I'll probably wait until next spring/summer to take an actual backpacking trip, but in the meantime, I'm going to start walking around the trails near my house with a loaded pack to get used to the feel of it and try to get an idea of the mileage I can expect to get. I havent accumulated all of the gear ill need for an actual trip, so I'll probably fill my pack with tools or water bottles to simulate my gear.

The pack I'll be using, since I already have it, is a large ALICE pack with an external frame. It's huge, and I have the room to pack a lot more gear than I really need, so I figured it best to have a target weight and stay below that.

I wont be going ultralight for my first several trips I'm sure, so I was thinking about 30 or so lbs for any gear, food and water I would need for a one or two night trip. Does that sound about right?

That is about right (w/food and water), but you might be higher with the Alice pack and frame. You could, also, if you vigorously follow the suggestions that others (smarter than me) have posted be able to do better than that even with the Alice pack.

As a ballpark figure, 30 lbs is entirely reasonable for the purpose you proposed, i.e. loading your pack with random stuff and seeing how far you can walk with that weight. Especially since the pack will be included in that total. If you're off by a couple of pounds, it won't make much difference to the data you'll collect.

Understand that a load of random stuff will feel somewhat different than your eventual load, in terms of weight distribution.

Check the articles and gear lists on the home page of this site, left-hand column. If you can get close (say within a few pounds) to the base weights (everything except food, water, fuel) in those lists, you'll be just fine. Note that the lists are for 3-season backpacking (spring, summer, fall). For really cold weather, when you need more insulation and probably a sturdier shelter, the weight will of course go up.

If you are doing this as a training exercise,and you are in reasonably good shape, I would pack a bit heavier - forty to forty-five pounds. Work up to that somewhat gradually. You will enjoy the lighter weight of a true lightweight setup.

Condolences on the Alice pack, a thinly disguised implement of torture, IMO

Thanks for the help everyone!



That sounds like a good idea, kind of like the runners who train with the little parachute tied around their waist. My only real adventure in backpacking to date was a year or so ago, I loaded up the alice pack for an overnight trip, and altogether it weighed about 60lbs. A good portion of the weight was the 12" cast iron skillet w/ lid and a bag of charcoal I used as a dutch oven. Luckily my site was a little under a mile away.

For exercise purposes, I personally would start a lot lower (say 15 lbs.) and work up gradually, adding a pound or two per week. Starting with a really heavy pack can cause stress injuries. As with all exercise, it's better to start slow and work up. Otherwise you might just end up having to stop altogether for a couple of months!

I also wouldn't bother trying to carry more than your eventual pack weight, for the same reason. I have found that climbing hills (or stairs or bleachers if you live in flat country) is far better preparation for backpacking than carrying a heavy pack--even for those where I carried a too-heavy pack.

I'm with OM on this one. The hardest part of backpacking for me was the endurance, not the ability to put weight on my hips. Having the leg strength to keep hiking was more important.

Doing yoga will strengthen torso musculature more effectively if that's what you're after.

Hey there! I'd say that 30 pounds is far more than you need, especially for a single night. My pack for an overnight generally weighs 8 pounds. And- wait for it- that's counting at least one book. Not always a paperback one either! Now, I realize that I've probably got some ultralight gear that you don't since I've been doing this for a while. Lighter pack, lighter tent, lighter sleeping bag and pad, lighter stove- but a lot of this can be substituted. I promise you have way more than you'll ever use or need in that bag if you put in 30 pounds. (Also, I'm a young woman, so my clothes are probably smaller and lighter, which is definitely significant). Food- only the lightest possible. And don't even think about keeping it in the original packaging. Oh, no. Ziplocs are far lighter. Plus it's rare that you'll eat an entire package of something. Just pack exactly what you need. You can make a super light stove out of a soda or beer can. I believe there are kits online for this, or you can just make it at home. Fuel tablets and lighters are the way to go- *not* liquid or gas containers. Clothes? You don't need much. Walk in wearing a shirt, pants, socks, underwear, and a coat. Pack extra socks and underwear, and an extra shirt. Pack a very very small first aid kit with a few band-aids, any meds, antiseptic, and that's about it. Oh, and for a tent, if you don't own an ultralight (I highly recommend that if you get into backpacking, you buy one) then you can just bring a tarp and string. Put it up between two trees. It sounds really grueling but it's absolutely not. I was comfortable in it, and when I'm in civilization I'm a primadonna. And I'm also one of those incredible psychos who shaves the margins off of maps and cuts tags off clothing in the hopes it'll drop half an ounce total. EVERYTHING counts.

There's no reason not to go ultralight. I've always done it. Once I tried to pack a bag up to "normal" weight just to see what it was like and honestly I found myself throwing arbitrary items in. In the end I just put three hardcover Harry Potter books in and made it up to 30 pounds, but obviously there's no reason for that. Plus it was so cumbersome... I couldn't walk as far or enjoy it as much. People think they look tougher with these gigantic packs, but really you'll be tougher if you learn to go without all that stuff. And you will enjoy backpacking so much more because you can go farther without putting the wear and tear on your body. Imagine hiking 10 miles with a 30 pound pack, only to stop at a vista and not be able to appreciate it because of an aching back. I'd rather hike 20 miles with an 8 pound pack and enjoy the view when I get there!

If you're doing this for exercise purposes, of course, my whole post is moot. And in which case I highly recommend hardcover HP books to pack on weight.

Good luck and happy trails!

*Edit* WOW I just re-read your reply in the thread and realized it said 60 pounds! Holy crap! That's like carrying a child on your back! Yeah, that's fine for a mile or so, but the best part of backpacking is doing a 60 mile loop in three days. It makes you feel like you've seriously accomplished something (especially when you start thinking about how far 60 miles is in terms of places you usually drive... I mean, that's like walking across the entire state of Rhode Island and then some!). Walking five miles with a heavy backpack doesn't feel like an achievement, or not as much of one, anyway; it just feels like... pain.

I like exertion. Walking briskly up steep hillsides. I dislike pain- a big pack chafing arms or making my shoulders ache. That's not fun.

Drastic--you might be missing the point here. First of all, OP said 30 pounds, not 60. And the question was not for a review of his equipment, it was to ask how much weight would be appropriate to get into shape. And the answers addressed that.

Glad that you pack UL--and many people here do, but it IS possible to have fun in the backcountry with a 30 lb. pack.

true, i was planning on that for a target weight, but i mentioned in my reply a little further down, primarily as an anecdote of how not to go light, that i carried a 60 lb pack on a very short hike.

i definitely want to get to the point of ultralight, as drastic and others have mentioned, but since ive been an avid car/canoe camper, itll take me some time to refine my gear selection.

Since some of us have been backpacking most of our adult lives and are still refining our gear selection, you have a lot to look forward to. It is all about finding out what you,personally, need and are comfortable with. There is room for a lot of individual variation and discovery. You are trying for the Goldilocks zone - not too much, and not too little, but just right.

Jack said:

oldranger replied

I agree with oldranger, with the caveat that there's no common consensus on what is "just right" --- you have to figure that out for yourself.

Perhaps you will not actually want to get to the point of ultralight, or at least I suggest that you don't start with the assumption of something that aggressive. Yes, there are even "super ultralight" folks out there, but I don't think there are that many, and I also suspect that most of them limit their SUL ways to the more gentler summer hiking months and/or locations. "Light" is the range that I fall into, and I find that to be the sweet spot for me (10 - 20 pound base weight, which varies by the specific trip).

If you can make true UL (or even SUL) work for you, excellent, but I'd have a hard look at (complete) gear lists of folks that do this and figure out what sort of 'style' and attitude shifts you would need to work through to be safe and acceptably comfortable in doing so.

It's a bit of a conundrum for a beginner, I think, as you don't want to go through the expensive multi-phase approach of buying heavier gear and then replacing it bit by bit with lighter gear, BUT --- to be sufficiently safe and comfortable as an actual ultralight backpacker (base weight under 10 pounds) requires significant experience. Experience that you need an initial set of gear to obtain ...

Now if by the word "ultralight" you just mean "something vaguely but significantly lighter than what I started with", then as Gilda Radner used to say as one of her Saturday Night Live characters: "never mind". In practice I do find that many (most?) people who toss around the term "ultralight" mean by it something vague, and not tied to a specific baseweight.