[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] Pack weight to body weight ratio...



That was what I wrote using what I saw here saying one should carry 1/2 their bodyweight. However, 100 lbs does seem a bit much. I think I'll go much lighter as I think I can, on my next hike.

Kraig




> From: "Brett" <blisterfree@isp01.net>
> Date: 2005/01/05 Wed PM 04:37:29 PST
> To: <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] Pack weight to body weight ratio...
> 
> Kraig wrote:
> >>> But, according to the formula, I who is 6'3" and weigh 
> >>> 200 lbs, weighed 220 a few months ago before I started 
> >>> working out, should carry 100 lbs. Is this correct?
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> In my experience, formulas are for the laboratory. Your 100 
> lb. result proves this well. Luckily, in the real world, 
> there's a simpler approach:
> 
> Minimize packweight to the utmost and then do some LD hikes 
> with ready access to resupply and water. Packweight should 
> thus remain within the range of the hiker's ability to carry 
> it, regardless of body mass. Then as one gains experience, 
> ability, and strength, base packweight would remain as low 
> as possible but food and water weight could be increased to 
> accommodate the demands of more advanced hikes.
> 
> Who invented the 1/3 body weight formula? I don't know, but 
> I'm sure the makers of expensive packs designed to "carry 
> heavy loads in absolute comfort" love the way it makes their 
> products available to the overweight and out-of-shape 
> majority of American consumers. By focusing the packweight 
> discussion on an upper theshold, rather than on means of 
> reducing packweight, the formulas (and in turn the gear 
> companies) tend to encourage carrying the maximum packweight 
> allowable.
> 
> - blisterfree
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kraig Mottar" <kraig.mottar@verizon.net>
> To: "Mike Saenz" <msaenz@mve-architects.com>; "Mark Verber" 
> <verber@gmail.com>; <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:07 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: [BULK] - Re: [pct-l] Pack weight to body 
> weight ratio...
> 
> 
> > But, according to the formula, I who is 6'3" and weigh 
> > 200 lbs, weighed 220 a few months ago before I started 
> > working out, should carry 100 lbs. Is this correct? But if 
> > someone with any ammount of will lose that body fat after 
> > hiking for a while, thus messing up the scale of how much 
> > can be carried. Though, if one is able to go to say, 
> > 250-300 lbs with no to very little body fat would increase 
> > the amount they can carry, correct?
> >
> > Kraig
> >
> >> From: "Mike Saenz" <msaenz@mve-architects.com>
> >> Date: 2005/01/05 Wed PM 03:18:39 PST
> >> To: "Mark Verber" <verber@gmail.com>, 
> >> <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
> >> Subject: RE: [BULK] - Re: [pct-l] Pack weight to body 
> >> weight ratio...
> >>
> >> I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that if your body 
> >> weight isn't
> >> ummm..."ideal", let's say, then the whole pack weight/ 
> >> body weight
> >> formula falls apart.
> >>
> >> In other words, if you're 5'-10" tall and weight 300 
> >> pounds, then a 75
> >> pound pack is gonna kill you a couple miles into the 
> >> trail...
> >>
> >>
> >> M i c h a e l   S a e n z
> >> McLarand Vasquez Emsiek & Partners, Inc.
> >> A r c h i t e c t u r e    P l a n n i n g    I n t e r i 
> >> o r s
> >> w  w  w  .  m  v  e  -  a  r  c  h  i  t  e  c  t  s  . 
> >> c  o  m
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: pct-l-bounces@mailman.backcountry.net
> >> [mailto:pct-l-bounces@mailman.backcountry.net] On Behalf 
> >> Of Mark Verber
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 6:10 PM
> >> To: Don Fletcher
> >> Cc: pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> >> Subject: [BULK] - Re: [pct-l] Pack weight to body weight 
> >> ratio...
> >>
> >> > Hey : does anyone have any thoughts about body weight 
> >> > to pack weight
> >> > ratios , for optimum physiologic work while hiking??
> >> >  I have tried to find some science on this to no avail 
> >> > ( so far )
> >> >   Don ( malachi , trail name )
> >>
> >> Optimal is a zero pack weight.  Alas, that is typically 
> >> not practical.
> >>  Conventional wisdom is that more than 1/4 of body is 
> >> definetely *not*
> >> optimal.  My experience is that whenever my pack gets 
> >> more than 1/6 my
> >> weight I really start to notice it.  Hmm.. when my 
> >> daughter's pack get
> >> more than 1/6 her weight she starts complaining.
> >>
> >> I recall an article in a sports medical journal (or maybe 
> >> it was from
> >> the Army's research center) that had some data related to 
> >> this question.
> >> I can't find the article right now... but if I did it up 
> >> and will send
> >> you a copy.
> >>
> >> --mark
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pct-l mailing list
> >> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> >> unsubscribe or change options:
> >> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pct-l mailing list
> >> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> >> unsubscribe or change options:
> >> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pct-l mailing list
> > pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> > unsubscribe or change options:
> > http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>