Jimbo wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 8:02pm:


This observation has been the source of a great deal of mental musing for me the past few years. What is the best body size and shape for efficient canoe country portaging and and more specifically, bushwhacking. The short squat muscular build of the voyageurs is legendary. Supposedly they were able to carry incredible amounts of weight and bulk over established portages. However, when you get into a situation where portages are poorly maintained or non-existent I think a different type of physique is ideal. On good portages, like most in the BWCA, I think the bigger and stroger the better. I've been with big strong guys that can easily carry double what I do on a portage. They don't move nearly as fast as I do but they can carry impressive amounts of weight. However, get off the beaten path and those same guys can become a liability. They aren't as nimble on rough terrain, they require more food and more importantly more liquid, and they tire more quickly. I know I am too small to qualify for the ideal body for portaging or bushwhacking (5'9" 155lbs). I avoid carrying more than 70-80 lbs under any circumstances. I have taken loads well over 100lbs but I now consider it foolish and unsafe. Rather, I would prefer to split a large load and literally jog back for a second load. Usually, though I am not in that much of a hurry but I have done it when motivated or when I thought it necessary. Unfortunately this pretty much rules out single portage bushwhacking which I would dearly love to be able to do, especially solo.
I'm interested in other peoples' thoughts on this subject. I'm beginning to think being big and strong is not necessarily an asset especially when the going gets really really rough. What do you think?

I've given this question a lot of thought, too.  

At 6'2" and about 225, I am a good deal larger than that "ideal voyageur size."  Throw a 75+ pound pack on my back & there is close to 300 lbs sitting atop two points (ie. my feet), driving them ever-deeper into the mud, swamp, bog or whatever.  While those "two points" are my size 13 boots, I kind of wish I had size 20 boots.  That would spread the load out better - kind of like snow shoes on snow - and keep me from submerging ever deeper in the muck.  

Equally dysfunctional is the effect of that amount of weight pounding through your vertebrae down to your feet as they navigate hard rock.  Your lower discs in your back, your knees, & other connective tissues take quite a beating.  KF is absolutely right, IMHO, re: emphasizing using your legs more (ie. multiple-portaging, etc.) and sporting lighter loads.  I think this is especially true as you get older; your connective tissues are not as resilient as they once were.  The days of my hauling two packs (back & front) plus a canoe on one carry across a tough portage are LONG gone!  I do not move as sprightly as I once did!

This past year was a bit atypical for me.  I was coming off of surgery for sciatica but I thought I had recovered sufficiently to do an aggressive trip.  Turns out I struggled with my back issue a LOT more than I anticipated.  It's taken me another whole year - with a heavy emphasis on back-strengthening yoga postures - to isolate & strengthen the core muscles of my lower back.  Still, there is NO guarantee that the pounding I would take on a tough trail wouldn't beat me down again.

While I THINK I am now good-to-go on another challenging trip, you never know until you get there.  

I've been working out hard two hours everyday for years.  While I could probably stand to shed even a few more pounds, I'm probably as good aerobically as I am ever going to get for my age.  In my opinion, it's the OTHER stuff that kills you... knee & back issues, blood blisters (I lost three toenails & my feet were a bloody mess by the time KF & I reached Irvine Lake last year).  

Maybe there IS some ideal body type where issues like these are less likely, no matter what your age?

Tough portaging & bushwhacking can be a real learning experience.  You watch others around you succeed & fail.  You look for more effective practices that you might be able to adopt.  Likely, this means cutting weight wherever possible (or substituting high-tech light-weight alternatives) and, then, figuring out a sensible & effective portaging routine for the party you are travelling with over the terrain you intend to travel.

We have little choice but to make the most of the body type we happened to be blessed by.  I believe larger body types CAN be as effective as "voyageur" types... especially in their youth.  I believe larger body types may be more prone to sustaining damage to discs & connective tissues, etc., over time.  I believe us larger folks can work to minimize the effects of wear & tear... but you have to be smart & deliberate about it.   I also believe "lean & mean" gets you further than "fat & mean."

A year or two ago, the BWJ published a story about a voyageur referred to  as "La Bomba" (sp?).  This fellow went around 6'6" and 300 lbs, I think.  He was renown for carrying more packs for longer distances than anybody.  It was only his demonstration of such extraordinary strength that persuaded the trading company to waive their normal rules re: height & weight.

What I can't recall is this: for how many years did Mr. La Bomba actually function so effectively?  I guess I'll have to re-read that story.  I like my heroes as much as anybody else but I gotta believe wear & tear took a heavier toll on such a big guy.

Body type is certainly important but I believe it becomes more important the older you get.

That's how I see it, anyway.


Jimbo  

I would prefer to portage a 5'6", 110-120 hourglass shaped lass over a 5'3" 140 lb barrel-shaped lass anyday

Excellent discussion as we all prepare for paddling season. Reading between the lines I keep seeing the importance of making the most use of that mass of gray between our ears. In my younger days and in racing shape for triathlons I portaged Grumman canoes while carrying  full packs. I do not know when I actually herniated the disc but do know it took five years to recover. Now, like KF my limit is 70 pounds and that is up for consideration. At 6feet one I am really topheavy when portaging. For the bushwhacking days, IMO caution and patience are the utmost virtues. I refuse to suck it up and push on to the end. Fatigue will win over the best body type and then accidents follow. If we really know our bodies and all their weaknesses we can plan accordingly.

Interesting question KF. I'm 6' & 166#. Dec 31, 2009 I retired and was having some trouble adjusting to all my free time. Also girl friend troubles, but that's cleared up, new GF (my age),,, old GF was 29, younger GF's are overated IMO.
Anyway I was running, biking, skiing, paddling tons to try and stay sane. One benefit, I got a lot faster at canoe racing last summer. But I was dropping weight and couldn't keep it on. I was adding powdered protein to chocolate milk, extra servings at meals,,,,I just kept getting leaner.

My main point, It's not just the big guys who can and need to eat a lot of food.

Also, I don't believe that rushing around or single carries really gets you much farther. I really believe slow and steady is better, mentally & physically. Always stay within yourself and you'll get farther. It's not what you cover in one day, but over the whole trip. Plus you can put in a longer day if you take it easy, and I believe have more fun doing it too.

Good Question KF