[pct-l] footwear weight, was UL danger

[Len Glassner]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Brian McLaughlin
<brianmclaugh at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 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.

I didn't, and don't, pretend to know either.  My one anecdotal
experience wearing boots on a 10-hour hike left me feeling like I was
making a concerted effort to throw each foot forward.  But I wear
heavier than average shoes because underfoot protection (which seems
to come at a weight cost), for me, outweighs the weight savings I'd
get from a light lighter ones.

It would be useful to know if the received wisdom is not true.  If we
can out more research, and verify the degree of irrelevance of shoe
weight, then hikers might have an easier time selecting footwear.

As for ridicule,I don't see it that way, if you don't like my sense of
humor I'd suggest using your email client to dismiss my future posts
from consideration.

> Why not keep an open mind wait for more information?
>
Why the @$%! do you think I asked for it?



-- 
'Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit' - Oscar Wilde

Sent from home by my carrier pigeon.