Buy a new pack or use what I have

[gratitudemoves]

Hi all,

I'm planning to walk my first Camino on the Frances in August, and I have a question about my backpack. I own an Osprey Kestrel 48 that I used once about 10 years ago that I was planning to use for the Camino. I've recently been culling my packing list and starting to get a sense of how much my pack will weigh. The Kestrel 48 seems to be on the heavier side - at around 3 lbs 7 ounces. Do you think it's worth me purchasing a new pack - something closer to 35L - to reduce the weight of my pack to closer to 2-2.5lbs? I don't want to purchase a new pack unnecessarily, but I'm also aware of what every extra pound will feel like on the trail.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[KiwiJohn]

Hi all,

I'm planning to walk my first Camino on the Frances in August, and I have a question about my backpack. I own an Osprey Kestrel 48 that I used once about 10 years ago that I was planning to use for the Camino. I've recently been culling my packing list and starting to get a sense of how much my pack will weigh. The Kestrel 48 seems to be on the heavier side - at around 3 lbs 7 ounces. Do you think it's worth me purchasing a new pack - something closer to 35L - to reduce the weight of my pack to closer to 2-2.5lbs? I don't want to purchase a new pack unnecessarily, but I'm also aware of what every extra pound will feel like on the trail.

Thanks for your thoughts!

I'm using the Osprey Stratos 36L on my Camino starting in late August.

 

[jgiesbrecht]

My thought is, if you have the financial means to do it, then buy a smaller and lighter one. Every pound counts. That being said, if it's only the last bit of the Frances, I think a week of the bigger one is fine....if you are doing closer to the 800kms, then yes, buy the smaller if possible.

 

[gratitudemoves]

My thought is, if you have the financial means to do it, then buy a smaller and lighter one. Every pound counts. That being said, if it's only the last bit of the Frances, I think a week of the bigger one is fine....if you are doing closer to the 800kms, then yes, buy the smaller if possible.

Thanks for your thoughts! I am walking the full Frances starting in St. Jean, so it'll be a long ways with the pack.

 

[KiwiJohn]

Thanks for your thoughts! I am walking the full Frances starting in St. Jean, so it'll be a long ways with the pack.

I am planning on a base pack weight of 6kg. I will be carrying rwo refillable 600gr water bottles, so an all up weight of 7.2kg which is just under the 10% of body-weight threshold.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

My opinion is to keep what you've got and pack it as light as you are able. The bigger problem may be if you hope to bring it as a carry on item rather than checking it below. You will need to measure it's dimensions to see if it qualifies to go with you on board.

 

[gratitudemoves]

My opinion is to keep what you've got and pack it as light as you are able. The bigger problem may be if you hope to bring it as a carry on item rather than checking it below. You will need to measure it's dimensions to see if it qualifies to go with you on board.

Thanks for your thoughts. I am planning on bringing it as a carry-on rather than checking it, so that's another consideration.

 

[StumpyDave]

I walked Norte to Primitivo then to Finisterra and Muxia last summer and used my ten year old 65L Columbia pack. (I didn’t want to spend $200 on a new pack.)
I had no problem at all with the bigger pack…I just made sure I kept the total weight of everything between 17-20 pounds (including water). And…I found I actually liked having the bigger pack because the shoulder straps were wider and the waist belt was wider because (of course) it was designed for heavier loads. This made it much more comfortable with the “light” load in it, and much more adjustable from day to day. I had no problems at all And saved $$$! I’m going back in August to do the end of the Norte and I’ll be using the same pack again.
My opinion….Use the pack you already have!

 

[gratitudemoves]

I walked Norte to Primitivo then to Finisterra and Muxia last summer and used my ten year old 65L Columbia pack. (I didn’t want to spend $200 on a new pack.)
I had no problem at all with the bigger pack…I just made sure I kept the total weight of everything between 17-20 pounds (including water). And…I found I actually liked having the bigger pack because the shoulder straps were wider and the waist belt was wider because (of course) it was designed for heavier loads. This made it much more comfortable with the “light” load in it, and much more adjustable from day to day. I had no problems at all And saved $$$! I’m going back in August to do the end of the Norte and I’ll be using the same pack again.
My opinion….Use the pack you already have!

Thanks for the encouragement to use what I have! I am reluctant to buy a new pack given that the one I have is in great condition. And it's helpful to keep in mind that a larger pack will potentially carry more comfortably given that it's designed for heavier loads. I'll keep thinking...

 

[trecile]

Carrying comfort is more important than overall weight. If your old pack carries the load more comfortably than a new lighter pack then you should take the old pack. But if a new pack is more comfortable in addition to being lighter, then a new one would be a good idea. You will need to try out several packs with the gear that you plan to take.

 

[Lexicos]

I may be the odd one out bc I’d struggle to carry anything less than a 65 L. I just bought a new Osprey back pack 65 L and it’s just right in terms of fit, weight and size. Mind you, I’d be pushing it to carry less than 9 kilos, of which water is one kilo. I obviously don’t travel light even though I carry the bare minimum. So, my answer to your question, if you can get away with what you have and it carries what you want and if it fits well and is comfortable, and in good condition, why buy a new one?

 

[J Willhaus]

My opinion is to keep what you've got and pack it as light as you are able. The bigger problem may be if you hope to bring it as a carry on item rather than checking it below. You will need to measure it's dimensions to see if it qualifies to go with you on board.

We were always able to use a Kestrel as a carry on on US carriers.

 

[good_old_shoes]

If it fits well and it is comfortable, why buy another one? With a good pack like the Osprey, I don't think the tiny bit of weight you'll save by buying a different one will make a huge difference.

There seems to be a current obsession with using smaller and lighter packs, but I don't really get why.

A lighter pack isn't necessarily more comfortable, the comfort depends on fit, how you pack/fill it ect., too.

I prefer 65l packs. The 65 Osprey I own since last year packed with 12kg feels lighter than my old Decathlon pack (that had less weight itself and already felt comfortable to me until it broke) packed with 8kg. With 6kgs I sometimes forget I wear a pack at all, because it is so comfortable.

Smaller packs feel weird to me, and I don't like playing Tetris when packing and prefer to have more room in the pack, so a 65l is perfect for me.

So I wouldn't judge a backpack by its size and weight, but how it feels and how it works for you.

 

[sun is shining]

Thanks for the encouragement to use what I have! I am reluctant to buy a new pack given that the one I have is in great condition. And it's helpful to keep in mind that a larger pack will potentially carry more comfortably given that it's designed for heavier loads. I'll keep thinking...

I think this really depends on how fit/strong you are. The CF is not a technical/super strenuous hike when you look at the terrain and altitude changes but rather (in most parts) a gentle walk through beautiful countryside. Distances don't have to be long and there are lots of places for supported rests (no need to carry 5l of water/days worth of food apart from very few sections).

I'm using my 36l backpack next year although - volume-wise - I could do with something way smaller. But the extra weight is - for this type of hike - not a problem for me. And I really do not want to buy a basically redundant backpack just to save a few oz. My approach to the Camino is a minimalist one and I use what I already have rather than buy new if not absolutely necessary.

Also, if weight is that much of a concern - I found it much easier to loose a couple of kg of body weight before a long-distance endavour compared to worrying about every oz in my pack. I've seen too many people leave behind essentials (first aid kit, water purification systems [obviously not on the Camino], cold protection,...) to save some weight. A well-fitted backpack and regular practice with the full weight (incl water) is - in my opinion - more beneficial to a successful and enjoyable Camino.

 

[Turga]

Another wote for fit & comfort over weight. I have a 40 (+10) Deuter pack that weighs just above 4 pounds, which is not exactly lightweight. Fully packed for a Camino including 1 liter of water it comes to around 16.8 pounds and that feels fine because of its well-designed carrying system and general fit (for me).

So don’t judge a pack from its weight alone. Pack it as you think it will be on the Camino and go for some (long) walks. If it feels good, then hold on to it; if not, go to a reputable outdoor shop and have them help you choose a pack that fits you well.

Buen Camino!

 

[Anhalter]

If you had the pack sitting around for 10 years, better double check if everything is still as it should be. Some materials can deteriorate over time. Not saying this must be the case, but i guess it would be less than optimal if something was to fail on your first "real" day of Camino.

Personally, i like the lighter packs. Mine is less than 500g, so thats quite some weight saved. But it is not an obligation to have a small pack. If you are happy with the one you already own, use that.

 

[dougfitz]

At just under 1.6 kg, the Kestral you have is not particularly heavy as packs at around that volume go. As someone who has too many packs at home, buying another one would not be my first choice anymore, but I can understand the temptation to get a lighter pack.

That said, I would work out your packing list before anything else. My rule of thumb for a summer camino is to divide your ideal body mass (in kg) by two, and that would be my start point for checking that what you need to pack will fit. So, if you are around 70 kg (155 lb) then a 35 li pack would probably be about right as the start point for looking for a smaller pack. If you are much heavier than this, then expect to need a larger pack.

 

[Tim-F]

On my three Caminos I've carried a Kestrel 48. I found it to be superb. On my first Camino I needed the volume, as I was carrying a stupidly warm sleeping bag. On the subsequent two, I had loads of room, which meant packing was really easy. The side compression straps work well. I could have used my Kestrel 38 (yes, I have too many rucksacks). However, the Kestrel 48 has features that the 38 does not.

1. The waist strap pockets are nice and big - room for my smartphone
2. The side pockets have a slit down the side, so I can get a water bottle out and in again, without taking pack off or getting help
3. There's a useful zipped side pocket, which I use for documents.

Osprey do update their designs, so your older version may not have the same features.

 

[t2andreo]

Hi all,

I'm planning to walk my first Camino on the Frances in August, and I have a question about my backpack. I own an Osprey Kestrel 48 that I used once about 10 years ago that I was planning to use for the Camino. I've recently been culling my packing list and starting to get a sense of how much my pack will weigh. The Kestrel 48 seems to be on the heavier side - at around 3 lbs 7 ounces. Do you think it's worth me purchasing a new pack - something closer to 35L - to reduce the weight of my pack to closer to 2-2.5lbs? I don't want to purchase a new pack unnecessarily, but I'm also aware of what every extra pound will feel like on the trail.

Thanks for your thoughts!

FWIW, ten years ago, I started with an Osprey Kestrel-48 liter. After two Caminos, I donated it to the PIlgrim House at Santiago, and replaced it with an Osprey Kestrel 38-liter - same bag, difference size - for Caminos - 3 - 6. It was MUCH better, at least IMHO. Over time, I have learned that space is a vacuum, and a vacuum sucks up stuff.

The more extra volume capacity you have, the more stuff you will invent a need to carry. This translates to weight. One extra pound on the back, translates - biomechanically - to five pounds of pressure on your hips, knee and ankles.

Just sayin. One kilo less in your mochila is about 11 less pounds of downward weight on your lower body. Imagine that over the one million steps to get from SJPdP to Santiago, walking every day, for more than a month. I think I made my point.

Also, and BTW, I am experimenting with a 32-liter Berghaus rucksack in combination with a 3-liter belly bag, and multiple small water bottles hanging from my front harness. I think I shall try this small, but balanced load system for my next Camino.

Consistent with this, I rethought my packing system as well. Side pockets will be used for rolled up ponchos and rain jackets, instead of water bottles. The water bottles, 4 x .5 liter will be clipped or otherwise attached to my pack harness in front, or on my belt, also in front. This distributes weight more evenly.

My fleece, and sun protection, will ride inside, at the top of the rucksack. Everything else will go in the 32-liter rucksack as appropriate. This rucksack is designed as a wet bag, with straps and a belt. It has a waterproof roll-top closure.

Your approach may be different. Mine was based on direct experience, and pain, as well as much observation, asking questions and research.

Every person is different. Every rucksack and every person is different.

Hope this helps,

Tom

 

[Camino Chrissy]

We were always able to use a Kestrel as a carry on on US carriers.

There are a few sizes of the Kestrel; 38 and 48L, and there may be others. My 36L Osprey Sirrus barely qualifies for the US international flight dimensions as carry on in the overheads when measured.
It never hurts to double check to make sure.

 

[J Willhaus]

There are a few sizes of the Kestrel; 38 and 48L, and there may be others. My 36L Osprey Sirrus barely qualifies for the US international flight dimensions as carry on in the overheads when measured.

Well we were able to stuff it into the little bin when asked and it was a 48 liter. They let us carry it on...

 

[Camino Chrissy]

Well we were able to stuff it into the little bin when asked and it was a 48 liter. They let us carry it on...

Lucky you. I've seen a few people requested to stuff theirs in those bins and they didn't qualify. Twice I've seen backpacks and another time a supposed carry-on suitcase. I always double check the airline's rules before leaving home.

 

[J Willhaus]

It wasn't completely stuffed full. Just happened to be what we had and it fits Phil well.

Interestingly, on our trip over this year, several people were asked to.put their bags in the bin before boarding, but we were not. It was a Lufthansa flight.

 

[curlylottie]

I would do some training hikes with the backpack packed and then decide. I walked the Frances last Sept-Oct with a full 35L Dueter pack and grew to *love* my pack since it was 1) new, 2) designed to fit a woman’s body, 3) super comfy. But before I left in Sept I committed to doing all my August training hikes with it ”fake packed”, e.g., stuffed with a representative set of clothing and items that I’d be taking. There is something to be said for updated design and technology… Buen Camino!

 

[Sugaree]

Does the top part detach? If it does, you'll probably fit into the overhead compartment as long as your side pockets are empty. Our packs are a bit smaller than yours, but with the empty top they fit. We have super lightweight day packs from sea to summit that count as the second personal item, they take up the overflow ( water bottles and anything we don't want out of our hands if there's no room in the overhead compartment.) We repack when we arrive at our destination, stuff the day packs into their little sacks, and off we go! We checked both of our packs in those bag measuring boxes, just to be sure before we got to the gate.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

I, too, leave the special top piece (brain) empty when flying and the side pockets empty.

 

[dougfitz]

This translates to weight. One extra pound on the back, translates - biomechanically - to five pounds of pressure on your hips, knee and ankles.

Just sayin. One kilo less in your mochila is about 11 less pounds of downward weight on your lower body. Imagine that over the one million steps to get from SJPdP to Santiago, walking every day, for more than a month. I think I made my point.

@t2andreo, I understand the point you are trying to make, but the source that I see that might justify this was a report on an investigation conducted on very specific types of individuals, and while the researchers suggest a significant reduction in peak knee joint forces, it was in the order of four times the weight loss, not five. More, the investigation did not examine the effects on hips or ankles. If you have sources that cover a more general population, not the sedentary, overweight, and obese older adults with self-reported disability and radiographic evidence of knee OA used in this investigation, and that address the effect on all three sets of joints, then I would be interested in knowing what they are. Otherwise, extrapolating a finding with such narrow parameters to the general population of pilgrims seems to be very adventurous.

 

[Mary Doll]

Hi all,

I'm planning to walk my first Camino on the Frances in August, and I have a question about my backpack. I own an Osprey Kestrel 48 that I used once about 10 years ago that I was planning to use for the Camino. I've recently been culling my packing list and starting to get a sense of how much my pack will weigh. The Kestrel 48 seems to be on the heavier side - at around 3 lbs 7 ounces. Do you think it's worth me purchasing a new pack - something closer to 35L - to reduce the weight of my pack to closer to 2-2.5lbs? I don't want to purchase a new pack unnecessarily, but I'm also aware of what every extra pound will feel like on the trail.

Thanks for your thoughts!

If your pack is comfortable I would stick with it. I bought an Osprey for Camino Frances which weighed 1.08 kg (2.38 lbs) based on recommendations and hated it. It just never felt comfortable. Bought a Lowe Alpine this year for Camino Portuguese which weighed 1.7 kg (3.75 lbs) and loved it. It just seemed a much better fit for me despite being heavier.

 

[gratitudemoves]

Thanks for the input everyone! I appreciate the varied perspectives and experiences you shared.

I filled out a packing list on LigherPack yesterday and did a good hard look at how much everything I'm bringing is going to weigh. I got a little spooked by how quickly it adds up and I think my pre-Camino nerves kicked in with trying to optimize everything I can. After a good night's sleep, I feel more settled in a plan to stick with what I have for now and start doing walks with the pack filled to see how it feels. If it really doesn't feel good, I'll reassess my options from there. I'll also try to keep in mind how to make the Osprey compact enough to fit in the overhead bins. I'm going to have a daypack that I can use as my second personal item for the plane and it's a helpful suggestion to offload some stuff from my Osprey to that daypack to make the Osprey more compact.

Thanks again!

 

[tbcan]

I have a Deuter 40+10 pack and the frame which keeps the pack away from your back makes it too large for carryon on Air Canada. After losing it temporarily and having to delay my start by a day on my last Camino, I have downsized to an Osprey 36l without the frame. It has yet to be tested,!

 

[DyanTX]

Measure the frame from top to bottom. If it is over 22 inches and the total of all measurements is above the allowable for your airline you may have to check it. Even if you leave the lid empty. As for weight, if it fits well,I would not change unless you figure the $$ for a new backpack is worth it. Personally, it would have to feel a whole lot better and be under half the weight to make it worth the cost. I use a 36 liter Osprey for almost all my travels including the CF.

 

[gratitudemoves]

Measure the frame from top to bottom. If it is over 22 inches and the total of all measurements is above the allowable for your airline you may have to check it. Even if you leave the lid empty. As for weight, if it fits well,I would not change unless you figure the $$ for a new backpack is worth it. Personally, it would have to feel a whole lot better and be under half the weight to make it worth the cost. I use a 36 liter Osprey for almost all my travels including the CF.

Thanks! I measured it tonight when it was empty and it seems like it should be okay. The frame is about 20.5inches. As long as I don't pack the top compartment, I should be okay. Fingers crossed! I'd really prefer to be able to keep it with me rather than have to check it. I'm flying Air France and Iberia and they both seem to have similar measurement requirements of ~22x ~15 x ~10

Also, I ordered a handheld scale and weighed the pack tonight and it only comes to 3.2lbs (1.5kg) which feels light enough to me not to warrant a new pack. Thanks for all your tips, regardless!

 

[MikeJS]

Comfort is much more important than weight. The weight of a bottle of wine and food for the coming night had never stopped me buying them! I have used an old UK Army back pack for all of my caminos as I find it very comfortable and have never weighed my pack!

 

[hikentravel1234]

@t2andreo, I understand the point you are trying to make, but the source that I see that might justify this was a report on an investigation conducted on very specific types of individuals, and while the researchers suggest a significant reduction in peak knee joint forces, it was in the order of four times the weight loss, not five. More, the investigation did not examine the effects on hips or ankles. If you have sources that cover a more general population, not the sedentary, overweight, and obese older adults with self-reported disability and radiographic evidence of knee OA used in this investigation, and that address the effect on all three sets of joints, then I would be interested in knowing what they are. Otherwise, extrapolating a finding with such narrow parameters to the general population of pilgrims seems to be very adventurous.

I think I see the study you are referring to but there are many more studies that you can google and look at. New Mexico Health refers to 1 less pound of body weight decreases hip pressure by up to 6 pounds. Texas Spine institutes found 1 less pound of body weight takes the equivalent of 4 pounds of pressure from your spine, thus improve sciatica, if you have this problem. Essentially different studies show a 1 to 4, or a 1 to 5, or a 1 to 6 ratio. And some studies look at hip pain and other studies look at back pain/sciatica. However, can the benefits of weight loss be translated to a decrease of weight that is carried on your back, of which some of it is translated to the hips? I definitely think you can but I certainly wouldn't quibble about whether it's a 1 to 4 ratio versus a 1 to 5 ratio versus a 1 to 6 ratio.

 

[dougfitz]

I think I see the study you are referring to but there are many more studies that you can google and look at. New Mexico Health refers to 1 less pound of body weight decreases hip pressure by up to 6 pounds. Texas Spine institutes found 1 less pound of body weight takes the equivalent of 4 pounds of pressure from your spine, thus improve sciatica, if you have this problem. Essentially different studies show a 1 to 4, or a 1 to 5, or a 1 to 6 ratio. And some studies look at hip pain and other studies look at back pain/sciatica. However, can the benefits of weight loss be translated to a decrease of weight that is carried on your back, of which some of it is translated to the hips? I definitely think you can but I certainly wouldn't quibble about whether it's a 1 to 4 ratio versus a 1 to 5 ratio versus a 1 to 6 ratio.

Thank you, but I have not been able to find refereed papers apart from the one that I linked to earlier. Are you able to provide references that do that? There certainly were plenty of web pages that made claims about this. Some that I found did not have references to the sources they were relying upon. Some used an earlier US Army study examining the effect of the weight of boots which seems to be relatively well known amongst those interested in this topic. Others seem to rely on anecdotes. It would be nice to know what the academic research has really established.

I don't doubt that there are benefits to be had from weight loss, which is what the study I referenced does show, but if one is going to make such claims, there should be some evidence for those claims and their applicability.

 

[t2andreo]

@t2andreo, I understand the point you are trying to make, but the source that I see that might justify this was a report on an investigation conducted on very specific types of individuals, and while the researchers suggest a significant reduction in peak knee joint forces, it was in the order of four times the weight loss, not five. More, the investigation did not examine the effects on hips or ankles. If you have sources that cover a more general population, not the sedentary, overweight, and obese older adults with self-reported disability and radiographic evidence of knee OA used in this investigation, and that address the effect on all three sets of joints, then I would be interested in knowing what they are. Otherwise, extrapolating a finding with such narrow parameters to the general population of pilgrims seems to be very adventurous.

Your points are well made. I shall check my sources and get back to this.

Thanks,

Tom

 

[hikentravel1234]

Thank you, but I have not been able to find refereed papers apart from the one that I linked to earlier. Are you able to provide references that do that? There certainly were plenty of web pages that made claims about this. Some that I found did not have references to the sources they were relying upon. Some used an earlier US Army study examining the effect of the weight of boots which seems to be relatively well known amongst those interested in this topic. Others seem to rely on anecdotes. It would be nice to know what the academic research has really established.

I don't doubt that there are benefits to be had from weight loss, which is what the study I referenced does show, but if one is going to make such claims, there should be some evidence for those claims and their applicability.

Continuing on this discussion is not germane to this topic. I used Google Chrome. If you want to you can put in "does 1 pound of weight loss decrease back pain" under Google Chrome. I am a physician. I'm not good at transferring studies/articles. But I'm certainly not going to waste anymore time to transfer them when you can look them up under Google Chrome, AND nitpicky details are not germane to this topic. If you want every single detail, look them up under Google Chrome and have a good couple of hours looking at them.
The whole purpose of my reply was because you refuted somebody else's reply – – when there are many studies on this topic, and we're not even sure which particular study she/he was talking about.

 

[t2andreo]

I have done some research, and also put out questions to subject matter experts. However, it appears I had my numbers REVERSED. See this citation:

1 Pound On Your Foot Equals 5 Pounds On Your Back: The 5 Thumb Rules of Hiking - Mountain Tactical Institute

Hiking can be amazing, but you need to be prepared! Do you want to learn the 5 thumb rules of hiking? Click the link to learn now!

mtntactical.com

I originally stated that one pound in the rucksack equals five pounds on your lower joints. Numbers being relative, the same proportion holds for kilos: 1 on the back equals 5 on the foot. Thus, sayeth the U.S. Army, at least in 1984.

This said, THIS site (below) - intended to provide simple answers to questions - approaches the problem differently. It looks at overall body weight and the effect on one's knees. See this:

Does every pound you weigh put 3-5 pounds of pressure on your knees? Why?

Answer (1 of 2): I am going to take a guess here. I want you to draw three "circles" the first is the rough shape around your weight (at your bellow button). The second is around your left knee and the the third is around your right knee. How many of the second and third circles (left & right k...

www.quora.com

THIS article states that one extra pound of overall body weight (logically, including a loaded rucksack within our context of walking a Camino) translates to 3 to 5 extra pounds of pressure added to your knees.

I am still awaiting input from my subject matter experts. Pending this, I will admit that I might have been wrong in my original statement. I just mis-remembered it. I still cannot remember the original source of my belief. Such is life at 70.

Oops! My bad (maybe).

Hope this helps.

Tom

 

[Charte57]

Lots of good thoughts here, I’m in the use the old pack group. I have a 52 Osprey and love it. Someone made the point of the larger packs having better support and suspension which I appreciate greatly. Also, if I need something in my pack during the day I don’t have to empty half my pack to find it. I’ve had more than a few fellow pilgrims comment on the size of my pack, I invite them to pick it up and check the weight which is almost always the same (or less) than theirs, I pack light. Buen Camino!

 

[CWBuff]

I sort of agree with folks who suggested keeping the old one.
It's your 'old trusted' pack, you know?!
You know the comfort level and all pros and cons.
So... pack it lighter than you usually would... and actually IMHO that in itself may prove to be enough

 

[dougfitz]

I have done some research, and also put out questions to subject matter experts. However, it appears I had my numbers REVERSED. See this citation:

1 Pound On Your Foot Equals 5 Pounds On Your Back: The 5 Thumb Rules of Hiking - Mountain Tactical Institute

Hiking can be amazing, but you need to be prepared! Do you want to learn the 5 thumb rules of hiking? Click the link to learn now!

mtntactical.com

I originally stated that one pound in the rucksack equals five pounds on your lower joints. Numbers being relative, the same proportion holds for kilos: 1 on the back equals 5 on the foot. Thus, sayeth the U.S. Army, at least in 1984.

This said, THIS site (below) - intended to provide simple answers to questions - approaches the problem differently. It looks at overall body weight and the effect on one's knees. See this:

Does every pound you weigh put 3-5 pounds of pressure on your knees? Why?

Answer (1 of 2): I am going to take a guess here. I want you to draw three "circles" the first is the rough shape around your weight (at your bellow button). The second is around your left knee and the the third is around your right knee. How many of the second and third circles (left & right k...

www.quora.com

THIS article states that one extra pound of overall body weight (logically, including a loaded rucksack within our context of walking a Camino) translates to 3 to 5 extra pounds of pressure added to your knees.

I am still awaiting input from my subject matter experts. Pending this, I will admit that I might have been wrong in my original statement. I just mis-remembered it. I still cannot remember the original source of my belief. Such is life at 70.

Oops! My bad (maybe).

Hope this helps.

Tom

Tom,

thank you for providing this information. I'm afraid that when I try and understand both the 1984 US Army study and the Quora discussion thread, I don't think either support some of the claims made of them.

We have discussed the 1984 US Army study before in threads about the relative merits of shoes vs boots. This study found that there were increases in energy expenditure at higher walking and running speeds, a fact which had been used by various ultra light afficionados here and elsewhere to justify their use of lighter footwear. And for people who do walk at the higher walking speeds used in the study, 5.6 km/hour and 7.3 km/hour, that is quite reasonable. What rarely, if ever, gets mentioned is that the study found that there was no statistically significant difference in energy expenditure between using boots and shoes at the lower walking speed of 4.0 km/hour. The study didn't identify the point between walking at 4.0 km/hour and 5.6 km/hour where the difference in energy expenditure did become statistically significant. But what is clear is for those of us who do walk at around 4.0 km/hour, this study provides no rationale for trading in one's boots for shoes.

The Quora discussion thread you provided a link to did lead to another with a pertinent observation that goes to better understanding the study findings that reduced weight in obese subjects resulted in reduced pressure in the knees, which is that this is a dynamic effect - it arises from the impact dynamics of walking or running, not from the static loading of the joints. I suspect that there are other factors here, like track surface, but from what I can see in studies of non-obese subjects, the ground reaction forces multiplier appears to be about 2.5 time one's weight. So a study showing a multiplier of four or more times reduction of peak internal pressure in the knees with weight loss in obese subjects does appear to show that weight loss will have far greater benefits for that group of walkers than those who aren't obese. It doesn't mean that there will be no benefits if one isn't obese, but it appears they won't be of the same magnitude.

A quick calculation will show that someone at the upper end of the normal BMI range carrying a load of 10% of their body mass will not have a combined or total weight equivalent to someone who is obese. They will have put themselves into the overweight category in BMI terms. However, someone who is already overweight might well do have a combined pack and body weight that does exceed the BMI level for obesity.

My final observation is that just taking these headline results, even from well-informed sources, hides some of the detail. It was only when I went back to the original 1984 US Army report that I realised that it had not found the often quoted effect of a 'pound on your feet is the same as five/six/seven on your back' for the slowest walking speed used. If it gets mentioned at all, I have never seen it raised when this topic is being discussed.

 

[Purple Backpack]

For what it’s worth and not involving any scientific studies (tho it’s fun to read the posts), I just feel better with a lighter load. I’ve been everywhere from backpacking in college with cans of spaghetti, jeans and a 3 pound sleeping bag to my last trip going seriously ultralight. For the next one, I’m going back to a little heavier pack because the ultralight sat flat on my back and was miserably hot. Gratitudemoves, you’ve got an August Camino. Expect it to be pretty hot and pack down light. If you’re going to carry a heavier pack, just compensate with lighter and less gear. Don’t forget the weight of water and food, it adds up. You don’t need much for a summer Camino!

 

[t2andreo]

IMHO, less weight - from the skin out - yields a more pleasurable Camino. NOT that we should all just walk naked in boots and socks - but the point is simple. If your all-in weight burden, including clothing, water etc. is 15 kg, you will spend less energy and incur less wear and tear on your body - at any age - than if you total weight burden were 20 or 30 kg. Remember, I am including ALL your clothing, stuff in your cargo pockets, on your head, etc.

While we cannot substantiate a one-size fits all equation, as Doug and my ongoing colloquy indicates, we have established that more weight on you back DOES result in more effort, wear and tear on your lower limbs. That much is not in dispute.

We have also, in passing, established again, the case for transferring some of the weight on your back to your arms and lower frame by using hiking sticks / poles. Again, the pint is not in dispute and multiple scientific studies ratify the concept.

Finally, and this is more obscure, we have touched on the positive aspects of redistribution of the rucksack weight to move frequently accessed items like water bottles to the FRONT of your rucksack harness. This is done by using a small "belly bag" attached to your rucksack harness, or clips to fasten or hang items. You would be pleasantly surprised by how moving a kilo or two from your back to your front affects your balance, and the overall feeling of carrying less of a load.

Our KIWI friends from New Zealand sorted this with their globally famous AARN rucksacks. They employ a custom rucksack harness that supports adding two front pouches - each holding upwards of 5 liters. I have tried these rigs on, while on Camino and - at least for the short time I was carrying it - it felt appreciably lighter than my standard Osprey rucksack.

My Kiwi friends say their nickname for these pouches is "Pamelas." I am told this is in honor of the former Baywatch TV show starlet Pamela Anderson - makes sense to me. Hey, if the folks in OZ can call a barbeque grill a "Barbie," the Kiwis can call front rucksack pouches whatever they want, especially if it invokes the mental image they are trying to convey.

Hope this helps.

Tom

 

[RickGordon12]

Just to weigh in, I am amazed anyone would need a 65 l pack for even a backpacking trip in the wilderness. I agree that excess is a vacuum for bringing more stuff. I walked 700+ miles last year on the LePuy, Frances, and Primitivo with a 30L pack. I'm 63 yrs old so don't really want to carry extra weight. To be honest, I hardly carried water since there is water probably every 5km or less. Not sure what I needed I didn't have--I even carried a light sleeping bag, pad and bivy sack in case I couldn't find a bed (never an issue). And I had extra space in my pack still. What all are people bringing with a 45 or more liter pack?
IMO, rethink what you're bringing if you need that extra space. That being said, it is true that a more comfortable pack makes any weight feel easier.

 

[dougfitz]

Just to weigh in, I am amazed anyone would need a 65 l pack for even a backpacking trip in the wilderness. I agree that excess is a vacuum for bringing more stuff. I walked 700+ miles last year on the LePuy, Frances, and Primitivo with a 30L pack. I'm 63 yrs old so don't really want to carry extra weight. To be honest, I hardly carried water since there is water probably every 5km or less. Not sure what I needed I didn't have--I even carried a light sleeping bag, pad and bivy sack in case I couldn't find a bed (never an issue). And I had extra space in my pack still. What all are people bringing with a 45 or more liter pack?
IMO, rethink what you're bringing if you need that extra space. That being said, it is true that a more comfortable pack makes any weight feel easier.

Perhaps it would have been more constructive to share some basic information about yourself and your packing list rather than make such bold pronouncements. Others could then assess whether they are a similar size to you (a critical factor in backpack size) and intend to walk at the same time of year, with a similar gear list. Only then could they make some better informed judgement about whether this assessment really applies to them.

ps, and let us know whether you were able to carry everything inside the pack.

 

[RickGordon12]

I'm 63 yrs old, 5'10" and walked the Caminos in June-July last year. Everything I had fit inside my pack (with extra space still available) except the sleeping pad. As far as I can remember, here's what I had with me besides what I wore walking (shorts, underwear, T shirt, cap, Altra lone peak shoes): Zip off pants, extra shirt for evening, merino wool long sleeve shirt, raincoat, superlight wind shell, umbrella, mid weight fleece shirt, button down shirt, extra pair of socks, water bottle, phone charger, phone battery pack, 1 lb sleeping bag, blow up pillow, emergency bivy sack, sleeping pad, water color paints and pad of watercolor paper, flip flops, toiletries, first aid kit, headlamp, towel, bandana, net bag (for grocery shopping and such). I think maybe I'm forgetting a few things but that is about it. The simplicity and lightness of what you carry is one of the things I loved about the Camino compared to backcountry hiking. I think one "trick" to my packing is I wash my walking clothes every day when I get to the albergue (usually just wear them in the shower) and hang them up to dry, which usually is all good by dark. So I always have my one set of clean "evening wear" and my well loved set of "walking attire."
PS I also put in my pack the paper sheets given at an albergue as it seemed more environmentally sound than using new ones all the time.
Hope that helps....

 

[gratitudemoves]

As an update - after I got all my things together and packed it all into my old pack, it didn't feel right and was uncomfortable to carry. I went to the store today with all the things I plan to bring with me on Camino and was able to leave with a Gregory Jade 43. I'm very happy with the fit and comfort!

I appreciate the advice to try out multiple packs with my actual belongings and see which one fits best. I'm excited to be one step closer to leaving for my Camino in a couple weeks.

 

[KiwiJohn]

I'm 63 yrs old, 5'10" and walked the Caminos in June-July last year. Everything I had fit inside my pack (with extra space still available) except the sleeping pad. As far as I can remember, here's what I had with me besides what I wore walking (shorts, underwear, T shirt, cap, Altra lone peak shoes): Zip off pants, extra shirt for evening, merino wool long sleeve shirt, raincoat, superlight wind shell, umbrella, mid weight fleece shirt, button down shirt, extra pair of socks, water bottle, phone charger, phone battery pack, 1 lb sleeping bag, blow up pillow, emergency bivy sack, sleeping pad, water color paints and pad of watercolor paper, flip flops, toiletries, first aid kit, headlamp, towel, bandana, net bag (for grocery shopping and such). I think maybe I'm forgetting a few things but that is about it. The simplicity and lightness of what you carry is one of the things I loved about the Camino compared to backcountry hiking. I think one "trick" to my packing is I wash my walking clothes every day when I get to the albergue (usually just wear them in the shower) and hang them up to dry, which usually is all good by dark. So I always have my one set of clean "evening wear" and my well loved set of "walking attire."
PS I also put in my pack the paper sheets given at an albergue as it seemed more environmentally sound than using new ones all the time.
Hope that helps....

May I ask the total weight?

 

[RickGordon12]

May I ask the total weight?

I kind of didn't pay attention but probably 6 or 7 kilos. Maybe less. I had what I needed and it felt light to me.

 

[KiwiJohn]

I kind of didn't pay attention but probably 6 or 7 kilos. Maybe less. I had what I needed and it felt light to me.

+h2o?

 

[RickGordon12]

I didn't really carry water. There is water available every few kilometers. I would have maybe 1/4 liter with me in case I was really thirsty but usually didn't drink from this. I just waited til I got to a fountain or bathroom and drank a fair bit then.
As I presume you did, I grew up in an era we didn't have a water bottle attached to us incessantly. SOmehow, I never saw anyone dessicate and disappear in the old days. Maybe it's just my metabolism, but I am fine not sipping water every few minutes and drink with meals and snacks and can go an hour or two without drinking just fine.
I certainly can't imagine why anyone would carry more than 1 liter of water. That would fill anyone up and then you can refill. It seems silly to carry water just to avoid refilling when the chance arises.

 

[dougfitz]

I didn't really carry water. There is water available every few kilometers. I would have maybe 1/4 liter with me in case I was really thirsty but usually didn't drink from this. I just waited til I got to a fountain or bathroom and drank a fair bit then.
As I presume you did, I grew up in an era we didn't have a water bottle attached to us incessantly. SOmehow, I never saw anyone dessicate and disappear in the old days. Maybe it's just my metabolism, but I am fine not sipping water every few minutes and drink with meals and snacks and can go an hour or two without drinking just fine.
I certainly can't imagine why anyone would carry more than 1 liter of water. That would fill anyone up and then you can refill. It seems silly to carry water just to avoid refilling when the chance arises.

The statement that there is water available every few kilometres might be @RickGordon12's impression, but it isn't born out by the facts. I did some calculations for the CF a few years ago, and presuming no-one has built a new town since then, the facts look different.

Using the distances between localities from [the] Camino Planner on the Godesalco site (http://www.godesalco.com/plan/frances) and assuming that a speedy pilgrim can achieve an effective average speed of 5kph (I averaged about 4.5kph on the CF ...) then:

• Roncesvalles to Burgos: 51 locations, 31 < 1 hour from the previous location, 14 between one and two hours, six over two hours.
• Burgos to Leon: 31 locations 13 < 1 hour from the previous location, 16 between one and two hours, one over two hours and one over three hours.
• Leon to Santiago:74 locations 52 < 1 hour from the previous location, 19 between one and two hours, three over two hours.
• Total: 156 locations, 96 < 1 hour from the previous location, 49 between one and two hours, 11 over three hours.

So on this basis, nearly 40% of the next locations are over an hour away. Even after Leon, about 30% of the next locations are over an hour away.

Newbies might need to know that the most effective way of staying hydrated is to drink freely, preferably before they get thirsty, and that one of the most effective ways of achieving that is a bladder or other arrangement where they don't have to stretch to get to their water. This is just as true on the Camino as it is in remote places. Further, they should know that they will generally be less than two hours from the next location, but over 5% of the time it will be more than that when they set out from the previous location.

Note that there is also some seasonal dependence. When I walked in early spring, several fonts had not been turned on. I presume that they had been turned off over winter to protect external water pipes from freezing, but there might be other reasons for not turning more remote fonts on.

On the matter of how one stays hydrated, that really is a matter of personal preference. I carry a bladder, and a reserve water bottle. When I have measured my fluid consumption on a hot day in Australia, it has been, on average, 700ml/hr, so I am carrying about three hours should I need that. On the CP, my intake during a hot day was regularly over four litres while walking and more in the evening. I would rather avoid the risk of dehydration than follow the pattern used by @RickGordon12.

 

[KiwiJohn]

The statement that there is water available every few kilometres might be @RickGordon12's impression, but it isn't born out by the facts. I did some calculations for the CF a few years ago, and presuming no-one has built a new town since then, the facts look different.

Note that there is also some seasonal dependence. When I walked in early spring, several fonts had not been turned on. I presume that they had been turned off over winter to protect external water pipes from freezing, but there might be other reasons for not turning more remote fonts on.

On the matter of how one stays hydrated, that really is a matter of personal preference. I carry a bladder, and a reserve water bottle. When I have measured my fluid consumption on a hot day in Australia, it has been, on average, 700ml/hr, so I am carrying about three hours should I need that. On the CP, my intake during a hot day was regularly over four litres while walking and more in the evening. I would rather avoid the risk of dehydration than follow the pattern used by @RickGordon12.

I will take 2 x 750ml bottles, topping up from water fountains. I will also carry a Katadyn befree filter which screws on to one of the bottles.
I have been caught out before!!

 

[aimeekb]

I would do some training hikes with the backpack packed and then decide. I walked the Frances last Sept-Oct with a full 35L Dueter pack and grew to *love* my pack since it was 1) new, 2) designed to fit a woman’s body, 3) super comfy. But before I left in Sept I committed to doing all my August training hikes with it ”fake packed”, e.g., stuffed with a representative set of clothing and items that I’d be taking. There is something to be said for updated design and technology… Buen Camino!

which 35L dueter pack did you use ? i head out in sept . thxs!