10 body lbs. = 5 pack lbs or 2 boot lbs ?

[Chip]

What's the consensus on this relationship ? I've seen 1 lb. on the feet is like 5 lbs somewhere, pack or body. Do ultra-lighters go so far as to create some sort of "master total weight" equation that accounts for these relationships ?
Has anyone seen any actual tests, like endurance or stress, that attempt to verify the relationships ? I really don't think boots that weigh 2 lbs more than shoes are like carrying an extra 10 lbs, but I'm often wrong.

 

[jfb]

I think I've seen a discussion on this subject on backpacker.com, something like one pound on the feet is equal to 7 pounds on your pack. I don't remember who did the study.

A similar question is how many more miles can I hike if I lower my pack weight by a certain number of pounds? In "Beyond Backpacking," Ray Jardine presents a graph that seems to ignore the effect of body weight. Maybe he was assuming hiking on level ground.

 

[giggy]

what??? I don't think I am intelligent engough to understand this -- my guess is half the board is with me.

 

[Chip]

There's body weight, pack weight, clothing weight, boot weight, etc.
There's suppose to be a relationship with what various weights actually feel like. Most people could lose 5 lbs. and go hiking and not notice it, but they would notice a pack 5 lbs lighter. Boots are apparently the worst offender. A heavy pair of hiking boots may slow you down/wear you out like carrying an extra 10 lbs in your pack. I was just wondering to what extent there's been any real testing of statements like "a pound on your feet is equal to 7 on your back". AND THEN if there had been any real testing, to what extent hikers might try to account for the differences.
LIKE: (Body Weight x 1) + (pack weight x 2) + (boot weight x 5) = Total Adjusted Weight
WHY ? It might be easier to lose 1lb off your boots than 5 lbs off your pack or 10 lbs off your bod.
UNLESS: It's all a bunch of hoo-ha and there are no differentials.

 

[DougPaul]

Fletcher and Rawlins (Complete Walker IV) credit "one pound on your feet is equal to 5" to the '53 Everest expedition. (One to five seems to be the most commonly quoted ratio.)

I'm sure the equivalence ratio is highly dependent upon your activity and how fast you are doing it.

And weight on your body is unlikely to be any worse than weight in your pack and generally balances better.

Doug

 

[sapblatt]

Weight

I think a lot of it has to do with what you get used to...if you walk five miles every day it becomes easy. If you always where boots that weigh three pounds they become comfortable to you. I think this holds true up to a point...you may never get used to boots that are excessively heavy...

Obviously, the less you carry the easier it will feel. After backpacking last week I am looking forward to the lightness of my day pack this weekend. I love my boots (Montrail Torre GTSs) and they are not light. I know I would be looking for a new hobby if I hiked in sneakers or lightweight trail shoes/boots like the ones I wear to work.

 

[darren]

what??? I don't think I am intelligent engough to understand this -- my guess is half the board is with me.

The theory would be that weight on your feet needs to be lifted and moved forward while weight on your back just needs to be moved forward. Your skeleton carries much of the load on your back while your muscles need to pick up your boots. So a weight on the feet is equal to much more weight on your back.

The same holds true for cycling. High end cyclists pay big bucks for wheels. Taking a pound off your wheels is like taking several pounds off of the bike frame. You just need to move the frame forward while you need to move the wheels forward and also spin them in circles. When accelerating you spend a lot of energy accelerating the wheels in two directions. I know people who put $3000 wheels on a $2000 frame. They still can't beat Lance though...

- darren

 

[Pete_Hickey]

The same holds true for cycling. High end cyclists pay big bucks for wheels. Taking a pound off your wheels is like taking several pounds off of the bike frame.

Myth propogated by marketers. It is only true while accelerating, not while riding at a constant speed.

http://www.analyticcycling.com/WheelsConcept_Disc.html

Very little time is spent accelerating compared to riding at a constant speed.

You're right-on about the boots and the foot however.

I know people who put $3000 wheels on a $2000 frame. They still can't beat Lance though...

See how effective the marketing is? I know people like that, too. twisting the truth (physics) slightly makes for very effective marketing.

 

[DougPaul]

It is only true while accelerating, not while riding at a constant speed.

True, but for a serious racer, it might make for a slightly faster acceleration into a sprint.

I've had to convince a cyclist of the same thing.

My bike has heavy rims+tires and a heavy frame...

Doug

 

[jfb]

Myth propogated by marketers.

Well it may be a myth, but it makes me feel better to think that if I would spend $3000 on wheels, I could keep up with the guy that just blew by me.

 

[lumberzac]

I could be off the mark here, but I would think a heaver wheel would actually allow one to maintain their speed better than a lighter wheel because it has more mass therefore more inertia.


Back on topic. Foot weight does affect one's body more than pack weight. I notice this in winter when I switch from my midweight hiking boots to my heavier mountaineering boots, then I add more weight buy putting on crampons or snowshoes. When the snowshoes and crampons are in/strapped to my pack, I barely notice them, but I sure notice a difference when they’re one my feet.

 

[Dugan]

Agreed, most noticeably in winter. I'm definitely slower in heavy double boots (approx 2.5 lbs/foot) than when I wear my lighter insulated boots (a little less than 1.5 lb./foot). I notice my quads working harder to drag those big boots uphill too.

 

[Mark]

Maybe the ratio differs from person to person. I don't really notice a big difference when I am wearing my crampons or snow shoes. Now, if the snow shoes start to ball up with wet snow - that I notice!

 

[SherpaKroto]

... I don't really notice a big difference when I am wearing my crampons or snow shoes...

Either do I as I'm slow either way
I definitely notice the added weight on my feet. My inner thighs always cramp in winter until I get used to walking with the extra weight.

I'd love to take weight off, any way. Just doesn't seem to happen. I will guess that weight on the feet far outweighs any on your back or body. However, weight on your back or body has more long term negative effects on your joints. Trust me.

 

[DougPaul]

Weight in a boot can be useful at times. For instance, kicking steps in firm snow.

Slows one down the rest of the time, however.

Doug

 

[darren]

Myth propogated by marketers. It is only true while accelerating, not while riding at a constant speed.

Yah, that is why I said that. If you are a pro rider and your living depends on winning, then faster acceleration counts for a lot. Most races involve a sprint to the finish line or a sprint that leads to a break away. Acceleration is key at those times.

What is true is that it is only good for elite bikers at the pro level. Up until 2 years ago, I rode a heavy 1984 crom-oly bike with toe straps and 12 speeds. My favorite thing in cycling used to be passing people on $3,000 bikes. I would pass them, then slow down and get on the side of them and say "Wow!!! That is a nice bike!!" and then sprint away from them. It really used to make me laugh. Now I ride a decent bike ($1200) so I can't really laugh at the $3000 bikes when I pass them. Sometimes I wish I still had my old bike just for the fun of it.

I wonder if Stinkyfeet or Tim Seaver pass people on the trail and say "Wow! Nice boots!!"

At any rate, back to hiking. I'm sure heavy boots make a big difference over an 8 hour day of hiking. But it is all up the hiker. I can't trade in my boots for sneakers. I would twist an ankle in no time. I have had bad ankles since I was a kid. I've tried low cut sneaker/boots and twisted my ankle on the first hike. Weight vs. safety and comfort. Same decisions you make when you load your pack.

- darren

 

[Ridgerunner]

In conclusion

If you wear heavy boots, then drag your feet as often as you can.

 

[Brownie]

Hike naked & barefoot

Just hike naked and barefoot for the lightest option!

But sunscreen and shades are an absolute must

 

[dave.m]

Up until 2 years ago, I rode a heavy 1984 crom-oly bike with toe straps and 12 speeds. My favorite thing in cycling used to be passing people on $3,000 bikes. I would pass them, then slow down and get on the side of them and say "Wow!!! That is a nice bike!!" and then sprint away from them.

I used to work for a guy in Ohio who rode an 70's vintage Fuji with a 62/42/22 TA triple. He rode in plaid bermuda shorts and heavy black work shoes. He would go on century rides and suck the wheel of some "Campy kid" while pushing a cadance of about 35rpm on that 62 chain ring. Now that was funny.

Chuck is still alive, still running that TA triple (on an even older Bates) and still making his eye glass mirrors.

Back to hiking.... I think one of the missing factors here is Lean Body Mass. You can have 2 people with the same LBM that weigh differently due to diffs in body fat.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

Just hike naked and barefoot for the lightest option!

I've done both, but not at the same time. The naked was in rattlesnake/scorpion country, so I didn't want to go barefoot. I didn'T find the weight of clothes made a noticible differrence.

Barefoot, on the other hand, does slow one down, but it does wonders for increasing ankle strength, which lets you wear lightweight sneakers at other times. I've only climbed 4-5 peaks in the Adirondacks barefoot, but a friend of mine climbed all 46 barefoot.

I Wearing lightweight sneakers makes quite a difference, and I'll wear them when the trail is good, it's not raining, and I want to get up fast.

But straight weight alone is not the only thing.

Back to the bicycle analogy, where is it best to carry weight, in panniers, in a backpack. If on a road bike, on roads, the panniers are easier, however if on a mountain bike, on a rugged trail, the backpack is better. Why? Because the bike has more mobility.

Similarly with the feet. On a rocky trail, where you have to move around in odd steps, wearing sneakers makes a much greater difference, than on a well-groomed trail, where you set up a good rythm walking.

So, back to the original question, I'd say that a pound on the foot is like a pound on the back on a good trail, but on a rough trail, a pound on the foot may be like 5 pounds on the back.