PDA

View Full Version : Is lighter always better?



tds1195
01-16-2013, 11:48
Hey guys - here's another pretty general hiking question. Is lightweight hiking always better?

One thing I really enjoyed about hiking in the military was the challenge - we would have 40-60lbs on our back in a mediocre pack - it wasn't comfortable, but it was do-able. It was rewarding at the end, too. It's also one heck of a workout. When you first start long hikes with a huge pack you hate it. But the more you do it the more you get used to it.

I actually prefer to have a bit more weight than necessary on most hikes I do - I burn more calories (trying to lose some weight!) and feel more accomplished by the end of the hike.

What do you guys think? Do any of you prefer to have a bit more weight in your pack?

DeerPath
01-16-2013, 11:53
hey guys - here's another pretty general hiking question. Is lightweight hiking always better?

What do you guys think? Do any of you prefer to have a bit more weight in your pack?

no!.......

tds1195
01-16-2013, 12:01
no!.......

Haha! Straight up! Understandable...maybe I'm crazy? There has to be someone there who shares my desire for a bit more weight....not stupid weight (I don't hike with 60lbs anymore!) but more than 15lbs!

bear bag hanger
01-16-2013, 12:06
If you really enjoy hiking with more weight, then don't let us stop you! It's your hike, not ours. Me, I want to go as light as possible.

aficion
01-16-2013, 12:08
Did 6 miles Sunday morning with my 11 and 13 year old boys up Mt Pleasant and back. Carried nothing. Loved it. If I were going to thru, my base would be around 25 lbs. Lighter is only better up to a point dictated by preferences and conditions. Heavier has its limits too.

Tuckahoe
01-16-2013, 12:20
Military equipment and backpacking gear are really two different animals. The nice thing about backpacking gear is that it doesnt have to be built to serve and survive on a military frontier.

I dont consider myself an ultra light, or even lightweight backpacker. But, why carry overly heavy equipment? why carry a 6 pound tent when a good sturdy 2 pound tent can be had? It will make you more comfortable at the end of the day.

Slo-go'en
01-16-2013, 12:21
In the long run, your knees will thank you later for not abusing them now.

If your trying to loose more (body) weight, hike farther and eat less food. No sense adding stress to your body by lugging a pack any heavier than it has to be.

Prop Blast
01-16-2013, 12:30
If recreational hiking is to be enjoyable then going too heavy can make it not so enjoyable. On the other hand, going too light just for the sake of going light can also become not so enjoyable as you have less comfort items. I have humped even more than 60 lbs in older style rucks for days on end and didn't think much about it. Your body will tell you at what weight you will have the most enjoyable hiking experience. Without any clear criteria I don't believe one can say that either lighter or heavier is any "better" than the other.

tds1195
01-16-2013, 12:36
why carry a 6 pound tent when a good sturdy 2 pound tent can be had? It will make you more comfortable at the end of the day.

This is one of my "luxury" items. I use a 2P tent with my wife most of the time since she is my hiking buddy. I carry it so she can save on the weight. Even when I go alone, though, I enjoy using the 2P tent at 5.5oz - I have a ton of room for myself and my equipment. To me it makes more sense to carry the extra 3.5oz for a bit more comfort.

I use that logic with $$$, too. I would rather take a 16oz sleeping mat than an 8oz one and save myself $50. I use a cheaper hammock rather than a nicer one and add a few oz, but I save $40. You know what I mean? I don't get extra weight for the sake of being "manlier" but rather because I sometimes prefer a bit more comfort to an ultralight/light load. I also carry a machete on most hikes even though it may not be necessary all the time - but when it is I love having it even if it is an extra 18oz.

Tuckahoe
01-16-2013, 12:52
This is one of my "luxury" items. I use a 2P tent with my wife most of the time since she is my hiking buddy. I carry it so she can save on the weight. Even when I go alone, though, I enjoy using the 2P tent at 5.5oz - I have a ton of room for myself and my equipment. To me it makes more sense to carry the extra 3.5oz for a bit more comfort.

I use that logic with $$$, too. I would rather take a 16oz sleeping mat than an 8oz one and save myself $50. I use a cheaper hammock rather than a nicer one and add a few oz, but I save $40. You know what I mean? I don't get extra weight for the sake of being "manlier" but rather because I sometimes prefer a bit more comfort to an ultralight/light load. I also carry a machete on most hikes even though it may not be necessary all the time - but when it is I love having it even if it is an extra 18oz.
I absolutley agree with you... I think of it as if I work to reduce weight in one area, that allows me to carry other things that I want to have, but that have a little weight to them.

I love my external frame pack, and its 5 pounds. I also tried out a lighter weight sleeping pad that packed smaller, but I didnt sleep as well on it, so I've gone back to my larger heavier pad. I will however look to reduce weight again somewhere else in my kit.

prain4u
01-16-2013, 13:29
There has to be someone there who shares my desire for a bit more weight....not stupid weight (I don't hike with 60lbs anymore!) but more than 15lbs!

Go find Tipi Walter. He is the Master of heavy packs.

Lone Wolf
01-16-2013, 13:34
Is lightweight hiking always better?

What do you guys think? Do any of you prefer to have a bit more weight in your pack?

no. most times not. most go liters eat like crap while i eat fresh meat, eggs, beer, wine etc.

Malto
01-16-2013, 13:41
Haha! Straight up! Understandable...maybe I'm crazy? There has to be someone there who shares my desire for a bit more weight....not stupid weight (I don't hike with 60lbs anymore!) but more than 15lbs!

You have a serious money making opportunity, a business IHYH (I hike your hike). You could join hikers on their trips and carry their extra weight. Win Win. Oh wait, that already exists, it's called a Sherpa.

I can't see any benefit to carrying extra weight just to carry it. You gave some examples about the cost trade offs to go lighter weight. That makes perfect sense. 99% of us here likely operate within some cost benefit constraints. There is also a point that going lighter weight is referred to as stupid light, the point where trade offs in safety or even minimal comfort occur. The key is finding that sweet spot where your gear and hiking goals align. That will different for everyone.

prain4u
01-16-2013, 14:03
When I was YOUNG and foolish (now I am old and foolish), I hiked everywhere with a 40-65 lb pack. This was partially because it was the "norm" and because we didn't have the light equipment that we have today. The other reason was, because as a young male (in my teens and 20s), I thought that I was "ten foot tall and bulletproof"--and I wanted to continually prove that to myself and to others.

In my day--you proved that you were a macho hiker by having a heavier pack than every one else. Now (more often than not) people do that same thing by going ridiculously lightweight with their gear--and showing how little the need in order to survive. (Although, some still do it the old fashioned way by having a heavy pack). When I was young, I would sometimes also take multi-day survival treks into the woods or desert with just a pocket knife and the clothes on my back (even in winter)--the ultimate ultralight experience. It was all about being "extreme". Having "balance" and "serenity" were not a part of my life.

As my body has aged--and my brain has somewhat matured---I have come to the realization that hiking/backpacking does not have to be extreme, painful, difficult, or "Spartan" in order to be enjoyable and/or worthwhile. I have also reached the point where I no longer have very much to "prove"--to myself or to others when I hike. Thus, I now try to find a pack weight that is light enough to to be carried "comfortably" while hiking--but which allows me to carry enough things to lead a relatively comfortable and enjoyable life on the trail and in camp. I have found more "balance" and "serenity" in my hiking

In most cases, age (and many miles of hiking experience) will drive a backpacker to find a nice balance between a comfortable pack weight and having sufficient "creature comforts" available to make the experience enjoyable. It becomes more about savoring the experience--and less about covering miles and "proving" something.

tds1195
01-16-2013, 14:15
In most cases, age (and many miles of hiking experience) will drive a backpacker to find a nice balance between a comfortable pack weight and having sufficient "creature comforts" available to make the experience enjoyable. It becomes more about savoring the experience--and less about covering miles and "proving" something.

This seems to be the consensus between most hikers on here...find a balance that's good for you. Weigh comforts and efficiency and affordability - stick with your balance. I do like your comment about savoring the experience - good to know that no matter what I carry I'll have the awesome experience without worrying about being criticized for not going ultralight.

prain4u
01-16-2013, 15:01
.....I do like your comment about savoring the experience - good to know that no matter what I carry I'll have the awesome experience without worrying about being criticized for not going ultralight.

Recently, I had reached the general area where I was going to do a few day backpacking trip. (It takes me 1-2 days to get there by car). I became extremely ill with a stomach virus for 3+ days. (Thank goodness I was staying at my hiking partner's house--and he is a Physician Assistant and his wife is a Physician!). Once I had essentially recovered, I talked to my wife on the phone and told her that I was about to drive back home. My wife encouraged me to proceed with my hike and to enjoy the scenery (it was to be a hike to enjoy the Fall colors). She said, instead of carrying a full pack and camping outdoors in near-freezing temps--I should stay at a hotel and do a couple days of light day hikes. (I was still very weak from the virus).

My hiking partner and I took my wife's advice. We did two days of day hikes on the (Lake) Superior Hiking Trail. We carried very minimal stuff. We slept in king-size beds at a warm hotel. We ate at a restaurant for or evening meals and breakfast. We enjoyed the hot tub and pool at the hotel.

Guess what? Even without carrying heavy packs and without sleeping in the cold woods and without eating hiker food--the trail was just as nice to hike. The views were just as gorgeous. The companionship with my hiking partner was just as good. We saw the same animals and the Fall colors were still great.

To repeat your comment...."good to know that no matter what I carry I'll have the awesome experience without worrying about being criticized for not going ultralight."

BuckeyeBill
01-16-2013, 15:07
It all comes down to hike your own hike. If you chose a minimalist style of lightwieght hiking so be it. If you chose to carry a few more pounds and have a few creature comforts, thats your hike. If you are some where in the middle, you represent a third style of hiking. The biggest thing is we are all out in the woods or on the trail for the same reason, to enjoy mother nature and God's creation.

Ender
01-16-2013, 15:15
Not always better... for example, Mac'n'Cheese vs. Steak, steak wins. :)

MuddyWaters
01-16-2013, 15:50
Hey guys - here's another pretty general hiking question. Is lightweight hiking always better?



For hiking, yes it is
For camping, nope

For a short hike you can get away with anything reasonable
For low mileage days, you can get away with anything as well

If you want to do 20-30 miles everyday, you will want to carry as little as possible

Even if I had a steak with me, I wouldnt want to cook it at the end of a long day. All I usually want to do is go to bed.
The quicker, the better

tds1195
01-16-2013, 15:56
Not always better... for example, Mac'n'Cheese vs. Steak, steak wins. :)
Haha amen!

topshelf
01-16-2013, 17:03
I take the hike comfortably approach. If the extra weight of an item makes you feel more comfortable on the trail without making the hiking uncomfortable, bring it.

Starchild
01-16-2013, 17:08
While I do consider ultra lightweight a tradeoff of comfort and convenience I don't see any reason to carry any more weight then necessary.

bigcranky
01-16-2013, 20:39
What do you guys think? Do any of you prefer to have a bit more weight in your pack?

I'm with Deerpath - No. Humped it when I was young and foolish, sure am happier with less weight.

leaftye
01-16-2013, 21:13
One thing I really enjoyed about hiking in the military was the challenge - we would have 40-60lbs on our back in a mediocre pack - it wasn't comfortable, but it was do-able. It was rewarding at the end, too. It's also one heck of a workout. When you first start long hikes with a huge pack you hate it. But the more you do it the more you get used to it.

How many hundreds of miles in a month did you hike with that load?

prain4u
01-16-2013, 21:25
Originally Posted by tds1195 http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/images/Eloquent/buttonsgreen/viewpost-right.png (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1394686#post1394686)
One thing I really enjoyed about hiking in the military was the challenge - we would have 40-60lbs on our back in a mediocre pack - it wasn't comfortable, but it was do-able. It was rewarding at the end, too. It's also one heck of a workout. When you first start long hikes with a huge pack you hate it. But the more you do it the more you get used to it.



How many hundreds of miles in a month did you hike with that load?

Great point! Those "macho" pack weights are great for short hauls--but for not for hauling around day-after-day for 4-6 months!

hikingirl
01-16-2013, 21:27
Can anyone tell me how to post a new question on here?
Thanks

bigcranky
01-16-2013, 21:29
Go to this link, http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/forum.php then click the appropriate sub forum (like General or Thru-Hikers or whatever), then at the top left of that page click +Post New Thread.

jesse
01-16-2013, 21:34
Lighter for me is much better. If you want more of a work-out, I think it would be better to go faster and/further instead of going heavier. Going heavy increases the risk for injury.

SassyWindsor
01-16-2013, 21:42
Hiking light is fine as long as you don't have to borrow stuff or have to be evacuated from the woods in order to survive. I've had these light hikers ask for everything from first aid items, food, to borrow my zip stove to cook a meal because they're out of fuel , etc. I've seen hikers flimsy tarp ripped to shreds by high winds, they had to borrow my cell to be evacuated. You stop being a light hike and being an annoying lazy bum when these things happens.

Tharwood
01-16-2013, 22:04
The only time I add more weight on purpose . Is when I load 25 lb sand bags in my Exox and go for a day hike 4-11 miles... Just for conditioning.

tds1195
01-17-2013, 12:02
How many hundreds of miles in a month did you hike with that load?

The worst hump we did was about three weeks straight in the Moroccan desert with right around 50lbs in our packs. We switched off carrying the heavy machine guns, too (parts of it, anyway) and that added a considerable amount of weight (maybe 10lbs or so). We typically stopped after a week or two of hiking to set up a more permanent camp, but had to move every month or so.

leaftye
01-17-2013, 18:21
The worst hump we did was about three weeks straight in the Moroccan desert with right around 50lbs in our packs. We switched off carrying the heavy machine guns, too (parts of it, anyway) and that added a considerable amount of weight (maybe 10lbs or so). We typically stopped after a week or two of hiking to set up a more permanent camp, but had to move every month or so.

So not anywhere near the distance a thru hiker should cover in the same time period? What you did may have been challenging, but with shorter distances and durations, it's no wonder that you were okay with carrying a heavier load. Lots of people do thru hikes with 50 pound packs. It's certainly doable. You could probably do the same thing.

Optimizing our thru hikes are why many of us spend an incredible amount of time fussing over our gear lists. For many of us, optimizing our thru hike means less exertion so we can more fully enjoy the surroundings, along with minimizing the chances of injury. That means carefully selecting our gear and refining our skills so that we can lighten our packs.

I've done hikes with over over 75 pounds on training hikes and recently on a trail maintenance project, and while I was hardly complaining about the weight, I didn't get to appreciate the scenery that much. I didn't realize how much I missed until I went through some of the same areas with a much lighter pack. Now I wouldn't bother hiking a long trail with a heavy pack. With as much as I'd miss, I might as well go hiking on a treadmill.

Tinker
01-17-2013, 18:33
Hey guys - here's another pretty general hiking question. Is lightweight hiking always better?

One thing I really enjoyed about hiking in the military was the challenge - we would have 40-60lbs on our back in a mediocre pack - it wasn't comfortable, but it was do-able. It was rewarding at the end, too. It's also one heck of a workout. When you first start long hikes with a huge pack you hate it. But the more you do it the more you get used to it.

I actually prefer to have a bit more weight than necessary on most hikes I do - I burn more calories (trying to lose some weight!) and feel more accomplished by the end of the hike.

What do you guys think? Do any of you prefer to have a bit more weight in your pack?

No. better is better. ;)

I go as light as I can (helps with the aging knees, ankles, and feet), but I Never hike so light as to take chances with my safety. I don't count on anyone else to "take up the slack" or "bail me out". If possible, I carry an extra light that I can give to someone who is lost near dusk. I've been doing this since the 1990s when I met someone in the White Mountains in New Hampshire who was lost and didn't have a light. I didn't have an extra, but they were lucky that someone else did. A cheap "pinch light" will work in a pinch :p.
I also always have a cell phone. It's not likely that I'll need rescue, but someone else might. I wouldn't want to feel helpless (or responsible, in a negative sense) in that case.

tds1195
01-18-2013, 11:23
So not anywhere near the distance a thru hiker should cover in the same time period? What you did may have been challenging, but with shorter distances and durations, it's no wonder that you were okay with carrying a heavier load. Lots of people do thru hikes with 50 pound packs. It's certainly doable. You could probably do the same thing.



I'm only able to backpack for 1-3 weeks at a time, so I'm definitely a section hiker - not a thru hiker. I can see that there would be a huge difference there - thanks for pointing it out! I think my next extended trip I'll make my pack as close to 15-20lbs as possible to see how big of a difference it really makes. Thanks for the input guys!

Country Roads
01-19-2013, 20:42
Lightweight is great, I have never carried 30 or 40 pounds and don't plan to! That said, never go "stupid light". Know the area you are hiking and pack accordingly.

shelb
01-20-2013, 00:39
good to know that no matter what I carry I'll have the awesome experience without worrying about being criticized for not going ultralight."[/COLOR]

What a woman!
Yes, the trail is what we enjoy.

shelb
01-20-2013, 00:43
Personally, I feel that everyone should be able to get their pack down to $35 (including food and 2 liters of water) without sacrificing and spending mega dollars. I did.... and I had to start out CHEEP as we were outfitting 4 people! Currently, my pack is at #25 pounds with food for 4 days and 2 liters of water; however, that will go down now that I bought a used Rainbow tent to replace my old heavy one. Next, I am replacing my water filter and backpack which will save another 5 pounds. For me, this has to be done in stages due to the cost....

Different Socks
01-20-2013, 02:23
Yes, I am not a gram weenie. I would rather eat a hot meal every day for dinner than be a person so obsessed with weight that they don't carry a stove, so no pots, and no fuel.

Papa D
01-20-2013, 08:55
The pack weight isn't getting you in shape - it's miles walked and food consumed.
A reasonably light pack is better and I would suggest NO military specif gear.

JAK
01-20-2013, 10:01
I don't know if someone has said this, but if hiking with slower friends or family heavier can be better so you are feeling as much pain as they are. Ideally, some of their gear and food. If they are not willing at first, a higher volume pack is very handy in case they are willing to part with it later. For hiking with my daughter I prefered a tent when she was small so I could sleep better, because there really isn't enough data to say that 60 pound bite sized morsels are safe in the backwoods, so I always kept her close and carried a big stick.

JAK
01-20-2013, 10:08
The pack weight isn't getting you in shape - it's miles walked and food consumed.
A reasonably light pack is better and I would suggest NO military specif gear.Totally agree with this, especially when you still have body weight to lose.