheumatism, July 2005) found that every lost pound subtracts four pounds of pressure from the knees for each step taken. In practical terms, losing just 10 pounds means that each knee is subjected to 48,000 fewer pounds of pressure for every mile walked."
With this in mind, if you carry 10 un-needed extra pounds on your thru hike, you're subjecting each of your knees to 48,000 lbs pressure x ~2,170 miles = 104,160,000 lbs of extra pressure...
So it really does make sense to keep your pack weight (and belly weight) to a minimal number that will support the type of hiking you plan to do.
Pedaling Fool
01-09-2009, 09:53
That's just a numbers game.
The only way that packweight is harmful is when hikers make uninformed decisions to lower the weight of what they carry. I've seen people leave tents at home. Packweight. Or, stoves in cold weather. Packweight.
True. But this is another poorly worded poll. Most hikers make do however they pack. Had the poll asked about "many" hikers, or "some" hikers, I could answer. But "most?" There's no way for any of us to truly know. I suspect a few get into trouble from excess weight. And quite a few get into trouble occasionally by carrying too little weight.
Certainly, many of the winter deaths over the years probably stemmed from insufficient warm gear.
Weary
Johnny Swank
01-09-2009, 12:29
I've cut down my packweight in half from 10 years ago, but I'm more worried about losing the 10 extra pounds around my gut than 3 ounces in my pack.
ChaiKitty
01-11-2009, 00:23
How you carry the weight (correctly or with bad posture/fit) probably makes a greater difference in the risk involved with carrying greater weights. New hikers probably set themselves up for double risk here by carrying some unnecessary weight and using poor posture. Experienced hikers, such as those mentioned above, have the skill and developed muscle strength to carry extreme weights over 75lbs at no greater risk than someone carrying 30.
Tipi Walter
01-11-2009, 01:11
How you carry the weight (correctly or with bad posture/fit) probably makes a greater difference in the risk involved with carrying greater weights. New hikers probably set themselves up for double risk here by carrying some unnecessary weight and using poor posture. Experienced hikers, such as those mentioned above, have the skill and developed muscle strength to carry extreme weights over 75lbs at no greater risk than someone carrying 30.
In addition, the type of pack used is very important. In the stratospheric realm of heavy packs, the place where most sane backpackers won't willingly go, there is a twilight world where 75 lbs in a bonafide excellent pack is markedly different from 75 lbs in a truly superior pack. Seemingly, the bottom line is that most packs are not designed to haul 75 lbs for hours at a time, no matter if they are considered the touted "load monsters" of traditional acceptance, such as the big Gregorys, the Arcteryx Boras, the Ultra Tiogas of Kelty or the 6000 cu in packs of Dana Designs.
Most readers of this post are now toppling forward in a near-coma as who hauls such weight, anyway? And what does it have to do with me? Turn the page, then, but to the readers who actually haul and heft such packs, I will mention Mystery Ranch as a possible solution to the age-old dilemma of the heavy pack: Sagging. Put 80 pounds in your favorite load-hauler and walk around for 5 hours. Even the respected Dana Terraplanes are known for sagging with such weight. I know mine did. My G6000 MR on the other hand was designed for 80 lbs and does not sag. I might wobble a bit and go slower than most, but I can hump it w/o complaint and by the end of a 10 day trip the thing is around 50 pounds, almost a daypack weight.
Won't bore ya with the details and heck, I'm no pack engineer, but the harness system is comfy yet firm, beefy yet flexible, etc. It works.
And there is some truth to ChaiKitty's comment about developing muscle strength and muscle memory but not in the weightlifter sense. It's more about long-term increased bone mass and improved musculature of the moving components like ligaments and tendons. Can't prove any of this and wouldn't want to. What comes to mind are the short Peruvian men who are not beefy but haul tremendous weights up in the Andes. Things like bales of transmission wire and other goodies. You could say they are bred for it, as would be anyone willing to do it for 30 or 40 years. For anyone wanting to study the harmful effects of pack weight, I'd say go look at these Peruvians or the sherpas.
I hiked with a woman who had been in Peru she saw one man carry a stove up the mountain on his back but they all had their mouth stuffed with coco leaves, probably had no joints left but just stayed stoned for the rest of his short life
Blissful
01-12-2009, 22:30
Hiking carries inherent risks like all sports related activities. You can get injured no matter how much you carry.
That's my vote. :)
hopefulhiker
01-12-2009, 23:02
A lot of injuries can be attributed to too much gear weight. I knew several hikers, one in particular carried a seventy pound pack, had to get off the trail with tears in his eyes because of a foot injury. Others had stress fractures and messed up knees... Of course you need to carry a minimum of stuff to be safe.. I think most err on the side of too much stuff than too little...