Show us your "90 pound" pack

[mmerig]

On the LFP forum, there are many references to 80, 90 pound packs. People seem to regularly carry heavy packs for days in the backcountry.

I recall a 25 day trip on Denali. My pack weighed about 42 pounds, plus I hauled a sled with mostly food and fuel behind me, but I don't think it weighed 50 pounds. More modest trips of say 5 days with LF gear require a 40 to 45 pound pack. My LF gear is on the heavy side, and my backpack weighs about 7 pounds empty. I weigh myself on a scale with and without the pack and find the difference.

One way to add a lot of weight is to carry a lot of water, but short of that, I would like to know what people carry so that their pack weighs "90 pounds" or whatever. Not that I would start carrying that much gear, but have been curious, and a bit suspicious about the 90 pound pack.

[Lachlan 717]

Given about 95% of the world’s population uses metric, what’s 90 pounds in kilograms?

[domaz]

Agreed that 90 pound packs are mostly exaggerated. I believe Infantry in the military might occasionally haul 90+ pound packs, but that amount of weight is going to encumber you big time. With current technology and a lightweight 8x10 setup you don't even need to haul anything close to a 90 pound pack for LF.

[Doremus Scudder]

Given about 95% of the world’s population uses metric, what’s 90 pounds in kilograms?

Just divide by 2.2. 90 lbs = 40.9 kg.

And, to comment on the "90-lb pack" boasts: The ancient Romans discovered that the heaviest packs that their slaves could carry without killing them was just about 60 lbs; and that only six days a week and for just a working "shift" (probably 10-12 hours, though, with rest breaks). These were people who carried loads constantly and were in shape to do so. For occasional backpackers who don't work out at the gym every day, I think even 60 lbs for an extended trip is likely a lot.

Best,

Doremus

[Vaughn]

The weight of the pack means little without knowing the weight, strength, and condition of the carrier of the pack. I am 6'4", 225 pounds (with a bit of an exchange of fat for muscle over the decades). Back when I was carrying a 90+lb pack, I was in my late 20s/30s, working all summer building trails in the wilderness with hand tools, fighting fires, and that sort of thing. My winters were spent playing full-on basketball.

As a comparison, a modern infantry man carries 70 to 120 pounds on a mission. I could not physically lift my my 90+ pack in the Grand Canyon to put it on my back. I had to lift it onto a rock to get it high enough to slip into it. And occasionally a knee would fail and I'd have to spend an extra day or so where I was until I could hike again. So it goes.

At 69 years old, I can still carry 60 pounds around to photograph -- 45 in the pack, 15 pounds in my hands or over the shoulder (tripod/head) using the 8x10...sometimes on my feet and moving all day (much slower now). The 11x14 is about the same (I take less holders taken into the field). At least I can do it when my heart is keeping the proper beat.

Typical Grand Canyon hike of the past:

Solo (no sharing of gear)
11 day out (ten nights)
No stove and no fires, so no cooking -- thus no freeze-dried foods -- cheese, granola, hummus, tabbouleh, pita bread, jerky, gorp, and I grew sprouts as I hiked.
No tent
Paperback book
30 pounds of camera gear

Frankly, it is amazing that the weight did get up that high. Not much in the way of lightweight equipment back then.

[AuditorOne]

Just divide by 2.2. 90 lbs = 40.9 kg.

And, to comment on the "90-lb pack" boasts: The ancient Romans discovered that the heaviest packs that their slaves could carry without killing them was just about 60 lbs; and that only six days a week and for just a working "shift" (probably 10-12 hours, though, with rest breaks). These were people who carried loads constantly and were in shape to do so. For occasional backpackers who don't work out at the gym every day, I think even 60 lbs for an extended trip is likely a lot.

Best,

Doremus

I am not too sure what military groups would carry on their back during Roman times or modern, are a good baseline to compare to one person requiring self sufficiency can, and will, carry. The military most certainly has different objectives than I do on a photography trip.

There are many differences but the biggest I can think of from my military hiking times is the amount of ground you are expected to cover over a specified period of time. Whether I am hunting or photographing I can never remember staying with a specific cadence for a specific period of time. Rather I am usually spending lengthy periods of time resting while I am scoping out the territory around me.

Another difference is that the military provides supplementary ways of providing certain things. The Romans had mules and wagons, our military has trucks and choppers.

[Tin Can]

I don't recall history well

but there was at least one Roman RUN over NIGHT

to surprises Gauls aka French

[AuditorOne]

Further to the point of packing weight on your back, I have personally watched Peruvian women and men pack at LEAST 90 pounds on their backs in the high Andes and then walk me into the dirt while doing it. That was without using any of the hiking gear we would expect today.

And I suspect those old Romans would have done the same,

[Havoc]

Don't think I could even get it off the ground. Seriously, I can't lift that without back, knees and hip troubles. Thinking of it, I'm not even sure I could put together such a photopack. Sensible that is, you can always add film until you get at that weight.

[Axelwik]

Seems pretty silly to me, especially with the equipment we have available now, not to mention the potential damage to one's body from carrying too much weight. Overweight people almost invariably have knee, foot, and back problems by the time they're 40. No thanks.