[pct-l] footwear weight, was UL danger

[Brian McLaughlin]

> Assuming that there is a weight-carrying free lunch at amounts up to
> 6.6 pounds (3 kg), then the first application that comes to mind is
> not heavier footwear, but more pack weight moved down to the ankle
> area - voila, the footie pack!  If my shoes weigh two pounds, I should
> be able to pack four pounds plus around my ankles.

I know you're making a joke, but if you envision what the energy penalty
for carrying 5 lbs. on one's back during a treadmill test would be for a fit
man, as compared to zero weight on one's back, you might be able to
conceive that a similarly small energy penalty might apply for a similarly
small weight on your feet vs. zero weight on your feet. It isn't entirely
ludicrous to suggest this **might** be true.

This study simply runs counter to received wisdom about the 1 lb.
on your foot equals 5 lbs. on your back. Whether it is correct, or the
earlier 1969 study for the military was more accurate, I don't pretend to
know. But ridiculing it is a cheap way to dismiss it from consideration.
Why not keep an open mind wait for more information?