>>2166408ty for the polite reply but I respectfully disagree. It seems youre talking about UL backpacking now which I won't dispute you can definitely get away without a hip belt, but what I was focusing on was
>>2165413 who was talking about 35-55 lbs with no belt which is an absolute nonstarter for multi day treks or any terrain other than maybe complete flatlands. The point of the hip belt is to place the majority of the load on the iliac crest therefore bypassing the spine entirely for most wear and tear.
>>2165965 I ignored this initially because it seems like bait but when backpacking the point is to make your legs do most of the work. Hip belts are necessary for moderate to strenuous backpacking unless you are an ultralighter or a god among men impervious to injury, long term or otherwise.
>>2166402You've never walked into the wilderness for more than five days have you
>>2166424I was referring to our understanding of evolution and biomechanics. there are so many things wrong with this comment its just lol. You mean the ancients weren't doing back surgery? how many spine pathology patients are relevant to this discussion (backpackers)?
