Talk:Ultralight backpacking

Yeah it's hype

People have been eating more or less food and walking long distances since they came out of the trees. The goal of carrying as little as possible has always been entirely self-evident.

I've seen basic camping kits listed at maybe 7 pounds -- from roughly the year 1900. And there is no reason to think, for example, that John Muir's approach in the 19th Century was unique or new. He sometimes traveled with practically nothing.

Yeah, technology has made a difference -- but in reality, it's not very meaningful as a percentage of pack weight.

The whole "new" concept of ultralight backpacking is primarily a creation of retailers. A couple of decades earlier, the same group may have helped foster heavier-weight packs (among the unthinking) by pushing a lot of useless junk and trying to portray backpacking as something less austere than it inevitably is. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:FCD6:50D7:B05B:7E47 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kcal and 'food calories'

"Jordan suggests 1.25 pounds (0.57 kg) per day (at 125 calories per ounce, 4.4 calories per gram) for a 3-season 3-day backpack.[1]" Calories or kilocalories? Assume kcal. What in the name of your favourite imaginary overlord is a "food calorie"? It seems this is the result of some US marketing body changing the definition of "calorie" to make it less confusing for the poorly educated population, maybe so they eat more. International site, kcal should be standard and understood by all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.63.90 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word 'can'

Throughout the article there are several uses of the word 'can'. For example, 'Ultralight hikers can...'. This is a wikipedia article and not a tutorial. I recommend phrases like this be reworded to something more along the lines of 'Some Ultralight hikers...' --Naturespace (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Y'alls be wanting to start putting in some citations. Ratagonia 08:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hype

The whole article is buzz 'n hype. Multipurpose equipment is nothing new. Closed cell sleeping pads were, in the 70s. Or maybe 60s.
I could never understand why people would spend money on heavy inflatable pads (80s). Sleeping on twigs sure is hard, but the majority of people in this world has not more to lay down on.
Since decades tarpaulins are serving as poncho, tent, water collector, reflector, ... but in the jungle most modern materials get instantly eaten up by termites :-((
-- Steffen Heinrich 87.187.3.134 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silnylon and Dyneema are new. 75.15.204.118 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Tools

May I call attention to the "Show Preview" button, so that a series of edits can be made progressively, and only show up as a single entry in the history. This makes it much easier for other editors to follow and support your work. Ratagonia (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes however, I find it convenient when the edits are separate - IF the edits do not necessarily pertain to each other. Makes them easier to follow and perhaps undo. But when a gross amount of edits on a single sentence are made it gets confusing, and in these cases using the preview makes following and supporting the edits easier. --Naturespace (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removal of section on Energy bars and Emergency food bars by User:Naturespace makes no sense

These are very common foods used by ultralighters, how stupid not to mention them in an article on ultralight backpacking. 75.14.222.80 (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off 75.14.22.80, thank you for your contributions to the page. I removed the section for two reasons. First, there was absolutely no connection to ultralight hiking made within the statement - nothing about the philosophy of how carrying these bars can lighten up a backpack. Second, it contained unreferenced phrases within its content (eg it could be read as opinion rather than fact). I disagree it would be stupid not to mention them, but I do agree that they should be considered to be added if they are tied into ultralight backpacking, and if any phrases about their nutritional value are included these are backed up by references. Something like my recent edit...Regards --Naturespace (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ratagonia flagging everything with citation needed tags

[1]

Does this sentence really need a citation?:

"In many areas, unprotected food has the potential of being eaten by bears."

75.15.192.1 (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it has a Worldview problem. Most countries don't have bears.Newzild (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than building the article from things you know are true that are in your head, the Wiki is built from articles in respectable publications. This Ultralight backpacking article is built largely by agreement on what is true by many contributing authors. Probably pretty good, but not really up to snuff, wiki-wise. Thus my continual (and perhaps over-done) request for citations. Would also be nice if citations to something other than "Beyond Backpacking" could be found. An interesting problem, since UL Backpacking is an Internet-age phenomenom, and not well-covered by the respectable journals such as "Back-breaker".

In my copy, try Jardine, page 401.

I also think the statement, as made, is particularly ludicrous. Read Jardine and paraphrase what he says (is a better way of constructing a wiki-article). In many areas, unprotected food has the potential of being eaten by: ants, mold, uncle harry, racoons, ravens, mice, squirrels, passersby, homeless people - but mostly, ants. Heck, they got my box of granola this morning. There are relatively very few areas in the USA, or the world, where Bears would be the main pilferer of unprotected food. Ratagonia (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget marmots! Jim Heaphy (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is in need of more citations, which are hard to come by with Ultralight Backpacking. As to that sentence though, I suggest it be re-phrased to encompass what Ratagonia wrote above, with a proper reference of course (do bear's really need a section of their own in this article?). As for Ratagonia's recent removal of references, I disagree that removing the references entirely is the proper edit to make just because they lack page numbers. Are page numbers really necessary? Look at any reputable wiki article around, and the majority lack page numbers. Further, unless there is another way to do it adding page numbers for each citation will completely clutter the references. --Naturespace (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "For instance an inflatable sleeping pad is more feature-rich and weighs more than a closed-cell foam pad, yet both serve the same extrinsic purpose." I think you mean to say an inflatable sleeping pad weighs 'less' than a closed cell foam pad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale Matson (talk • contribs) 02:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Hanging your food works against most potential food predators, but not always against bears, and is even illegal in certain areas. The significance to ultralighters is the significant weight of approved bear resistant containers. I disagree that references to Ultralight backpacking are hard to find (if that was so, this article should not be on wikipedia). Certainly Jardine's Beyond Backpacking is probably the number one reference today. But there are others: Jordan's Lightweight Backpacking and Camping, Kestenbaum's Ultralight Backpacker, Cole's Lightweight Backpacking, Ladigin's Complete Handbook for Light and Ultralight Backpacking ... [2] Most modern backpacking books will include a section on Ultralight Backpacking, it is hardly an obscure topic or neologism. As for Wikipedia:Citing sources, to require a reference for every sentence in an article is an abuse of policy at best and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering at worse. If an editor disagrees with a sentence, then edit it, or reach consensus on the talk page for a better edit. Only use Template:cn in cases where a statement definitely needs a reference. 75.15.202.141 (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Jordan's book is self-published and therefore does not technically qualify as a WP:RS. Would be nice to reference sources that qualify, when available. On other issues, wiki does not require a source citation for EVERY statement, but when people insert sentences that make claims that can be tied back to a citation, it is good to do so. Much of this article stinks of Original Research (but it has gotten better), as do many articles in Wiki when they start out. Ratagonia (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008 - new Notes Section

This topic has come up before, where we cite specific pages within a reference, then the references section gets packed with multiple references to the same book, website, etc...What I did was create a new reference group with the ref tag entitled "note", and a new Notes section to display these notes. I did this so we can site specific page numbers, quotes, or simply notes without re-referencing.

To use this ref tag to cite specific page numbers, add the "group=note" to the ref tag.

Are folks ok with this format? --Naturespace (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care, but you might like to know:

1. You shouldn't top post to Talk. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

2. There is absolutely nothing wrong with multiple references to the same reference in the reference section, it's standard practice, see other wikipedia articles for examples. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources.

75.15.201.243 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply '75.15.201.24'. 1) You're right. I shouldn't have.... 2) Perhaps technically this isn't wrong, but aesthetically and in practice it does not make a whole lot of sense...especially when things are cited like "Jordan page v"...to someone reading this page for the first time - which is who this page should be written for - they'd have to root through then entire references section to figure out what "Jordan" is. Makes absolutely no sense to me... 3) You seem to know a heck of a lot about wikipedia, I am surprised you don't have a username. It helps people follow and support your edits as well as discuss other topics on your own talk page.--Naturespace (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Diarrhea Getting Killed

A couple of zealots are merging Wilderness Diarrhea article into Travelers Diarrhea. This is a loss of content of interest to backpackers. The WD article was comprehensive and boring.

After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer wish to participate. Interested parties ought to chime in. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Down Sleeping Bags

I'll come back when I find a quote and add this the the article proper, but is ridiculous to think about bring a down sleeping bag on a lightweight backpacking trek. Perhaps it is because the source quoted is 10 or so years old but there are synthetic bags rated well below 0°, that weigh a fraction of what down bags weigh, and are specially made for ultralight backpacking (not to mention if a down bag would happen to get wet your looking at another 20-30 pounds and they take for-freaking-ever to dry). 65.78.69.234 (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "there are synthetic bags rated well below 0°, that weigh a fraction of what down bags weigh" I own several bags both down and synthetic. Down is lighter and more compact by far. Dale Matson (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you'll need a reference for that claim for sure. I'd be interested in any current synthetic bags that have the performance per weight of a good ultralight down bag. An example of a good ultralight down bag is the Marmot Hydrogen which is conservatively rated at 30F and weighs in at 25 ounces. Yes, you do certainly have to keep external and body moisture out of it, otherwise as you say down quickly loses its effectiveness. And down bags are probably crazy in wet environments, such as the coastal Pacific Northwest. Also, it's a lightweight bag, so you do have to treat it gently, it tears easily. 75.15.195.17 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Canisters

Not as heavy as "several pounds". My Wild Ideas brand Bearikade Weekender weighs 1 pound 15 ounces. The heaviest approved canister, the Counter Assault brand Bear Keg, weighs 3 lbs, 2 oz. Ikuto.yagawa (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wood gas stoves

Can these be mentioned here ? See http://www.zzstove.com/sierratt.html and http://www.woodgas.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.86.177 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyvek as UL Material

While Silnylon and Cuben Fiber are mentioned, I wonder if it would be helpful to mention the trend by many to use Tyvek as a low cost, extremely light, widely available, and eco-friendly (most use ends that would other wise be destined for the landfill) material for everything from tarps and ground sheets to DIY bivy sacks. Check out http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40711&highlight=Tyvek or http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=7049 .--Canadiandy talk 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reasons, Tyvek keeps coming up, but it's not a very good material for ultralighting. It's not waterproof like silnylon nor fully breathable like uncoated ripstop nylon fabrics, so it could be a substitute for Goretex and the like, except it doesn't perform as well.75.14.221.86 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mountain Laurel Designs offers many types of Cuben Fiber ponchos and shelters in cuben fiber and has been manufacturing cuben fiber backpacking products longer than any other company" <-Sounds so much like an ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.97.172 (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyvek is ultralight. Anyone that disagrees should get out more. Frog Toggs are a fine example. As seen in many ultralight thru hiking backpacking kits. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"so-called" energy bars

Changing this to just "energy bars". The wording seems very patronizing - as if there is a correct type of energy bar. There is no standard declaring what an energy bar must contain to be called an energy bar. You can make one purely out of chickpeas, gummy bears, or tuna and call it an energy bar if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poposhka (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of the wording was that any bar-shaped food contains "energy" and that ""so-called" energy bars" do not necessarily replenish "energy" better than any other food, but yeah, can't word it like that. --92.202.85.198 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most so-called "energy bars" are just expensive candy bars, i.e. mostly sugar, or even worse high fructose corn syrup. Now a bar of ghee (rendered butter) is a true energy bar, if you measure energy in calories, which is the common convention. Also high on the list would be toasted coconut or dried egg yolks. 75.0.0.49 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Energy bars are differentiated from candy bars in a very simple way. A "Snicker bar" is a candy bar. A "Pro bar" is an energy bar. Pro bars weigh 85 grams and have 10 grams of protein in them. It has to do with nutritional value. There are a few foodie purists who will call Pro bars processed junk food but those folks are few and far between. -Pacific Crest Trail, Class of 2016 108.252.124.176 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Base pack weight" to "Base weight"

Hello, Having walked almost the entirety of the 2,650 mile long Pacific Crest Trail in 2016 I would like to point out that a lot of the information on this page is outdated.

While I have participated in a lot of ultralight backpacking discussions, I have never heard the term "base pack weight" used on trail or in any online community. The term is "base weight" and I propose that the term "base pack weight" should be abandoned on this page in favor of the term "base weight". Perhaps Ray Jardine called it "base pack weight" or some other NOLS article from 2006 - but again that's all outdated at this point.

Additionally, there needs to be more real life examples in the pack section. As it stands the current examples are outdated and do not provide any context for where they are appropriate. There used to be an editor's note asking other editors to not provide real life examples and I changed that to encourage editors to include real life examples as they are the most practical in regard to this kind of activity. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real ultralighters make their own stuff, it's lighter, cheaper and better quality. There's no need for the "luxury labels" of outdoor gear. On the other hand, I guess if you can get a sponsership for some label, you should go for it, but you're just a model at that point, not a real ultralighter. Real ultralighters don't wear labels. 75.15.217.201 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's NPOV (neutral point of view) to suggest that you have to make your own gear to be a 'real' ultralighter, nor is it NPOV to suggest it's lighter, cheaper, or better quality - especially without any sources to cite. I know a few triple crown thru hikers with ultralight base weights that didn't make their own gear and I know your statement is not the general consensus. I had a sub 5 pound base weight when I thru'd the PCT and didn't make my own gear but was definitely ultralight, probably in the upper 5% of light packs. 2602:306:CFC7:CB00:914:1985:B5EE:2F69 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense says "Nothing new under the sun"

"Ultralight" is a process of reiterating pack base weight and consumable weight (e.g. dehydration of food makes the pack lighter and more comfortable to carry per given range) to improve comfort and improve range per given supply. It's been that way since men began carrying gear at the dawn of his existence. To ascribe credit to some guy in the 1800's or the 1990's is simply because of documentation, not genius. Think: who discovered America? Columbus or the Native Americans who originally came from Indonesia and northeastern Asia?

Given that no hike is the same hike because of weather, time, terrain, or location, and no backpacker is the same weight, sex, has the same stamina or will or does not necessarily possess the exact same mission goals, you can see how utterly futile it is to nebulously define "ultralight" with a weight range, e. g. a videographer hiking the AT might carry some heavy recording gear, use all ultralight gear and yet find his or her pack weight is only considered "lightweight" at 15-20 lbs. Absurd. That person used ultralight process and ultralight gear to optimize his or her mission. Ridiculous. Comparing hikes with a weight classification is like a hiker telling another hiker they aren't doing ultralight right. To the crowds who are trying to box in "ultralight" with a weight classification, I say: "Hike your own hike." It is an iterated process, not a comparison between backpackers.

You see the same thing happening with the term "fastpacking". Some guy credited with the sport wrote about his experience in the 80's or 90's speeding up his hike into a jog over a long range. What about the caveman trying to pursue game with his weapon, using the advantage of his endurance over long distance to capture his prey? Does he not count?

There is nothing new under the sun. Use a little common sense, people. It's not that hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.131.68.82 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consumables?

"Base weight is defined as (...), excluding consumables (...). Reducing base weight as much as possible is accomplished though (...) reducing the weight of consumables." Anyone in the know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpapke (talk • contribs) 10:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]