Being Tall and Lightweight Backpacking

So I'm not obsessive about going lightweight. When I read about people drilling holes in a titanium spoon or rejecting a cord lock because it weighs 0.2 grams, I roll my eyes. I do strive to reduce my pack load where I can, but I don't take it to extremes.

I was thinking about it the other day and it struck me that the ability to go down to a 5 pound base pack weight is partially contingent on where one lives. It's all well and good if one lives in Florida or Texas or California, but if I go for a hike here in Ontario in October, the temps can go from 20°C in the day time to -5°C at night. Not sure that I want to be traipsing around with gossamer light gear that has no margin for error under those parameters.

But something else affects my ability to trim weight off my loadout. My height.

I'm 6'7" or a touch over 2 meters, and a solidly built 235 pounds or a bit over 100 kilos.

I'm a big guy.

My hammock is bigger. My tarp is bigger. My quilt is bigger. My underquilt is bigger. My clothes are bigger. The stuff sacks they go into are slightly bigger. If I was to use a tent, there are many that I can't fit into, necessitating a larger model. My pack consequently needs to be a bit bigger. I tend to eat slightly bigger portions than a smaller person.

I can try and shave weight off where I can, but at some point I hit a limit that someone a foot and a half shorter than me can squeeze past. Obviously some things are size independent - stove, pot, tools, etc. - but there are certain things that a smaller person has a distinct advantage with.

Not sure if there is really a solution. More just an observation. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

It's not a problem (except that it's harder to find gear for big and tall folks) unless you have a great desire to compete against the folks who are competing for the lightest pack.

I personally like some creature comforts and am adding back a few things that I eliminated in the past year. A third pair of socks, heavier base layer for high altitudes, a lightweight bivy to protect my sleeping bag in areas where I have to camp in a low-lying spot or can't site my tent under a tree.... (With so many beetle-killed trees in the Rockies, you almost always have to camp out in the open.) I'm also going to plan at least one extra layover day for each trip (I'd have needed it in the Wind Rivers for a snowstorm if I hadn't had to get out early because of a sick dog). If I don't need it, fine--I can either explore more, come out early, or just sit and smell the flowers.

It's so easy to get caught up in the weight-trimming competition--I've been there, too!--but I suggest some resistance. It's about like me (73-year-old granny) trying to compete with the folks who do 20-30 mile days (I'm more like a 5 mile per day person). Getting the pack weight down to where you are more comfortable and/or can go out for longer trips, fine. For someone your size to compete against a 5'6", 140 lb. person for the lightest pack, no way! As an advantage, you have the ability to carry a lot more than the little guy if you want!

OM,
I'm going to bring a few extra hammocks along on the trip in September for anyone looking to see how comfortable hammocking really is. You are going to be my first convert

BF

Going lightweight isn't about being a gram-weenie and drilling holes in things. Rather, it is about finding the lightest weight that works well for you -- and that includes your locality, your size, your health, your personal hiking style and your baseless whims.

So, if "everyone" in the lightweight crowd swears by trail runners, but your feet and ankles tell you that you require boots, wear the lightest boots you can find that your feet are satisfied with. Or, if "everyone" swears by trekking poles and tarp tents, but you hate trekking poles and want a double walled tent, omit the poles and look for the lightest tent that suits your needs.

I meant that last one about whims, too. If, for example, you can't imagine hiking without flying a Canadian flag at your campsite, then by all means take a flag and fly it, but consider finding or making a lightweight flag.

It should never, ever be about whether your base weight is over or under 5 lbs or 10 lbs or any other arbitrary number of lbs. Hike your own hike as they say.

Oregon is southern Canada, right?

Bigfoot, not likely, unless you can figure a way to get my 80-lb dog into the hammock with me so he can keep my feet warm!

My buddy sleeps directly under me when i use my hammock, but here's a two person for you:

http://www.junglehammock.com/models/vertex/index.php

BF

Well, it's not Northern MEXICO....uhhhhhhh, well, maybe it is :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53A2jpDqV3w

BF

I'd say this: don't worry. I am a foot shorter than my husband - my pack will ALWAYS will be smaller and lighter than his. His sleeping bags always way more, his pack is bigger as well - heck his torso is about 8" longer than mine! His feet dwarf mine, shoes are much heavier.

The super UL pack weights always seem to belong to shorter thin men. If you can carry a loaded 10 lb pack fine, but if due to height/girth the lightest pack you carry is 30 lbs? Don't sweat it! Heck, at your height if in great shape you can carry a lot more weight than a skinny trail runner can ;-) Take it as a bennie!

And hey, the other bennie is that you being tall, you take less steps. I have to nearly jog to keep up with my husband. He is strolling, me out of breath. I take 2 steps for every one he takes!

Bigfoot, if my dog is not right with me, he'll whine all night. In addition, I won't travel without a bug-free space for him (more important than for me because he can't wear repellent or a headnet). And how does one use a hammock above timberline, my favorite place to camp? And how about the dead forest problem in the Rockies?

Sorry, I think we're stuck with the tent.

Reducing pack weight requires a certain frame of mind. Do the best you can. It's an ongoing project. If you hang out around here, I would suggest you have taken the correct first step in developing that attitude.

If weather, budget, or one's size precludes one from having a pack weight that matches some magical number - so what.

I'll be hiking Gros Morne this September. I'm packing full on rain gear including waterproof mitts and Gore tex socks, as well as a poncho. Most of my clothing will be wool. A strange concept to many members here - so what. The weather and location has no bearing on my commitment to packing as light as is practical, and still be safe.

Answer:

Look at the bottom of this page
http://www.jacksrbetter.com/BMBH.htm

BF

Northern Mexico goes to the top of California

Oh I can, and have carried some crazy heavy loads – the thing is, the older I get, the less I want to carry.

Hiking with less weight on my back is more fun and making and buying the gear that allows for that is fun too.

But it just strikes me reading forums like this and others, that some people set a very arbitrary weight limit to strive for. "I must get my base weight down to X amount of grams!" That's swell when you live in San Diego and you're going for a an overnighter in summer. But when you're a burly giant in more northern climes, the less realistic that goal becomes. Sure we can all lighten our load to some degree by eliminating unnecessary items, lighter gear, etc. Some of the weights being advocated as desirable by ultra-lighters, are not very realistic for everyone. Given times of year, given locales, and given body size, they strike this wandering wookie as flights of fancy at best.

Sure I'd love to have a feather weight pack as I traipse around. But an extra foot of insulation over me and an extra foot of insulation under me, and an extra foot of nylon to suspend me in the air, and an extra foot of nylon to keep the rain off of me, and the extra length of wool to clothe me make that a difficult goal to attain.

Height has its advantages, but it also has its disadvantages.

I guess all I can do is enjoy the good aspects of the hand that fate dealt me, and cheerfully deal with the not so good aspects.

If the weight goal was expressed as a fraction of a hikers ideal weight for their highth, Exploriment could very well be on the lighter end of that scale.

Bigfoot, to continue the hammock vs. tent, from the JacksRBetter site you linked to:



This setup does not appear to include an overhead tarp. The one shown on their site is 18 oz. Total 55 oz., not including any stakes or guylines needed for the tarp.

My tent, with stakes, weighs 27 ounces and provides plenty of bug-free and private living (not just sleeping) space for me and my dog. That more than makes up for my air pad (NeoAir, 9 oz.) which presumably I wouldn't need in a hammock, although with my sensitive, somewhat arthritic joints I might just want it anyway. If I take a bivy for the Rockies because of always camping out in the open away from the dead trees, it's another 6 oz. Note that when hammocking out in the open, condensation on the underside of the tarp would also be a problem, so I might still need the bivy, too! Assuming I wouldn't need either the bivy or the NeoAir with the hammock, we're still talking about a total, using the tent, of 42 ounces. That's close to a pound difference--significant for me! For a pound, I can either hike a little easier or stay out for an extra day.

I don't think he's talking about the specific hammock. Most hammocks can be ground pitched - it's not optimal but many have sewn in bugnets and make adequate bug bivies.

My hammock, tarp and two quilts weigh about five pounds total and pack smaller than the tent setup I was using. Add a NeoAir, usable in hammock or on ground, for trips where I can anticipate the possibility of going to ground (13 oz) and leave one quilt at home (20 oz quilt, savings of 7 oz). If I spend four nights in the hammock and one on the ground, I will have gotten 32 hours of sleep for the trip. If I plan to sleep on the ground I will probably get four hours of sleep in four nights. YMMD (Your Math May Differ).

I know exactly what you mean. I'm a taller guy, and the extra bulk of bigger gear really can be irritating. I don't think there is any choice or alternative. I have to use much larger pack volumes to carry the things I need.

My math always differs. Especially in college when the prof would do something, and I would have a completely different result. And who ever came up with the stupid rule that your math needed to be the same as the prof. Maybe I should have picked a liberal arts degree.

Some folks do seem to get excited about a particular number of pounds or ounces - but at that point, it's just a game. If it's fun for those folks to play that game, then that's great for them. But if you just want to get your pack weight down lower than it is, then I wouldn't worry about any particular number - I don't myself. I simply look at each item, ask myself if I really need it or want it, and then try to find the lightest version of that thing that does what I need it to do. Remember, the most important measuring device for backpacking is not the scale, it's the fun-o-meter!