Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

Backpacking vs thru-hiking, redux

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Backpacking vs thru-hiking, redux

      hikerboy wrote:

      "Thru-hiking is not simply a longer version of a backpacking trip. Considering thru-hiking a long trail? Make sure you know what you're getting into and set yourself up for success":

      backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/b…uhiking.html#.VKxKC2d0zct


      The other thread was actually accumulating some interesting discussion before all the posters went insane.
      I'm splitting this off, in case someone might want to continue on topic. The other has gone way off the trail, and I was getting cliffed out where it went.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • i think the biggest issue with the article is the assumption that all backpackers are relative beginners,and that thru hiking denotes some superior experience. the only difference is the length of the learning curve.
      certainly weight is something all of us strive to find balance between reduced weight and comfort.
      the big stores like rei and ems do not carry much in the way of lightweight gear, forgetting for the moment ul options.
      the market heavy packs, heavy tents,primarily goretex boots, and assorted doodads designed to market to the masses. so most if not all newbies generally start out with heavy gear, and dont consider themselves hikers or backpackers unless theyre adorned head to toe in goretex, wearing heavy boots.
      the reality is all backpackers want to reduce weight, but its a learning curve , primarily trial and error. for a thru hiker the process s just a lot faster, as people learn within the first few weeks out on the trail what works and what they need to replace or send home.
      its all good
    • Don't forget that up until the the last 15 years this lightweight craze was mostly unheard of and 40-50lb loads were the norm. If you had told people, in the '80's or 90's that they really should have a 25lb pack on the A.T. They would have laughed at you.

      I got when I got back into backpacking in 2008 I got my bombproof 5lb 9oz tent for under $100 on clearance (Eureka makes awesome tents) and I stand by that decision. That things housed myself, my hiking buddy and his border collie and split between us it was 2.5lbs per person and 9oz for the dog (makes the math easier). That tent has probably 40 A.T. Bag Nights in all season conditions and has been carried many hundreds of miles.

      I finally upgraded to a TT double rainbow, but when I was purchasing a whole new set of gear for a hobby that I wasn't sure that I was committed to, that Eureka was certainly the right decision.
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.
    • well the one thing i resisted in the 70s and 80s was boots. i just wore high top sneakers, converse all stars in the 70s and then nike basketball shoes in the 80s. my cousin rich had these heavy mountaineering boots with inflexible thick vibram soles, and i was a bit envious of his fashion statement, but i remember my sneakers gave me a much easier time up the hunt trail on katahdin than his clunky boots did, and he in fact was envious of my own choice of footwear.even backpacking magazine only recently has begun reviewing lighter weight gear. i shake my head sometimes when i see the weights posted of what they consider ul.i mean who needs a 7.5 lb pack for anything but mountaineering?
      its all good
    • hikerboy wrote:

      well the one thing i resisted in the 70s and 80s was boots. i just wore high top sneakers, converse all stars in the 70s and then nike basketball shoes in the 80s. my cousin rich had these heavy mountaineering boots with inflexible thick vibram soles, and i was a bit envious of his fashion statement, but i remember my sneakers gave me a much easier time up the hunt trail on katahdin than his clunky boots did, and he in fact was envious of my own choice of footwear.even backpacking magazine only recently has begun reviewing lighter weight gear. i shake my head sometimes when i see the weights posted of what they consider ul.i mean who needs a 7.5 lb pack for anything but mountaineering?[/quote]

      When I was at Neptune Mountaineering in Colorado they had a mountaineering pack on display that had been used to summit everest. The think weighed something like 40oz and was able tarry the massive load of gear on the trip, I wish I could remember the brand. I still don't know why the uL manufacturers haven't designed a lighter weight large capacity pack for winter or mountaineering use.
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.
    • SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      well the one thing i resisted in the 70s and 80s was boots. i just wore high top sneakers, converse all stars in the 70s and then nike basketball shoes in the 80s. my cousin rich had these heavy mountaineering boots with inflexible thick vibram soles, and i was a bit envious of his fashion statement, but i remember my sneakers gave me a much easier time up the hunt trail on katahdin than his clunky boots did, and he in fact was envious of my own choice of footwear.even backpacking magazine only recently has begun reviewing lighter weight gear. i shake my head sometimes when i see the weights posted of what they consider ul.i mean who needs a 7.5 lb pack for anything but mountaineering?[/quote]

      When I was at Neptune Mountaineering in Colorado they had a mountaineering pack on display that had been used to summit everest. The think weighed something like 40oz and was able tarry the massive load of gear on the trip, I wish I could remember the brand. I still don't know why the uL manufacturers haven't designed a lighter weight large capacity pack for winter or mountaineering use.


      summit packs dont hold a lot of gear.its a long day and yoou travel light oxygen tank and not much else. the heavy packs are for the hauling of ropes and supplies up and down the mountain to the various camps., and you're talking 60-70 lb loads.
      its all good
    • When I started my section hike of the AT four years ago with my son it was mostly with stuff we used for Boy Scouts, and a few things I didn't already have that I purchased more on the low end at Academy. Since then I have replaced nearly everything and reduced my base weight from 35 to 14 pounds. For me it is a continuous learning process.
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • hikerboy wrote:

      SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      well the one thing i resisted in the 70s and 80s was boots. i just wore high top sneakers, converse all stars in the 70s and then nike basketball shoes in the 80s. my cousin rich had these heavy mountaineering boots with inflexible thick vibram soles, and i was a bit envious of his fashion statement, but i remember my sneakers gave me a much easier time up the hunt trail on katahdin than his clunky boots did, and he in fact was envious of my own choice of footwear.even backpacking magazine only recently has begun reviewing lighter weight gear. i shake my head sometimes when i see the weights posted of what they consider ul.i mean who needs a 7.5 lb pack for anything but mountaineering?[/quote]

      When I was at Neptune Mountaineering in Colorado they had a mountaineering pack on display that had been used to summit everest. The think weighed something like 40oz and was able tarry the massive load of gear on the trip, I wish I could remember the brand. I still don't know why the uL manufacturers haven't designed a lighter weight large capacity pack for winter or mountaineering use.


      summit packs dont hold a lot of gear.its a long day and yoou travel light oxygen tank and not much else. the heavy packs are for the hauling of ropes and supplies up and down the mountain to the various camps., and you're talking 60-70 lb loads.


      This wasn't a summit pack, I probably should have given a better description. It was a massive load hauler. It was designed to be a lightweight mountaineering pack, and if I recall, the note on the display mentioned how there was a lot of skepticism over the design until it proved itself on the mountain.
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.
    • hikerboy wrote:


      the reality is all backpackers want to reduce weight, but its a learning curve , primarily trial and error. for a thru hiker the process s just a lot faster, as people learn within the first few weeks out on the trail what works and what they need to replace or send home.

      I've got a friend who has hiked the Long Trail and a fair amount of the AT. She started thru-hiking the Florida Trail over a week ago and her first stop after 8 days was for a shower, laundry, town food and a trip to the Post Office to mail 4½lbs of gear back home. The trail can also dictate what works. What works on one may not work on another. She went prepared for an AT type trail more or less. Said it didn't take her long to figure out what wasn't needed.
      Changes Daily→ ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ ♪♫♪♫♪♫ ← Don't blame me. It's That Lonesome Guitar.
    • hikerboy wrote:

      i think the biggest issue with the article is the assumption that all backpackers are relative beginners,and that thru hiking denotes some superior experience. the only difference is the length of the learning curve.
      certainly weight is something all of us strive to find balance between reduced weight and comfort.
      the big stores like rei and ems do not carry much in the way of lightweight gear, forgetting for the moment ul options.
      the market heavy packs, heavy tents,primarily goretex boots, and assorted doodads designed to market to the masses. so most if not all newbies generally start out with heavy gear, and dont consider themselves hikers or backpackers unless theyre adorned head to toe in goretex, wearing heavy boots.
      the reality is all backpackers want to reduce weight, but its a learning curve , primarily trial and error. for a thru hiker the process s just a lot faster, as people learn within the first few weeks out on the trail what works and what they need to replace or send home.


      This.

      I'll probably never be a thru-hiker of a long trail. The idea of walking away from my life for six months just doesn't appeal. (Two weeks - that's another story, so I'll be back to finish the Northville-Placid!) So I keep the 'clueless weekend' moniker, but I hope I've learnt something in my years of clueless weekending! Yeah, I don't do big miles. That's fine. I have fun. I carry a heavier pack than I really need. That's fine too. I like a few nonessential items.

      Sure, I like reducing my pack weight. Switching from an REI behemoth to a TarpTent Notch was great. So was switching from a 550 fill no-name down jacket to a Marmot Zeus (back when they were 850-fill. I think you'd have to go to the Quasar to get the same quality from Marmot.) So was ditching the pump filter in favor of a Sawyer Mini or the two phials of Aqua Mira. And it was so liberating when I realized that I can hike just as well, (no, better!) in trail runners than boots.

      But yes, I'm doing it all wrong. Because I'm doing it right for the hike I'm hiking. That just doesn't happen to be a thru-hike of a long trail. In many cases, if I'm going heavy, it's not because of inexperience, it's because I've decided that for a particular item, I can afford to be a "camper and not a hiker." I'm not ignorant, I'm wrongheaded.

      And the heavy boots and Gore-Tex gear still have their place. Their place is when you hit conditions like this.

      Another Kevin

      [IMG:
      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TadfZXHHbrA/VJnbY410-8I/AAAAAAAABnk/Q84lrdMmutA/s480/jon.jpg] Jon from Jersey

      [IMG:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ogvJ1P-k86o/VJnjYzutTaI/AAAAAAAABoE/gkWTC548hdk/s640/DSC_3876.JPG] Chris

      But that may be past what most people call 'hiking' and cross over into 'mountaineering.'
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • I find thru-hikers have an increasingly limited skill set. Following a PDF with water caches listed, depending upon hiker aid stations (sorry, that is not trail magic at this point), and having an iPhone app literally pointing the way means a person knows how to hike a long trail. But not necessarily beyond that.

      Picking an appropriate campsite? Reading a map for for where the water may be and assessing possible conditions? Planning a route that is not covered by a guidebook?

      "The thrust of a thru-hike on the three more popular trails has changed in some aspects. In some ways, it is more of a Camino-like experience esp on the AT (and to lesser extents on the PCT and CDT). The skills gained from hiking these trails are getting more and more narrow in focus. Following a smart phone app and having a PDF for water caches does not really prepare a person for the outdoors vs in years past. It does make for a wonderful experience, just one not readily applicable to general outdoor pursuits. With hiker aid stations, lots of logistic support, ample guidebooks and a well-marked route, it is more akin to a very long, if more social and non-competitive, foot race. I’m not complaining as it is a wonderful experience. Just less of a wildness experience. So it goes. If we all liked the same thing, Baskin Robins would just sell vanilla ice cream."

      I wrote more about it before...so, rather than repeat myself, here's the link:

      pmags.com/thru-hikers-specialized-outdoors-knowledge
    • I'd put my crew (mostly out doors sportsmen our entire lives) up against a one season thru-hiker any day of the week. That said, there are some areas in the Country where local knowledge and logistics (experience) is far superior, ie, CDT, PCT, JMT ect....really it's all the same but for, different elevations, different weather, flora and fauna.


      I know...a little "Yogiesque"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Socks ().

    • hikerboy wrote:

      i think the biggest issue with the article is the assumption that all backpackers are relative beginners,and that thru hiking denotes some superior experience. the only difference is the length of the learning curve.
      certainly weight is something all of us strive to find balance between reduced weight and comfort.


      I'm surprised that BPL published this. They always preached the gospels of Clelland and Jardin which taught the difference being folks who backpack to camp, vs those who backpack, and camp to hike. That neither was superior, just different, and called for different tools.

      I discovered BPL and TOS when I began to seriously contemplate an AT thru-hike. I was till using stuff I got in the 70s, 80's and 90s - An old Svea stove, a 70's vintage REI down bag, and old MSR Hubba. I wanted to upgrade, and it made sense to me that what I was preparing for, was different than backcountry expeditions or even backpacking into my favorite fishing hole for a weekend of perch and beer consumption. I never became a full disciple in that I seek a balance between comfort and weight on long hikes.

      But what this author did, perhaps unwittingly, was to reinforce ideas that thrus think are backpacking gods compared to mere weekend backpackers, when most of them are really just specialists in one form.
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15

      The post was edited 1 time, last by LDog ().

    • Is it too far fetched to hypothesize that the easy availability of UL equipment = more inexperienced hikers on the trail = more trash and disrespect for the environment?

      i admit I didn't read the entire article. I was turned off by the comparison between thru hikers and backpackers.
      Lost in the right direction.
    • not really the gear so much as the party atmosphere in the spring in the south. too much trail magic, hiker feeds, fairs festivals, its become almost a rite of passage for college grads before they go out into the working world, and for many its an extended "spring break". still this group is by far a very small percentage of thru hikers overall, but, unfortunately the most visible.
      its all good
    • there are a lot more support services along the trail than years ago, shuttlers and trail angels,and so forth and its led to some entitlement issues that arent restricted to the younger hikers.its a narrow strip of nature that runs close to some major metropolitan areas, not really a wilderness experience, and as mags has said,they have a very specialized skill set; most of these hikers wouldnt enjoy real backcountry hiking, just a different gig.
      last spring my first day out from springer, the benton mackaye crosses the at several times before splitting off to the west. about 3 miles after the last crossing i came up on a kid, maybe 18 or 19 years old who asked"this trail does cross the appalachian trail again ,doesnt it?" i told him yeah, but its another 280 miles,smiled and told him he'd miss the last crossing a few miles back.
      he took off , saying they should mark the trail more clearly. i walked the other way, smiling to myself, mentally wishing him luck.
      its all good
    • Interesting discussion here!
      As a noob, I'm doing what I can to increase my chances of success on the trail. I'm trying to start out with a light pack and researching options, talking to pros like you guys, and spending the extra for lighter gear, but I know I'm probably bringing too much "stuff". It's hard to know what I'll need until I get out there for days at at time.
      I'm planning a weekend hike each month until June when I'll hit the AT, hopefully for a nice, long walk in the woods.
      www.appalachiantrailclarity.com - Life on the A.T.

      Sometimes you find yourself in the middle of nowhere, and sometimes in the middle of nowhere, you find yourself.
    • One thing that never is wrong... How well packed and thought out your pack is does not make anywhere the difference your attitude does.
      If you have it in your head to walk the AT, the determination to do that is what matters the most. EVERYBODY fine tunes their pack as they go along.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • twistwrist wrote:

      Interesting discussion here!
      As a noob, I'm doing what I can to increase my chances of success on the trail. I'm trying to start out with a light pack and researching options, talking to pros like you guys, and spending the extra for lighter gear, but I know I'm probably bringing too much "stuff". It's hard to know what I'll need until I get out there for days at at time.
      I'm planning a weekend hike each month until June when I'll hit the AT, hopefully for a nice, long walk in the woods.
      If at all possible, do some overnight trips in genuinely crappy weather and get a feel for dealing with it while staying in a good mood. the A.T. Can be all sunshine and puppies when the weather is nice, but it's the demoralizing days when it's 50 degrees and raining that gets a lot of people to quit.

      On that note, you should also promise yourself never to quit on a crappy day. If you start to feel like you want to leave when it's raining or cold, make a promise that you won't make that decision until the next sunny day, when you're sitting at a nice vista. That's the time that you should be assessing how much you are enjoying your hike.
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.