I agree; my formula may be over-correcting. I was assuming a "couch potato" in my thoughts (i.e., me before losing weight), and the pound-of-fat=pound of pack gave me results that approximated my own experience. Like you, I carried the same weight pack for years when overweight and desk-bound and got used to it. I also got used to lower mileage and the exhaustion that went along with it. Eventually, it drove me to explore near-ultralight gear (I had always carried about 5 pounds less than my friends just because I got tired of constantly fiddling with gear.)

The fact that you are obese BUT ACTIVE could very easily result in a 2 (or 3)-pounds-of-fat=1-pound-of-pack-weight equation that would be more accurate for you. Your "obesity" may include significantly more muscle than mine did.

I got my pack down to 16 pounds (including a day's food and a liter of water) for a summer overnight; about 20 pounds for the same trip in 30-40 degree conditions. Oddly, that wasn't driven by the new, lighter me (I'm short, but "lithe" is a term that would never apply!) Instead, it was driven by a desire, at age 70, to continue backpacking into my 80s - ideally with my original equipment knees and hips. A lighter pack plus a lighter me seemed to be a possible route to that goal.

Thanks for pointing out how there are no hard-and-fast rules to the Pack Weight question.