Making the case for lighter footwear

[Joe Clement]

Who gets credit (or what is the history behind) that famous statement "a pound on your feet equals 5 on your back? Thanks.

[James Waechter]

I believe it is the result of research conducted at the U.S. Army's Natick Labs in Natick, Mass. They test systems for soldiers there- everything from fabrics (see Waterproof Breathable Fabric Technologies: A Comprehensive Primer and State of the Market Technology Review) for clothing systems to body armor to rations/MREs.

I've seen it in print recently and will try to find a citation.

[Phil Brown]

I find that incredibly ironic considering that the Army never seems to take weight into account at all when issuing gear. The current Infantry gear is so heavy, a soldier can no longer run even a short distance. It is also the only place where I have seen gore-tex gear that has 0 waterproofness. The current issue pack is 1950s technology at best.
It's great that Natick has discovered the benefits of using light gear, maybe it would be helpful if they actually passed this little nugget of knowledge on to the pentagon.

[James Waechter]

Well, I haven't been able to find the source I recall about Natick Labs, but the book The Complete Walker IV (p 59) credits Hillary's 1953 Everest expedition:

In his classic 1906 book, Camping and Woodcraft, Horace Kephart calculated the results of wearing boots just 1 pound too heavy: "In ten miles there are 21,120 average paces. At one extra pound to the pace, the boots make you lift, in a ten-mile tramp, over ten tons more foot gear." In 1953 the successful Mount Everest expedition came to the conclusion that in terms of physical effort 1 pound on the feet is equivalent to 5 pounds on the back. A consensus of informed opinion now seems to support that assessment. Anyway, today's trend is certainly toward lightness.

I'll keep looking for that Natick Labs reference…

[Sean Walashek]

I first saw it mentioned in fletches' walker. More recently I read in backpacker that after extensive testing a lab has reported its actually a pound on the foot equals 6.4 on the back.

[James Waechter]

The book Long-Distance Hiking by Roland Mueser credits the study to the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (part of Natick Labs). Of course the editor/author/GoogleBooks omits the bibliography pages from what's viewable online, so the actual title of the report is still unknown- unless you have this book.

Edit: I tried fixing the link to Google Books, but the change isn't "sticking", so I quoted it here (from p 45 of the book).

Why all the emphasis on reducing boot weight? Tests by the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine determined that carrying 1 pound on the foot used as much energy as carrying 6 pounds in the pack. Other studies confirm these measurements and provide evidence of the heavy price in expended energy as shoes weight increases.

[Roger Caffin]

I have searched long for the reference myself. It seems almost mythological.
If you can find it, PLEASE POST!

Cheers

[Chris Townsend]

"The book Long-Distance Hiking by Roland Mueser credits the study to the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (part of Natick Labs). Of course the editor/author/GoogleBooks omits the bibliography pages from what's viewable online, so the actual title of the report is still unknown- unless you have this book."

I have this book and the study is not listed in the bibliography!

Like Roger I've searched for a study on this and never found one and would welcome any references.

[joe newton]

Perhaps it's time BPL carried out some testing!

[Joe Clement]

I had asked this question, because a guy promoting 5# boots on another forum had mentioned that the quote was an anecdote, and not fact. When I couldn't find the source, I was sure someone here could.

[Sam Haraldson]

A citizen of my fair city makes a system for lightening the weight of snowboard bindings for backcountry travelers and he posed the question of the source of this information to me a month ago. I spent the better part of an hour trying to hunt down a source for that statement with frustratingly poor results.

I sent my friend the link to this forum thread regarding the source possibly being the Natick Lab. Perhaps he'll respond to me with information he's found otherwise.

I would love to get to the bottom of this because it is a statement that is made quite often with little to no regard to it's truth or fiction. Roger, write us a scientific article ; )

[Tim F]

In the paragraph that mentions footwear's effect on effort expended, there are no less than 5 studies mentioned, though only the Army one s specifically named. Studies are often published under the names of the researchers, without mentioning the institution they conduct the research for/at. There are several biblio entries that look like they are/ could be studies:

Bolduc, Vincent. "Backpacking: A Pilot Study of Hikers." Regional Project NEM-35. Univ. of Conn, 1973.

Crouse, Byron J., M.D., and David Josephs, M.D. "Health Care Needs of Appalachian Trail Hikers." The Journal of Family Practice (1993).

None really look promising. Someone mentioned reading it in Backpacker magazine. There are several references for articles, if you could narrow down the time frame it might help. Perhaps Mr. Mueser used an article from Backpacker that had references in it? Either way, I find it strange to specifically mention a study and not include it in the bibliography. It would be nice if the sources were directly referenced in the text.

-Tim

[Joe Clement]

Well, I broke down and emailed the Public Affairs Office @ Natick. It will be interesting to see if they repond. I hope I don't end up counting on you guys to send me smokes at Gitmo.

[Sumi Lavin]

In the end I think it means the more you have on your back the more you should have on your feet. Otherwise it's pretty meaningless.

[James Waechter]

Quoting skinewmexico:

Well, I broke down and emailed the Public Affairs Office @ Natick. It will be interesting to see if they repond. I hope I don't end up counting on you guys to send me smokes at Gitmo.

I called the Public Affairs Office and the number was for a flower shop. That piece of the website may be a bit out of date.

Then I e-mailed the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine. Hopefully someone will get back to one of us.

[John S.]

Holewijn M, et al. Physiological strain due to load carrying in heavy footwear. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1992;65:129.

"…It was concluded that the mass of footwear resulted in an increase in the energy expenditure which was a factor 1.9-4.7 times greater than that of a kilogram of body mass, depending on sex and walking speed.

[Woubeir (from Europe)]

Energy cost of backpacking in heavy boots

Abstract
Previous studies have investigated the oxygen cost (02) of increasing boot weight during unloaded walking or running, and have shown that for each 100 g increase in weight of footwear there is a 0·7-1·0% increase in O2 In reality (except in athletic events) the use of heavy footwear is associated with load carriage, usually backpacking. We therefore investigated the effects of increasing boot weight by 5% of body weight on the 02 of backpacking a load amounting to 35% of the body-weight in five healthy young males who walked at 4·5 km/hour (0% grade) on a motor-driven treadmill. The results indicated a mean increase of 0·96% in 02 whilst backpacking for each 100thinsp;-g increase in boot weight. In contrast the oxygen cost of increasing the backpack load was only 0·15% indicating that it was 6·4 times more expensive to carry weight on the feet as compared to the back. It is concluded that the relation between boot weight and oxygen cost, previously developed for unloaded walking and running, can reasonably be extended to include heavier boots and backpacking.

[John S.]

Knapik JJ, et al. Soldier load carriage: historical, physiological, biomechanical, and medical aspects. Mil Med 2004 Jan;169(1):45-56.

"…Loads carried on other parts of the body result in higher energy expenditures: each kilogram added to the foot increases energy expenditure 7% to 10%; each kilogram added to the thigh increases energy expenditure 4%…"

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Tom

> Energy cost of backpacking in heavy boots
Looks VERY good, but SOURCE????
Please!

Cheers

[Cayenne Redmonk]

I switched from leather hiking boots to running shoes this year.

IIRC, Roman Dial's mathematics says a reduction in pack weight of one pound will yield an increase in hiking distance of about 1 mile on an all day hike.

Switching from heavy boots to runners, my mileage went from 15 miles on a long day to 26+.

I saved roughly 2.2 pounds in my switching from boots to running shoes.

My distance increased 5 miles per pound liberated from my feet. To get that same increase, according to Roman's math, I would have to reduce my pack weight 5 pounds.

While it's not the source, this calculation I did on a napkin seems to be in line with a pound on the foot being the same as around 5 pounds in the pack.

[Jason Shaffer]

@Roger, Tom:
According to PubMed the source for the abstract is:

Energy cost of backpacking in heavy boots. Legg SJ, Mahanty A. Ergonomics. 1986 Mar;29(3):433-8

There's no abstract or full text available through PubMed. Ergonomics is a widely distributed journal though, owned by 616 libraries in US and CAN, according to the WorldCAT. Many research universities have it.

EDIT: this is the 'Ergonomics' published by the Ergonomics Research Society. They seem to have done a fair amount of government funded research worldwide, on fatigue, industrial and medical ergonomics, flight simulators, body armor, etc.

[Woubeir (from Europe)]

Hi Roger,
I'll give you the source and you make me that tunneltent you got and that remote stove you are designing with Tony ;-)

Just a joke although you may always make me an offer

Energy cost of backpacking in heavy boots
Authors: S. J. Legg a; A. Mahanty – This study was conducted in part fulfilment of an MSc in Human and Applied Physiology, London University 1982.
Published in: Ergonomics, Volume 29, Issue 3 March 1986 , pages 433 – 438

Follow the link below:
Link

[Chris Townsend]

Tom, thanks for finding that. It confirms the 1 to 5 or 6 pound claims, though these appeared long before that research.

[Woubeir (from Europe)]

Chris,
you're welcome. I'll still try to find the full article to get an idea of the complete test set-up.

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Tom

Thanks.
Tents and stoves – yeah, I would love to get into production!

Cheers

[Author]

Posts