gratitudemoves
New Member
- Time of past OR future Camino
- August 2023
Remove ads on the forum by becoming a donating member. More here. |
---|
I'm using the Osprey Stratos 36L on my Camino starting in late August.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!
Thanks for your thoughts! I am walking the full Frances starting in St. Jean, so it'll be a long ways with the pack.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.
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.Thanks for your thoughts! I am walking the full Frances starting in St. Jean, so it'll be a long ways with the pack.
Thanks for your thoughts. I am planning on bringing it as a carry-on rather than checking it, so that's another consideration.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 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 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!
We were always able to use a Kestrel as a carry on on US carriers.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.
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).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...
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.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!
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.We were always able to use a Kestrel as a carry on on US carriers.
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...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.
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.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...
@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.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.
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.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!
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 ~10Measure 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.
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.@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.
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 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.
Your points are well made. I shall check my sources and get back to this.@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.
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.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.
Tom,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
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.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.
May I ask the total weight?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....
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.May I ask the total weight?
+h2o?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.
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.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.
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.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:
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.
- 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.
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.
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.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.
which 35L dueter pack did you use ? i head out in sept . thxs!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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?