Introduction
This is a story about a 40-day backpacking trip in the Far East (Russia) where I started with a pack that weighed 95 lb (43 kg).
For some, ultralight backpacking is all about carrying the bare minimum. For others, it’s a mindset or framework.
Not everyone wants to pack ultralight, whether it is for comfort or because of the kind of trip, but I am sure that most people can appreciate lightening their load. Ultralight gear is about shaving weight down for any trip. With good weather you could easily spend a weekend in the mountains with 15 lb (6.8 kg) or less on your back, or you could go out for another week and double that weight. Continuing advances in gear design mean that in 2019 you can get a 2 person tent that weighs less than 1 lb (0.45 kg) and a 0F (-18C) sleeping quilt at only a pound and a half (0.7 kg)
This summer a friend of mine and I decided to make our ultralight gear seem a little ironic and carry 95 lbs (43 kg) on our backs. This wasn’t just as a joke or some bizarre industry commentary though, we had good reason, and we were still light on food and gear by the end of our trip. As much as ultralight gear can make for light packs it can also afford other opportunity. Nearly 100 lbs (45 kg) may seem a bit nonsensical until you look at what we were doing. We were out for 40 days unsupported in Far-Eastern Russia. That means we had 40 days of food on our backs in addition to our gear.
This presents an interesting if perhaps seemingly niche side of ultralight backpacking. Instead of the desire to carry less and go further, the desire to carry more and go longer. Were we actually backpacking ultralight? Perhaps not. Were we cutting every ounce we could from our packs? We certainly made an effort to. This is a bit of a different perspective and approach than what is more conventional. Instead of shaving weight to have the lightest pack possible, you choose the heaviest pack you’re willing to carry and go backwards from there to see how many days you can spend in the wilds. We ended up carrying more than we probably should have (I don’t know if anyone has ever enjoyed a 95 lb (43 kg) pack) but only because of how long we wanted to spend in the backcountry.
Expectations also change for things like distance and rest. Day after day of hiking for 20 miles (32 km) or even to hike every single day become something approaching impossible. Movement is often slow and distances are often grueling.
In a world where trails like the Sunshine Coast Trail – 112 miles (180 km) – in British Columbia are run in under 35 hours and the 310-mile (500 km) Superior Hiking Trail saw four new speed records in 2019 there is an obvious propensity for travelling light and fast and far. So why on earth would someone carry 95 lbs (43 kg) and cover a fraction of the distance? To explain myself I’d like to try to capture what actually happened over those 40 days.
About The Trip
For long sections of trail, self-supported or supported trips are often possible. This helps to alleviate the necessity of carrying consumables like food and fuel for an entire trip. Thru-hikes are well known for this type of travel, often with frequent resupplies (typically every 3 to 7 days) of the day to day necessities. There were a number of reasons we did not employ this approach on our trip this summer. In addition to any desire we might have had to be unsupported, the realities of remote off-trail hiking also made it our only option.
Planning an international expedition without any intention to follow a known route or trail system requires a certain level of self-sufficiency. We prepared ourselves to be absolutely on our own for up to 40 days at a time, and we ended up doing just that.
We hiked into the mountains of Magadan Oblast (Магаданская область) at the beginning of August and exited about midway through September. In that time we committed ourselves to an existence that flowed through time and space in synchronicity with our bodies and the landscape. We were lucky enough to see one of the most amazing changes of seasons that I have ever experienced and to revel in sun rain and snow, truly at a pace that followed the mountains around us.
At 63 degrees North days are long in August. We only used headlamps once over the course of 40 days and that was at the end of the day after reaching a summit at 6pm. The larches and the tundra framed microcosms and macrocosms of stunning plants and animals and rocks and water. We saw snow sheep and a brown bear and foxes and loons and countless insects and spiders. It seemed that at each turn there was more magic awaiting us.
Our day to day wasn’t dissimilar to what you might expect from any other backpacking trip. We found both routine and novelty in each day. Our isolation allowed us to focus, whether that be on our feet across slick talus or in the immersion of a reader absorbed by a well-written book. Things were simplified and this revealed some of the complexities of each tiny piece of the world around us and of ourselves. In lieu of a novel to describe the momentous character of this trip I will let the pictures here reveal what they can to you.
What’s challenging about an unsupported, 40-day trek?
Pain. Carrying 95 lbs (43 kg) hurts – a lot. Every day, the pack gets lighter but a heavy pack takes a toll on the body. Even a light pack can press heavily on the body as the miles and the days build. Over the course of weeks the body fights back, bruises and cramps and stiff joints can be discouraging feedback and morning stretching can only appease so much.
Patience. Moving slowly is surprisingly taxing, not only on the body but on the mind. One of the beautiful things about spending weeks on end in the mountains is the ability to settle into routines but also stay present in response to surprising and changing details. This takes some patience to settle into. If you are focused on a constant sense of movement or of accomplishment, it does nothing but distract from the immersion of calm moments and the breaks that the body needs.
Hunger. I think a lot of backpackers, particularly ultralight hikers, bring less food than they might eat in their kitchens at home. Over the course of a few days or even a week this works well, just enough things missing to make the first meal back extra tantalizing. Skimming ounces off of the top of 40 days of food to save weight makes for a different story. Over the course of almost six weeks hunger can become a real nuisance. With any long unsupported backpacking trip it must be balanced with what can become a back crushing load.
Constant Exposure. You are exposed to it all. When you spend almost a month and a half out in the backcountry you can’t plan for weather. Sometimes you can anticipate it and sometimes even take refuge from it, but you certainly cannot avoid it. On our trip we were rained on for almost a week straight. We ended our trip with four days of snow and our last day we woke to frozen water bottles. Cold and wet happen, and sometimes they stick for a little too long.
Conclusion: Why?
With all that struggle looming over you it should probably take a lot of convincing that this style of backpacking is worthwhile at all. I know there will be some people that will be instantly on board with the idea of spending so long in the backcountry, the love of it came naturally for me. However, I want to leave the more reasonable reader with something meaningful as well.
Maybe you have to be a bit crazy to want to carry almost three quarters of your body weight just to have five and a half weeks in the mountains. However, I think that more people will see the charm of going into the wilderness unsupported for three weeks with under 50 lbs (23 kg) on your back. I hope that this presents another way to look at limits. We all have different goals in our adventures. Some of us want to move fast, some far, some light. I’ve found that one of the things I value most is the time I spend in the mountains and the woods and even a tent. Sometimes that means packing differently and sometimes that means working hard and slow and pausing to let it all soak in.
Appendix: Selected Gear
Here’s some of the gear I (very carefully) selected as part of my 95-lb kit for a 40-day trip in Russia.
| item | brand/model | weight |
|---|---|---|
| backpack | CiloGear 75L WorkSack | 4.8 lb (2.24 kg) |
| quilt | Enlightened Equipment Revelation 0F | 27 oz (0.76 kg) |
| pad | Therm-a-rest NeoAir Xtherm | 15 oz (0.43 kg) |
| shelter | Tarptent Stratospire Li | 28 oz (0.79 kg) |
| cook shelter | Mountain Laurel Designs Supermid | 26 oz (0.74 kg) |
| trekking poles | Black Diamond Trail Trekking Poles | 17 oz (0.48 kg) |
| stove | MSR Pocket Rocket | 3.1 oz (0.09 kg) plus fuel canisters |
| pot | Toaks Titanium 1300 ml Pot with Pan | 6 oz (0.17 kg) |
| bear bags | 2 x Ursack Major XL + 4 x odor-proof bags | 21.6 oz (0.61 kg) |
DISCLOSURE (Updated April 9, 2024)
- Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage. Some (but not all) of the links in this review may be affiliate links. If you click on one of these links and visit one of our affiliate partners (usually a retailer site), and subsequently place an order with that retailer, we receive a commission on your entire order, which varies between 3% and 15% of the purchase price. Affiliate commissions represent less than 15% of Backpacking Light's gross revenue. More than 70% of our revenue comes from Membership Fees. So if you'd really like to support our work, don't buy gear you don't need - support our consumer advocacy work and become a Member instead. Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
Discussion
Become a member to post in the forums.
This is a story about Tully Henke’s 40-day backpacking trip in the Far East (Russia) where he started with a pack that weighed 95 lb (43 kg).
Oh wow! I’d love to read a full trip report :-)
Tully,
Thank you for briefly exploring another way to enjoy the outdoors with lightweight equipment. I hope you can provide a more detailed trip report. Forty days in the wild without resupply seems like a great idea to me.
Many years ago I took a couple of nearly three-week-long whitewater raft trips through the Grand Canyon, floating with literally tons of gear and supplies down the river. Each time we pushed off I hoped that we remembered everything important, because there’s only one stop at Phantom Ranch that makes a 7-11 look like Walmart. The sweat and fears and pains and conflicts have almost vanished from my memories. Being disconnected from the “civilized” world for so long was a transforming experience that I’ll remember for the rest of my life.
Looks like your trip was wonderful, too.
— Rex
43 KG ?
With a bit of training I could do 15m per day with that weight on my shoulders.
https://www.summerinchukotka.com/
very impressive!
95 lbs is very heavy; ask anyone who backpack hunts (and is successful in harvesting an animal) and that’s with a frame designed for hauling heavy loads- I’m pretty sure the Clio wasn’t designed with that kind of weight in mind.
40 days of food (and gear) is a lot of volume, would like to hear how you managed with a 75 liter pack
I, too, could do 15 meters a day, but that would be pushing it.
“43 KG ?
With a bit of training I could do 15m per day with that weight on my shoulders.”
Yeah, let me know how that goes for you :)
I just looked up the Cilogear 75- from the manufacturer max weight of 40 lbs; hindsight being 20:20, should have opted for a Seek Outside framed pack (or similar)
Beautiful pictures….wish I was there! Amazing – 40 days unsupported!
The Cilo Gear website says the 75L worksack has a beefed up suspension compared to all the other worksacks. Cilo claims you can carry a person with it, so 100lb seems like a reasonable low ball for the intended max weight to me. Cilo also say the max volume is 90L ‘fully expanded.’ So they could have had more than 75L to start. They also used a lot of the external latching features. From their blog’s gallery:
Alpine style packs have a lot features for climbing and carrying ropes, and helmets, etc. I wonder if they prefer all the external latching options or if they would have enjoyed the features of a load hauling hunting pack more; ergonomic side and hip pockets, large kangaroo pocket, etc.
if it’s not a well designed external frame with an equally well designed, very beefy hip belt, 95 lbs would suck tremendously
from someone one who actually used one
https://www.trailspace.com/gear/cilogear/75l-worksack/
What an amazing trek. Given the goals and clear aesthetic, I admire what these guys have done. Personally, if I was looking at longer than three weeks un-resupplied, I’d be looking at routes that allowed some subsistence eating. Fishing, hunting etc. But especially fishing. This route looks like it passes some really good water. Man can live on fish.
An absolutely wonderful article. The author has put into words and actions what I have been trying to do for the past number of years. I retire at the end of 2021 when I will be 67 years old. The type and style of backpacking explained in this article is exactly what I am looking for. And now I have some words to help explain it. I can’t do 100 pounds anymore but I could still do 50 and spend 3 weeks in the wilderness unsupported. I know it will be painful and more than difficult. But in 1 week I would be down to 40 pounds and at the end of the second week, I’d be down to 30 pounds. This sounds like what I will be doing most when I retire. Walking 20+ miles a day just does not appeal to me as much anymore, at least not yet. Now I just need to find the places where I can hide out for 21 days without a lot of exposure to other people. I love the solitude of wilderness.
Thanks for the wonderful and insightful article.
I’ve been pulling these kind of trips for the last 20 years—and usually get blasted here on BPL for carrying too much gear and too much weight—and yet now a handful of posters praise Tully Henke’s grand adventure with no resupply and a 95 lb pack.
I just got back from a 24 day backpacking trip into the mountains of TN/NC and my pack weighed almost 100 lbs with winter gear and almost 60 lbs of food and fuel.
A butt heavy pack is the only way to stay out for 3 or 4 weeks, esp in the winter.
Daily mileage suffers with such weight—and a 6 mile day is adequate—with 10 mile days possible. I’d like to see Franco pull consistent 15 mile days with a 95 lb pack.
Three Points in the Article—
Pain
Patience
Constant Exposure
Everybody knows about the PAIN of humping a 95 lb pack. And the process of getting it on and off your back is subjective and will be learned over time. (Sit down method (my method) —or stand up and swing method etc). A corollary to Pain is careful boot placement to prevent falling—and a supreme concentration on the ground in front of you.
PATIENCE and moving slowly is part of the equation—slow uphills, slow downhills. What’s the hurry anyway? Patience really rears its ugly head when passing thru terrible blowdowns—scoot unders, climb overs etc.
CONSTANT EXPOSURE deals more with the length of time of an uninterrupted trip and not so much about pack weight. Day 1 could be 60F, Day 4 could be in a 60 hour rainstorm at 35F, Day 12 at -10F in high winds etc. What this means is you need a shelter and a bag that can handle 70mph winds or no winds, spindrift blizzards or nothing, -10F or 70F, clear days or 150 hour rainstorms. Remember, you’re out for the duration. The right tool for the job must cover a multitude of jobs.
from Mike
“43 KG ?
With a bit of training I could do 15m per day with that weight on my shoulders.”
Yeah, let me know how that goes for you :)
look at the comment above yours. Brad got the joke.
Amazing looking scenery from their blog! super jealous
m= meters m=not miles, got it :)
“Constant exposure”
Several days into one of those Grand Canyon raft trips, I worried about what looked like an approaching storm. So I asked the head guide what the weather would be like tomorrow. His answer was short and classic:
”Why does it matter?”
Took me a little while to realize he was absolutely right. When you really don’t have any choice, you deal with whatever comes along.
Valuable lesson.
— Rex
Seeing 95 pounds made me think about the viability of catching fish on the way – they were in the middle of nowhere, right? My experience in those areas is that you get a fish on the first cast into each hole. Manfred & Sons had a similar experience in the Brooks Range. Normally I’m advising against the hunter-gatherer approach because in most places it’s harder, less successful and more time-consuming than you think.
But to save 20-25 pounds? Each? That’s worth a lot. Pack the cooking oil and grains and catch all your protein. And it looked like the nights were cold enough that you could make a big dinner and re-warm it for breakfast and even chill it in the snow before packing your fish-based lunch. Being able to use one big fish over multiple meals helps solve one problem of the north woods – you keep catching fish that are bigger than you want.
With a pack of only 50 pounds, much less 95, I’d run out of omph long, long before I ran out of daylight. i.e. spending an hour, unburdened, to procure and prepare one big fish would be a wonderful break from schlepping those loads.
I was thinking the same thing David, in particular what the laws/logistics of hunting as a foreign visitor in remote Russia would be like? Can you hve a rifle as a foreigner on a visa? Do you need a permit/license, etc? Can you import the rifle and ammunition, fly in with it, or do you have to aquire it there?
David
“Normally I’m advising against the hunter-gatherer approach because in most places it’s harder, less successful and more time-consuming than you think.
But to save 20-25 pounds? Each? That’s worth a lot. Pack the cooking oil and grains and catch all your protein.”
If the area was known and a reliable source of fish for that season was a certain thing, maybe , however they were walking off trail in a location they had not been before. What is the chance that every second day or so you have a river nearby with fish in it that bite without spending too much time doing that ?
I don’t know but it does not sound like a good idea to me.
Would be good to get Tully’s perspective on this.
^ yeah you’d have to some very detailed and accurate beta to ditch a bunch of food to count on harvesting to replace it.
my wife and I often backpack into a small chain of lakes that we can almost always count on catching small cutthroat for supper, but I always have a backup supper just in case
Admittedly, not all water holds fish, and if it’s glacial run-off, it can be too silty for fish at all or for them to see your lure.
But we almost always plan our day’s travel to camp near water and avoid hauling a few liters of water. I’d accept some constraints on the length of each day’s hike or stops during the day to save tens of pounds.
Thank you for sharing this article, is always good to hear a different opinion and approach to things. Thumbs up!
But I’m a curious by the choice of stove, the reason why was not chosen a system that would allow the use of wood as primary source, and meths/Esbit as backup when weather won’t allow to light a fire or foraging for wood. Surely, a gas stove is brilliant when you are craving for some hot food :-)
Become a member to post in the forums.