View Full Version : Pack Weight vs Belly Weight
After reading some of the posts in the "is a 4lb (emptly) pack unacceptably heavy" I thought I'd start my own thread on how such a focus misses the mark for so many of us. More easily ignored this way.
Mostly, I was thinking about how heavy (read: fat) many of the proponents of light weight packs are. Seems very odd to me that one can be all consumed with the weight of a pack when when exponentially greater improvements could be had by monitoring what they consume themselves-- at McDonalds.
That is were one can cut weight big time.
Then again, I would be the first to admit that an "extra" pound (or 20) feels more uncomfortable in a pack when walking down the trail than it does on my belly. Just as bad for the knees and such, but comfort wise, I am saying. Why is that? I guess the obviouls answer is becasue of the way the weight is distributed.
Go figure, weight distribution matters to comfort-- but that would be the subject for another thread. As would by my musings on whether or not one's pack choice and weight terrors might actually be a driving force behind the popular choice to resupply every more frequently along the AT. Nah, that couldn't be.
Anyway, I am off to Dunkin's for a couple donuts and a bagel. Who knows, I might meet up with some light-weight (gear wise only, of course) hikers in line there and contiue this discussion as we load up.
Old Hiker
04-02-2013, 07:37
Had my Dunkin's Sunday - bought a dozen to put into the freezer so I can bring 2 to work twice a week. I'm trying to cut down, but it ain't workin'!!
Gained 30 pounds after getting off -Trail last year. I went down to 180 on the Trail - back up to 210 now. Too many calories, not enough walking. Hard to be motivated when your next thru attempt is 3 years away and you've walked the local trails to death.
Strange how the pack was heavy, but the belly wasn't. The only thing "uncomfortable" was when I put my pack on and tightened up the hip belt, I didn't HAVE to ask if my pack made me look fat. It really emphasized the tubbiness. (tubbyness?).
I point blank asked a guy one time why he spent so much money losing pack weight when he could lose body weight a lot cheaper and be healthier for it.
His response was that he was already carrying too much body weight which was hard enough - anything he could do to lighten the load he was carrying helped him a lot. Carrying extra pack weight was adding insult to injury.
At $200-$300-$500/pound and up to shed a few ounces from your pack, shedding several pounds from your body is definitely the way to go.
Wayne
Tuckahoe
04-02-2013, 08:29
My pack usually comes in at about 28 pounds and I am pretty happy with that. I have been much happier losing the weight on the gut than dropping weight from the pack.
I will say that as one who has dropped about 100 pounds, I get tired hearing all the blame laid on places like McDonalds. Sorry folks, the clown or the king didnt make you do it, you did it to yourself. It's not that you went to McDonalds, it's that you went there and ordered 2 Quarterpounders and a Big Mac with 2 large fries and had 3 refills of soda.
When my friend cinched up my hip belt on the trail one day because it was stuck, it did emphasize my muffin top and I told her "you just ruptured my appendix". I need to lose twenty pounds : (
Almost There
04-02-2013, 08:34
I've dropped 33lbs since Christmas, and hope to drop another 20 more before my section hike in June. I agree though that we handle weight on our bodies better not only because of distribution, but because we get used to it over time. It's not like anyone puts on 30lbs overnight. Packweight, however, is immediate, and so it seems far more severe to the body.
As for McD's, the King, or the Red haired wench...it's not their fault, I agree, but the reality is there is nothing "healthy" on any of their menus. I have lost weight by changing my eating habits and exercising...simple, really, and I hope that I'll feel the results on the trail come summer.
yellowsirocco
04-02-2013, 10:19
It is always good to keep your pack weight down, but there is a point of diminishing returns and if you have a gut then it is silly to go past it and count grams.
alxflwrs
04-02-2013, 11:08
It is always good to keep your pack weight down, but there is a point of diminishing returns and if you have a gut then it is silly to go past it and count grams.
this. .
Why focus on pack weight than belly weight....... Because it is easier. You can write a check for the new high tech lightweight gizmo but it takes real work to lose and maintain ideal body weight. The ironic thing is that the very act of lightening ones pack often involves sitting in front of a computer which is the opposite of what will address the body weight.
Another Kevin
04-02-2013, 11:37
I've been getting back into hiking over the last couple of years after far too long away from it, and I don't have a lot of time for it - I spend far too many hours in front of a computer or a microscope. I'm still out of shape and out of practice, with a belly and a pack that are both heavier than they ought to be, but both a lot lighter than they were a couple of years ago. I'm not going to say that I need to be at ideal body weight before I can work on shedding pack weight, or vice versa. The only fix for 'out of shape and out of practice' is to get out there and hike - and I'm more likely to do that if my pack isn't killing me.
Hot Flash
04-02-2013, 11:53
Eh, at 125# I'm within five pounds of my high school weight (and that was over 30 years ago). I'm one of those fortunate few who just don't gain a lot, even after having babies and with eating as much as I like. So I think I'll just sit here, eat my donuts, and brace myself for the waves of hateful tears to wash over me like sweet sweet sugared soda...
:banana
Old Hiker
04-02-2013, 11:55
.......................................... So I think I'll just sit here, eat my donuts, and brace myself for the waves of hateful tears to wash over me like sweet sweet sugared soda...
:banana
Dr Pepper throw-back?? With REAL cane sugar?? Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
FlyPaper
04-02-2013, 12:05
Here is a thought experiment.
How much weight would you like to lose? Now, how much would you pay to magically make the weight go away. (Someone is going
to say "you can't magically make weight go away". Bear with me, this is a thought experiment, not an offer or sales pitch).
For me, about 20 pounds, and I'd happily pay $400 to make it go away. More expensive than that, and I may be inclined to just go
with diet and exercise.
That works out to be about $20 per pound.
Now, consider the difference between a 3 pound sleeping bag versus a 2 pound sleeping bag. I'm thinking it's usually around $100 more
to shave off that pound on a sleeping bag and still get equal performance as far as temperature rating and size goes.
So I have to ask myself, am I going to pay $100 more to save a pound of pack weight when I wouldn't pay $100 to take a pound of
fat off my body? Just food for thought.
I've always been a bit heavy. The lowest I've been my entire adult life was 175 back in 1977 after being out of work and too proud to ask for handouts. I was between jobs, between states, and traveling. As soon as I got a job my weight went up to 185, which was pretty healthy, considering I was doing landscaping work. I continued the landscaping full-time until I got married in 1981. I had gotten up to 205 lbs. by that time. Since then, my weight has been between 205 and 235, with the average being 215, which is where I am now. I can lose a couple of pounds in a couple of weeks if I try, but it comes right back on as soon as someone invites me to dinner.
My blood pressure goes down the day after I excercise strenuously, as it does when I avoid salt and fat. The change is pretty dramatic.
Also, when I am well hydrated my blood pressure is lower than when I am dehydrated (thick blood is tougher for the heart to pump than thin blood, I guess).
My lower number is usually in the 60s and 70s. The upper number averages the high 120s, with 140 giving me concern and under 120 giving me hope :D.
And, yes, like most folks who like hiking more than camping, I have lightened my pack load over the past 15 years, most dramatically by going from a 5 lb. heavy-duty pack to a 14 oz. frameless pack (20 oz. if you count the foam pad which forms the "frame"), but most folks include a sleeping pad with their gear weight, and I have both a hammock and a pad, which gives me versatility.
No. I don't miss the weight :).
P.s. I bought most of my gear on sale, and lightening my load at the same time.
shakey_snake
04-02-2013, 12:58
Then again, I would be the first to admit that an "extra" pound (or 20) feels more uncomfortable in a pack when walking down the trail than it does on my belly. Just as bad for the knees and such, but comfort wise, I am saying. Why is that? I guess the obviouls answer is becasue of the way the weight is distributed. The same can be said about that 4 pound pack, right? The extra two pounds of suspension helps "distribute the weight better" on your back and shoulders, but it's still extra wear and tear on knees and ankles and feet and leg muscles. Right?
RedBeerd
04-02-2013, 13:06
As your body weight goes down, shouldn't your pack weight as well? So I guess either way you'll have to lighten the load on your back at some point.
Old Boots
04-02-2013, 13:12
Why not lose both belly and pack weight? I did at my Dr.'s suggestion and it means I can hike for longer time. Isn't that the ultimate goal? It isn't so much dollars and cents as it is common sense.
HikerMom58
04-02-2013, 13:39
Why not lose both belly and pack weight? I did at my Dr.'s suggestion and it means I can hike for longer time. Isn't that the ultimate goal? It isn't so much dollars and cents as it is common sense.
I love common sense!!
staehpj1
04-02-2013, 14:32
Maintaining a lean body weight and a light pack weight are two different things, but are both desirable. Doing or not doing one isn't necessarily a good reason to do or not do the other.
I agree that spending on lots of expensive Cuben fiber stuff and being 50 pounds overweight is a little silly, but let's face it the easiest weight to lose is the weight you lose by leaving stuff home.
So three main ways to lose weight:
Leave stuff home
Buy expensive cottage industry gear
Maintain a lean body weight by watching your diet and exercising
Item one is the easiest and a no brainer in my opinion. No reason, IMO, not to do this even if you are morbidly obese and either don't plan to, or try and fail to lose body weight.
Item two, I think can get kind of silly, but if you have a lot of disposable income and are not too frugal, why not? It would seem pretty crazy to go too overboard here if you are extremely overweight, but again no harm other than to your wallet.
Item 3 is undoubtedly the hardest for many folks and involves constant commitment. It also possibly means not enjoying other aspects of your life in ways some want to.
Me, I go fairly extreme on item 1 and being kind of frugal mostly resist the temptation of the crazy light high dollar gear of item 2. I figure that I can get to 6-7 pound base without a scrap of Cuben fiber, so why bother with going too nuts over the last few and most expensive ounces? I try not to judge others who choose differently here.
On item 3... I trail run 5 days a week because I like to and depending on the season that might vary between 20 and 50 or even 60 miles per week. I eat too much and carry a few extra pounds around the middle as a result, but try to keep that within reason. I figure that, even if I am a few pounds overweight, I am not doing too bad if at age 61 I can still comfortably run between 6 and 12 miles of hilly trail per day, 5 days a week.
In general I think folks would do better to just make their own choices in these three areas and not judge those of others.
Why not lose both belly and pack weight? I did at my Dr.'s suggestion and it means I can hike for longer time. Isn't that the ultimate goal? It isn't so much dollars and cents as it is common sense.
Agree, lose both, however, the ultimate goal for losing belly fat is for your health. So you can live long and prosper.
Agree, lose both, however, the ultimate goal for losing belly fat is for your health. So you can live long and prosper.
Fascinating - I find that most logical. :D
My pack usually comes in at about 28 pounds and I am pretty happy with that. I have been much happier losing the weight on the gut than dropping weight from the pack.
I will say that as one who has dropped about 100 pounds, I get tired hearing all the blame laid on places like McDonalds. Sorry folks, the clown or the king didnt make you do it, you did it to yourself. It's not that you went to McDonalds, it's that you went there and ordered 2 Quarterpounders and a Big Mac with 2 large fries and had 3 refills of soda.
Right as rain!
Neither losing pack weight nor losing body fat precludes the other.
Neither losing pack weight nor losing body fat precludes the other.
A fat man with an ultra light pack is like a bald guy with a comb over.
It may help to some small degree, but in the end you are only kidding yourself.
So is the consensus only people that are not overweight can benefit from a lighter pack?
I disagree with that. I think anyone can benefit from a lighter pack no matter how much they weigh.
To tell someone they shouldn't get lighter gear until they lose weight doesn't make any sense at all if you think about it.
A fat man with an ultra light pack is like a bald guy with a comb over.
It may help to some small degree, but in the end you are only kidding yourself.
Why didn't you post this thread in the humor forum? I thought you were too smart to post this thread and post seriously. When it comes to this topic, either you're joking, or you really don't know what you're talking about.
So is the consensus only people that are not overweight can benefit from a lighter pack?
I disagree with that. I think anyone can benefit from a lighter pack no matter how much they weigh.
To tell someone they shouldn't get lighter gear until they lose weight doesn't make any sense at all if you think about it.
For my part I am thinking mostly about the empty 4 pound pack that has a good suspension, padded straps and fits your particular body well-- vs. the glorified 2 pound book bag.
A pack is in the catagory of gear that (to a point) additional weight can actually add to your walking comfort. You can't say that about a tent, pad, phone and such.
If you decide weight trumps all and have reached the point where you are willing to sacrifice the benefits of a slightly heavier pack, go for it.
But for those who have other ways to cut weight, why so eager to sacrifice a comfortable pack at the alter of the light weight gods?
There is nothing wrong with the right 4 pound pack, and a whole lot of reasons to go that route. Not for everyone, of course.
So when you say pack weight you're talking about JUST the pack?
My bad when you said pack I thought you meant completely loaded. Like "My pack weighs 30 pounds"...
Why didn't you post this thread in the humor forum? I thought you were too smart to post this thread and post seriously. When it comes to this topic, either you're joking, or you really don't know what you're talking about.
Perhaps there was a bit of hyperbole in that post.
But thanks for thinking me smart-- at least at some point in time.
shakey_snake
04-02-2013, 18:12
I'm not sure why my earlier post was ignored since it was apparently the most relevant of the first 25 replies or so.
Anyways, I will add this, though. The going trend in backpacking equipment is lighter everything. This is particularly bothersome for establish pack manufacturers because you can only sew some straps and stretch-mesh pockets onto a 140D Dyneema grid stuff sack so many different ways, and the cottage industries were first into that market. And when that market is powered by the internet, brand loyalty, reputation, and store-exclusivity--all the strengths of those established manufacturers--all fall by the wayside. And then their volume and therefore margins suffer.
In addition to being lighter, you're seeing more things become multi-use. Why carry tent poles and trekking poles? If your pack weight is under 25 pounds (and it more and more likely will be!), why carry a pack frame and a CCF sleeping pad? With next-generation smartphones coming out that have battery-lives measured in weeks, instead of hours, why bring a guidebook and a GPS and a camera and a paper-and-pen journal?
In such a climate, the initial, natural reaction is always conservatism. People are creatures of habit. That's one of the reason people like long-distance hiking! :) The multiuse trend is bothersome to some established hikers who don't want to admit that they didn't come up with a great idea first. It's all reinforced by manufactures that want to sell you as many different things as possible.
That said, Whiteblaze has more than enough room for people all along the spectrum. HYOH.
illabelle
04-02-2013, 18:14
Eh, at 125# I'm within five pounds of my high school weight (and that was over 30 years ago). I'm one of those fortunate few who just don't gain a lot, even after having babies and with eating as much as I like. So I think I'll just sit here, eat my donuts, and brace myself for the waves of hateful tears to wash over me like sweet sweet sugared soda...
I'm not sure, but I think I might hate you. GRRR! :mad: I remember when I used to be young and skinny. :( I used to be able to eat a lot, donuts, whatever, didn't worry about it. Seriously, in college in my mid-20s I worked nights at a donut shop, and I ate a half-dozen or more hot glazed donuts every day with no weight gain. Oh! they were good!:D Then one day, age smacked me in the face. Now here I am at 53, slowly losing weight (20 pounds so far), but six months ago I was 60 pounds over my high school weight! SIXTY POUNDS!!! Hiking the AT in sections (and eating less) is taking the weight off, and people are starting to notice! My husband might even cut back on his food intake, too. I may not reach high school weight, but I'll be content if I get back to 140...actually, I'll be ecstatic!
Big sigh. Until then... So now I can only eat a couple donuts a month (my rule) or as a reward if I've been meeting weight loss goals. The Krispy Kreme near my work is sometimes a temptation.... So, Hot Flash, you just go ahead and enjoy your donuts. I'll sit here thinking about donuts while I have a hot flash!
gizzy bear
04-02-2013, 18:50
Idk.. I feel like the belly shouldn't stick out more than the packydoo ;)
MuddyWaters
04-02-2013, 19:05
Losing pack weight is easier for most than shedding fat.
If losing fat were easy for most, 30% of the US adults would not be obese.
One would think they would spend their money on Jenny Craig, and not and iphone wouldnt you? One would be wrong.
Despite the lip service to the contrary, the facts tell the truth.
Health is not a priority for most americans, obesity, smoking, drinking alcohol, all are epidemic.
I point blank asked a guy one time why he spent so much money losing pack weight when he could lose body weight a lot cheaper and be healthier for it.
His response was that he was already carrying too much body weight which was hard enough - anything he could do to lighten the load he was carrying helped him a lot. Carrying extra pack weight was adding insult to injury.That is more or less how I feel about it. It doesn't cost me much to shed pack weight though. Mostly keeping things simple, and getting by until there is a deal. I would have said it a little differently though. At age 50, 6 feet tall, and 50 pounds overweight at 215, plus 25 pounds for food, clothes, gear for a total of 240 pounds total weight on feet, adding another 5 pounds of unnecessary gear weight could be adding injury to insult.
Put another way, the light gear weight enables many to hike that otherwise could not.
Once hiking, they are then better enabled to lose some weight.
That is why it should be a crime for outfitters to sell 6 pound backpacks and 30 pounds of gear and clothes to folks that are already 50,60,70 pounds overweight. Give the poor bastards a chance. Trouble is we all need to make a living, i guess.
'Just because it's your job doesn't make it right.'
- Cool Hand Luke
kayak karl
04-02-2013, 21:45
There is nothing wrong with the right 4 pound pack, and a whole lot of reasons to go that route. Not for everyone, of course. ,but overweight people should just stick with this pack?
scooterdogma
04-03-2013, 08:00
When my friend cinched up my hip belt on the trail one day because it was stuck, it did emphasize my muffin top and I told her "you just ruptured my appendix". I need to lose twenty pounds : (
Ahh, I didn't pull that hard :banana
When I first saw the light, I halved the weight of my pack and contents. After a couple of years of experimentation, buying things, making gear, and having a good old time with it, I called a halt to further gear purchases. I told myself that it was silly to chase further pack weight reductions until I got rid of excess body weight. And even then, most of the time I have plans that lead me to add a little extra pack weight for completely optional luxuries.
David Horton quoted the figure of two seconds per mile per pound of body or pack weight--that's how much you gain when you lose. I suspect, however, that as you gain a substantial amount, you lose a lot more time than that. If you're a hundred pounds overweight and your pack weighs 60 pounds, you lose more than five minutes per mile over a slim speed hiker.
Having low body fat has its disadvantages for the trail too. Last year I started the season at 150 lbs. and 17% body fat. After a significant change to my lifestyle I am not 140 lbs. and 7% body fat. I have to eat more often and I get cold real quick because of the lack of body fat. In the end I probably evened out because I now have to carry more food.
Hot Flash
04-03-2013, 14:59
Having low body fat has its disadvantages for the trail too. Last year I started the season at 150 lbs. and 17% body fat. After a significant change to my lifestyle I am not 140 lbs. and 7% body fat. I have to eat more often and I get cold real quick because of the lack of body fat. In the end I probably evened out because I now have to carry more food.
I hear that. I'm generally in the 17-18% body fat range, and I get cold very quickly. Since I've never done more than a ten-day hike at any time, I'm not sure where I'd end up after doing a longer trek. I do know that by day four of the ten-day hike, I felt hungry all the time and was almost constantly snacking. Ended up about three pounds lighter than my normal weight though, which isn't bad and gave me a very good idea of what my caloric needs are when doing a lot of miles every day.
Bear Cables
04-03-2013, 17:11
I hike with my sister and while I am slim and physically fit ( retired PE teacher and fitness instructor) she was about 30 lbs over her healthy weight. She had trouble keeping my pace and her pace sometimes frustrated me. ( I had to learn patience) Anyway point is...for our fall hike in Oct. through diet and aerobic excercise, she dropped 10 lbs of body weight and was able to comfortably cover 9 to 10 miles in a day compared to 7 to 8 miles. For our Spring hike in two weeks, she has dropped another 8 lbs of body weight and 3 lbs of pack weight! I can't wait to tell her to SLOW DOWN!
Now having read this thread I am going to get off the computer and get on the eliptical upstairs!
Eh, at 125# I'm within five pounds of my high school weight (and that was over 30 years ago). I'm one of those fortunate few who just don't gain a lot, even after having babies and with eating as much as I like. So I think I'll just sit here, eat my donuts, and brace myself for the waves of hateful tears to wash over me like sweet sweet sugared soda...
:banana
Im quite sure even the store mannequins role their eyes when they see you are about to regale the other customers with your incredible metabolism stories. Lol
Tuckahoe
04-04-2013, 19:47
When I first returned to backpacking, I struggled on trips. Nothing like climbing up and down the Blue Ridge to show you how out of shape you really are. The problem was I didnt interpret my struggling as being fat and out of shape, but that something was wrong with my pack and what I was carrying. See, part of it was while I knew I was fat, I wasnt lazy, I was fairly active. And as your getting bigger and more out of shape slowly you dont usually notice.
I thought about what I was carrying and how I could improve. I put together a lighter kitchen, got a 2pound tent and a 1 pound summer sleeping bag and so on. I also cut out a lot of things that I really didn't need. But it didnt end my struggling on the trail.
Only once I got serious about losing weight and getting in shape did things turn around and get better. Hiking became so much more enjoyable. The other reality is that as I have gotten smaller its a whole lot easier to carry anything I want, and I worry less about pack weight.
Capt Nat
04-04-2013, 22:11
I am quite active and didn't appreciate how significant being overweight is in the mountains. It takes little energy to move weight in a lateral direction. The mountains showed me that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to move the same weight up a steep incline... I'm spending my summer working toward mountain hiking next year.
Yes indeed. You really notice the weight on hills. Especially when trying to keep up with bean poles. Doesn't take alot of money to drop pack weight as long as your not fussy about the last few ounces or leaving non-essentials behind. It is easier that losing body weight, but I see it as a great enabler to losing body weight by allowing people to hike that otherwise couldn't. Long day hikes first, with no pack. Then weekend hikes with a very light pack. Go scenic as hell. Then as the pounds start to come off, switch to a light pack like a Jam2 or something you can still use as a daypack or weekend pack and slowly extend your range, but keep it light. Never mind what the bean poles are doing. It's an experiment of one.
Having low body fat has its disadvantages for the trail too. Last year I started the season at 150 lbs. and 17% body fat. After a significant change to my lifestyle I am not 140 lbs. and 7% body fat. I have to eat more often and I get cold real quick because of the lack of body fat. In the end I probably evened out because I now have to carry more food.
And we don't float so well lol.
I partially blame my lack of ability to swim to a 6-8% BF childhood :D . And a lifetime of cold fingers and toes lol.
OK, so I don't know my optimal hiking weight. I shoot for my racing weight, which I'm about 15 lbs over right now.
A similar discussion happens in performance bicycling. You can spend a couple thousand to cut a few grams off your bike frame - and many do. Or swap from rubber to latex bike tubes to save 40g. But its a lot easier to break out the checkbook for new parts vs. the willpower to cut 10 lbs of body weight
Another Kevin
04-05-2013, 15:55
I'll say it again: JAK is right: they go hand in hand. Maybe I could have gotten out there with a heavier pack, but I'm enjoying myself more with a lighter one, which means that I'm inclined to get out more. My pack and belly both weigh more than I'd like them to, but they're both a good bit lighter than they were a couple of years ago. (In fact, I remind myself, when I shoulder my pack, that a couple of years ago I was carrying that much weight 24/7/365.) I'd have gotten nowhere if someone had told me that I had to be at ideal body weight before I could start on pack weight.
Abner007
06-01-2013, 10:20
Here are really nice and most informative article is written by you. I am totally agree with you. It is really appreciable and nice to share it here. I would like thanks to you for your this kindness.
Sailing_Faith
06-01-2013, 10:40
Here are really nice and most informative article is written by you. I am totally agree with you. It is really appreciable and nice to share it here. I would like thanks to you for your this kindness.
I don't see a link?
Sailing_Faith
06-01-2013, 10:55
I remember back in high school I worked in a motorcycle shop. There was a guy who was obsessed with going fast, he raced dirt bikes and was always buying new "go fast" parts for his street bike.
The thing was, he was my height (5'10") and weighed well over 300#. The folks I worked with were not the most sensitive types.... It was frequently brought up that he could go faster if he lost some weight... Never seemed like he was interested in that.
Flash forward a few decades.....
I looked at some pictures a few years ago and wondered who that fat guy was. He looked a little but like me, but was clearly not me. I recall an existential moment standing at a t-shirt rack at Walmart and deciding I was not going to let my self start buying XXL.
I lost over 80#, and even if some of that tries to come back from time to time hiking (everything) is much easier.
A very close friend owns a weight loss clinic. She has treated athletes who trained hard but could not loose the weight through exercise of "just pushing away from the table".
Point being, that it is not always that simple.
If lighter gear makes it easier to get out there (maybe even makes the difference that makes it happen) then it is worth whatever is paid for it.
MuddyWaters
06-01-2013, 11:40
I find exactly the opposite of what the OP
Most fat out of shape people are carrying too large too heavy packs, not lightweight ones
Most UL hikers are in good shape.
One, is usually a very active person that wants to go 20 miles per day.
One is sedentary, and has convinced themselves that 5-10 is plenty.
I've dropped 50 lbs since 2008, and no, I don't miss it one bit. I'll lose another 20 before I'm done, but true loss doesn't happen by dieting, it happens through lifestyle changes .... If dropping a grand on equipment keeps you hiking, then the investment will pay off in dozens of ways. I would challenge the thought that you have to drop tons of cash ... Just carry less stuff. Here's my philosophy .... Buy a smaller pack ... It forces you to re-evaluate every item you carry because everything won't fit. Next ... A cat food alcohol stove and a can pot kit is a lot lighter than a jetboil, and about $68 cheaper. A tarp with a ridge line that you toss a hunk of noseeum over is much lighter than a tarp tent, not to mention a lot cheaper. A DIY synthetic quilt is cheaper than a bag ... Closed cell foam is cheaper and lighter than a neoair .... SUL stuff is pricy, UL stuff can be cheap ... But what you are paying for is lightweight comfort, not just lightweight equipment. My current kit is about 8 lbs with a hammock (heavily modified) and is good to 40 degrees. Colder temps require more insulation, plain and simple, pushing 10 lbs. Spending a grand would drop me well below 7, but to what end? At what point is your pack light enough?
elkie-girl
06-01-2013, 18:04
After reading some of the posts in the "is a 4lb (emptly) pack unacceptably heavy" I thought I'd start my own thread on how such a focus misses the mark for so many of us. More easily ignored this way.
Mostly, I was thinking about how heavy (read: fat) many of the proponents of light weight packs are. Seems very odd to me that one can be all consumed with the weight of a pack when when exponentially greater improvements could be had by monitoring what they consume themselves-- at McDonalds.
That is were one can cut weight big time.
Then again, I would be the first to admit that an "extra" pound (or 20) feels more uncomfortable in a pack when walking down the trail than it does on my belly. Just as bad for the knees and such, but comfort wise, I am saying. Why is that? I guess the obviouls answer is becasue of the way the weight is distributed.
Go figure, weight distribution matters to comfort-- but that would be the subject for another thread. As would by my musings on whether or not one's pack choice and weight terrors might actually be a driving force behind the popular choice to resupply every more frequently along the AT. Nah, that couldn't be.
Anyway, I am off to Dunkin's for a couple donuts and a bagel. Who knows, I might meet up with some light-weight (gear wise only, of course) hikers in line there and contiue this discussion as we load up.
I'd say that once you start on a long trail, such as AT, PCT or CDT, 2 weeks into it, you would start losing your belly fat. You'll start losing your pack weight much sooner and it will cost you money. You cannot avoid losing belly weight and it is good thing. You can avoid losing pack weight by keeping it light in the very beginning :) That's why focus of each and every thread is to keep your pack reasonably light
Whack-a-mole
06-01-2013, 19:08
Ya'll are missing the whole point...Us old guys need a counter balance for our packs!!
garlic08
06-02-2013, 09:08
...Most UL hikers are in good shape....
This is my observation as well.
And, once again, I will try to refute the notion that cottage industry gear is more expensive. I point to my Tarptent Contrail, 24 oz and $200, that I've had out for well over 200 nights now. And my enLightened Equipment quilt, which at $190 is the best investment I've made in sleeping gear. And the Gossamer Gear pack I bought (on sale) for $80 that now has over 4000 miles on it. All this stuff cost less than $10/oz. My entire AT kit weight about eight pounds and cost about $800.
Why do people care about what's on people's backs anyway? Look at the facial expression. When I see a smile, there's someone I respect, no matter what they're carrying.
ChinMusic
06-02-2013, 09:35
I'm in Harpers Ferry now. My current weight with pack is now 20 pounds less than my starting body weight alone.
Hiking is still hard. I just seem to get more of it done per given time.
Biggie Master
06-02-2013, 09:45
I'm in Harpers Ferry now. My current weight with pack is now 20 pounds less than my starting body weight alone.
Hiking is still hard. I just seem to get more of it done per given time.
awesome! Congrats, and keep on truckin!
This is my observation as well.
And, once again, I will try to refute the notion that cottage industry gear is more expensive. I point to my Tarptent Contrail, 24 oz and $200, that I've had out for well over 200 nights now. And my enLightened Equipment quilt, which at $190 is the best investment I've made in sleeping gear. And the Gossamer Gear pack I bought (on sale) for $80 that now has over 4000 miles on it. All this stuff cost less than $10/oz. My entire AT kit weight about eight pounds and cost about $800.
Why do people care about what's on people's backs anyway? Look at the facial expression. When I see a smile, there's someone I respect, no matter what they're carrying.
What makes your gear less expensive is that it gets used. The cheapest gear per night is the gear that gets used a lot. My goal is cheap gear. :)
... true loss doesn't happen by dieting, it happens through lifestyle changes .......
Very True!
I feel that anyone can spend as much money on their UL setup as they want and they can be as overweight as they want but no matter how light your pack is, you can't call yourself a UL hiker if you are overweight.
Notice that I said overweight and not fat. I would not consider a professional bodybuilder to be a UL hiker either, even if their body fat was 4%.
I've been thinking about this issue for a couple weeks. Maybe there should be a formula or ratio devised that includes skin-out weight and BMI. Like your skin-out weight (without food and water) plus BMI has to be less than 35 for you to be considered UL?
Of course everyone's definition of UL is different and highly subjective. Just something that I've been thinking about.
I was hoofing 80lbs less in Waynesboro than I was at Springer...I don't think I cared whether the weight came off my body or my pack...the difference was in the beginning I was hiking from dawn until dark to do 12 miles and by the end I was sleeping in late and having 12 miles in by noon.
you can't call yourself a UL hiker if you are overweight.
SUL Hikers should then be underweight?
Hmm.. and XUL hikers must be severely underweight. ;)
SUL Hikers should then be underweight?
Hmm.. and XUL hikers must be severely underweight. ;)
Have you ever seen world-class marathoners? Some of them make supermodels look chubby.
SUL Hikers should then be underweight?
Hmm.. and XUL hikers must be severely underweight. ;)
I would say, yes, most likely they would be. It all depends on your definition of UL, SUL, and XUL though, which again, is highly subjective.
Sailing_Faith
06-04-2013, 11:01
I was hoofing 80lbs less in Waynesboro than I was at Springer...I don't think I cared whether the weight came off my body or my pack...the difference was in the beginning I was hiking from dawn until dark to do 12 miles and by the end I was sleeping in late and having 12 miles in by noon.
Congratulations! 80lbs is a lot of grams!
How have you done at keeping it off?
I have been sailing for the last 6 months, and have regained some... I am back ashore, and back to my nightly training of 6+ miles with a ~35# pack. While it feels like a set back, I bet if I had not continued to avoid carbs (ok, maybe some rum but I was in the Caribbean) it would surely have been much worse.
My point is that in keeping with the thread that carrying (extra) weight in the training pack helps keep my body weight down.