[pct-l] cook vs non-cook

[Kevin Cook]

I understand the main goal is to eliminate the weight of the cooking gear,
stove, pot, fuel, etc. A secondary benefit may be the reduction in prep
time, but that could be minimal since you will have to soak things anyway.

Let's look at the cooking gear in detail...
Spoon - no savings here usually, unless you're eating that muesli with your
fingers?
cookpot or cup - do you just eat out of a ziplock? My K-Mart greasepot
(Wal-Mart no longer has one, and K-Mart's is better anyway) only weighs
~3.7oz.
stove - my soda can stove weighs ~14g or 0.5oz. OK this is a weight savings,
but not much.
windscreen stand combo - mine weighs 23g or 0.8oz.

We're up to a total of ~5oz so far. Not insignificant, but not a lot for the
luxury of a warm meal IMHO.

We still haven't talked about fuel. This is where the non-cook folks claim
the biggest weight savings. Yes, it's true that you do not have to carry
fuel, if you aren't cooking, but I look at it another way. The fuel gets
used up as I eat, right? So why isn't it just counted as part of the food
weight? Each dinner has its weight, plus a little bit for fuel. I don't
think it's reasonable to include fuel weight as part of the cook system. Do
I include the weight of the food when I talk about the weight of bear
canister? We can talk about the weight of the bear can, so we should include
the weight of the fuel bottle. How much does a 12oz water bottle weight?
Another .5oz? So really, cooking only requires an extra 5-6oz. If you still
carry a cup or pot when you don't cook, the weight difference falls to less
than 3oz. Is 3 oz worth having to eat cold food and a limited menu?

Anyway, I'm sure I'm not changing any minds, and that's not really my
intent. I just have always viewed the fuel differently, and I keep seeing it
counted towards the weight of cooking accoutrement. You can count the
bottle, but not the fuel.

As always, YMMV and HYOH ;)