Illustrated-treks
My trekking gear (illustrations HRP 2023)
Equipment for autonomous trekking
Comfort and agility on a mountain hike are directly related to the weight of the backpack. In the 70s, it was not uncommon to set off with an 18 kg rucksack for a 3-day self-sufficient hike, with tins of cassoulet or lentil sausages and a Tshirt/boxer a day... the pain of carrying and joint pain linked to the weight of the rucksack guaranteed!
Nevertheless, long treks sometimes require 6 to 8 days of food autonomy in the pack. In this context, reducing the weight of the bag becomes an absolute necessity by eliminating everything superfluous. Personally, my bag weighs a maximum of 9kg for a trek at altitude without food or water (see illustration above). With 2 to 3 kg of food and 1.2 liters of water, the total oscillates between 11.5 and 13.5 kg after a major refueling.
What's certain is that switching to a "light hiking" approach is difficult to do empirically [1]. Based on the principle that "the lightest thing is what you don't take with you", it's essential to proceed by iteration when putting together your backpack:
-
Define what's really essential (if it isn't, take it out!), bearing in mind that underwear will need to be washed during the trek, so a single change is sufficient.
-
Lighten each item (some of them can be a bit expensive such as tent or sleeping bag !).
-
Estimate the weight of your bag (using an Excel "check-list" table, for example) and go back to the first step if it's still too heavy.
In my case, apart from carrying less stuff than before, it's on the backpack that I've saved the most weight compared to my old equipment (over 1 kg saved). You'll find more detailed information on the equipment in the illustrated booklets (see the HRP portfolio in particular).
As far as food is concerned, for long treks, the only solution to reduce weight is freeze-dried food. So, as far as I'm concerned, no cheese or sausage for a long trek, not only because it's very heavy compared with freeze-dried food, but above all so as not to attract animals. In fact, this type of smell can be detected from a 1 km radius, particularly by foxes which have 450 times more olfactory cells than humans, and which can come and tear your tent apart at night for food (this has been experienced on 2 occasions by my bivouac neighbors in the Mercantour and the Pyrenees!). On the other hand, if freeze-dried food is the rule for me when bivouacking, it's even more motivating to enjoy local produce in the refuges or when passing through a village!
Below, you can download a customizable excel spreadsheet to calculate the weight of your rucksack and make yourself a checklist before embarking on the great adventure.
[1] see the excellent site : www.randonner-leger.org
What shoes for a long trek?
The choice of shoes determines not only foot comfort, but above all stability and grip on steep trails. The choice is difficult enough for a short hike lasting a few days, but for a long trek lasting several weeks, you really can't go wrong.
Today's trekking shoes fall into two main categories: trail shoes and hiking shoes. Trail shoes are designed for extremely technical terrain, providing excellent lateral support for the foot, incomparable comfort and great traction thanks to their ultra-grippy rubber soles. On the other hand, they are very light, allow excellent rolling of the foot, which is the best natural shock absorber for walking or running, and do not block the ankles, which can thus find the best configuration to adapt flexibly to the terrain at every step. This avoids repeated shocks to the whole body (knee, hips, back, etc.) and considerably increases agility on difficult terrain, since trail shoes combine excellent torsional rigidity with great flexibility in the direction of foot roll. So, do trail shoes have any shortcomings for trekking... well, you could say they have the shortcomings of their qualities: they are generally less durable than top-of-the-range hiking boots, they don't provide ankle support because they are low uppers, they offer much less protection against stones and rocks or snow and rain (although most trail shoes today come in Goretex versions). In this context, trail shoes are recommended exclusively for sportsmen and women who regularly trail and/or hike, and who therefore have very muscular, sheathed feet and ankles.
If you're a beginner or occasional hiker who wants to tackle a summer trek with a technical and/or long route, then a high-cut hiking boot is the right choice. These will provide good support for the ankle, while retaining a certain level of comfort (at the expense of the shoe's weight and natural foot/ankle cushioning). On the other hand, if the hiker is very heavy (16-18 kg backpack), classic hiking shoes may be more suitable than trail shoes, which are lighter and less secure. But in this case, the question arises as to whether such a heavy pack is really necessary (see my opinion on "hiking light" above)!
Finally, if the trek takes place mainly in snow (late winter or autumn) or, even worse, in peat, as in Scotland or Ireland for example, hiking boots are absolutely essential. Note that Goretex trail shoes with a small waterproof gaiter may be sufficient in most situations, including when crossing certain snow-covered passes in the Alps or Pyrenees.
As far as I'm concerned, I opted for LA SPORTIVA Raptor low trail shoes in Goretex. They have all the advantages of a trail shoe, with the added benefit of toe protection worthy of the best hiking boots.