Backpacking & Weight - Stupid Question

[J V McLure]

Forum,

I have been working like heck to shave pounds off of my loaded pack. Smaller lenses, quickloads, lighter tripod - you name it. Through all of that effort, I am lucky if I reduced the total weight by six pounds. While shaving off those pounds, I know I am giving up a lot - like the better lenses!

Here is the stupid question. If a guy were to shave off six to ten pounds of body weight, would the end result be about the same as dropping six to ten pounds from the weight of the backpack. It is obvious that the total weight on the feet would be the same as would the total weight in motion.

I do have at least fifteen pounds to give up and I have LOTS of experience bearing the weight of that load! So, in summary, if I were to take ten pounds off of my mid section and add those ten pounds to my pack, could I go farther and do more?

J V McLure

[Nick_3536]

Depends. Dropping weight might leave you weaker. You could consider getting stronger instead of worrying about scale weight.

[Ed Richards]

It is not quite an even exchange - part of the problem is localized stress on the shoulders. Body weight is very evenly spread and thus easier to carry. But yes, getting rid of excess pounds will let you carry a little more, and other metabolic benfits from losing the weight will also help. Regular fitness training (which you may be doing) will also help a lot. Of course the best fitness training is to hike with your camera every day.:-)

I do not see why you are giving up better lenses. The smaller lenses are often the best, at least in terms of sharpness and contrast.

[Bruce Watson]

The short answer is pretty much.

The long answer is, it depends. The weight in the pack is not in the same place as the weight on the body. This effects your balance, and it changes the torque requirements of muscles all over the body. For example, wearing a loaded pack makes it considerably more difficult for me to bend over and pick something up off the floor. Losing body weight won't do much to change this, whereas losing pack weight will do more to improve this.

So really, the best thing to do IMHO is loose both the body weight and the pack weight. Easier said than done, I know.

BTW, I don't understand about the lenses. You can get high quality lenses in a variety of weights for any given focal length. AFAIK there isn't a direct (or even much of an indirect) correlation between image quality and lens weight.

[paulr]

If the trip is about photography, I'd be inclined to shave weight in places besides the photo gear. I mean, carry a light widget if it will work as well, and leave it behind if you truly don't need it, but don't go crazy.

You can shave a lot of weight in other places (clothes, camping gear, fat ass, etc.).

And if you're not doing a lot of vertical feet when you hike, sometimes a better designed and more comfortable (for you) pack can make a bigger difference than a few pounds.

[Ron Marshall]

My pack itself weighs five pounds, but fits me well and is well padded and very comfortable. I could have gone for a lighter pack, but for longer hikes the reduced strain on my back more than compensates for the added weight.

[Robert Oliver]

The losing weight on body and on pack is ideal. I went with the lighter version of lenses instead of skimping on quality. I would gladly deal with an f9 300mm instead of a f5.6. My wide angle is f8. But high quality glass. The only suffering is when I try to focus the wide angle in dim light. It's easier to try and lighten your backpacking gear. Visit the ultralight backpacking sites and start shortening your toothbrush, converting beer cans into stoves and designing tyvek shelters.

The best way is to recruit suckers, i mean friends, to shoulder some of the load for you.

robert

[Greg Miller]

The best thing is to just hike more with your pack. The body adapts and gets stronger for that specific activity. In the process you will likely also lose the extra body weight. In the end you will lose the body weight and be stronger too.

[Sheldon N]

I've gone the direction of allowing more weight in the pack and working on overall fitness/weight loss in the last 6 months. My total gear weight is up by about 6 lbs from where it was before, but I've dropped at least that in my own weight as well as improving conditioning.

Gear weight has only increased in the interests of broader useable focal length range and greater stability. I now have 5 lenses instead of 4 (90mm - 300mm, still use lighter f/8 and f/9 versions), Arca Swiss 4x5 Field instead of Wista DX, sturdier Gitzo 1325 tripod instead of lightweight mid series Feisol, as well as a sturdier tripod head. The added functionality has been well worth the weight penalty. I was at about 19 lbs total pack weight with tripod before, and now I'm at 25lbs.

My pack has a really good hip/harness system, so I don't feel the extra weight too much when hiking. I think one of the biggest differences you can make in hiking is to use a pack that is designed for backpacking rather than for photo gear. The Lowepro packs (and other similar brands) are great at holding cameras, but they fit me poorly and are too heavy. I now use an Osprey Atmos 35 which is 2-3 lbs lighter than a Lowepro and is a much better fit.

Overall fitness for me has just been hiking the stairwell in our office builing at lunch (we have a changing/shower room in our building). Doing 750 or 1000 vertical feet of hiking during a lunch break is a great way to keep in shape despite being a desk jockey for my day job. I've lost the same amount of weight that I've added in gear in the last few months, as well as getting in a lot better condition.

Of course, getting out and hiking in the real world is the way to really do it.

[Daniel_Buck]

Maybe because I am young, but the weight has never really bothered me enough to think about leaving things behind. Actually, I think my RB67 setup was heavier than the 4x5 setup I hike with. The lenses on the RB are so heavy :-(

How are you carrying your tripod? I have just recently started carrying my tripod in my hands, rather than on my shoulder (with a shoulder strap). This takes a bit of the weight off your back/shoulder, being that a tripod/head is a pretty good percentage of your overall camera weight. Just a suggestion :-)

[Robert Oliver]

I lash a small carbon fiber tripod to the top of my external frame backpack.

I'm going to look into other backpacks to see if I can find something lighter than 6 pounds that carries as much weight comfortably.

[Dave_B]

For me the issue is go light or don't go. I'm a 55 year old guy who has put a lot of miles on my knees and whose back is a little dicey. With less than 30lbs total weight for camping and camera gear, I can pretty much walk all day and still be fresh enough to feel like taking some pictures along the way. Much more than that and the trip becomes misery and stopping to take pictures seems like too much work.
As far as lenses are concerned, there are some wonderful lightweight ones that do not require you to give up anything in terms of quality. The Schneider Angulon 90mm, the Nikkor 200M, 300M and the G-Clarons (150, 210, 240, 270, 305 and 355) come to mind. You can also use convertible lenses like the Schneider Symmar 150/265 to save weight. Kerry Thalmann has a web site that talks about the options for lightweight lenses.
Good luck,
Dave B.

[riooso]

If you lose weight you should be working out and doing endurance training. If you lose weight then the same size pack will be a larger percentage of your body mass. One thing to consider is that you knees will love you. I am older and dropping weight has been a blessing for my knees. If you are younger losing weight will pay off in the future when you get older. I have found hiking is brutal on the knees, mostly those down hills! Oh use those hiking poles! Great inventions!

Take Care,
Richard Adams

[eddie]

try saving weight in other areas of your gear......like the tent. if is not going to rain you can save 6 pounds right there.

[J V McLure]

Thanks guys for all of the good advice. The question was stupid because the answer is so simple. Get in shape! Put the pack on and hike, hike, hike.

My new pack from Bruce showed up and is fully loaded. It fits like a glove and the way it spreads out the load, it feels really good. Nothing at all like that Lowpro Trecker that made me feel so damn old!

I was visiting the doctor a few months ago, and he gave me some very good advice. Something you would never figure out on your own. It cost me $50.00 to find this out, but I will share it with you for free. The good doctor told me, "What you need to do is eat less and exercise more."

J V McLure

[venchka]

Colin Fletcher always said that "a pound on your feet was equal to 5 pounds in the pack." He also wore some pretty heavy Pivetta boots on his long walks. Within reason, wear the lightest hiking boots that are still comfortable and protect your feet.

Have you investigated a lighter backpack?

[J V McLure]

Wayne,

The pack I purhased from Photobackpacker is a Granite Gear Nimbus Access in the 3,800 cubic inch size. It is not at all heavy and with the various adjustments, it has been set up to fit like a glove. I loaded it up and did a couple of quick miles late yesterday. The problem was the brutal East Texas heat - not my weight or that of the loaded pack.

J V

[venchka]

Wayne,

The pack I purhased from Photobackpacker is a Granite Gear Nimbus Access in the 3,800 cubic inch size. It is not at all heavy and with the various adjustments, it has been set up to fit like a glove. I loaded it up and did a couple of quick miles late yesterday. The problem was the brutal East Texas heat - not my weight or that of the loaded pack.

J V

Howdy, neighbor!

I sent my previous message before reading about your new pack. It should be a winner.

I know all about the East Texas Rainforest & HEAT! For 3 years we couldn't buy rain. Now I have stuff growing on stuff I've never seen before. I'm about to shove off from Houston for Wood County. Triple digit temps are forecast. This afternoon has all the earmarks of jumping in the old swimming hole. I've postponed restarting my film developing until the tap water drops below 80 degrees!

I may have to investigate that Granite Gear pack. I have an Osprey panel loader now. If it works with the Photobackpacker cases, I'm all set. Otherwise, I'll look into something newer.

[Alan Davenport]

Lose the 10 pounds. You'll gain cardiovascular benefits from your own weight loss that will probably let you add 15 pounds to the pack.

You might actually feel better even when not carrying a pack...

[J V McLure]

Alan, to be honest, I have already taken off thirty-five and I only have fifteen more to go to be back to where I was in 1971 when I was a senior in highschool. Eating right and spending an hour at the gym every day on the way home has made feel better than I have in many, many years. It was not long ago that the thought of backpacking would never have never even crossed my mind. Now, I have a goal and I am well on my way to making it. Next June I am going to the Pecos Wildneress in Northern New Mexico and I am going to hike from Cowels to Pecos Baldy lake. The last time I did that was in 1973. Well.......thirty five years later, I shall return.

I'm also excited at the prospect of riding a horse again without it being consider a matter to be looked into by PETA. With a horse, mule and LF gear - life could not be better than that!

J V McLure

[riooso]

Hey J V! Good going! I did the same thing about 10 years ago when I was 45. I will never go back. I do not have to tell you how well you are doing both for yourself and your family. I am guessing that you will see many things for the first time on your trip in June.
Congrads,
Richard Adams

[ljb0904]

The good doctor told me, "What you need to do is eat less and exercise more."
J V McLure

Gosh, when I exercise more, I eat more

[Jay W]

When you lose fat, there's both a strength-to-weight ratio gain, and a cardiovascular gain. So losing fat is a great thing, but you're working against a few million years of evolution. (I think it would be much less effort to hike when 6 lbs lighter and with an extra 6 lbs than vs.) Generally, when you lose body weight, you lose about 25% muscle. So the idea of slow weight loss is to allow for rebuilding lost muscle.

I did a cardiovascular test (VO2Max test) when I was quite light (133 lbs) and fit. At 133 lbs and 5'8", I still had 15% body fat. The exercize physiologist said it's really rare for guys over 40 to be less than 10% body fat. Now I'm about 15 lbs heavier, and people still think of me as thin. My point is, most people have a lot more fat to lose than they believe, including me.

Jay

[paulr]

When you lose fat, there's both a strength-to-weight ratio gain, and a cardiovascular gain.

It's a good idea to lose the weight slowly. For annoying physiological reasons, it's very difficult to lose fat without also losing some lean body mass. The best way anyone knows to combat this is to continue strength training while you lose the weight, make sure you get adequate protein, and be patient.

When I train for alpine climbing trips in the summer, I often take off about 10 pounds. I've regretted the times I've done it in a hurry, because I could feel the harm it was doing to my strength. If you lose 10lbs, but can't do any more pull ups than you could before, you know there's a problem! So I try to lose a maximum of 1 lb a week, and I keep up the strength training, and try to get at least 1.5g of protein per kg of bodyweight a day. This doesn't eliminate muscle loss, but it seems to reduce it a lot.

And it makes life a lot easier. I just have to motivate myself to start a month or two earlier.

[Rakesh Malik]

When you lose fat, there's both a strength-to-weight ratio gain, and a cardiovascular gain. So losing fat is a great thing, but you're working against a few million years of evolution.


That's not entirely true. Our bodies store fat in response to gorge/starvation cycles, which is to say, the way that people tend to eat: large meals with long periods without nutrition between them.

One step toward slimming down is to eat less food at a time, more frequently. When your body acclimates to this, its tendency to store fat will lower.

Add excercise to this, and then you can start burning off that fat as long as you eat the right balance of protein and carbs.



(I think it would be much less effort to hike when 6 lbs lighter and with an extra 6 lbs than vs.) Generally, when you lose body weight, you lose about 25% muscle. So the idea of slow weight loss is to allow for rebuilding lost muscle.


If you lose bodyweight primarily by eating less, that's true. If you lose it by stepping up your excercise regimen while eating regularly, then you'll improve your conditioning rather than losing muscle mass.

Not that I'm one to talk; every time I decide to lose weight, I end up putting it on while I slim down, because I invariably end up stepping up my excercise... either more time and more intensity in the dojo, more hiking, more bicycling, whatever it is... :)



My point is, most people have a lot more fat to lose than they believe, including me.


That I believe, and I'd be willing to bet that you could include me, as well. :)

It does work though; training harder and doing more hiking has gotten me in visibly better shape. I noticed that my pants were getting looser and falling down more, and others noticed that I looked slimmer, and the other folks in the dojo felt the strength I was building :)

Also, for hiking with big packs... I'd also definitely second the hiking poles idea. I have bad knees due to a volleyball injury (torn ACL), and after a moderately challenging hike (around 10 miles with a 2300 foot elevation gain), my knee was very sore. Enough that I was struggling to walk. Recently, I got some nice titanium hiking poles (I chose titanium for weight), and they did wonders on the next long hike (14.5-15 miles, 2200+ foot elevation gain with steep climbs); my knees held up much better.

[paulr]

One step toward slimming down is to eat less food at a time, more frequently. When your body acclimates to this, its tendency to store fat will lower.

Add excercise to this, and then you can start burning off that fat as long as you eat the right balance of protein and carbs.

have you seen any research that supports timing of meals, or macronutrient ratios (protein to carbs, etc.) as influencing weight loss? i look for it every time a new fad diet comes along and have never found any.

[Rakesh Malik]

have you seen any research that supports timing of meals, or macronutrient ratios (protein to carbs, etc.) as influencing weight loss? i look for it every time a new fad diet comes along and have never found any.

Yes. It's been a long time, but basically, the idea is to ward off the body's starvation response. When you eat a lot at a time and wait a long time between meals, your body conditions itself to maintain a store of fat for what it thinks is a starvation period.

If you eat more frequently, you tend to eat less, which leaves less excess energy for the body to store into fat, and it also conditions your body to store less since you're not going hungry for long periods of time.

For protein to carb ratios, you can find information about that if you talk to a trainer. I don't know much about it specifically, only that it does matter. You need protein when you work out to reconstruct damaged tissue, because we can't synthesize amino acids. Carbohydrates are a good source of energy for long endurance activities. That's why you'll hear, for example, bicyclists telling a newbie to load up on carbs (eat pasta, etc) before a 100-mile bike tour. You need some glucose also, because your brain needs it.

Another reason that protein helps to reduce weight is that our bodies actually burn energy to metabolize it, rather than gain energy.

The best ways to lose weight if you want to do so while staying healthy, and you want to keep it off, are to eat more frequently, adjust your diet for better balance relative to your lifestyle (i.e. if you don't work out as much as I do, you probably want to eat less carbs than me), and do more excercise. Depending on your goals, that could be anything from walking for 20 minutes a day to an intense workout every day.

Hiking even short distances is a great way to improve one's physical health. Using hiking poles will get your upper body some excercise while reducing strain on the knees, and even if you only do moderate distances and take your time, you're still getting quite a bit of excercise. Add a heavy pack, and you might as well be doing squats if you hike up and down even moderate hills.

Obviously, that won't prepare you to run a marathon, but if health is what you're after, hiking is a great way to go.

[Jean-Louis Llech]

I have never be able to consider saving pounds by leaving some lenses or accessories at home. I just take only what is necessary, never more. On the other hand, I do not want to sacrifice the protection just for having a less heavy bag.

At the beginning, a few years ago, I used a Super-Trekker Lowepro backpack, which of course carried everything in excellent conditions, but was huge and heavy. I became quickly aware that the side torsion movement when loading or unloading such a heavy backpack on the shoulders was very dangerous for the spinal column.
Now, I carry the Super-Trekker on a baby stroller, and I don't carry anymore the weight on my shoulders.

But, if I need to carry my gear without the stroller, I experimented another system : I divide the total weight into two bags or more.

A smaller (and lighter) backpack for five lenses, films, sheet film and Pola holders, rollfilm backs...
A shoulder bag for the camera with a lens mounted on it, and a few accessories,
A few pouches on a belt (for spotmeter, small accessories and film holders which I frequently use)

These bags are lighter and easier to carry, and the weight is divided on the body. I am much less tired than when I carried the huge Super-Trekker. I carry a carbon-fiber tripod either in a bag or hand-eld..

[Jean-Louis Llech]

The next operation that I will do is to change my Gnassgear lens bags (I have two of them with three lenses each) for Photobackpacker individual bags. I think that it is easier to access to a smaller individual pouch than to open a large three-lenses bag. And putting them individually in the bags is probably easier too. I will only keep the Gnassgear bags for sheet film holders and Quickload holders, as these bags are second to none.
For Photobackpacker, the only problem is that ordering six small lens bags in the USA is very expensive because of delivery costs, customs VAT and taxes on taxes... ;>). Unfortunately Photobackpacker has no resellers in Europe.

[naturephoto1]

Jean-Louis,

The problem of going that route of replacing the Gnassgear lens case with the individual Photobackpacker lens cases is adding volume and weight to your pack. When size and weight are an issue, I have opted for the Kinesis Gear V092 front opening module case. I set my Gnassgear lens case aside for when size and weight are not as much of an issue. I use this case to carry several lenses along with my Toho Shimo FC-45X field camera in 2 pieces.

Also, Photobackpacker does have multi lens cases that are lighter than the Gnassgear lens case, will be more compact and lighter than the individual lens cases.

I only use a single Backpacker individual case for my Top hat mounted Fujinon f12.5 450mm lens or my Nikon EDT 500mm lens.

Rich

[Alan Davenport]

In my earlier submission to the thread, I suggested losing the weight so as to enjoy the health benefits. In retrospect, I now see that there may be advantages to the alternative (lightening the pack.)

A lighter pack means there is now room available for a nice bottle of single malt, and you won't be carrying any more weight than you started with.....

[RDKirk]

This was a big issue when I was road cycling heavily. People were spending big, big bucks on titanium everything--measuring every gram saved if this steel screw or that steel screw on the bike was replaced with a titanium equivalent. But overall, losing a pound of fat off your butt was more effective than spending $1000 to shave a pound off the bike.

...because for a person actively cycling, losing that pound of buttfat inevitably meant having gotten faster and stronger along with it. That can't necessarily be said for a couch potato--dieting alone can make you weaker, as has been mentioned.

But if you are an avid hiker, a smart regimen of careful diet and additional exercise that works to increase your abilty to hike and sheds fat will also enable you to carry more pounds on your back, just as it will enable a cyclist to go farther faster.

The activity you are striving to improve is the test of the regimen. If you diet and exercise and your hiking ability suffers, then your regimen is incorrect.

Lighten your pack to carry more water.

[Carsten Wolff]

wouldn't carrying a heavier pack make you (lose weight and) get you fit(ter) more quickly? ;)
...sorry, couldn't help myself.....