## Weight matters

Expand Messages
• Assuming a JMT backpacker can shed say 3lbs off the weight of a tent (or anything else), and assuming each step the hiker takes on the JMT is 2 feet - give or
Message 1 of 26 , Oct 24, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Assuming a JMT backpacker can shed say 3lbs off the weight of a tent (or anything else), and assuming each step the hiker takes on the JMT is 2 feet - give or take for the long strides in the meadows and the short steps going up and down - and assuming the hiker walks the entire 211 miles of the JMT, that accumulates to 1,671,120 foot pounds less to be carried over the entire distance.

Weight matters.

Ken.
• On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:03 AM, kennethjessett@sbcglobal.net
Message 2 of 26 , Oct 24, 2013
• 0 Attachment
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:03 AM, kennethjessett@... wrote:

Assuming a JMT backpacker can shed say 3lbs off the weight of a tent (or anything else), and assuming each step the hiker takes on the JMT is 2 feet - give or take for the long strides in the meadows and the short steps going up and down - and assuming the hiker walks the entire 211 miles of the JMT, that accumulates to 1,671,120 foot pounds less to be carried over the entire distance.

Weight matters.

Ken.

True. Don't forget that losing 3 lb of your bodyweight also does the same thing and is usually way cheaper than buying a new tent. Way cheaper than replacing all carried metals with titanium

And this is the best time of year to think about shedding bodyweight, assuming that you have some to spare and can lose weight (I accept that not everyone can).

• Losing 3lbs is a great idea. But I have to say that multiplying weight by distance the way you do just gives a big meaningless number. ... Assuming a JMT
Message 3 of 26 , Oct 24, 2013
• 0 Attachment

Losing 3lbs is a great idea. But I have to say that multiplying weight by distance the way you do just gives a big meaningless number.

---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Assuming a JMT backpacker can shed say 3lbs off the weight of a tent (or anything else), and assuming each step the hiker takes on the JMT is 2 feet - give or take for the long strides in the meadows and the short steps going up and down - and assuming the hiker walks the entire 211 miles of the JMT, that accumulates to 1,671,120 foot pounds less to be carried over the entire distance.

Weight matters.

Ken.
• Maybe a big meaningless number to some. But ounces trimmed add up to pounds, which add up to several pounds shaved off of your back and feet. I don t want to
Message 4 of 26 , Oct 24, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Maybe a big meaningless number to some. But ounces trimmed add up to pounds, which add up to several pounds shaved off of your back and feet. I don't want to re-ignite any lightweight vs traditional debate, but FOR ME, trimming my pack weight has made my backpacking much more enjoyable. I see the point Ken is trying to make.

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <richard.russell@...> wrote:
>
> Losing 3lbs is a great idea. But I have to say that multiplying weight by distance the way you do just gives a big meaningless number.
>
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Assuming a JMT backpacker can shed say 3lbs off the weight of a tent (or anything else), and assuming each step the hiker takes on the JMT is 2 feet - give or take for the long strides in the meadows and the short steps going up and down - and assuming the hiker walks the entire 211 miles of the JMT, that accumulates to 1,671,120 foot pounds less to be carried over the entire distance.
>
> Weight matters.
>
> Ken.
>
• What did you expect, the secret of the universe? Good grief!
Message 5 of 26 , Oct 24, 2013
• 0 Attachment
What did you expect, the secret of the universe?

Good grief!

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <richard.russell@...> wrote:
>
> Losing 3lbs is a great idea. But I have to say that multiplying weight by distance the way you do just gives a big meaningless number.
>
>
>
• Very true John, but 3 lbs off the belly and 3 lbs off the pack would really make a big difference, and maybe the difference between finishing the entire trail
Message 6 of 26 , Oct 24, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Very true John, but 3 lbs off the belly and 3 lbs off the pack would really make a big difference, and maybe the difference between finishing the entire trail and not.

But sadly, evidence exists that many people add pounds rather than lose them during the winter months, something to do with longer nights and colder days - we go into a primitive survival mode.

But not you of course, I've seen how skinny you are. ;-)

Ken.

>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:03 AM, kennethjessett@... <
> kenjessett@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Assuming a JMT backpacker can *shed say 3lbs off the weight of a tent (or
> > anything else)*, and assuming each step the hiker takes on the JMT is 2
> > feet - give or take for the long strides in the meadows and the short steps
> > going up and down - and assuming the hiker walks the entire 211 miles of
> > the JMT, that accumulates to 1,671,120 foot pounds less to be carried over
> > the entire distance.
> >
> > Weight matters.
> >
> > Ken.
> >
> True. Don't forget that losing 3 lb of your bodyweight also does the same
> thing and is usually way cheaper than buying a new tent. Way cheaper than
> replacing all carried metals with titanium
>
> And this is the best time of year to think about shedding bodyweight,
> assuming that you have some to spare and can lose weight (I accept that not
> everyone can).
>
• On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM, kennethjessett@sbcglobal.net
Message 7 of 26 , Oct 24, 2013
• 0 Attachment
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM, kennethjessett@... wrote:
3 lbs off the belly and 3 lbs off the pack would really make a big difference,

The Army and other physiologists have studied the energy cost of walking with very sophisticated techniques and the differences between the energy required to carry an extra 3 lbs of bodyweight and an extra 3 lbs of packweight are surprisingly small with well designed backpacks. I agree that subjectively they are different. Objectively, not by much.

I know people don't believe it, but the research is very highly replicated in multiple studies.  Google Pandolf equation for the details, especially at scholar.google.com if you want the technical papers.

1616 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA  94114-3707
415-648-9279
• Interesting calculation........and I do agree......losing weight off the body or pack does make hiking more enjoyable. However, if I could just get a little
Message 8 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment

Interesting calculation........and I do agree......losing weight off the body or pack does make hiking more enjoyable.   However, if I could just get a little "geeky" here.....I think I can tighten up your observation a little bit.    Not sure simply multiplying steps by reduced weight actually tells you anything.    While the concept of "foot pounds" it technically correct (although it is often used as a measure of torque so can be confusing), it needs to be in terms of pounds of force applied over a distance to get to the "work" expended.    So.....technically.....if your center of gravity doesn't move up or down.....and you only move horizontal to the surface of the planet (admittedly on a frictionless surface).....you don't actually do any work regardless of the amount of weight you are carrying because there is no force working against gravity.   However, where it becomes important is when you start doing vertical stuff.....NOW you're actually expending pounds of force through a foot of (vertical) distance.....and you get to your foot pounds of work.   Climbing with lighter weight actually, physically, and mathematically will require less work.     It's 2:00am.....so I'm sure I tripped up on some technical detail there and will be punished mercilessly in the morning.....but fundamentally that's how "work" is calculated/understood.

Rand  :-)

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM, kennethjessett@... wrote:
3 lbs off the belly and 3 lbs off the pack would really make a big difference,

The Army and other physiologists have studied the energy cost of walking with very sophisticated techniques and the differences between the energy required to carry an extra 3 lbs of bodyweight and an extra 3 lbs of packweight are surprisingly small with well designed backpacks. I agree that subjectively they are different. Objectively, not by much.

I know people don't believe it, but the research is very highly replicated in multiple studies.  Google Pandolf equation for the details, especially at scholar.google.com if you want the technical papers.

1616 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA  94114-3707
415-648-9279
• I left Yosemite Valley with about 23 pounds total pack weight, 25 pounds leaving Tuolumne, 27 pounds leaving Red s, and 33.5 pounds leaving MTR. This is a
Message 9 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment

I left Yosemite Valley with about 23 pounds total pack weight,  25 pounds leaving Tuolumne, 27 pounds leaving Red's, and 33.5 pounds leaving MTR.  This is a totally subjective observation but I found that my comfort level carrying weight was quite constant between 20-30 pounds and decreased beyond that point in a way that had a noticeable impact on my pace. I don't think that 30-35 pounds was necessarily the upper limit for the weight that I am capable of carrying comfortably, but it seemed like the limit given the combination of my abilities and the capabilities of my backpack.

After the JMT, I have tended to think of pack weight based on "thresholds" as opposed to worrying about the exact weight.  I know that a pack anywhere in the 20s is just fine and I don't think there is much advantage whether it is 22 pounds vs 26 pounds.  I know that 30 is a threshold that I'd prefer to not cross.  I guess I'm speculating on whether there is really a linear relationship between pack weight and comfort, or more of a step-type function where going over a certain limit starts to bring about problems.

I'll make one other observation ... the vast majority of hikers I met on the trail appeared to carry much more weight than I did and most of the equipment I observed was of the "traditional" type rather than cottage gear.  For the most part, it did not appear that people were struggling too much with the weight.  I consider myself a lightweight backpacker but definitely not ultralight.  Other than a PCT SOBO thru hiker I met and a few folks that seemed to be running the JMT, I can't say that I encountered many ultralight hikers on the trip.

---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Interesting calculation........and I do agree......losing weight off the body or pack does make hiking more enjoyable.   However, if I could just get a little "geeky" here.....I think I can tighten up your observation a little bit.    Not sure simply multiplying steps by reduced weight actually tells you anything.    While the concept of "foot pounds" it technically correct (although it is often used as a measure of torque so can be confusing), it needs to be in terms of pounds of force applied over a distance to get to the "work" expended.    So.....technically.....if your center of gravity doesn't move up or down.....and you only move horizontal to the surface of the planet (admittedly on a frictionless surface).....you don't actually do any work regardless of the amount of weight you are carrying because there is no force working against gravity.   However, where it becomes important is when you start doing vertical stuff.....NOW you're actually expending pounds of force through a foot of (vertical) distance.....and you get to your foot pounds of work.   Climbing with lighter weight actually, physically, and mathematically will require less work.     It's 2:00am.....so I'm sure I tripped up on some technical detail there and will be punished mercilessly in the morning.....but fundamentally that's how "work" is calculated/understood.

Rand  :-)

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM, kennethjessett@... wrote:
3 lbs off the belly and 3 lbs off the pack would really make a big difference,

The Army and other physiologists have studied the energy cost of walking with very sophisticated techniques and the differences between the energy required to carry an extra 3 lbs of bodyweight and an extra 3 lbs of packweight are surprisingly small with well designed backpacks. I agree that subjectively they are different. Objectively, not by much.

I know people don't believe it, but the research is very highly replicated in multiple studies.  Google Pandolf equation for the details, especially at scholar.google.com if you want the technical papers.

1616 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA  94114-3707
415-648-9279
• Um, okay!
Message 10 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Um, okay!

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, rand <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting calculation........and I do agree......losing weight off the body or pack does make hiking more enjoyable. However, if I could just get a little "geeky" here.....I think I can tighten up your observation a little bit. Not sure simply multiplying steps by reduced weight actually tells you anything. While the concept of "foot pounds" it technically correct (although it is often used as a measure of torque so can be confusing), it needs to be in terms of pounds of force applied over a distance to get to the "work" expended. So.....technically.....if your center of gravity doesn't move up or down.....and you only move horizontal to the surface of the planet (admittedly on a frictionless surface).....you don't actually do any work regardless of the amount of weight you are carrying because there is no force working against gravity. However, where it becomes important is when you start doing vertical stuff.....NOW you're actually expending pounds of force through a foot of (vertical) distance.....and you get to your foot pounds of work. Climbing with lighter weight actually, physically, and mathematically will require less work. It's 2:00am.....so I'm sure I tripped up on some technical detail there and will be punished mercilessly in the morning.....but fundamentally that's how "work" is calculated/understood.
>
>
> Rand :-)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM, kennethjessett@ mailto:kennethjessett@ <kenjessett@ mailto:kenjessett@> wrote:
> 3 lbs off the belly and 3 lbs off the pack would really make a big difference,
>
> The Army and other physiologists have studied the energy cost of walking with very sophisticated techniques and the differences between the energy required to carry an extra 3 lbs of bodyweight and an extra 3 lbs of packweight are surprisingly small with well designed backpacks. I agree that subjectively they are different. Objectively, not by much.
>
>
> I know people don't believe it, but the research is very highly replicated in multiple studies. Google Pandolf equation for the details, especially at scholar.google.com http://scholar.google.com if you want the technical papers.
>
>
> 1616 Castro Street
> San Francisco, CA 94114-3707
> 415-648-9279
>
• ... The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and
Message 11 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Robert wrote:
I'm not concerned with Army testing, yes they may have some interesting data, but soldiers NEED to carry more gear for protection, survival, and overall operational readiness, I don't NEED to carry heavier gear for my enjoyment in the mountains. The Army is strictly interested in testing and figuring out the most efficient, least comfortable way to schlep a LOT of gear from point 'A' to point 'B' in a timely manner.

The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.

The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.

See, for example, this study (only one in the series)

The method measures energy consumption by recording how much oxygen is burned by multiple test subjects walking with and without a pack at various speeds, slopes and walking surfaces. The more energy you expend, the more oxygen you burn so that measuring oxygen burn is the best way to study energy needs. They find that the following factors matter: bodyweight, packweight, degree of slope, speed and surface (e.g., road vs snow). Individual differences in physiology (e.g., mesomorph vs ectomorph) made very little difference when they studied that variable.

Those factors affect us as well. Over-simplified a bit (read the studies or play with the formula for the fine points) across the range of values that are typical for us, bodyweight and packweight increase effort to very close to the same amount -- if a 180 person goes from a 20 lb pack to a 40 lb pack (or gains 20 lbs) the effort required over a given slope, trail condition and speed will go up in proportion to the total weight moved (e.g., it takes roughly 10% more effort to move 220 total lbs vs 200 total lbs). And, again over-simplifying, if the test subject slows down by roughly 10% (say, from 2.2 mph to 2 mph), he can burn oxygen/energy at the same rate (effort per minute) as before he added the weight. Total energy consumption still goes up by about 10% at the reduced speed since the constant rate of energy burn is maintained for a longer time.

Clearly, our subjective impression of doubled packweight (going from 20 to 40 lbs in the example above) does not correlate well with the measured rate of oxygen consumption / energy requirement. That is, I think, what makes it hard to believe the science. So these findings remain counter-intuitive to most hikers.

I had some doubts about whether it applied to me. If nothing else, I am considerably older than the test subjects used by Pandolf and the others who have replicated his results. I ran a series of tests on myself over a timed 2 mile uphill singletrack course near my house. Not that I had the equipment the science types did, but I did find that increasing packweight decreased speed over the course in rough proportion to total weight (my weight and packweight) so long as kept packweight under about 50 lbs. (Above that, speed was affected disproportionately to total weight)

I'm not claiming that my n=1 experiment adds much weight to the actual science on the Pandolf findings, but at least for me, it was predictive of energy needs to the best that I can measure it.

If anyone wanted to play with the Pandolf formula, I've reduced it to an Excel Spreadsheet you can download from our Files area.

I also don't want to make the mistake of assuming that energy consumption is the only factor in realizing how much weight matters. Higher packloads, especially in packs not optimized to the weight carried, do affect the perceived effort involved, skin discomfort, nerve impingement and muscle strain. But if the main limiting factor in your enjoyment of the backcountry is the simple exhaustion at the end of the day, you can adjust your walking pace or miles per day fairly modestly to allow yourself to carry the gear you want to carry (even if you don't need it all). Reducing packweight works well for many and will be necessary for some. But it is not the only solution to all problems of backcountry travel.

1616 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA  94114-3707
415-648-9279
• I just can t relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption
Message 12 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment
I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight.  Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever.  I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.

--------------------------------------------------------

To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:53 -0700
Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters

The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.

The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.

,___
• Any chance you can list your pack contents and weights for us? Ken.
Message 13 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Any chance you can list your pack contents and weights for us?

Ken.

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, Don Amundson <amrowinc@...> wrote:
>
>>
> I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
> My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever. I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.
>
• Pandolf Equation M = 1.5*W + 2.8*(W+L)*(L/W)^2 + n*(W+L)*(1.5*V^2 + 0.35*V*G) M = metabolic rate, watts W = subject weight, kg L = load carried, kg V = speed
Message 14 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment

Pandolf Equation

M = 1.5*W + 2.8*(W+L)*(L/W)^2 + n*(W+L)*(1.5*V^2 + 0.35*V*G)

M = metabolic rate, watts
W = subject weight, kg
V = speed of walking, m/s
n = terrain factor (n=1.0 for treadmill)

According to this equation, the relative benefit of losing pack weight versus body weight depends on the load. Specifically for loads below 20% of body mass the equation predicts a slight benefit in reducing pack weight versus body weight. Above this it is preferable to lose body weight. The predicted effect is small, ~1% or less, so perhaps meaningless.

More recently, Bastien, Willems et al (2005) found that the mass specific power output (W/kg) is independent of the load on flat, gentle terrain. In other words, the amount of energy expended per total mass (body mass + load mass) is the same regardless of the size of the load relative to one's body mass (they tested loads up to 75% of body mass). This differs from Pandolf because of an assumption by Pandolf that the metabolic cost of standing while loaded increases with load. Bastien did not observe this and so concluded that there should be no difference at all between losing weight from the pack or the gut.

Interestingly, in this study they also found that the optimal walking speed (on a level track at both sea level and 2800m elevation) is 1.3 m/s (2.9 MPH), again regardless of the load. At this speed the amount of power required per total mass and per unit distance was at a minimum. When considering the net power (total power when walking loaded minus power expended standing unloaded) the optimal speed was ~1 m/s (2.4 MPH), even with very large relative loads.

In my mind the idea of losing body weight INSTEAD of trimming the load is a false choice. I'd like to be at my optimal weight and fitness level regardless of load. And I'd like my load to be optimized regardless of weight of fitness. To me these goals are independent.

---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM, kennethjessett@... wrote:
3 lbs off the belly and 3 lbs off the pack would really make a big difference,

The Army and other physiologists have studied the energy cost of walking with very sophisticated techniques and the differences between the energy required to carry an extra 3 lbs of bodyweight and an extra 3 lbs of packweight are surprisingly small with well designed backpacks. I agree that subjectively they are different. Objectively, not by much.

I know people don't believe it, but the research is very highly replicated in multiple studies.  Google Pandolf equation for the details, especially at scholar.google.com if you want the technical papers.

1616 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA  94114-3707
415-648-9279
• rand: While the concept of foot pounds it technically correct (although it is often used as a measure of torque so can be confusing), it needs to be in terms
Message 15 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment
rand: While the concept of "foot pounds" it technically correct (although it is often used as a measure of torque so can be confusing), it needs to be in terms of pounds of force applied over a distance to get to the "work" expended.    So.....technically.....if your center of gravity doesn't move up or down.....and you only move horizontal to the surface of the planet (admittedly on a frictionless surface).....you don't actually do any work regardless of the amount of weight you are carrying because there is no force working against gravity.

It isn't as simple as physics 101 because the human body is doing work even when standing still. A huge amount of the energy expended is lost as heat. The only meaningful way to get a number is to actually measure the energy consumed. From that you can build models of varying complexity in order to make predictions.

ravi: I guess I'm speculating on whether there is really a linear relationship between pack weight and comfort, or more of a step-type function where going over a certain limit starts to bring about problems.

I think this is what is missing here. Pandolf doesn't care if you're comfortable. If your pack is killing you that's your problem. He's just attempting to tell you how much you'll need to eat to maintain your weight.

---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I left Yosemite Valley with about 23 pounds total pack weight,  25 pounds leaving Tuolumne, 27 pounds leaving Red's, and 33.5 pounds leaving MTR.  This is a totally subjective observation but I found that my comfort level carrying weight was quite constant between 20-30 pounds and decreased beyond that point in a way that had a noticeable impact on my pace. I don't think that 30-35 pounds was necessarily the upper limit for the weight that I am capable of carrying comfortably, but it seemed like the limit given the combination of my abilities and the capabilities of my backpack.

After the JMT, I have tended to think of pack weight based on "thresholds" as opposed to worrying about the exact weight.  I know that a pack anywhere in the 20s is just fine and I don't think there is much advantage whether it is 22 pounds vs 26 pounds.  I know that 30 is a threshold that I'd prefer to not cross.  I guess I'm speculating on whether there is really a linear relationship between pack weight and comfort, or more of a step-type function where going over a certain limit starts to bring about problems.

I'll make one other observation ... the vast majority of hikers I met on the trail appeared to carry much more weight than I did and most of the equipment I observed was of the "traditional" type rather than cottage gear.  For the most part, it did not appear that people were struggling too much with the weight.  I consider myself a lightweight backpacker but definitely not ultralight.  Other than a PCT SOBO thru hiker I met and a few folks that seemed to be running the JMT, I can't say that I encountered many ultralight hikers on the trip.

---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Interesting calculation........and I do agree......losing weight off the body or pack does make hiking more enjoyable.   However, if I could just get a little "geeky" here.....I think I can tighten up your observation a little bit.    Not sure simply multiplying steps by reduced weight actually tells you anything.    While the concept of "foot pounds" it technically correct (although it is often used as a measure of torque so can be confusing), it needs to be in terms of pounds of force applied over a distance to get to the "work" expended.    So.....technically.....if your center of gravity doesn't move up or down.....and you only move horizontal to the surface of the planet (admittedly on a frictionless surface).....you don't actually do any work regardless of the amount of weight you are carrying because there is no force working against gravity.   However, where it becomes important is when you start doing vertical stuff.....NOW you're actually expending pounds of force through a foot of (vertical) distance.....and you get to your foot pounds of work.   Climbing with lighter weight actually, physically, and mathematically will require less work.     It's 2:00am.....so I'm sure I tripped up on some technical detail there and will be punished mercilessly in the morning.....but fundamentally that's how "work" is calculated/understood.

Rand  :-)

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM, kennethjessett@... wrote:
3 lbs off the belly and 3 lbs off the pack would really make a big difference,

The Army and other physiologists have studied the energy cost of walking with very sophisticated techniques and the differences between the energy required to carry an extra 3 lbs of bodyweight and an extra 3 lbs of packweight are surprisingly small with well designed backpacks. I agree that subjectively they are different. Objectively, not by much.

I know people don't believe it, but the research is very highly replicated in multiple studies.  Google Pandolf equation for the details, especially at scholar.google.com if you want the technical papers.

1616 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA  94114-3707
415-648-9279
• Don wrote: My personal studies have shown that I m sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I m
Message 16 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment

Don wrote:

"My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight.  Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever".

Dittli

---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <amrowinc@...> wrote:

I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight.  Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever.  I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.

--------------------------------------------------------

To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:53 -0700
Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters

The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.

The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.

,___
• Age? Funny how at my age I like to blame it on anything but that! To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com From: johndittli@gmail.com Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:07:36
Message 17 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment

Age?  Funny how at my age I like to blame it on anything but that!

To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
From: johndittli@...
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:07:36 -0700
Subject: [John Muir Trail] RE: Weight matters

Don wrote:

"My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight.  Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever".

Dittli

• My own experience: When I was much younger I walked the JMT at an average pace of 12 miles/day. More recently, 20 lbs heavier and with a pack 30 lbs lighter I
Message 18 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment
My own experience: When I was much younger I walked the JMT at an average pace of 12 miles/day. More recently, 20 lbs heavier and with a pack 30 lbs lighter I walked the JMT at an average pace of 28 miles/day. I'm not going to pretend this proves anything.

---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Don wrote:

"My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight.  Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever".

Dittli

---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <amrowinc@...> wrote:

I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight.  Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever.  I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.

--------------------------------------------------------

To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:53 -0700
Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters

The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.

The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.

,___
• Proves something to me. To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com From: no_reply@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:27:35 -0700 Subject: [John Muir Trail] RE:
Message 19 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Proves something to me.

To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:27:35 -0700
Subject: [John Muir Trail] RE: RE: Weight matters

My own experience: When I was much younger I walked the JMT at an average pace of 12 miles/day. More recently, 20 lbs heavier and with a pack 30 lbs lighter I walked the JMT at an average pace of 28 miles/day. I'm not going to pretend this proves anything.

• I ll echo what Longritchie states as well. My daily miles in my 30 s with a heavy pack ranged from 10-14 miles per day. As I started progressively lightening
Message 20 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment
I'll echo what Longritchie states as well. My daily miles in my 30's with a heavy pack ranged from 10-14 miles per day. As I started progressively lightening my load the last 7-8 years, I'm now hitting my late 40's and it is no problem to put up 24-28 mile days when I want to.

I deleted my earlier post on the Army study, but since John chose to reference it in the 15 minutes or so it was up, I will reiterate that I really think about Army studies: I care nothing about them! It is like comparing apples to oranges when you HAVE to carry a pack for survival and combat compared to carrying a pack for personal enjoyment. I have several ex-military friends who I have tried to get back out in the backcountry, and they all have told me they hope to never put another pack on! I know that isn't always the case, but humping around 60-80 lbs under duress is a whole different situation than normal backpacking.

The other point is, just because you CAN comfortably carry more weight in your pack, why would you WANT to? Physically, I could carry a 40-60 lb pack around the Sierras, but I choose not to. On the days I do shorter miles and fish, I get to camp and still have energy to do that. If one chooses to carry more gear to enhance their outdoor experience, that is a personal choice.

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, longritchie <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> My own experience: When I was much younger I walked the JMT at an average pace of 12 miles/day. More recently, 20 lbs heavier and with a pack 30 lbs lighter I walked the JMT at an average pace of 28 miles/day. I'm not going to pretend this proves anything.
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Don wrote:
>
>
> "My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever".
>
>
>
>
> Dittli
>
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <amrowinc@> wrote:
>
> I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
> My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever. I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:53 -0700
> Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters
>
> The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.
>
>
> The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.
>
>
>
>
> ,___
>
• I agree, when I long for my 70 lb pack I simply pick up some rocks, or go on a climbing expedition (which is like picking up rocks); no pain no gain eh?
Message 21 of 26 , Oct 25, 2013
• 0 Attachment
I agree, when I long for my 70 lb pack I simply pick up some rocks, or go on a climbing expedition (which is like picking up rocks); no pain no gain eh? Speaking of pain, there must me a study out there that has quantified the energy consumption of a given activity when comfortable vs painful; I'm serious.

When I was 15 I loaded up a 70lber and headed out for three weeks, no re-supply, those were for sissies); started out at 165# ended at 140 (i'm 5'10"). By the end of the trip I was licking crumbs off the bottom of my pack and felt great (or did before I consumed an entire box of Lucky Charms in 15 minutes). Now I limit myself to 12 days without resupply go with a much lighter pack (haven't weighed it in years) and don't loose any weight over the entire summer (and try to keep the Lucky Charms to a single bowl at a time).

How I miss the old days.... I do have my dad's Trapper Nelson if I ever decide to go retro...

JD
Hike yer hike

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Robert wrote:

I'll echo what Longritchie states as well. My daily miles in my 30's with a heavy pack ranged from 10-14 miles per day. As I started progressively lightening my load the last 7-8 years, I'm now hitting my late 40's and it is no problem to put up 24-28 mile days when I want to.

I deleted my earlier post on the Army study, but since John chose to reference it in the 15 minutes or so it was up, I will reiterate that I really think about Army studies: I care nothing about them! It is like comparing apples to oranges when you HAVE to carry a pack for survival and combat compared to carrying a pack for personal enjoyment. I have several ex-military friends who I have tried to get back out in the backcountry, and they all have told me they hope to never put another pack on! I know that isn't always the case, but humping around 60-80 lbs under duress is a whole different situation than normal backpacking.

The other point is, just because you CAN comfortably carry more weight in your pack, why would you WANT to? Physically, I could carry a 40-60 lb pack around the Sierras, but I choose not to. On the days I do shorter miles and fish, I get to camp and still have energy to do that. If one chooses to carry more gear to enhance their outdoor experience, that is a personal choice.

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, longritchie <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> My own experience: When I was much younger I walked the JMT at an average pace of 12 miles/day. More recently, 20 lbs heavier and with a pack 30 lbs lighter I walked the JMT at an average pace of 28 miles/day. I'm not going to pretend this proves anything.
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Don wrote:
>
>
> "My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever".
>
>
>
>
> Dittli
>
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <amrowinc@> wrote:
>
> I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
> My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever. I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:53 -0700
> Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters
>
> The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.
>
>
> The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.
>
>
>
>
> ,___
>

--
John Dittli/Leslie Goethals
John Dittli Photography
www.johndittli.com
760-934-3505

Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail
2010  IPPY Gold Medal Award Winner
• Well, at least for me, it doesnÆt. I donÆt mind weight (but know that you can handle it) because it allows me to enjoy what I like to do in the wilderness: I
Message 22 of 26 , Oct 26, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Well, at least for me, it doesn’t.

I don’t mind weight (but know that you can handle it) because it allows me to enjoy what I like to do in the wilderness:

I like 4-season camping and exploration! (I’ve done the long trail with the high miles and don’t need to keep doing that).

I enjoy:
- on-trail Hakuna Matata!
- hiking slow and taking everything in,
- spending as much time as I can in the mountains in one trip (multi-week stuff or more),
- long, entrancing campfires where/when I can have them,
- long, leisurely mornings with coffee and a good book,
- photographic exploration with all the requisite tools like multiple lenses and a large tripod,
- swimming,
- climbing trees,
- off-trail excursions around peaks and into little valleys/basins,
- fishing,
- sitting, listening, and feeling the mountains around me,
- lots of food for breakfast, second-breakfast, lunch, second-lunch, pre-dinner snack, dinner, and dessert
- good meals that may require larger than normal-backpacking-styled pots and pans (think pulling them on the sled in the winter/spring),
- early into camp to get everything “just right” for a sunset dinner,
- naps in the middle of meadows after second-breakfast,
- long talks around the “kitchen table” (again, in the snow),
- big 4-season tents that provide multi-day major comfort during long snow storms,
- roomy, 3-season tents to keep the horizontal rain and bugs out in the summer,
- full-on leather boots to protect my ankles and feet and allow good, healthy trail-stomping,
- Jeans with Gore-tex shells (it “feels” better!),
- thick, down-filled sleeping pads for luxurious nights of sleep,
- lots of clothing layers to stay warm and dry, even when playing in the snow,
- buying durable gear and clothing that will last me years of abuse (some of it is heavy),
- requisite safety and communication gear to “be there” for others and be prepared for myself,

Yes, my Freighting pack is heavy, but I don’t go far and I don’t go at all unless I’m “trail-strong.” (The body and musculature has to be conditioned and ready to go, otherwise I’m asking for injury). For example, I take two days to pack in a full pack over most any eastside sierra pass. No hurry. I just plan the time into the schedule and enjoy the days.

Yes, this “camper” style is different from the “hiker” style, but I like it!

How you do what you do in the wilderness is all based on why you’re there in the first place. That’s where we all need to start! Just be aware before you go of what it will take to safely enjoy it (your strength and fitness, the terrain, the possible weather, creek crossings, and more....) so you can come out the other end to tell your exciting stories to others!

This is what we preach at Mountain Education. However, there is a time and place for hauling ass and flying light!

Ned Tibbits, Director
Mountain Education
www.mountaineducation.org

Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters

I agree, when I long for my 70 lb pack I simply pick up some rocks, or go on a climbing expedition (which is like picking up rocks); no pain no gain eh? Speaking of pain, there must me a study out there that has quantified the energy consumption of a given activity when comfortable vs painful; I'm serious.

When I was 15 I loaded up a 70lber and headed out for three weeks, no re-supply, those were for sissies); started out at 165# ended at 140 (i'm 5'10"). By the end of the trip I was licking crumbs off the bottom of my pack and felt great (or did before I consumed an entire box of Lucky Charms in 15 minutes). Now I limit myself to 12 days without resupply go with a much lighter pack (haven't weighed it in years) and don't loose any weight over the entire summer (and try to keep the Lucky Charms to a single bowl at a time).

How I miss the old days.... I do have my dad's Trapper Nelson if I ever decide to go retro...

JD
Hike yer hike

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Robert wrote:

I'll echo what Longritchie states as well. My daily miles in my 30's with a heavy pack ranged from 10-14 miles per day. As I started progressively lightening my load the last 7-8 years, I'm now hitting my late 40's and it is no problem to put up 24-28 mile days when I want to.

I deleted my earlier post on the Army study, but since John chose to reference it in the 15 minutes or so it was up, I will reiterate that I really think about Army studies: I care nothing about them! It is like comparing apples to oranges when you HAVE to carry a pack for survival and combat compared to carrying a pack for personal enjoyment. I have several ex-military friends who I have tried to get back out in the backcountry, and they all have told me they hope to never put another pack on! I know that isn't always the case, but humping around 60-80 lbs under duress is a whole different situation than normal backpacking.

The other point is, just because you CAN comfortably carry more weight in your pack, why would you WANT to? Physically, I could carry a 40-60 lb pack around the Sierras, but I choose not to. On the days I do shorter miles and fish, I get to camp and still have energy to do that. If one chooses to carry more gear to enhance their outdoor experience, that is a personal choice.

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, longritchie <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> My own experience: When I was much younger I walked the JMT at an average pace of 12 miles/day. More recently, 20 lbs heavier and with a pack 30 lbs lighter I walked the JMT at an average pace of 28 miles/day. I'm not going to pretend this proves anything.
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Don wrote:
>
>
> "My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever".
>
>
>
>
> Dittli
>
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <amrowinc@> wrote:
>
> I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
> My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever. I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:53 -0700
> Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters
>
> The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.
>
>
> The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.
>
>
>
>
> ,___
>

--
John Dittli/Leslie Goethals
John Dittli Photography
www.johndittli.com
760-934-3505

Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail
2010  IPPY Gold Medal Award Winner
• All true Ned. But if you can do ALL of the above with a 20-50% lighter (than historic) pack , you re probably going to enjoy it more, no? I know I do. I
Message 23 of 26 , Oct 26, 2013
• 0 Attachment
All true Ned. But if you can do ALL of the above with a 20-50% lighter (than historic) pack , you're probably going to enjoy it more, no? I know I do. I haven't limited any of the above (other than the amount of food I choose to carry), I just do it all with a lot less weight than I used to. My backpacking gear weighs less, my cameras weigh less, my fishing gear weighs less and so on. I think the only thing that weighs more than they used to are my skis ;-).

JD
Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:46 PM, <ned@...> wrote:

Well, at least for me, it doesn’t.

I don’t mind weight (but know that you can handle it) because it allows me to enjoy what I like to do in the wilderness:

I like 4-season camping and exploration! (I’ve done the long trail with the high miles and don’t need to keep doing that).

I enjoy:
- on-trail Hakuna Matata!
- hiking slow and taking everything in,
- spending as much time as I can in the mountains in one trip (multi-week stuff or more),
- long, entrancing campfires where/when I can have them,
- long, leisurely mornings with coffee and a good book,
- photographic exploration with all the requisite tools like multiple lenses and a large tripod,
- swimming,
- climbing trees,
- off-trail excursions around peaks and into little valleys/basins,
- fishing,
- sitting, listening, and feeling the mountains around me,
- lots of food for breakfast, second-breakfast, lunch, second-lunch, pre-dinner snack, dinner, and dessert
- good meals that may require larger than normal-backpacking-styled pots and pans (think pulling them on the sled in the winter/spring),
- early into camp to get everything “just right” for a sunset dinner,
- naps in the middle of meadows after second-breakfast,
- long talks around the “kitchen table” (again, in the snow),
- big 4-season tents that provide multi-day major comfort during long snow storms,
- roomy, 3-season tents to keep the horizontal rain and bugs out in the summer,
- full-on leather boots to protect my ankles and feet and allow good, healthy trail-stomping,
- Jeans with Gore-tex shells (it “feels” better!),
- thick, down-filled sleeping pads for luxurious nights of sleep,
- lots of clothing layers to stay warm and dry, even when playing in the snow,
- buying durable gear and clothing that will last me years of abuse (some of it is heavy),
- requisite safety and communication gear to “be there” for others and be prepared for myself,

Yes, my Freighting pack is heavy, but I don’t go far and I don’t go at all unless I’m “trail-strong.” (The body and musculature has to be conditioned and ready to go, otherwise I’m asking for injury). For example, I take two days to pack in a full pack over most any eastside sierra pass. No hurry. I just plan the time into the schedule and enjoy the days.

Yes, this “camper” style is different from the “hiker” style, but I like it!

How you do what you do in the wilderness is all based on why you’re there in the first place. That’s where we all need to start! Just be aware before you go of what it will take to safely enjoy it (your strength and fitness, the terrain, the possible weather, creek crossings, and more....) so you can come out the other end to tell your exciting stories to others!

This is what we preach at Mountain Education. However, there is a time and place for hauling ass and flying light!

Ned Tibbits, Director
Mountain Education
www.mountaineducation.org

Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters

I agree, when I long for my 70 lb pack I simply pick up some rocks, or go on a climbing expedition (which is like picking up rocks); no pain no gain eh? Speaking of pain, there must me a study out there that has quantified the energy consumption of a given activity when comfortable vs painful; I'm serious.

When I was 15 I loaded up a 70lber and headed out for three weeks, no re-supply, those were for sissies); started out at 165# ended at 140 (i'm 5'10"). By the end of the trip I was licking crumbs off the bottom of my pack and felt great (or did before I consumed an entire box of Lucky Charms in 15 minutes). Now I limit myself to 12 days without resupply go with a much lighter pack (haven't weighed it in years) and don't loose any weight over the entire summer (and try to keep the Lucky Charms to a single bowl at a time).

How I miss the old days.... I do have my dad's Trapper Nelson if I ever decide to go retro...

JD
Hike yer hike

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Robert wrote:

I'll echo what Longritchie states as well. My daily miles in my 30's with a heavy pack ranged from 10-14 miles per day. As I started progressively lightening my load the last 7-8 years, I'm now hitting my late 40's and it is no problem to put up 24-28 mile days when I want to.

I deleted my earlier post on the Army study, but since John chose to reference it in the 15 minutes or so it was up, I will reiterate that I really think about Army studies: I care nothing about them! It is like comparing apples to oranges when you HAVE to carry a pack for survival and combat compared to carrying a pack for personal enjoyment. I have several ex-military friends who I have tried to get back out in the backcountry, and they all have told me they hope to never put another pack on! I know that isn't always the case, but humping around 60-80 lbs under duress is a whole different situation than normal backpacking.

The other point is, just because you CAN comfortably carry more weight in your pack, why would you WANT to? Physically, I could carry a 40-60 lb pack around the Sierras, but I choose not to. On the days I do shorter miles and fish, I get to camp and still have energy to do that. If one chooses to carry more gear to enhance their outdoor experience, that is a personal choice.

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, longritchie <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> My own experience: When I was much younger I walked the JMT at an average pace of 12 miles/day. More recently, 20 lbs heavier and with a pack 30 lbs lighter I walked the JMT at an average pace of 28 miles/day. I'm not going to pretend this proves anything.
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Don wrote:
>
>
> "My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever".
>
>
>
>
> Dittli
>
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <amrowinc@> wrote:
>
> I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
> My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever. I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:53 -0700
> Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters
>
> The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.
>
>
> The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.
>
>
>
>
> ,___
>

--
John Dittli/Leslie Goethals
John Dittli Photography
www.johndittli.com
760-934-3505

Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail
2010  IPPY Gold Medal Award Winner

--
John Dittli/Leslie Goethals
John Dittli Photography
www.johndittli.com
760-934-3505

Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail
2010  IPPY Gold Medal Award Winner
• Absolutely, Mr. D! And thatÆs where IÆm headed, eventually. Nibble little bits of weight off every category without losing the qualities of each I like best.
Message 24 of 26 , Oct 27, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Absolutely, Mr. D! And that’s where I’m headed, eventually. Nibble little bits of weight off every category without losing the qualities of each I like best. Ah, but the cost....

Ned Tibbits, Director
Mountain Education
www.mountaineducation.org

Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters

All true Ned. But if you can do ALL of the above with a 20-50% lighter (than historic) pack , you're probably going to enjoy it more, no? I know I do. I haven't limited any of the above (other than the amount of food I choose to carry), I just do it all with a lot less weight than I used to. My backpacking gear weighs less, my cameras weigh less, my fishing gear weighs less and so on. I think the only thing that weighs more than they used to are my skis ;-).

JD
Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:46 PM, <ned@...> wrote:

Well, at least for me, it doesn’t.

I don’t mind weight (but know that you can handle it) because it allows me to enjoy what I like to do in the wilderness:

I like 4-season camping and exploration! (I’ve done the long trail with the high miles and don’t need to keep doing that).

I enjoy:
- on-trail Hakuna Matata!
- hiking slow and taking everything in,
- spending as much time as I can in the mountains in one trip (multi-week stuff or more),
- long, entrancing campfires where/when I can have them,
- long, leisurely mornings with coffee and a good book,
- photographic exploration with all the requisite tools like multiple lenses and a large tripod,
- swimming,
- climbing trees,
- off-trail excursions around peaks and into little valleys/basins,
- fishing,
- sitting, listening, and feeling the mountains around me,
- lots of food for breakfast, second-breakfast, lunch, second-lunch, pre-dinner snack, dinner, and dessert
- good meals that may require larger than normal-backpacking-styled pots and pans (think pulling them on the sled in the winter/spring),
- early into camp to get everything “just right” for a sunset dinner,
- naps in the middle of meadows after second-breakfast,
- long talks around the “kitchen table” (again, in the snow),
- big 4-season tents that provide multi-day major comfort during long snow storms,
- roomy, 3-season tents to keep the horizontal rain and bugs out in the summer,
- full-on leather boots to protect my ankles and feet and allow good, healthy trail-stomping,
- Jeans with Gore-tex shells (it “feels” better!),
- thick, down-filled sleeping pads for luxurious nights of sleep,
- lots of clothing layers to stay warm and dry, even when playing in the snow,
- buying durable gear and clothing that will last me years of abuse (some of it is heavy),
- requisite safety and communication gear to “be there” for others and be prepared for myself,

Yes, my Freighting pack is heavy, but I don’t go far and I don’t go at all unless I’m “trail-strong.” (The body and musculature has to be conditioned and ready to go, otherwise I’m asking for injury). For example, I take two days to pack in a full pack over most any eastside sierra pass. No hurry. I just plan the time into the schedule and enjoy the days.

Yes, this “camper” style is different from the “hiker” style, but I like it!

How you do what you do in the wilderness is all based on why you’re there in the first place. That’s where we all need to start! Just be aware before you go of what it will take to safely enjoy it (your strength and fitness, the terrain, the possible weather, creek crossings, and more....) so you can come out the other end to tell your exciting stories to others!

This is what we preach at Mountain Education. However, there is a time and place for hauling ass and flying light!

Ned Tibbits, Director
Mountain Education
www.mountaineducation.org

Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters

I agree, when I long for my 70 lb pack I simply pick up some rocks, or go on a climbing expedition (which is like picking up rocks); no pain no gain eh? Speaking of pain, there must me a study out there that has quantified the energy consumption of a given activity when comfortable vs painful; I'm serious.

When I was 15 I loaded up a 70lber and headed out for three weeks, no re-supply, those were for sissies); started out at 165# ended at 140 (i'm 5'10"). By the end of the trip I was licking crumbs off the bottom of my pack and felt great (or did before I consumed an entire box of Lucky Charms in 15 minutes). Now I limit myself to 12 days without resupply go with a much lighter pack (haven't weighed it in years) and don't loose any weight over the entire summer (and try to keep the Lucky Charms to a single bowl at a time).

How I miss the old days.... I do have my dad's Trapper Nelson if I ever decide to go retro...

JD
Hike yer hike

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Robert wrote:

I'll echo what Longritchie states as well. My daily miles in my 30's with a heavy pack ranged from 10-14 miles per day. As I started progressively lightening my load the last 7-8 years, I'm now hitting my late 40's and it is no problem to put up 24-28 mile days when I want to.

I deleted my earlier post on the Army study, but since John chose to reference it in the 15 minutes or so it was up, I will reiterate that I really think about Army studies: I care nothing about them! It is like comparing apples to oranges when you HAVE to carry a pack for survival and combat compared to carrying a pack for personal enjoyment. I have several ex-military friends who I have tried to get back out in the backcountry, and they all have told me they hope to never put another pack on! I know that isn't always the case, but humping around 60-80 lbs under duress is a whole different situation than normal backpacking.

The other point is, just because you CAN comfortably carry more weight in your pack, why would you WANT to? Physically, I could carry a 40-60 lb pack around the Sierras, but I choose not to. On the days I do shorter miles and fish, I get to camp and still have energy to do that. If one chooses to carry more gear to enhance their outdoor experience, that is a personal choice.

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, longritchie <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> My own experience: When I was much younger I walked the JMT at an average pace of 12 miles/day. More recently, 20 lbs heavier and with a pack 30 lbs lighter I walked the JMT at an average pace of 28 miles/day. I'm not going to pretend this proves anything.
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Don wrote:
>
>
> "My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever".
>
>
>
>
> Dittli
>
>
> ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <amrowinc@> wrote:
>
> I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
> My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever. I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:53 -0700
> Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters
>
> The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.
>
>
> The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.
>
>
>
>
> ,___
>

--
John Dittli/Leslie Goethals
John Dittli Photography
www.johndittli.com
760-934-3505

Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail
2010  IPPY Gold Medal Award Winner

--
John Dittli/Leslie Goethals
John Dittli Photography
www.johndittli.com
760-934-3505

Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail
2010  IPPY Gold Medal Award Winner
• I think part of the problem hikers have from each of the varied spectrums is the perception of what they think the other types are doing with or without, or
Message 25 of 26 , Oct 27, 2013
• 0 Attachment
I think part of the problem hikers have from each of the varied spectrums is the perception of what they think the other types are doing with or without, or what level of enjoyment they are getting out of their hiking experience. While I appreciate Ned's extensive list of reasons he packs the gear he does, I think there is a perception that those that choose to pack lighter are suffering or rushing through our experience. I have had many conversations with folks while out and about, but none stand out more than crossing paths with a very heavily laden Scout leader who essentially looked at our packs and thought we were, starving ourselves, freezing at night, and had sore feet because of our trail runners. It was a fairly short conversation, as he was essentially telling us we were being irresponsible. I had to laugh as we had just done a section of the SHR with our same gear set up, and then proceeded to finish the JMT in 8 nights on that trip. I guess my point is, don't be hasty to think that either the UL or the traditional camp isn't enjoying their experience. In my case, I have 3 kids, a job, and responsibilities that allow me a limited time in the outdoors, so I choose to see as much scenery as my abilities will allow me to see. There aren't too many lakes I don't swim in when it's nice, there aren't too many cross country passes I don't want to visit, I eat a warm meal every night, I sleep warm and dry, and my feet are just fine in my trail runners. If you are comfortable carrying the weight and it enhances your outdoor experience, do it.

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <ned@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely, Mr. D! And that's where I'm headed, eventually. Nibble little bits of weight off every category without losing the qualities of each I like best. Ah, but the cost....
>
>
> Ned Tibbits, Director
> Mountain Education
> www.mountaineducation.org
>
> From: Dittli-Goethals
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 4:01 PM
> To: JMT Yahoo Group
> Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters
>
>
>
> All true Ned. But if you can do ALL of the above with a 20-50% lighter (than historic) pack , you're probably going to enjoy it more, no? I know I do. I haven't limited any of the above (other than the amount of food I choose to carry), I just do it all with a lot less weight than I used to. My backpacking gear weighs less, my cameras weigh less, my fishing gear weighs less and so on. I think the only thing that weighs more than they used to are my skis ;-).
>
> JD
> Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:46 PM, <ned@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well, at least for me, it doesn't.
>
> I don't mind weight (but know that you can handle it) because it allows me to enjoy what I like to do in the wilderness:
>
> I like 4-season camping and exploration! (I've done the long trail with the high miles and don't need to keep doing that).
>
> I enjoy:
> - on-trail Hakuna Matata!
> - hiking slow and taking everything in,
> - spending as much time as I can in the mountains in one trip (multi-week stuff or more),
> - long, entrancing campfires where/when I can have them,
> - long, leisurely mornings with coffee and a good book,
> - photographic exploration with all the requisite tools like multiple lenses and a large tripod,
> - swimming,
> - climbing trees,
> - off-trail excursions around peaks and into little valleys/basins,
> - fishing,
> - sitting, listening, and feeling the mountains around me,
> - lots of food for breakfast, second-breakfast, lunch, second-lunch, pre-dinner snack, dinner, and dessert
> - good meals that may require larger than normal-backpacking-styled pots and pans (think pulling them on the sled in the winter/spring),
> - early into camp to get everything "just right" for a sunset dinner,
> - naps in the middle of meadows after second-breakfast,
> - long talks around the "kitchen table" (again, in the snow),
> - big 4-season tents that provide multi-day major comfort during long snow storms,
> - roomy, 3-season tents to keep the horizontal rain and bugs out in the summer,
> - full-on leather boots to protect my ankles and feet and allow good, healthy trail-stomping,
> - Jeans with Gore-tex shells (it "feels" better!),
> - thick, down-filled sleeping pads for luxurious nights of sleep,
> - lots of clothing layers to stay warm and dry, even when playing in the snow,
> - buying durable gear and clothing that will last me years of abuse (some of it is heavy),
> - requisite safety and communication gear to "be there" for others and be prepared for myself,
>
> Yes, my Freighting pack is heavy, but I don't go far and I don't go at all unless I'm "trail-strong." (The body and musculature has to be conditioned and ready to go, otherwise I'm asking for injury). For example, I take two days to pack in a full pack over most any eastside sierra pass. No hurry. I just plan the time into the schedule and enjoy the days.
>
> Yes, this "camper" style is different from the "hiker" style, but I like it!
>
> How you do what you do in the wilderness is all based on why you're there in the first place. That's where we all need to start! Just be aware before you go of what it will take to safely enjoy it (your strength and fitness, the terrain, the possible weather, creek crossings, and more....) so you can come out the other end to tell your exciting stories to others!
>
> This is what we preach at Mountain Education. However, there is a time and place for hauling ass and flying light!
>
>
> Ned Tibbits, Director
> Mountain Education
> www.mountaineducation.org
>
> From: Dittli-Goethals
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 7:11 PM
> To: JMT Yahoo Group
> Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters
>
>
> I agree, when I long for my 70 lb pack I simply pick up some rocks, or go on a climbing expedition (which is like picking up rocks); no pain no gain eh? Speaking of pain, there must me a study out there that has quantified the energy consumption of a given activity when comfortable vs painful; I'm serious.
>
> When I was 15 I loaded up a 70lber and headed out for three weeks, no re-supply, those were for sissies); started out at 165# ended at 140 (i'm 5'10"). By the end of the trip I was licking crumbs off the bottom of my pack and felt great (or did before I consumed an entire box of Lucky Charms in 15 minutes). Now I limit myself to 12 days without resupply go with a much lighter pack (haven't weighed it in years) and don't loose any weight over the entire summer (and try to keep the Lucky Charms to a single bowl at a time).
>
> How I miss the old days.... I do have my dad's Trapper Nelson if I ever decide to go retro...
>
> JD
> Hike yer hike
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Robert <rnperky@...> wrote:
>
>
> I'll echo what Longritchie states as well. My daily miles in my 30's with a heavy pack ranged from 10-14 miles per day. As I started progressively lightening my load the last 7-8 years, I'm now hitting my late 40's and it is no problem to put up 24-28 mile days when I want to.
>
> I deleted my earlier post on the Army study, but since John chose to reference it in the 15 minutes or so it was up, I will reiterate that I really think about Army studies: I care nothing about them! It is like comparing apples to oranges when you HAVE to carry a pack for survival and combat compared to carrying a pack for personal enjoyment. I have several ex-military friends who I have tried to get back out in the backcountry, and they all have told me they hope to never put another pack on! I know that isn't always the case, but humping around 60-80 lbs under duress is a whole different situation than normal backpacking.
>
> The other point is, just because you CAN comfortably carry more weight in your pack, why would you WANT to? Physically, I could carry a 40-60 lb pack around the Sierras, but I choose not to. On the days I do shorter miles and fish, I get to camp and still have energy to do that. If one chooses to carry more gear to enhance their outdoor experience, that is a personal choice.
>
> --- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, longritchie <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > My own experience: When I was much younger I walked the JMT at an average pace of 12 miles/day. More recently, 20 lbs heavier and with a pack 30 lbs lighter I walked the JMT at an average pace of 28 miles/day. I'm not going to pretend this proves anything.
> >
> > ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > Don wrote:
> >
> >
> > "My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dittli
> >
> >
> > ---In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, <amrowinc@> wrote:
> >
> > I just can't relate too much to the studies. I suppose when I see the researchers and study subjects climbing up to Forester Pass and taking oxygen consumption readings there I might take a closer look at the results.
> > My personal "studies" have shown that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up from Yosemite Valley on day one with a 20lb. pack and that I'm sweating and sucking air climbing up to trail crest on day 25 with a 15lb. pack and 15lbs lighter in body weight. Maybe it's all about my perception, poor pack design or whatever. I'll have to remember to take time to think about that when I'm not consumed with enjoying the trail while carrying less weight than I used to carry in a daypack.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > To: johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:53 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [John Muir Trail] Re: Weight matters
> >
> > The Army does study the most efficient way to move heavy loads, but the research I mentioned is just basic physiology research and is used by Army and non-Army sports science types to study walking both with and without loads.
> >
> >
> > The pack loads tested did include some heavy packs (50 kg in one study, though other studies in the series topped out at 30 kg) but also no pack, 10 kg and 20 kg packs. So the formula has been validated at our pack loads. 10 kg (22 lbs), for example, might well be the load of even a fairly lightweight hiker leaving a resupply stop.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ,___
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> John Dittli/Leslie Goethals
> John Dittli Photography
> www.johndittli.com
> 760-934-3505
>
>
> Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail
> 2010 IPPY Gold Medal Award Winner
> http://johndittli.com/site/content/view/57/48/
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> John Dittli/Leslie Goethals
> John Dittli Photography
> www.johndittli.com
> 760-934-3505
>
>
> Walk the Sky: Following the John Muir Trail
> 2010 IPPY Gold Medal Award Winner
> http://johndittli.com/site/content/view/57/48/
>
• Wouldn t it be great to walk the JMT carrying just a day-pack weight. I m trying to get there, but some of these UL products are sooo expensive. Ken.
Message 26 of 26 , Oct 28, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Wouldn't it be great to walk the JMT carrying just a day-pack weight. I'm trying to get there, but some of these UL products are sooo expensive.

Ken.

--- In johnmuirtrail@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <rnperky@...> wrote:
>
> I think part of the problem hikers have from each of the varied spectrums is the perception of what they think the other types are doing with or without, or what level of enjoyment they are getting out of their hiking experience. While I appreciate Ned's extensive list of reasons he packs the gear he does, I think there is a perception that those that choose to pack lighter are suffering or rushing through our experience. I have had many conversations with folks while out and about, but none stand out more than crossing paths with a very heavily laden Scout leader who essentially looked at our packs and thought we were, starving ourselves, freezing at night, and had sore feet because of our trail runners. It was a fairly short conversation, as he was essentially telling us we were being irresponsible. I had to laugh as we had just done a section of the SHR with our same gear set up, and then proceeded to finish the JMT in 8 nights on that trip. I guess my point is, don't be hasty to think that either the UL or the traditional camp isn't enjoying their experience. In my case, I have 3 kids, a job, and responsibilities that allow me a limited time in the outdoors, so I choose to see as much scenery as my abilities will allow me to see. There aren't too many lakes I don't swim in when it's nice, there aren't too many cross country passes I don't want to visit, I eat a warm meal every night, I sleep warm and dry, and my feet are just fine in my trail runners. If you are comfortable carrying the weight and it enhances your outdoor experience, do it.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.