Talk:Ultralight backpacking

message: 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)
thread_title: Yeah it's hype

message: "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)
thread_title: kcal and 'food calories'

message: 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)
thread_title: The use of the word 'can'

message: Y'alls be wanting to start putting in some citations.  Ratagonia 08:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: 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)
replies: text: Silnylon and Dyneema are new. 75.15.204.118 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hype 

message: 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)
thread_title: Editing Tools

message: 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)
thread_title: removal of section on [[Energy bars]] and ''Emergency food bars'' by [[User:Naturespace]] makes no sense

message: 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)
replies: text: No, but it has a Worldview problem. Most countries don't have bears.Newzild (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ratagonia]] flagging everything with citation needed tags

message: 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)
thread_title: July 2008 - new Notes Section

message: 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)
thread_title: Wilderness Diarrhea Getting Killed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Down Sleeping Bags

message: 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)
thread_title: Bear Canisters

message: 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)
thread_title: Wood gas stoves

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Tyvek as UL Material 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "so-called" energy bars 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Base pack weight" to "Base weight" 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Common Sense says "Nothing new under the sun" 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Consumables?