Ultra light base weights Allowance for size?

[Moondog55]

Not a debate on the benefits of going as lite as possible
More a comment on how the base weight can change as the walkers size increases.
It is a simple fact of life that as you get taller and / or bigger the weight of your clothes increases and there is a big difference in the weight of a sleeping bag for a short female to that of a big and tall male
It is simply easier for a shorter skinnier person to get below a nominal weight limit than a bigger taller person and if an allowance should be made in those nominal base weights to reflect this fact of life.
I'm an XL to XXL and I know my clothes weigh a lot more than my petite daughter who take a ladies 8 to 10 for exactly the same layering system the last time we walked together and compared rucksack weigts

[RonK]

Isn't that why the rule of thumb is for your max load to be 20% of your body weight?

[Alittleruff]

I agree Moondog!

I think a taller person would also have the same issues. My DH is 6"4. Ok... he weights not a lot, 72kg. But still, this means the sleeping bag he uses is longer. The tents we have in mind need to accommodate a longer body. And his clothes are much heavier, due to needing a XL.. things need to cover his back! Hiker weight to pack weight ratio?

It also depends on personal comfort levels. Women v Men, for warmth. Women needing to carry sanitary items, dealing with the extra weight and space these take up used. Ect.

Truth is there is no normal. Everyone is different. I'm assuming that they pack differently for different seasons too. Camping somewhere with a water source or without. But hey, I'm new at this stuff. I'm allowing 1.5kg as a allowable tolerance either way

[Alittleruff]

Better eat more pizza then RonK... so maybe then I can take more stuff. LOL.

Wouldn't a bigger hiker, if already carrying excess weight on their frame want a lighter load. I know when I was over 100kg, there is no way I could hike with a pack that I did last weekend of around 20kg. Now I'm leaner, fitter and stronger, I could do it. My pack weight + my body weight now does not = what I weighed then.

[stry]

Undoubtedly true MD, but often overlooked.

With my OP overtrousers, I was right on the cusp of M and S (I am normally M). I can't remember the weights, but the weight saving was enough that I went for a snug S, rather than a somewhat loose M. I was once sent, in error, a long sleeping bag, rather than the regular that I ordered. The weight difference was worth the minor inconvenience of exchanging it.

Of course, big, powerful people should be able to carry more than us weedy buggers anyway

Just another variable to confirm that arbitrary total, or base, weight figures can never be more than an approximation. The main value of these figures, I think, is to encourage some thought about, and self examination of, what we are doing and carrying.

[RonK]

Wouldn't a bigger hiker, if already carrying excess weight on their frame want a lighter load.

In your particular case, the answer is apparently yes, but your assumption that anyone who is heavier is overweight and unfit is untrue.

[GPSGuided]

I think the weight penalty is the other way round as there's a limit on weight reduction of the major gears. Within the range of adult sizes, a small individual would still need to carry largely the same tent, pack, sleeping bag, cooking gears, sleep mate, food and water. The weight and strength equation is against the smaller individual eg. Children.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Alittleruff]

RonK- That was not my assumption at all. I am sorry if I gave that impression. Personally, I'm a L women size. I know fat & fitness are not directly proportional, I run half marathons. And by excess weight... that is a very broad category 'carrying extra weight'. This includes pregnant women. Already carrying a baby, then adding a pack, with the complication of how to strap some kind of harness over or under the bump. Still... not necessarily unfit.

I'm a big believer in being grateful for what your body is capable of and not what it looks like. I'm a big believer in the mind being able to lead the body to where it needs to be. Fresh air and exercise helps the mind & mood, which in turn helps the body be more capable, and means more exercise & mood enhancing fresh air. It's a positive cycle. I like it.

At the end of the day, we should all be able to enjoy the environment and our National Parks.

Like most of the categories and ranges in life, the whole UL limits, are just guidelines.

I don't think my pack will ever be UL.

[icefest]

Personally, being a bit taller just adds to the fun of going UL.

You just need to be more creative, and there isn't that much extra weight in being taller anyhow.

I think if I were 20cm shorter the most I'd save is 200g.

[DanShell]

Personally, being a bit taller just adds to the fun of going UL.

You just need to be more creative, and there isn't that much extra weight in being taller anyhow.

I think if I were 20cm shorter the most I'd save is 200g.

Im agreeing with this.

But I understand where the OP is coming from. Being a larger bloke I tend to have to buy clothes in large instead of perhaps medium, so there must be a penalty when you add up everything you need to carry during winter...or Tassie.

Over the last few months my wife and I have changed our eating habits (I won't get into healthy eating habits or start preaching what I think is right or wrong) but I have lost 10kgs to date and remarkably she has lost 12kgs. Sure we both carried a bit of extra body weight (we are not getting any younger) but for her as an example to loose 12kgs is hard to fathom where it has come from, but none the less it has gone from somewhere.

My point being is that even though I have gone from 95kgs back down to 85kgs, I am not really going to save a lot of weight in regards to clothing. In fact I am still using the same clothing. But if you want to compare a male who is 5'5" and weighs 75kgs to a male that is 6'4" and weighs 95kgs then yes, you would assume the larger bloke is going to have to pay a weight penalty for having to use larger clothing/everything but its not a lot.....??

However just on the topic of being UL or even being a gram counter and wanting to be conscious of your pack weight, I can not honk on long enough about the benefits of losing some body weight if you have it to lose. I won't honk on here but for me personally I have noticed a significant impact on my bodies ability to walk over hard terrain carrying my pack now that I am 10kgs lighter. I am loving it. I am floating over the terrain. I am finishing a long hard walk and feel like I can turn around and do it all again....ok so not quite but you get the idea

[nq111]

Certainly is an issue. I'm 6'4" so need long sizing for everything. My usual walking buddy is 6'7" and most stuff is custom or rare extra long/large sizing (most long version stuff is to 6'6"). He marvels at how light my stuff is!

I seem to recall a study relatively recently that taller people are actually a little less efficient at carrying heavy loads? Not sure if it was that reputable, but I sticking with that excuse

[icefest]

I seem to recall a study relatively recently that taller people are actually a little less efficient at carrying heavy loads? Not sure if it was that reputable, but I sticking with that excuse

It was a study looking at cross sections and calculated via muscle strength.

[Supertramp]

I would take a guess and say max weight gain from extra length clothing, tent, sleeping bag etc would be up to 1kg.
This is not the end of the world & even if you go over the UL category, who cares? You still have a very light hiking kit.

You are correct though as this would affect the weight of the overall kit.

[Mark F]

Without any evidence I have always linked bushwalking with endurance rather than brute force - marathon rather than the 100 metres in athletics parlance. It is noticeable that endurance athletes are usually quite small and lean rather than bulked up. I expect that larger bushwalkers are at a greater disadvantage than just the small increase in weight carried.

[nq111]

I would take a guess and say max weight gain from extra length clothing, tent, sleeping bag etc would be up to 1kg.

In practice it is more. The range of gear in really long sizes is very limited and often restricted to heavier models. Also, very long gear is often built for not only long, but 'large' people so has excess material for that as well.

Gear for people over 6'6" is a very limited market so the options are built to not limit within the niche any further.

[Supertramp]

Surely it wouldn't be much more though?

1-2 shirts in a larger size might add 100grams each (estimate overkill).
1-2 pairs of pants, again 100grams each (estimate overkill).
Extra length in tent, add 200-300grams (estimate overkill).
Extra length in sleeping bag 200-300grams (estimate overkill).

Not being a larger person myself, are there any extra items that would add much extra weight?

[Turfa]

I think the weight penalty is the other way round as there's a limit on weight reduction of the major gears. Within the range of adult sizes, a small individual would still need to carry largely the same tent, pack, sleeping bag, cooking gears, sleep mate, food and water. The weight and strength equation is against the smaller individual eg. Children.

Yes, I would tend to agree that the larger person actually has an advantage. Sure, some of their items will weigh a bit more in larger sizes, but they should have a much higher carrying capacity that more than makes up for this.

[Moondog55]

Turfa my point was supposed to that the 10kg limit was an arbitrary point. If however that arbitrary point was stated as being for the nominal medium male walker and an allowance was made for size [ I am after all an XL/ XXL] then perhaps 11.5kg might be considered UL in context
There is nothing wrong with setting arbitrary limits but I know I can never get down to a 10kg base weight but 11.5 is doable for instance
Each individual item of clothing may only add a few grams but as the saying goes "Count every gram because every gram counts"
Some items that are not clothing remain the same for every-one obviously so clothing and the sleeping bag are the main variable
Big weight difference between an XL [ 47-48] sock/shoe/boot and a small [37-38- ]sock /shoe/boot for instance but beanies all weigh close to the same

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

I'm 181cm tall, but only 60kg. I generally have to order long sleeping bags/mats, and a long tent - but then being such a lightweight, my pack is a higher percentage of my body weight compared to your standard 80kg or so male.

Might be 100g-200g extra all up from being reasonably tall, so no big deal for me.

My problem comes from body warmth. Because I'm so skinny, to keep warm I need to wear more when I walk, and more when I sleep than most others - and the extra layers push my pack weight up.

[GPSGuided]

Yes, I would tend to agree that the larger person actually has an advantage. Sure, some of their items will weigh a bit more in larger sizes, but they should have a much higher carrying capacity that more than makes up for this.

I think that balance will also depends on whether the additional weight was in the form of muscle or fat. The advantage will come with well trained muscles that have good endurance.