Carrying a heavy pack burns more calories than carrying a light one. I still prefer to carry a light one. This is true when I am fat and trying to lose weight, which is most of the time.
Carrying a heavy pack burns more calories than carrying a light one. I still prefer to carry a light one. This is true when I am fat and trying to lose weight, which is most of the time.
I've lost 30lbs and gained a lot of muscle over the last 3 yrs. I run half marathons, ride my bike to work everyday (well, everyday I work..gotta get the details right), and competed in 4 triathlons this summer. So why the heck is carrying a 20lb pack just as hard as it ever was? I'm still considered "curvy"...but still, I lost some lbs.
I got this far into the conversation and had to chime in on this response to the knowingly irate responses you would get to your holier than thou attitude. I am glad its so easy for you to maintain a 15lb range of what you think is overweight. I on the other hand am you example. 5'6" 225 lbs. I recently gained 35 lbs of that in 3 months when I went on insulin. I have lost some since never getting over 235 lbs.
Now to your question. I have gotten a lighter pack so that I can hike more. Longer mile days, more enjoyable and more likely to get back out. I for one do not cut my toothbrush down. Tried it so it would fit in a baggie and didn't like it. Going as light as you feel comfortable going is good for anyone who will use that gear, regardless of the body mass. One reason for me to get back into hiking and backpacking after 25 years is to get into better shape without a lot of cost out of pocket per trip. And I have been buying my gear for about 2 years.
So before your make generalized statements as you did, Hike your own Hike...and let us fatties hike ours.
I lost 30 lbs. before my 1/2 hike-and cut 13 lbs. for my pack kit. I never would have even made 1/2 without those changes-Weightwatcher worked for me.
you are not telling people anything they don't know. if a person is over weight they know it. just because they didn't start a thread about how enlightened they are about weight vs packs doesn't mean they are in denial and illogical! you do realize you are coming off kind of pompous? i hope you reach your goal weight before you hike
I'm so confused, I'm not sure if I lost my horse or found a rope.
The OP is wrong that it is madness going after light weight if you are overweight, and does come off as pompous.
But the OP is also correct, it WOULD be easier if some people shed lbs before they started. It does increase their risk of injury and failure.
Some use a hike as a weight loss plan. When I went to Philmont with scouts, one of the adult advisors did that. He didnt get in shape before hand, and barely ate anything the whole time we were there, in 2 weeks he lost 5 lbs or so. I , on the other hand, actually gained a lb or two. Less than 10 miles per day with a light pack didnt burn squat for calories.
Its been my observation that most people dont have will power to reduce their carb rich food intake, and also loathe the thought of significant cardiovascular excercise.
So they do it the hard way. So what. If it gets them out there, and they do lose weight, thats fantastic for them.
lightweight people obsess about pack weight too. i weigh 165 lbs soaking wet, and usually lose 8-10 lbs after a few weeks on the trail. thats why its important to me to minimize my pack weight. heavier people can carry more, but it doesnt mean they should.
I am 155#. I don't cut my toothbrush in half, but I do minimize my gear weight (<12#) so I can bring more food for longer trips w/o resupply or bring really good food for shorter trips.
I view this forum as a discussion of gear and related weight saving techniques to achieve the absolute lightest backpacking gear weights (....while maintaing safety). I personally don't see anything wrong with discussing body weight but IMO it's outside the scope of the forum. Perhaps a forum is formed to address physical fitness and techniques to achieve optimal human performance for hiking? That would be interesting to me. Again, just my opinion....
To comment that folks should lose body weight to increase UL efficiencies is somewhat shallow. My logic is that body weight, in and of itself, isn't much of an indicator or fitness and has little bearing on one's abilities to move enjoyably in the woods....and isn't that what its all about? Enjoyment? Don't Ultralighters seek light gear weights to enhance their enjoyment of spending time in the wilderness?
There're are plenty of very thin folks out there that have very little endurance, flexibility, strength, etc...and I'm sure their's is as much of a slog as the overly plump hiker. The reality is that both can still enjoy the experience as it's a matter of pace and personal goals.
We think alike. I started a similar post some time back. Odd that some people are so sensitive about this.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/show...ght&highlight=
Stop being a Toddler you say. I'm 50 years old and overweight. If I have touched some raw nerves, so what, too close for comfort? I make no apologies for having a direct way of communicating (obviously I'm not a Politician). The thread was never about overweight people hiking, to which I sincerely have respect. It was however a discussion point on the obsession of going ultra lightweight whilst possibly ignoring what I believe to be the most important factor, i.e. body fat and it's obvious negative impact on hiking. It was that simple. No egos. Just a simple discussion point.
In the real world, can this subject not be discussed within an Ultra-Light Hiker Forum?
I worked with your SF guys in Iraq, so I appreciate the Capt Obvious photo.
Happy Halloween...
http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/p...ss-pumpkin.jpg
I have been pretty open about my weight loss -- at my largest I was 320+ And a 54 in waist. I am now down to the 190s and a 35in waist -- I try not to dwell on it nor zealously preach to others the need to drop weight; and I do not obsess about lightweight hiking.
There is no reason not to talk about weightloss especially in relation lightweight hiking. I am sure there are many people here that would be happy to participate in a discussion. But you have to admit that your initial posts were rather off putting and didnt create the sort of tone in the thread that would lead to a discussion. It reminded me of the harping folks get to hear from the always skinny/healthy, or those that recently got healthy.
igne et ferrum est potentas
"In the beginning, all America was Virginia." -William Byrd
I started at Springer with a 55 pound pack and weighed 220 pounds. By the time I got to Waynesboro my pack was under 30 pounds loaded with 7 days worth of food and I weighed 167 pounds. That's quite a spread. But you can see that many people probably have just as much wiggle room in their body weight as they do in their pack weight. Either way you run into the law of diminishing returns though...you can only lose so much weight from your body or your pack before you run into trouble...its probably a good idea to look into options covering both. But either way, you get out on the trail for a few weeks and if you're like most people both problems will solve themselves as time passes. This ain't rocket science and its not so much of a "problem" in my opinion as is it is an observation. Nothing to see here...
I personally have never met an overweight hiker obsessed with pack weight while ignoring body weight.
We sing about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=t2mU6USTBRE
"Hiking is as close to God as you can get without going to Church." - BobbyJo Sargent aka milkman Sometimes it's nice to take a long walk in THE FOG.
Well, I wanted to post something smart assed...
But while I was trying to be a smart ass, I found this guys videos...
God bless him.
igne et ferrum est potentas
"In the beginning, all America was Virginia." -William Byrd
aside from hiking / exercise try cinnamon if you want to lose weight u can buy it at wally world amazing stuff
Here is another thought on this thought provoking thread.
Overweight people NEED to have a lighter pack so we have less weight on our feet.
165 lb hiker with a 30 lb pack has 195 lbs on his feet.
A 220 pound hiker with a 30 lb pack has 250 lbs on his feet.
So there is your answer, less weight is less weight. Period.
Except that the 30 lbs adds 18% to the weight of 165 lb hiker, and only 14% to the weight of the 220 lb hiker. If the hikers are equally fit (percentage lean body mass), even if both are overweight, the 220 lb hiker has a relatively lighter pack. If the 220 lb hiker is basically the 165 lb hiker with an additional 55 lb of fat (or to a lesser degree, but the 165 lb hiker is more fit than the 220 lb hiker) then your point can be valid. Pack weights are relative to the lean body mass of the hiker.
Last edited by jeffmeh; 10-28-2013 at 13:46.