# Ideal Bob weight, relative to body size



## Brennen53 (Jan 26, 2013)

My question is as straight forward as the title. For any of you who have seen my first two posts, you know that I am a very green and beginning prepper and I am starting my very first Bob preparations. Basically I have a large alice pack and that's it. I do like the alice configuration because it is so big, and I am wanting to make my pack into more of a survival longer term than a 72 hour pack. This meaning I would like to be dropped into the middle of nowhere (that had a food source and some natural water obviously), with only the pack on my back that I wish to create, and be able to survive anywhere from 3 days to 3 years. Whether this is possible or not... Well that's what I'm trying to find out.

Back to my question. I have seen alot of yall's Bob set ups and have noticed that your packs collectively range around 40 ish pounds a piece and the pack itself is much smaller (or looks like it in the pics) than the large alice set up. However, I am a rather large male, at 6'3" and 250 and I am a former (last year) college football player, and at my playing weight I ranged from 285- 295. My point in saying this is that I feel like I could handle more than 40 lbs on a regular basis, but I've never actually tried doing this since I don't even have the pack set up yet.
Is there a general ratio for an ideal pack weight to the body weight of the individual? Because I have compiled a rough list of what I would like to see in my future pack and the more I read the longer this list wants to get. I believe I can fit it all in there, but how heavy it will actually be remains to be seen.

Any advice or idea of how much is said to be "carryable" would be appreciated


----------



## ZoomZoom (Dec 18, 2009)

The ability to carry weight is based more on the persons physical condition. Our soldiers easily exceed 50-60% of their body weight. Myself being older and not in as good of shape could only comfortable carry about 25% of my body weight for any duration.

Being a big boy and assuming you're in good shape due to sports, I'd think you'll find that you'll do OK with what you could fit in that pack. 

What I do is have the bag loaded down with the things I "think" I'll need based on any bug-out situation (which is a little of everything). It's too heavy for me to carry any significant distance but I figure that based on the situation at hand, I can dump or stash the things that aren't needed for the conditions I'm going to expect. I'd rather have the bag ready to go for any situation then rip out what's needed as opposed to sit there and say "OK, I'm bugging out because of XYZ. What do I need for this situation?".


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

IMO that can only be answered by you. You need to pack your ruck with different amounts of weight and see how much you can handle on a lengthy hike. 
I would say start out with 40lbs. and go from there. Being a very large and very young man (as compared to a bunch of us on here ), and a sportsman, I would make a guess that you could probably comfortably hump up to 80lbs. or more.


----------



## ras1219como (Jan 15, 2013)

I believe I read somewhere that "experts" (whoever they are) recommend that you carry no more than 40% of your body weight. While you could probably carry quite a heavy load now remember that in a true SHTF situation you may be dehydrated, food may be scarce, and after a time you may begin to experience fatigue and muscle weakness. For someone in good shape this could take longer but it is definitely a possibility especially in extended bug out scenarios.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

I am just a little shorter and a little lighter than you and I run a two BOB system. The smaller pack is comprised of absolute essentials. The larger pack has all of the necessities of the smaller, but also has additional and redundant items and even some luxuries. Together they run about 65-70lbs, although I have not weighed them in some time so it may be more now. My theory has always been that if I need to cut and run, the larger pack gets stashed and the smaller pack goes with. I can at the very least still have fire, filtered water, food, etc. I can return later if need be (and if it's still wherever I stashed it). Of course the same is true if I just simply run out of steam but have to keep going. Of course I am also carrying other gear, so my total bug out gear weight is probably closer to 90lbs. Right now I am working on replacing heavier items with lighter or alternate multi-purpose items to reduce weight. Not so I have to carry less, but so I can carry more of other items.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Load a 70lb ruck and hit the appalachian trail (or whatever is close to you) for 3 days. Try and make 15-20 miles a day on only what you can carry. Then reevaluate the list. All my gear together (not all in the pack) weighs about 80lbs. Its a lot of weight when going uphill. With my gear I will probably not exceed 10 miles a day. This much weight will only be packed if I have to leave and never come back. Also only if I am sure I will not easily be able to resupply. Otherwise I will go much lighter. Carrying that much in a bad sit is dangerous. Compromised mobility means travel slowly by night and be aware of danger long before it is aware of you. Have a way to divide load so the less essential can be discarded or stashed if need be. Just my 2 cents.

Sentry beat me to the divided load post


----------



## zombieresponder (Aug 20, 2012)

ras1219como said:


> I believe I read somewhere that "experts" (whoever they are) recommend that you carry no more than 40% of your body weight. While you could probably carry quite a heavy load now remember that in a true SHTF situation you may be dehydrated, food may be scarce, and after a time you may begin to experience fatigue and muscle weakness. For someone in good shape this could take longer but it is definitely a possibility especially in extended bug out scenarios.


This is my understanding as well.

I've given it a lot of thought, and I'm trying to go as lightweight as possible. Things like backpacking quilts versus a sleeping bag will save a lot of weight, and really make more sense anyway. The main problem is that lighter weight generally costs more and/or introduces possible durability issues.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

Being a similar size I often have to adjust things because most people are not quite as able to carry heavy loads, at least for a distance.
I routinely carry 100 lbs on my back, from hunting (meat), to chainsaw and or fencing tools, to a big external frame pack on hikes and such. When I have slacked off and not done it for a while the first time I like to take it easy, different muscles are used than everyday work and everything has to work in. Second day I can go all day.
The only other things I would consider are heat and maneuverability, if it gets around 30 Celsius I have to be extra careful with a full pack. Also, obviously as the weight goes up you lose some maneuverability but it is not a linear thing, 50lbs on my back I just forget about entirely but that 100lbs while not a problem to carry is enough to make me walk a certain way. 
Another problem for people carrying big loads is that as you approach the maximum a pack was really designed for they can get squirrely and 75lbs can be as hard to handle as 100lbs in a pack that was designed for it.


----------



## WWhermit (Mar 1, 2012)

I think the only way for you to find out how much your pack can/should weigh is go out with it and find out. Everybody is different, and can handle different loads, and even the individual's ability differs in various conditions.

Being a backpacker myself, putting together a manageable BOB was very easy. I already had most of the gear I would need, and already knew how much I was comfortable with. Personally, my BOB weighs about 25 lbs, and that has enough food to last me at least 5 days. I also know my body, and know I can carry 25 lbs over any terrain and can carry it all day.

I think with everything, one needs to figure out not only what they need, but what they don't need. Most of the BOBs, in my opinion, is loaded with stuff they will never need or use.

I guess what I'm trying to say is make sure you can carry your BOB effectively, and have what you need at the same time.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Whatever you decide, you should train with a heavier pack. My pack, that I train with, is roughly 80lbs when all is said and done, which is slightly heavier than my pack. A BOB is for bugging out, so while having every bell and whistle is nice, being lighter is better.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

I have to agree with Padre, the worst possible situation would be to be in an emergency and have to carry a heavier pack than I was used to carrying.


----------



## forluvofsmoke (Jan 27, 2012)

How the pack is loaded will effect it's balance while harnessed to your back. Top heavy packs will not ride well, and actually can cause more back muscle strain. Side loads should be balanced...say you have a 1 liter bottle on one side (approx. 2.25lbs), there should be another on the other side, or an item of similar weight. I know, it seems miniscule, but a difference of just a few pounds from one side to the other can wreak havoc on your back and hip joints...so can side-hill walking. Top loads should be the lightest stuff you have...bulky stuff like a sleeping bag, but if it can be secured to the bottom and you have nothing else to go in that spot, do that instead.

I've humped over 90lbs in steep mountain terrain when I was a bit lighter @ 180lbs (6'-5")...not fun at all, and in my area, terrain is the norm. If you have flatter ground to walk in SHTF, more power to ya, but don't count on using established trails, or worse yet, roads...you may be a target by doing so WTSHTF. My goal for a max BOB weight is 70lbs (35% of my current weight of 200), only because my 60lb BOB seems like not much to handle, but I know I'd be wishing for less weight if I had to hump that pack for 10-14 days. Thing is, it will get lighter as days go by while I use some of my food, even if I take advantage of opportunities for harvesting from the environment for food to conserve my supplies for longer-term. So, thinking along those lines, a heavier pack to start with may be fairly manageable, at least for myself.

Brennen53, in your case, I would definitely say the 40% should be a good starting point. Keep in mind that there are reasonably priced mummy bags, etc, that are lightweight...if you're dealing with old man winter, test them out, and don't be afraid to pack a light-weight fleece blanket to keep your legs/feet warm as a back-up...a 1lb blanket is worth it's weight in gold when you have spend the night in sub-zero temps with a cold camp.

Also, think about cold camp vs having fire...advantages/disadvantages of each...be prepared to do both, including when you sleep, where ever and when ever that may be. If you can afford the weight in your pack and don't want to risk fire due to security reasons, think about a dual-fuel pack stove, butane stove, a sterno-fuel stove or fold-able pocket stove with the solid fuel tabs. If the weight/expense of MREs & heaters was your game plan, the stove options can offer a lot more flexibility and you can take whatever for food, but they won't reduce weight by much unless you go with the lightest of all (fold-able pocket stove with solid fuel tabs), in which case you have very limited heat output and expensive fuel. The heavier the stove/fuel in general, the more it can do for you, in my experience...2.5lbs of dual-fuel stove + fuel just may be worth it considering MREs with heaters...without building a fire, you save time and can cook/heat food when you need/want and don't have to worry about smoke signals, just food odors. And, with a stove, if you find yourself fighting hypothermia, you're just a match or ferro-rod strike away from warmth. My pack doesn't have a stove at the moment, but I have one to throw in if I decide to go that route.


----------

