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.

[jp]

Bad discs on either side of L3; no 90 pound packs for me. I could curl it, but not wear it.

To haul 90 pounds of LF gear, I've used my van or an ice fishing sled.

[AuditorOne]

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.

I don't think anyone is carrying that much weight with just photo gear alone. My heaviest camera is my Century 11x14 which weighs a couple of pounds less then 30 pounds with three loaded film holders. The Gitzo CF tripod and Majestic head are a tad over 10 pounds so the entire package without the minor items is pretty close to 40 pounds. I have only carried that camera on a long hike along the Ruby Crest Trail once. With sleeping bag, food, water and cooking gear I was carrying close to 60 pounds. My old Kelty pack frame was not overloaded but I felt as if I definitely was. That was not my most enjoyable trip across that 40 miles.

I didn't stop to weigh things but don't think I was packing that much when I carried my Elk out down in Ely a few years ago, but anyway I had friends to help with that. When I show them the camera they run the other way. :D

That was several years ago when I was much younger and lot more foolish. I would not try to carry all that weight again unless it were necessary. I think that now I can probably get better negatives from my little Intrepid MKIV 4x5 and a few sheets of Adox CMS 20 II. I would be packing a whole lot less weight so I sincerely doubt I would try carrying that Century back there again.

Maybe with a helicopter or Vaughn's mule.

[Maris Rusis]

My standard 8x10 pack (camera, lenses, holders, tripod, water, bad weather gear, etc, ....) came to 32Kg (70 pounds) but I devised a strategy to cope with it in Australia's highest mountains near Charlotte Pass.

First tactic was to start early and walk slowly or very slowly to the top of the day's mountain. A cadence of two breaths per step eased the agony. On the way up note subject matter and picture possibilities.
At the top rest generously. The remainder of the day is downhill one predetermined picture at a time. In the end I've shot all the film, drunk all the water, the pack is at its lightest, I'm dead tired at the base of the mountain but I'm also next to the car. Phew!

Doing this got me the pictures I wanted but it also bought me some lower back pain and a worn out knee; a tough but fair bargain I suppose but I can't undo it.

[Vaughn]

Sounds about right, Maris. With just the 8x10 on my back, I tend to wander. The weight gives me an opportunity to rest often and keep an eye on the light. I rarely scout or have a predetermined route or picture in mind, but might have a few general ideas to try out in the particular light I am in.

I have lost 60 pounds of excess fat over the last three years. After losing the weight, I was carrying the 11x14 as if nothing was on my back...pretty cool for awhile. I have kept the weight off, but seem to have lost that advantage a little.

[Joseph Kashi]

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

Slightly less than 41 KG

[Drew Wiley]

I routinely trained with 95 pound packs, and typically backpacked with 85, clear up to my mid-60's. Then I dropped it to 75 lbs; then the forest fires hit plus covid, right around the time I turned 70, and I started slowing down. I'm trying to build up my carry weight capacity again, and maybe standardize around a 50 lb pack. But I'm currently 74. Meanwhile my younger backpacking apprentice has been carrying up to 115 lbs, and my nephew and his actual expedition companions sometimes carried over a hundred for months on end - but on those occasions they could hire Sherpas instead, they did. No exaggerations here. My knees are better today than in my 40's. Several reasons - real shock-absorbing trekking poles, going downhill slower than I go uphill, and far better custom boots for sake of my deformed feet.

My Sinar view camera gear and film holders were just part of the load, then all kinds of sufficient cold weather camping and climbing gear were needed, plus sufficient food etc - easy to need that kind of weight on a long trek in the mountains. Desert trips can be even heavier due to the need to carry significantly larger quantities of water from point to point. Some of the ways I gradually reduced load weight was the by using Readyload and Quickload film sleeves once those finally became reliable, then after their discontinuance, roll film backs instead. I changed from the Sinar to a little Ebony folder. My beloved Bibler expedition quality tent was exchanged for a light Big Agnes one, forcing me settle for less extreme campsites. Then I started conning my younger backpack pals into carrying some of my reserve food weight - but still I had to carry 75 lbs myself on longer treks. I got in outright blizzards and extreme rain squalls every single year for an entire decade - going 'ultralight" could have been fatal. Way too many close calls to gamble with lesser gear.

Now well into my 70's I have to think a lot more conservatively about my planned destinations and the weather itself. I'll just be out for a tune-up walk with the 8x10 today; haven't weighed the pack, maybe 45 lbs in it at the moment. And I'm cheating by bringing my Feisol CF tripod instead of the big Ries wooden one.

[John Layton]

...note to self - eat more spinach...

[AuditorOne]

I routinely trained with 95 pound packs, and typically backpacked with 85, clear up to my mid-60's. Then I dropped it to 75 lbs; then the forest fires hit plus covid, right around the time I turned 70, and I started slowing down. I'm trying to build up my carry weight capacity again, and maybe standardize around a 50 lb pack. But I'm currently 74. Meanwhile my younger backpacking apprentice has been carrying up to 115 lbs, and my nephew and his actual expedition companions sometimes carried over a hundred for months on end - but on those occasions they could hire Sherpas instead, they did. No exaggerations here. My knees are better today than in my 40's. Several reasons - real shock-absorbing trekking poles, going downhill slower than I go uphill, and far better custom boots for sake of my deformed feet.

My Sinar view camera gear and film holders were just part of the load, then all kinds of sufficient cold weather camping and climbing gear were needed, plus sufficient food etc - easy to need that kind of weight on a long trek in the mountains. Desert trips can be even heavier due to the need to carry significantly larger quantities of water from point to point. Some of the ways I gradually reduced load weight was the by using Readyload and Quickload film sleeves once those finally became reliable, then after their discontinuance, roll film backs instead. I changed from the Sinar to a little Ebony folder. My beloved Bibler expedition quality tent was exchanged for a light Big Agnes one, forcing me settle for less extreme campsites. Then I started conning my younger backpack pals into carrying some of my reserve food weight - but still I had to carry 75 lbs myself on longer treks. I got in outright blizzards and extreme rain squalls every single year for an entire decade - going 'ultralight" could have been fatal. Way too many close calls to gamble with lesser gear.

Now well into my 70's I have to think a lot more conservatively about my planned destinations and the weather itself. I'll just be out for a tune-up walk with the 8x10 today; haven't weighed the pack, maybe 45 lbs in it at the moment. And I'm cheating by bringing my Feisol CF tripod instead of the big Ries wooden one.

Good on you Drew. Keep moving. I love being off the beaten track but I sure can't pack that much anymore. Fortunately I don't have to. That is what grandkids are for. :D