Ignoring logistics, what determines the number of days of food you are willing to carry?
It seems that UL hikers are approaching non-food and water loads that are so low for temperate conditions the benefit of reducing it further may have little influence on the enjoyment of their trip. The problem of weight then shifts from the type of gear used to the amount of food (water) one is willing to carry.
The recent pakrifle discussion about extending your trip by living off the land, and a comment from Dan McHale that UL hikers could carry more food if they carried a more conventional pack highlights the choice between, say, Ryan Jordon’s unsupported arctic trip and a Non-Alaskan Andrew Skurka trip that could enjoy regular support. The BPL Wind River Range trip described recently could have been unsupported. Understandably it was supported because the course was intended to teach replenishment skills.
There is no right or wrong, but I’m interested in this forum’s philosophy on this issue without a discussion of a compromise such as using a cache.
To get the discussion going, I’ll offer my perspective: I don’t like to interrupt a trip. A reentry to civilization is disorienting to me. I’d rather carry a more conventional pack for the extra food it allows me to bring. Self-sufficiency is too important for me when I hike.

