This topic enthralls me!! As a tub of lard ive often been asked "why dont you lose weight instead of buying lighter gear". Well the fact is true that i would move a lot better if i was a racing snake but im also not convinced that there is a straight line return on body weight dropped. I base this around 2 key facts 1. The body stores fat in a very efficient way which means it is a lot closer to the skeletal system than any backpack can be. 2. The body will add compensatory strength in the muscular system. My legs are incredibly powerful as they have to carry the lard around. This extra load has built up over time so the body has gently acclimatised to the extra burden. When you put on a backpack it is weight you are not used to carrying. My thoughts on this is that i will benefit more from losing 500g on stuff i strap to my back today rather than 500g from the spare tyre that im used to carrying. i.e added load is added load regardless of what you weigh and your body recognises only that you are carrying more on your back Of course i feel better when ive shifted a significant amount of weight and im not saying that lighter gear is better than losing excess body fat. Im coming at this from a bio mechanical angle rather than any health an fitness benefits. So to finish, do we think there is any way of arriving at a ratio which would reflect gear savings over fat savings. Id hazard a guess at 1kg lost in body fat would only be 70% as efficient as losing a full 1 kg from your loadout. As an example im sure everyone has packs that seem to carry lighter than other packs with the same load out and i guess that comes down to fit and how efficiently the weight is put onto the body. Discuss!!