For what it’s worth our guide on the HR said one of the biggest issues he faces with slow groups are tourers not used to the extra weight of a multi-day pack
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
These links are saying 5kg more on your back per 1kg on your foot.
Just seems hugely unrealistic. Let's say a "heavy" set up is 5kg per foot. Based on your equation that's equivalent to 50kg on your back. I could grab anyone on the street, put them in that heavy set up and they could walk around in the snow for a couple of hours relatively easily. A 40-50kg backpack would crush them, they'd be struggling to stand let alone move. It just doesn't add up.
Quote:
Every one percent of your body weight makes you six seconds slower per mile. (1% BW = +6 sec./mi.)
I'm going to guess this number comes from a study looking at runners completing a time trial. I can certainly believe that number is true for running. For walking, not so much. Get someone to walk 1km at their regular pace. Put a 2kg weight on them and get them to repeat the 1km walk and 99% of the time it will be the exact same pace. You have to reach a certain threshold of weight or pace where it becomes detrimental.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Quote:
These links are saying 5kg more on your back per 1kg on your foot.
boarder2020 wrote:
Just seems hugely unrealistic. Let's say a "heavy" set up is 5kg per foot. Based on your equation that's equivalent to 50kg on your back. I could grab anyone on the street, put them in that heavy set up and they could walk around in the snow for a couple of hours relatively easily. A 40-50kg backpack would crush them, they'd be struggling to stand let alone move. It just doesn't add up.
I was thinking how heavy could you go.
2.3 kg ski e.g. Kästle FX skis mentioned above (vs 1.7kg)
1.5 kg binding e.g. Atomic Tracker 13 MNC (vs 0.35kg)
1.9 kg boots e.g. Lange XT Free Promodel LV (vs 1.35kg)
That's 5.7 kg/foot i.e. 2.3 kg per foot more than a "reasonable" weighted touring setup.
4.6kg more on your feet = 23 kg more on your back.
A touring day-sack is probably around 8kg.
I've ski toured with almost 20kg on my back, reckon I could do another approx. 11kg but it would be really difficult and slow going, as would the above heavy setup.
Every one percent of your body weight makes you six seconds slower per mile. (1% BW = +6 sec./mi.)
I'm going to guess this number comes from a study looking at runners completing a time trial. I can certainly believe that number is true for running. For walking, not so much. Get someone to walk 1km at their regular pace. Put a 2kg weight on them and get them to repeat the 1km walk and 99% of the time it will be the exact same pace. You have to reach a certain threshold of weight or pace where it becomes detrimental.
Have done skis tours where we crossed a mountain and needed to scramble up rocks with the skis on our backs. After getting to a certain point we left the skis behind and went for the peak. The skis were around 3 to 3.5 kg per pair and it was a definite relief when we could ditch the skis.
Ski touring isn't a walk in the park esp. when you are at higher elevations. Walking round the park/flats 2 kg wouldn't make any difference to me but if I had to carry 2kg more in my rucksack on a ski tour where I was already pushing myself it would be very significant.
The climbing skins themselves weight around 300g per foot, more it they are wet.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Wed 2-06-21 8:51; edited 4 times in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Continuing with the digression about the relative impact of weight on the feet, this will differ on which component bears the weight. The reason why weight can count more on the feet is the effort of raising the foot to make a stride. With a pin binding, the boot is raised (and the further back the weight is in the boot, the higher it is raised), but the ski and binding aren't (assuming the tourer slides the ski, rather than lifts it). With a frame binding, much of the binding is raised, and as a lot of the binding weight is at the heel, this exacerbates the impact).
I suspect that the gradient would make a difference. The steeper it is, I'd expect that the weight on the boot would make less of a difference, as the boot would not be lowered so much. Anecdotally this seems to apply for me; I tour using NTN telemark kit, and there are no light NTN boots. Compared with people I tour with, I'm relatively faster on steeper pitches, so people have mixed feelings letting me break trail
Out of curiosity I had a look for where the kg on your foot = kg on your back comes from. Seems to be an old army study comparing running shoes (average weight per pair = 616g) to army boots (average weight per pair 1776g) at different speeds.
The faster hiking speeds suggested the metabolic cost did increase with the heavier footwear. Although, quite how anyone has derived a linear relationship from 2 data points I'm not sure!
Perhaps the more interesting finding for this discussion is the slow hiking speed condition at 4km/h, which I think is in the ballpark of most recreational ski tourers (of course hard to say exactly as you are comparing flat in the study to predominantly uphill while touring). They found no significant difference in the footwear groups metabolic cost. I.e. at walking speed 1kg extra weight on your feet made no difference.
Which kind of supports what I was trying to say previously. For most of us recreational tourers we are going at quite a slow speed and 1 or 2kg on the feet is likely not going to decrease performance at all, it's just not a limiting factor as we are comfortably below threshold.
Of course there is also a placebo/nocebo effect too. I'm certain psychologically there is an effect of you know you are on a heavy or lift set up.
My personal opinion remains, don't sweat a kg or two. If you are that worried about performance some off-season diet and exercise is a much better solution! Most of us could easily save more time just by faffing a bit less, having a few less stops for photos/snacks, and improving transitions. Again this is just for the recreational tourers looking for a nice day out and chance for some fresh tracks, not someone trying to rack up vert and push their limits.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
boarder2020 wrote:
Which kind of supports what I was trying to say previously. For most of us recreational tourers we are going at quite a slow speed and 1 or 2kg on the feet is likely not going to decrease performance at all
Still disagree. 90% of any days ski touring is always spent going uphill.
A lighter set-up will make ascent more enjoyable and less tiring.
Which of course leaves more energy for the descent (= better performance).
FWIW : nothing says sweaty "Brit-punter" more than Marker Dukes and a 110mm wide metal laminate ski.
You can haul these up big climbs of 1500m or more : I have stubbornly done it plenty times myself
However : It is much more *enjoyable* touring on lighter kit (which still skis great on the way down).
Ski touring is meant to be *fun* rather than a pure sweaty suffer-fest where you hate every moment of the ascent.
boarder2020 wrote:
If you are that worried about performance some off-season diet and exercise is a much better solution!
For sure : basic levels of fitness / endurance is essential for ski touring.
Though that is not an argument to advocate using heavy kit.
After all it is free
After all it is free
boarder2020 wrote:
For most of us recreational tourers we are going at quite a slow speed and 1 or 2kg on the feet is likely not going to decrease performance at all, it's just not a limiting factor as we are comfortably below threshold.
Ski touring isn't nordic walking in the park. Suspect very few (esp. ski touring newbies from the UK who haven't had the chance to acclimatise back home) will be exercising at a low level during their tours. Agree that it is probably not a straight line but with ski touring you are typically carrying more weight than normal hiking so the ski tourer is typically much further up the exercise intensity curve at a point where any additional weight is noticable. The few people I have toured with who are based in UK have always found ski touring a real effort despite training. The only three brits who weren't physically stressed were either a couple of young rugby players who would train by running up and down Scafell pike twice in a row with a heavy backpack or another snowhead who would bike for 80+ miles at a time and needed to run round in the shower to get wet. The OP is pysically fit and a good technical skier (had the pleasure of skiing with him in Dec 2019) but I suspect you, I or him are not typical of a UK based recreational ski-tourer.
Do you have a plot of your heart rate with a corresponding map & elevation plot for a ski tour that you can show us? Do you get the chance to acclimatise?
Last edited by After all it is free on Wed 2-06-21 13:29; edited 6 times in total
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Quote:
Ski touring is meant to be *fun* rather than a pure sweaty suffer-fest where you hate every moment of the ascent.
You think 1kg on each foot is going to take a pleasant touring speed to a sweaty suffer fest? I have never even weighed my set up so don't know what it is, but it certainly doesn't have the super light top of the range stuff. I'm on a splitboard and don't use hard boots so my pivot point is behind my toes and I have to pick my whole binding up! It's amazing I can even move or my heart doesn't explode I've never had a sweaty suffer fest, but part of that is selecting a manageable pace. My current set up is perfectly adequate for my needs and doesn't hold me back at all as a recreational tourer doing up to 1500m climbs. My goals are not huge days, crazy vert, or multiday trips though, in which case I accept small differences in efficiency add up.
Quote:
Though that is not an argument to advocate using heavy kit.
I never said heavy kit is better. My argument is that a kg or two probably doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things so I wouldn't get too worried about it. The science looking at footwear during hiking supports this. Unfortunately we don't have the studies on ski touring to establish just how much difference setup weight makes. Again this is as a recreational tourer. If you are a skimo racer or have big goals YMMV.
For the people worried about shaving a few grams off their set ups I take it you are wearing your lycra for maximum aerodynamics?!
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Yep but 1-2kg’s isn’t shaving a few grams. I have a light setup - approx 3.2kg and a 4.5kg setup and the difference is significant whether short or long tour. That 1.3kg on the foot is probably worth an extra 6 or 7kg’s in the pack. You’ll enjoy the up (much) more on the light setup.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
boarder2020 wrote:
For the people worried about shaving a few grams off their set ups I take it you are wearing your lycra for maximum aerodynamics?!
No, but we don't sit down in the middle of the piste every five minutes for a rest like boarders.
Seriously does the boarding world offer much in the way of light touring gear?
The few split-boaders with whom I have ski-toured have been at their limit and one of them was a hill runner.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
boarder2020 wrote:
For the people worried about shaving a few grams off their set ups I take it you are wearing your lycra for maximum aerodynamics?! .
Snowboard is a toy for the terrain park...
Skis are a tool for the mountain.
P.s never worn lycra in my life
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Haggis_Trap wrote:
P.s never worn lycra in my life
I have, but in my defense I was young and needed the money for lighter ski touring kit.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
boarder2020 wrote:
I've never had a sweaty suffer fest, but part of that is selecting a manageable pace. My current set up is perfectly adequate for my needs and doesn't hold me back at all as a recreational tourer doing up to 1500m climbs. My goals are not huge days, crazy vert, or multiday trips though, in which case I accept small differences in efficiency add up.
Something doesn't ad up here, recreational ski tourer? 1500m climbing altitude? Guess they would be climbing at a rate of 150 to 200m / hr with heavy gear. Do they start or finish in the dark?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Haggis_Trap wrote:
boarder2020 wrote:
Which kind of supports what I was trying to say previously. For most of us recreational tourers we are going at quite a slow speed and 1 or 2kg on the feet is likely not going to decrease performance at all
Still disagree. 90% of any days ski touring is always spent going uphill.
A lighter set-up will make ascent more enjoyable and less tiring.
Which of course leaves more energy for the descent (= better performance).
FWIW : nothing says sweaty "Brit-punter" more than Marker Dukes and a 110mm wide metal laminate ski.
You can haul these up big climbs of 1500m or more : I have stubbornly done it plenty times myself
However : It is much more *enjoyable* touring on lighter kit (which still skis great on the way down).
Ski touring is meant to be *fun* rather than a pure sweaty suffer-fest where you hate every moment of the ascent.
boarder2020 wrote:
If you are that worried about performance some off-season diet and exercise is a much better solution!
For sure : basic levels of fitness / endurance is essential for ski touring.
Though that is not an argument to advocate using heavy kit.
Yes, I agree. Contrary to what someone else said, IME, guides use lightweight set ups even though they have fitness to spare. I think there is a lesson in that for us desk jockeys who think we can get away with using heavier gear. I've done it. You can get away with it but I have now bought a lighter weight set up for the reasons you lay out.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Quote:
Contrary to what someone else said, IME, guides use lightweight set ups even though they have fitness to spare.
I know plenty of guides not using super light equipment. Granted they are not on heavy stuff either. They are just not worried about getting things as light as possible though. Again I go back to my point before and what the study says that at lower intensity extra weight has much less effect - guides are likely going super slow for them as they are restricted by clients speed. So it probably doesn't matter too much for them.
Quote:
Something doesn't ad up here, recreational ski tourer? 1500m climbing altitude? Guess they would be climbing at a rate of 150 to 200m / hr with heavy gear. Do they start or finish in the dark?
Last tour I did pre covid was sts couloir at Rogers pass, which is supposedly 1235m vertical, so not 1500m although fairly long skin up the valley for access. I don't know what time we started or finished, but it was definitely not dark and we were not busting a gut, was all fairly relaxed even stopped for a little lunch up top. We are reasonably fit people, just not hardcore tourers (probably only 10 touring days per season).
Quote:
Seriously does the boarding world offer much in the way of light touring gear?
Hard boots and dynafit toe piece for uphill, with phantom bindings in your bad to attach in transition for downhill. Voile do a splitboard that weighs 2.76kg. I've looked into switching to hard boots for better uphill performance, but I quite like my comfy snowboard boots and I'm not sure hard boots are so much fun on descents. Also I don't feel my current set up is holding me back at all, again I just tour for fun and have fairly modest goals.
Quote:
I have a light setup - approx 3.2kg and a 4.5kg setup and the difference is significant whether short or long tour. That 1.3kg on the foot is probably worth an extra 6 or 7kg’s in the pack. You’ll enjoy the up (much) more on the light setup.
How are you defining it being a significant difference? HR? Metabolic cost? RPE? Unfortunately unless it's double blinded it's really difficult to say it's not simply psychological.
Basically they took cross country skiers and put them on roller skis that were marked high resistance and low resistance (although actually had equal resistance). When using the skis marked high resistance subjects were significantly slower and using the low resistance skis subjects report feeling significantly faster than baseline performed on exactly the same skis!
I think a lot of people suggesting they can feel huge differences by shaving 2kg are mostly getting a psychological effect. If it was double blinded I'm not sure you see much difference. However, even if it's just a placebo effect that's not necessarily a bad thing if it works.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
^ have you ever ski toured on lighter kit ?
Quote:
I think a lot of people suggesting they can feel huge differences by shaving 2kg are mostly getting a psychological effect.
2kg is an absolutely *huge* weight saving (when removed from your feet). Integrate that over every stride on a 1000-1500m ascent and the effect, irrespective of fitness, is astonishing.
maybe your perception is biased by the fact split-boards are inherently a paff and tend to be heavy.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
boarder2020 wrote:
Quote:
I have a light setup - approx 3.2kg and a 4.5kg setup and the difference is significant whether short or long tour. That 1.3kg on the foot is probably worth an extra 6 or 7kg’s in the pack. You’ll enjoy the up (much) more on the light setup.
How are you defining it being a significant difference? HR? Metabolic cost? RPE? Unfortunately unless it's double blinded it's really difficult to say it's not simply psychological.
Time recorded by Strava for same tour, same time of day, same week.
Time recorded by Strava for same tour, same time of day, same week.
5 mins difference on a 2km, 466m ascent.
Same heart rate? Temperature? Same breakfast, same sleep the night before? Same partners? Same wind speed and direction? Same RPE? This is why it's so hard to accurately quantify the difference, we can't control all these things.
But for argument sake let's say they were exactly the same both times. How do you know it's not a placebo effect of knowing you are on a lighter set up? As shown in the study their times were slower by just thinking they were on a high resistance roller ski. My personal belief is that for small weight savings it's probably more psychological than anything else,but unfortunately we don't have any proper studies to show this.
Of course there is the argument, even if it's only a placebo effect, as long as it works for you personally why worry about it.
Quote:
2kg is an absolutely *huge* weight saving (when removed from your feet). Integrate that over every stride on a 1000-1500m ascent and the effect, irrespective of fitness, is astonishing.
Ok so why did the study looking at hiking find no difference in metabolic cost of walking at 4km/h when they increased weight of footwear by 1160g per foot? Over 2kg extra weight and don't effect metabolic cost. That's when the foot is having to be lifted off the ground too, unlike ski touring. Your opinions just don't match up with the science that we have. Although I grant you we need a proper ski touring study to really determine just how much difference set up weight makes. I don't deny it makes some difference, I just think some of you vastly overestimate it.
Quote:
maybe your perception is biased by the fact split-boards are inherently a paff and tend to be heavy
Actually my interest in this is really from my academic background, where I did a lot of stuff in movement science and equipment testing, specifically related to sport. I find the science of it quite interesting. Which is probably why I don't put much weight in personal experiences and value the journal papers more.
Like I said there are lightweight options now for splitboarding. Phantom slipper boots are 1000-1045g, voile ascent splitboard 2760g, phantom risers 84g each, then you would just need tech toe binding. Of course you would have to carry the downhill binding bits in your bag (around 900g).
I've looked into it, but just not jumping to make the switch as I like my comfy snowboard boots! Also I don't feel current set up weight (I actually don't know what it is, maybe it would be interesting to weigh it!), is holding my back from my admittedly rather modest goals and don't spend my tours sweaty and suffering!
My original point was not that heavy gear is better, and lighter gear doesn't help some what. I just would like to see a study showing just how much effect it does actually have. My personal thought is that some recreational tourers get disproportionately obsessed with setup weight, while completely ignoring; body weight, nutrition, fitness training, skinning technique, transition times etc., which are just as limiting.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
boarder2020 wrote:
I think a lot of people suggesting they can feel huge differences by shaving 2kg are mostly getting a psychological effect. If it was double blinded I'm not sure you see much difference. However, even if it's just a placebo effect that's not necessarily a bad thing if it works.
Shaved 1.5 kg/foot and it made a massive difference that I wasn't expecting. I just set off first at a relaxed pace and left my Austrian mates for dust. The others in the group asked if I had been training a lot and why was I racing. "I'm not racing" "yes you are". I was baffled until one said "are they new boots and bindings?" (It wasn't my first tour with the new setup but it was my first tour on the new kit with them so I didn't think anything of it.) I used to be one of the two fastest in the group, since dropping the 1.5kg my biggest problem is keeping warm while going at their pace. Great low intensity training though.
When buying the touring boots my mind was split between a lightweight carbon model and a freeride model which was around 450g per foot heavier. A guy online (at TGR/powder if I remeber correctly) said he had both and 90% of the ski tours he went with the lightweight boots. The freeride boots were only used for short tours/side country.
If I remember rightly you board a lot of days per year and so will be acclimatised. Ski tourers from the UK who tour with people based (or spending a lot of time) in the alps are at a major disadvantage as they are not acclimatised. If the UK residents get into groups with acclimatised people then they will need all the help they can get. The last thing they need is a heavier setup.
Honestly believe it's all in your head that it wouldn't make a difference but you haven't tried it. Unless you have a benchmark it's hard to subjectively say if you are faster or slower than usual.
Bob's example above shows around 15% faster on the lighter setup. Going 15% faster than your normal pace to keep up with someone on lighter gear for multiple hours is going to burn you out (and as Haggis says below, the 15% difference is only going to increase with time).
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 3-06-21 17:06; edited 1 time in total
So : ~15% over a (short) 466m.
I bet that % would increase rapidly over a 1000-1500m ascent.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
boarder2020 wrote:
My original point was not that heavy gear is better, and lighter gear doesn't help some what. I just would like to see a study showing just how much effect it does actually have. My personal thought is that some recreational tourers get disproportionately obsessed with setup weight, while completely ignoring; body weight, nutrition, fitness training, skinning technique, transition times etc., which are just as limiting.
Nobody said that wasn't important too but droping the frame bindings, freeride tour boots and wide freeride skis is going to give the UK based ski tourer the quickest gains (at a cost). If he/she does all the other things you mention too then they will probably hold their own with the locals. I doubt many UK based ski tourers lead their own tours in the alps and unless they sign up to a UK only group with similar kit then they could be in for a fitness shock.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Thu 3-06-21 17:24; edited 1 time in total
After all it is free
After all it is free
It would be good to do a Snowheads Ski Touring bash at a test event. (e.g. Kaprun Austria, November 2021)
Anybody know of any similar events?
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
boarder2020 wrote:
... while completely ignoring; body weight, nutrition, fitness training, skinning technique, transition times etc., which are just as limiting.
To be fair : most Brit-punters get those wrong too
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Haggis_Trap wrote:
boarder2020 wrote:
... while completely ignoring; body weight, nutrition, fitness training, skinning technique, transition times etc., which are just as limiting.
To be fair : most Brit-punters get those wrong too
Should probably add "not being hungover" and "getting more than 3 hrs sleep" to that list too.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
boarder2020 wrote:
Quote:
Time recorded by Strava for same tour, same time of day, same week.
5 mins difference on a 2km, 466m ascent.
Same heart rate? Temperature? Same breakfast, same sleep the night before? Same partners? Same wind speed and direction? Same RPE? This is why it's so hard to accurately quantify the difference, we can't control all these things.
But for argument sake let's say they were exactly the same both times. How do you know it's not a placebo effect of knowing you are on a lighter set up? As shown in the study their times were slower by just thinking they were on a high resistance roller ski. My personal belief is that for small weight savings it's probably more psychological than anything else,but unfortunately we don't have any proper studies to show this.
The next 3 times I did that tour - all within a minute of that time.
Placebo, my ar5e. It’s called physics.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Personally I think 2kg extra weight is meaningful ON YOUR BACK let alone on your feet when you are ski touring or mountaineering. If you are above 3000m and not used to that (because you live a lot lower) then you are going to find yourself bouncing off your aerobic threshold quite a lot. At that point a couple of kg makes a meaningful difference to how much control you have over your heart rate etc.
Contrary to what@boarder2020, says, I am always impressed by how minimal guides manage to get their packs given all the extra safety gear they have to carry.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@boarder2020
My split board mate went to a Phantom setup this season. Now he can (almost) keep up on a long tour and doesn’t fall off icy skin tracks.
Sorry about the thread drift! Looking forward to hearing how those Slights go!
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Quote:
find yourself bouncing off your aerobic threshold quite a lot. At that point a couple of kg makes a meaningful difference to how much control you have over your heart rate etc.
No doubt, there comes a point where an extra kg is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back and push you over aerobic threshold, which is going to have a significant effect on performance. Like I say I'm a recreational tourer with modest goals, we tour comfortably below aerobic threshold. We've never done a multi day tour requiring heavy packs, but we'd just go a bit slower to maintain an intensity below aet. I completely accept those with bigger goals require more speed, and weight makes more of a difference then in keeping heart rate down. Weight at foot also has much more effect at higher speeds as shown by the study that found zero significant difference at 4km/h walking speed with an extra 1kg+ on each foot, but significantly higher metabolic cost when pace increased.
Quote:
Placebo, my ar5e. It’s called physics
Well if you believed it was a placebo it probably wouldn't work
Out of interest do you have heart rate data for them? If you are exercising right at or over aet it probably makes more of a difference.
At this point I think the science supporting the placebo effect of equipment (see roller ski study) is probably stronger than anything supporting ski touring set up weight. Some of that is because there's been no study too replicable to ski touring. That's why I said it would be interesting to see a proper study
Quote:
Honestly believe it's all in your head that it wouldn't make a difference but you haven't tried it. Unless you have a benchmark it's hard to subjectively say if you are faster or slower than usual.
Bob's example above shows around 15% faster on the lighter setup. Going 15% faster than your normal pace to keep up with someone on lighter gear for multiple hours is going to burn you out (and as Haggis says below, the 15% difference is only going to increase with time).
I have no doubt lower weight set up helps. I just think it's a lot less effective than some of you think for low speed below aet touring. As for placebo effect, it certainly exists - see the roller ski study.
A 15% improvement is beyond the realms of anything realistic. But it's what happens when you have anecdotal individual data that have no real scientific control. I shaved 3mins off my 500m climb from Wednesday to Friday, there were no obvious differences (nutrition, equipment, same HR). Just typical variation in performance which happens. Now imagine if I'd been testing some new shoes.
There's a study that looked at hiking at 6.3km/hour at a 6.3 degree incline with and without 1.36kg ankle weights. Average HR was 7bpm higher with weights, and oxygen uptake 2.4ml.min-1.kg-1. HR in the no weight condition was 147, and these were sedentary subjects, not trained so likely above aet. Even then, at what would be much more intense than what I consider recreational touring, the differences adding 1.36kg ankle weights are pretty minor. You are talking differences <5%, which isn't going to increase speed 15%.
Fwiw the Nike shoes that "broke" running offer 4% metabolic improvement, which doesnt translate to 4% faster. I suspect in lab conditions you struggle to get anywhere near to 15% improvement in speed through equipment design (unless it involves putting an engine on!)
That's part of my issue with this topic. Not that lower weight set ups don't work. Just that I believe some are vastly overestimating their effects. Often at the expense of focusing on fitness, technique, nutrition, decreasing transition times etc.
I think we are probably going in circles with this discussion though. I am not going to change my mind through anecdotal experiences, just as you are not going to have your beliefs changed based on scientific papers. I guess maybe we should just agree to leave it. It's been an interesting discussion, if completely sidetracking the thread.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@boarder2020,
You write a book to defend your position and then say I think we should just leave it.
I'll believe what I've experienced rather than trying to relate to some form of walking / roller skating study from the internet.
Other people who actually tour on skis here have similar experiences / views.
Nobody said fitness, technique & nutrition shouldn't be looked at too or that going lightweight is a way to get around these aspects but I'm not sure how many "recreational tourers" will look at these things.
Let's agree fitness, technique, nutrition & equipment weight are all important and move on.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Sun 6-06-21 12:55; edited 1 time in total
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
had the same with the bike salesman when i was doing triathlons .. this is x lbs lighter etc and cost another £1000 blah blah blah ... i needed to shed another stone off myself rather than a few lbs on the bike .. same goes for my ski gear ... k2 vicious does everything barr ice . even did the millet radonee in courchevel with them .. they are set up with rottefella freerides so not light and i got some strange looks from the "racers" .... needless to say i came almost last so was it fitness or set up weight ... yep, round in circles we go but id say it was both
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
You write a book to defend your position and then say I think we should just leave it.
Because we are never going to agree. I'm not going to be swayed by some anecdotal evidence and you are not going to be swayed by the science.
Quote:
Other people who actually tour on skis here have similar experiences / views.
What about Cody Townsend? Does he count as actually touring on skis?
"When it comes to some of the bigger expeditions like Saint Elias, yes, I’m going to go as light as works for me, something like MTN 95 skis and X-ALP boots, but the majority are on heavy boots and fat skis."
"My tastes have changed, but I also would say that this year I reverted a little bit. I went back to a heavier setup, and I’ve kind of enjoyed it more. I did more training, and so I’m stronger and able to pull it up a little bit easier."
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@boarder2020,
Show me the ski touring science.
It’s not me disagreeing with science, it’s me (and others here) having a different opinion to you.
Cody counts, he’s a professional athelete who skis stuff on touring skis that most of us wouldn‘t attempt on a proper freeride setup. If weight didn’t matter then he would never bother with lighter touring kit.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
I've never had a sweaty suffer fest, but part of that is selecting a manageable pace. My current set up is perfectly adequate for my needs and doesn't hold me back at all as a recreational tourer doing up to 1500m climbs. My goals are not huge days, crazy vert, or multiday trips though, in which case I accept small differences in efficiency add up.
