>>1729142>External frames are not superior. Everyone is not better off using one.Another guy with bad reading comprehension? I never claimed "everybody" was better of with an external frame. I claimed that people carrying weights above ~5kg were better of, and that everybody who stays out for several days at a time and does not buy ultralight gear will carry more than 5kg. Now you can argue about the exact limit weight - perhaps there are indeed some frameless packs that are as comfortable as an exoframe at 7 or 10kg, though all I've tried weren't - but it should be undisputed that exoframes are more comfortable than frameless past a certain weight. Anybody that claims different has either never carried heavy weights or is deliberately lying.
>>1729226I suggest going back through the posts and reading what you and I actually wrote. And going back to 5th grade math class to learn about equality signs - =/= and ≠ (or =! in some programming languages) mean not equal. Part of is ⊂.
>>1729117Shhh. You'll trigger the shills if you don't claim that the most expensive brand gear is superior in any regard.
>>1730683Depends on where the problem lies.
frames (regardless of whether they're internal or external) stop the pack from collapsing upon you, taking weight of your shoulders and not forcing you to slouch (or with some frames, actively stopping you from slouching).
So if your problem are weak back or shoulder muscles, frames will help. However, you obviously still need to carry the weight, so if your legs or hips are to weak, a frame won't help. In that case, the only other option would be a small, preferably one-wheeled cart strapped to your belt. Looks like shit and makes you far less agile, but allows you to transport around 4-5 times more weight than a pack.
I'd suggest trying a used ALICE (with a frame, the medium also works without one) as they're cheap and quite good. If that helps, great. If it doesn't, you can still resell it with little to no loss.
