[at-l] size

[gbenkert@xxxxxxxx (Gregory A. Benkert)]

Having started my thru weighing 345 lbs., I would have DIED had I carried a=
nything close to the weight that any ratio dictates.

I don't put much stock in ratios.  Excluding food and water,  I see no reas=
on for a larger person to carry more than a smaller person other than possi=
bly two or three pounds necessitated by larger clothing and bag.

The larger person might need to carry a bit more food, but even that isn't =
all that significant.

What I found to be the biggest difference is the amount of water I needed t=
o carry.  My smaller hiker friends tip-toed from water hole to water hole c=
arrying a pint or two, while Jumbo here, sweating like a pig, stomped along=
 needing to carry several liters.

Big Red

Greg Benkert
gbenkert@fuse.net
GA>ME 2002
www.trailjournals.com/bigred

-----Original Message-----
From:=09Slyatpct@aol.com [SMTP:Slyatpct@aol.com]
Sent:=09Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:26 PM
To:=09rsharp@tgedirect.com; at-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject:=09Re: [at-l] size

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 1/7/2003 1:22:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rsharp@tgedirect.com writes:

> weird observation, but I have to mention it.  I am 6'5" and about 230 and=
 in
> decent condition.  I have met a few thru-hikers and read quite a bit and =
I
> have noticed that I am a giant in comparison to most if not all such
> hikers.
> whats that all about.  Because I am that big what "can I carry" on my bac=
k,
> isn't there some kind of weight to pack ratio?
>

Old school has it one third your body in decent condition.  Obviously you
don't want to be toting around a 70 pound pack.  New school is between one
fifth and one tenth.

Sly
_______________________________________________
>From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
Change your options or unsubscribe:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l

Stay on topic!