Sometimes on this sub I see comments advising people - seemingly sincerely - to carry stuff in their pockets to keep pack weight down. I've always assumed this was really dumb.
But maybe I've overlooked something. Is it more energy efficient to distribute some weight around your body rather than keeping it all in your pack?
Posted Aug 8, 2016, 8:32 PM UTC
I think bone-out is the best measurement, cutting down on fat(and redundant organs) is a great way to save weight!
Honestly, it often occurs to me that I spend fortunes to shed a pound or two in my pack when I could easily shed 10 from my ass by stuffing my face a bit less enthusiastically.
bone-out
Pack to bone weight ratio 1:1
Could just get stronger too
I've been working on it for decades. Attempts to get stronger tend to turn into rationalizations for overeating.
dat der dream bulk
I'm 12 lbs lighter in body weight this summer than I was last and I can definitely feel it on the trail.
yea, I want to see body weight on every lighterpack list from now on. then we can have discussions about whether you should weigh yourself before or after breakfast, and how much residual food is in your digestive tract and how far back you need to account for that weight so you can take it off the scale figures.
I've seen people do that on gear lists and it is just some perverse form of denial. You still need to move the same amount of weight. I guess it could reduce some stress on shoulder straps, but you're talking a few ounces.
Some get obsessed with arbitrary pack weights. The season or climate and your personal needs are more important. Being miserable or even unsafe so you can brag about your sub 5 pound base weight is silly. Stuffing the extra in your pockets is just lying.
If weight is in your pocket it is not on your hips/shoulders so, to the extent that doing so lightens your backpack, you might have a bit less shoulder fatigue.
But it probably doesn't make much of a difference. If you put heavy stuff in your pockets your pants are going to sag and its going to be annoying in other ways.
Plus having trekking poles takes weight from your back into your arms, which you'll feel the benefit of more than stuffing your pockets full of shite
I routinely hang a liter pouch of water on my belt. As long as it's adjusted so it isn't flopping back and forth, I prefer it.
I also do this on day hikes with no pack at all. I certainly prefer that to carrying a pack. Much rather have my cargo pockets stuffed with crap.
So you just carry it like a colostomy bag? On your belly like a fanny pack or off to one side? That just seems like it would make your pants sag and that it would be even worse with weight/bulk in your cargo pockets. I put leashes in cargo pockets at the dog park ones and it was awful.
For 5 lbs you could have your water, snacks, keys and a rain jacket in a camelback or other bag. I can't see how your way is possibly preferable, but to each his own.
I'm picturing a platypus attached to your pants belt with a carabiner or something. Is that what we are talking about or do you have a hydration belt system?
That's pretty much it. I wear a good belt, so my pants don't sag.
I don't really like carrying a pack if I don't need it. Even with dedicated shirts and "ventilated" backs, my back ends up soaked thru. I'll avoid this when I can.
I didn't like my camelback for day hikes. But that was before I got into backpacking. Maybe I'll give it another shot on the next hike.
I've previously made the argument that focusing on pack weight vs skin out weight allows for a more apples to apples comparison between gear, since much of the difference in weight between people of different sizes will come down to their differently sized clothing.
Likewise, pack weight invariably slows you down, while worn and carried items--trekking poles being my go-to example--can increase daily mileage: one of the primary examples many are interested in ultralight/fastpacking to begin with.
The analogy isn't perfect: I'd wager that extra ounces in footwear slow a hiker more than the equivalent in carried weight, but I think there are at least good arguments to be made...
It will always be apples to oranges unless two people are exactly the same. Same height, build, weight, metabolism, mental fitness, physical fitness, ect. I'm a tall guy. I need a longer quilt, it weights more. If I want a tent I also need a larger one or my quilt gets wet every night.
IMO, ULH is about cutting weight where you can, regardless of what others are doing. If you need a wide pad and sleeping bag, to get through the night, the lightest wide options are your UL gear. The lighter options don't matter because you cannot use them.
It is still apples to apples. Weight is weight. Unless someone develops a formula that accounts for BMI, and has a ratio. We should probably have that multiplied by the cost of items as a percentage normalize for income. That's all silly and pointless though.
That we can make normalize values, implies that it isn't apples to apples. I'm not saying we should try to make a normalized weight at all.
If weight is weight, why is there specific advice on how to load a bag? Why keep weight on your hips?
Yes I still have to carry it, but does my back ache?
My argument is not that discounting clothes makes a perfect comparison, merely that it becomes a closer comparison, as most other equipment is standardized.
I, like you, am a large individual. Nevertheless, my long quilt weighs perhaps two ounces more, my tarp is quite likely the same as a shorter persons, and my sleeping pad is probably just an extra ounce or two of CCF.
Likewise, frameless packs are typically one size, and the rest of one's gear (except consumables, which is also typically discounted) is likely much more comparable. If somebody has their own clever solution for a carried item, it's very likely available to me in a way that clothing may not be. Moreover, non- clothing items tend to be the pricier and longer lasting investments in equipment, so advice in those realms is more valuable.
I am not following your argument. Weight is weight, and if someone has grazier clothes, they have heavier clothes. Trekking poles don't count as carried weight in my book.
Grazier?
[deleted]
If weight is weight, why is it helpful to have most of my pack weight on my hips?
I mean, I'd consider putting a couple of things in my pockets or wearing an extra sweater if it meant I just needed it to get through an airline weigh-in that was extra strict (11 pounds on some airlines). Especially if I was on the tail-end of a trip and had some gifts I was bringing home. But I wouldn't plan on flying with an extra couple of pounds that need to be put in my pockets from the beginning.
I always take a dump prior to hiking to get my weight down.
Check out AARN packs.
McBain.jpg
I've never seen anyone recommend moving stuff to pockets to reduce pack weight. Does that actually happen and do these people have the mental capacity to survive multiple nights outdoors?
I've only recommended it in jest.
I recommend never listing your fuel canister weight in your baseweight in order to troll Jowee. What isn't in my baseweight can only make me stronger. ᕙ(ಠ⍘ಠ)ᕗ
Same goes for phone, hiker wallet, keys and trekking poles!
I put my Flextreck Whipsnake down the front of my French Wedge. I put my consumables right in the bear, and then follow it into the backcountry. Baseweight = zero. Skin out = 1 Le Cravasse @ 40 grams.