Topic

Geeking Out: Physics Applied to Bodyweight & Packweight

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
Valerie E BPL Member
PostedFeb 22, 2016 at 11:05 am

Fun article about using physics to calculate pack weight, body weight, and a comfortable carry.

Cliff Notes version:  The smaller you are in size, the (relatively) more packweight you can comfortably handle.

David Thomas BPL Member
PostedFeb 22, 2016 at 11:18 am

Hence, ants can carry many times their body weight.  Elephants can not.

Alexander S BPL Member
PostedFeb 22, 2016 at 12:23 pm

I read about something similar as part of a Vietnam era army study when it was observed that skinnier guys seemed to fatigue less than more muscular ones. Increased muscle mass = higher energy consumption. Women apparently fatigue less in the long haul as well.

Kevin Babione BPL Member
PostedFeb 22, 2016 at 1:14 pm

FINALLY!  Scientific proof that I’m miserable going uphill with a pack of any weight.  I’m a big guy (270 pounds) and I often have one of the lightest packs in our group and I’m usually the one dragging behind as we hike.

Oh wait…It says “for reasonably fit adults.”  I knew there had to be a catch!

PostedFeb 22, 2016 at 1:26 pm

I think my wife just lost out on her excuse on why her backpack should weight quite a bit less.  But then again, it may not be in my best interest to bring this up.  Such a dilemma.

Roger Caffin BPL Member
PostedFeb 22, 2016 at 1:43 pm

Yeah, that’s fine, BUT!

Do NOT use misinterpret this. It applies to reasonably fit ADULTS. Small children should be limited to carrying less than 25% of their body weight because their spines are not fully formed and can be damaged. The vertebrate segments and the cartiledge between them are still soft in children.

Cheers

 

PostedMar 2, 2016 at 10:32 pm

Also – I’d be very cautious about suggesting to anyone what a comfortable packweight would be for them. There’s so much personal variation. The fit and experienced older hiker vs. the young couch potato is one easy contrast. Or the strong walker with not so strong back (like my wife) who can do plenty of miles with a light load but can get into trouble quick with a heavier pack. comparing the average person to the average person makes for interesting reading but not very useful in any particular case.

Bob Moulder BPL Member
PostedMar 3, 2016 at 8:11 am

comparing the average person to the average person makes for interesting reading but not very useful in any particular case.

+1(!)

Speaking strictly for myself — although most older backpackers would probably concur, with some highly notable exceptions, lol — lighter has proven to be much better, and even more so as the athletic endeavors of youth catch up with me. My knees and hips ain’t what they used to be, and it’s not much of a stretch to say that UL and SUL packing have enabled me to extend my playtime quite a bit. Gotta say, it’s fun to be able to keep up with the kids on the trail. :^)

 

PostedMar 18, 2016 at 6:23 pm

“The willing horse carries the heaviest load.”

“All packs are equal but some packs are more equal than others.” (Quote from “Thru Hiker Farm”)

Roger Caffin BPL Member
PostedMar 21, 2016 at 4:30 pm

What if you are on the slightly heavy side due to weight lifting rather than overeating?

Who’s admitting anything?
You do NOT ask a lady her weight.

Cheers

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
Loading...