Sub 5 pound – does it really matter?

Hi John,

The answer to your question is "NO"…

… unless it helps your enjoyment of the experience! In that case it's a good thing. There is also satisfaction from reaching a goal that makes it a good thing; and going Sub5 is a great excercise for many – one that helps them realize what they can do without and what they can't.

***************

This has actually been written about and discussed quite a bit on this forum in recent years. I'm sure someone with better search skills than I will point you to some threads.

No, it doesn't matter, its an arbitrary number.
That said, I enjoy the process of seeing how minimalist I can push things and still cover all my bases. I certainly don't find it appropriate for every trip, but I enjoy the process.

Of course it matters, it must be the goal of all backpackers!

Just kidding.

I guess I am an aging backpacker. For me, to do the hikes I want, it has been important to keep my body weight down and stay in some sort of good physical condition. I wear the same size clothes that I wore as a teenager. Staying slim allows me to maintain a reasonable amount of agility. If we use the BMI calculator, which is not perfect, anything over 174 lbs for a 5' 10" male would be overweight (BMI > 25). The suggested range is 19 – 25. Or for our 5' 10" example, somewhere between 135 – 174 lbs. BMI isn't perfect, but it is easy to calculate

So…

Before we work on any arbitrary base or total pack weight, we need to work on out bodies first. Plus, we might live longer too.

Well Ryan changed that definition. SUL is no longer about weight absolute.

Here's a clip

The purpose of this series is to explore (at least on the surface) – the art of “SuperUltralight” (SUL) backpacking – considered by most to be the practice of backpacking with a base weight of less than five pounds.

However, I won’t necessarily hold to that performance standard (weight) or extreme (five pounds) in this series. Instead, I’m hoping to promote a more reasonable definition of “SUL” that simply embodies what we do at the very extremes of ultralight backpacking in terms of weight, simplicity, and compactness of our gear.

Another factor worth considering, in the context of anything you read about SUL from 3-4 or more years ago, is that gear tech is rapidly advancing, bringing SUL possible to more people.

Its quite doable to be SUL from completely off the shelf gear, at not unreasonable cost.

With ever increasing margins on SUL gear, there is more and more leeway to fit in items of greater comfort.

10 years ago, an SUL pack was pretty tough to achieve in conditions expecting a ~freezing overnight temperature. It was pretty tough to find an SUL pack that wasn't incredibly flimsy. Poncho's (not even gatewood capes) were the norm. Sleeping matts…well that usually involved a 1/8 pad cut carefully to fit ones torso…or even just a couple of donuts of that material one for the hips, one for the shoulders!

But now with things like Klymits, NeoAirs, further incremental advances in down quilts, materials like Cuben Fibre (and lots of knowledge advances in how to construct with said cuben fibre), SUL can be REALLY comfortable :-)

>"For me, to do the hikes I want, it has been important to keep my body weight down and stay in some sort of good physical condition. "

+1, Nick

I haven't noticed that the maximum length or difficulty of a hike I can do has changed over the years. But what I used to be able to do cold-turkey or with the base level of effort I'd spend humping around campus and do more manual labor was enough in my 20's. I can do the same death marches now at 53, but unless I condition much more in advance, building up over time, I'm going to hurt a lot during / afterwards.

The body weight is always amusing. One can spend $200+ to save a pound on a shelter, pack or quilt, but won't forego beer (Doritos, soda, desert, whatever) for a month (and save $100+) to drop 4 pounds. I'm definitely imperfect in that. But a big hike in a few months is helpful motivation to do more training hikes and pass on seconds more often.

Private pilots are the same. They'll drop hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars to save a few pounds of weight or get a few more knots ON THE PLANE, whereas if they lost body weight and trained a bit, they'd be able to take the extra fuel/gear they want and get there faster because they could jog from the car to the plane.

of course it doesn't really matter looking at an arbitrary number; but the philosophy behind it does matter imo

everyone should take a couple of trips w/ a SUL kit, you'll soon find that there are many things you can do without; conversely you'll be sure to find a few bits that are worth adding some ounces back into your kit :)

"everyone should take a couple of trips w/ a SUL kit, you'll soon find that there are many things you can do without; conversely you'll be sure to find a few bits that are worth adding some ounces back into your kit :)"

Sage advice from Mike M.

I have only done a couple of genuine SUL trips over the years, and both of them were just overnights. I've just never had all the requisite stuff together and functioning at once, or had the right conditions/route to have done more than that (it can be hard in South Australia, most of my walks are off track, remote, arid). However, components (or multiples of) what would make up an/those SUL kits go on pretty much every trip, depending on the circumstances.

del

I'm very comfortable in 3-season mode with a base weight of ~6.5-7.5 lbs, and I've even got my winter (0°F) base to about ~12-13 lbs, without excessively compromising comfort/safety/convenience/durability. ("Excessively" being a highly subjective term, yes.)

For me the exercise is now at the point where my kit really is "good enough," especially when taking into account that 4 years ago I lost 35 lbs body weight and that my TPW went from about 35 lbs to 12 lbs. Increased fitness level and reducing the total load on the body by more than 50 lbs makes the difference between 5 and 7 lbs base weight seem truly negligible.

However, this isn't to say I'm no longer interested in the gram-shaving exercises. I am the beneficiary of those of you who've been pursuing UL and SUL for a lot longer than I, and you've made my learning curve far less steep.

No, not really. A lot of good things said already…

SUL is generally about doing all you can do to head out with a minimal base kit. It doesn't matter when and where you are headed, nor, for how long. Most people choose one or two nights.

I don't carry much for one or two nights, either, but I am no longer SUL. Rather I just add in a few luxuries for longer trips, knowing that I *can* drop them in an emergency or if I do a quick overnight somewhere.

Due to artificial *classifications* you can cheat. A stove can be a few grams of esbit burner. But, your fuel (at about 14000BTU/lb) is not the most efficient. Efficiency doesn't count. Canister Gas Stoves weigh about 3oz, but 4oz fuel(at around 20500BTU/lb) plus the can weighs 7oz. Fuel and can are consumables and don't count. I carry a Steripen Opti (3.5oz) and one 500ml bottle(1oz.) But a couple bottles of repackaged AM drops(about 1oz) ignores wait time while the chemicals work, meaning you have to carry the extra *treating* water. I need three 500ml bottles for the same drinking water on the trail meaning I carry ~13oz more. But, it is weight that doesn't count on the SUL list.

Anyway, you can easily see how having a heavier kit to start with (UL style) is actually a lighter kit for any extended trip. A 6oz wood stove is lighter, overall, than a 3gm esbit burner for a week out. And I don't need to worry about running out of fuel, no fuel budgeting required, as much hot water as I like.

The ratio between Pack weight and trip length means more. For example I plan a two week trip, with no resupply stops, through some backwoods at at least 10mi per day in the ADKs. I carry a 23# pack. So, 23 divided by 14 is my starting ratio, or about 1.64. If I were to carry a SUL pack, I would be at about 10 pounds for two nights. This is a ratio of 5.0. This is not quite what we want though, since it clearly favors longer trips over shorter trips.

Just using an arbitrary number doesn't mean a heck of a lot. Going up Mt. Everest is likely not possible with a SUL pack. A lot depends on where you are headed, the conditions you expect, your safety, and other things.

Rather, SUL means going as light as is possible and the risk you expect to deal with. Check out
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/mountain_sul_part1.html#.VRlkO44mi00
for a fairly good explanation. Will intentionally adds about 1 pound because he is headed into the hills.

Yes it matters. I feel fine carrying a 35 total pack weight. Somewhere around 50lbs, I start to get scattered moments of cranky old man syndrome. My days of carrying 75-100lb packs are far behind me and not something I care to revisit.

On a trip where there is zero water for three days and I have to pack it all in (25lbs not including containers), it's nice to keep the total pack weight between 30-35lbs vs 35-40.

My three season base weight hovers around 8 lbs give or take a little although I hope to go true SUL on a trip or two this summer without playing spreadsheet games (eg my 9oz camera is in my pocket so it doesn't count bs).

Dropping another three lbs in the PNW appears that it will prove challenging but do-able.

At one time, ten pounds was an "arbitrary" goal for me but pursuing that challenge forced me to continually reanalyze my kit, seek lighter alternatives, and remove unnecessary gear. For me, this was an invaluable process and I'm now more confident heading out into a <40*F w/ heavy-ish precipitation forecast with a 8lb base weight than I was even a year ago.

I am 50 years old and I can squat with 190lbs on my back for multiple reps. My 12-17lb pack feels like nothing. I guess I do everything all wrong because rather than keep my weight down, I keep it where it is and just keep trying to squat more.

I've re read the responses, including mine, and fail to see anyone framing this as a right/wrong conversation.

Pack weight is a variable. Whether or not an extra five or ten lbs will have a noticeable impact on performance over 10, 20, or 30 miles will vary hiker to hiker depending on other variables including physical conditioning and nutrition.

If you enjoy your kit, no one is suggesting you should modify it. But, if I lighten my kit, am I somehow prohibited from improving my physical condition?

> Fuel and can are consumables and don't count

That's definitely cheating. The fuel is a consumable but the can is not.

"But, if I lighten my kit, am I somehow prohibited from improving my physical condition?"

Nope, I attempt both.

a=f/m

Every bit of weight you take off, reduces the total amount of force required to achieve the same acceleration. There's not getting around it. And yes, when you are up to contanst speed you are no longer accelerating, but on a trail you always are. Every time you change direction, go up, go down, hit a breeze, slight undulation, you are accelerating. It all adds up.

I do concur with some of Rick M's experience. I've noticed that for anything from zero up to about 20-30kg, for relatively short walks, with a great pack (great harness), unless I attempt to break stride and start running, the weight doesn't slow me down. Note: for short walks. As soon as the walk goes over an hours length, my overall pace is reduced. I fatigue, start to need more and more rests, and just don't recover as much as if I was carrying nothing. This is, of course, physically obvious.

I remember the Australian Army getting some scientists to do some tests on soldiers a few years ago, looking at the affects on equipment weight on their performance. [Bear in mind this is all going off my memory of the article, I can't access it any more]. Sadly, they had low n (low number of soldiers they tested, this makes it harder to prove statistically whether something is different or not when the overall difference is small), and they found that the differences for light (a few kg) to moderate-ish (~20kg) modern soldier loads wasn't that big a deal (this was with just modern combat vests loaded up, not packs). The tests were very short power tests, things like a run dodge jump crawl test over about twenty metres. They barely saw a difference over that length. When packs got really heavy, they did.

However, sadly I think for soldiers and what good this study could have done, they didn't design a test that took into account what a soldier really does. He/she humps that gear day in day out, on patrol, tactically patrolling until they finally get to the combat situation (which they tested). If they had put a long term fatigue component in there, and then tested those combat parameters, I have little doubt that they would have seen quite significant differences between light and moderate loadings on performance in combat.

In the world of competitive cycling, there is plenty of great data on the effects of weight on end performance (they collect lots of data, power data, etc, so its easy). Grams count. And not just in a simple way, like they do in triathlon on very flat non windy courses with no drafting allowed, where the triathlete can literally get into top gear and just cruise. Because of all the intracacies of pro courses, hills, corners, peletons…having a slightly heavier overall bike&body can result in big blow outs by the end. I think backpacking is similar…there are so many micro accelerations you have to do, and each one costs force and energy to do so. They all add up. They all add up to fatigue and long term performance.

With the SUL/should I shouldn't I, this all ties into your personal goals and trip goals. If you are pushing a record of a long trail, then you should probably consider it pretty seriously. If you are pretty casual, and just doing ten mile days, enjoying life out there, its not really a big deal at all :-) There's no right or wrong answer.

With the SUL/should I shouldn't I, this all ties into your personal goals and trip goals. If you are pushing a record of a long trail, then you should probably consider it pretty seriously. If you are pretty casual, and just doing ten mile days, enjoying life out there, its not really a big deal at all :-) There's no right or wrong answer.

And that's the answer

For me 5 pounds is a nice example of what is possible, but not necessarily what is desirable. I have not been able to break 6 pounds with my SUL kit, but I refuse to give up my inflatable sleeping mat or cut corners on my sleeping bag. Looking at my SUL kit, I could do it, by going with a CCF mat alone, but don't want to. I am close enough.

> "I guess I do everything all wrong because rather than keep my weight down, I keep it where it is and just keep trying to squat more."

Nothing wrong with that. The obvious part of my getting into summer trim is that the scale says 10 pounds less. But since that came in part from diet but also from exercise, it isn't just 10 pounds less fat. Maybe 15 less fat and 5 more muscle. Or even more? That really skews the power/weight in a good direction.

My exercise of choice is doing stairs. Not a stair climber, but actual stairs. Up AND down. First walking for a few weeks. Then with a little weight – 10 pound weights in each hand. Then a bit of a jog, going up the stairs. I'm ahead of my usual March pace, so I might take it further this year – I was looking at 2 x 20 pound dumbbells at the store today.

I'm telling ya, squats are where it's at. And deadlifts too. Seriously. I had no idea this is how strong feels. It's the fountain of youth.

And I do enjoy my kit. About 11-12 pounds without food and water (a total guess but it's pretty much the same stuff I used on the PCT). I carry two sleeping quilts so I'm never cold. I wish I had some lighter and better things (cuben fiber tent!!), but I can't justify buying new stuff when the stuff I have is still good.

I honestly don't think I could tell much difference between my pack now and a couple pounds on either side, especially considering that sometimes I have to throw in an extra 3 liters of water and cutting tools and sometimes I throw in a book and a guitar. Mainly anything less that what I have would be for show and tell and also because I like the way cuben fiber stuff doesn't soak up water and stays tight.

+1 for squats. They make a huge difference in durability.

has not yet mattered enough to me to go below 5.6 lbs.
No reason. None. zip. Nada.

If you changed SUL to be 4.375 lbs, everyone would try to get to it.
Its the SUL claim they care about, not the weight.

I know a guy that carries 3 lb. Better him than me.

If I was trying to set some fastpack trail record, then yeah, it matters. Trying to just hike 20-30 mpd, no , it doesnt.

I don't think it's a question about the 5 pounds as it is what the extra does to your total pack weight
Look at it this way.

I go on a 200 mile hike with a 4.9 pound base.
I can do this hike with this base in 5 days.
With 9 pounds of food and a starting pack weight of say 15 pounds make the 5 day hike doable.

I go to do the same hike with a 10 pound base.
With more bulky gear and the extra 5 pounds, I first need a bigger pack which means I am taking the ability away to move the milage I really want to.
So I need an extra 2 days.
Now add 5-6 more pounds of food and now I am an extra 11-12 pounds heavier.
So now I need yet 1 more day to finish so my food goes up to about 16 pounds.
Add the 10 pound base and my pack weight will be around 27 pounds.

Which is honestly harder?

Hiking 200 miles in 8 days with a 27 pound pack, or.
Hiking 200 miles in 5 days with a 15 pound pack?

Which one would I rather do? Duh…
So, does it matter, well yes!

Am I the only one who gets this?
I guess so. All I ever see is the ones that don't and they all look miserable.

del