Rucking 101
Prologue – DO NOT OVERCOMPLICATE RUCKING…he declared as he introduces a multi-volume Rucking Series. The irony is not lost on me. But you don’t have to read any of this treatise. Rucking can be a simple as putting a couple of pounds in a book bag and going for a walk. At first, don’t go too far, too heavy, or too fast but it can be that simple. Just walk with a load. You don’t need permission, it doesn’t require a community, and there is no specific brand, bag, boot, or weight that somehow grants you access to an exclusive club. You can just load up and go and now you are rucking. The barrier to entry is just a bag, any bag, and walking. But we think there is some value in the nuances of these sorts of things. We like the little details, and we are passionate about our passions, go figure. So, we will endeavor to answer all your questions before you even know what questions to ask. Ruck Up.
What We Will Cover
The exercise science behind rucking
How to program ruck training
What ruck to use (Coming Soon)
Wearables and enablers (Coming Soon)
What to use for weight (Coming Soon)
What shoes and socks to use (Coming Soon)
How to fuel and hydrate for rucking (Coming Soon)
Introduction
Being able to move a load under your own power seems to be a fundamental skill that humans should be able to master. Pick stuff up, strap it to your back, and transfer it around. It shouldn’t really matter whether that stuff be provisions on your journey, firewood around your campsite, supplies around your homestead, or books around your campus. The more stuff that you can move, the faster that you can move it, and the farther that you can move it seem to be the metrics of success for this skill. You can call it whatever you want… hiking, walking, trekking, tabbing, or rucking…it is essentially the same thing. I have always called it rucking, and this seems to be the term of art that dominates the current culture. It certainly is the term of art for the US military from where I draw my 35 years of rucking experience.
I have made a career (two actually) of rucking. I spent 20+ years under a ruck starting as a young Private First Class and Cadet, through my active-duty Army career in Special Forces, and now as an author covering rucking and ruck-based selection and assessment courses. I’m not certain that I could accurately calculate my time under load or mileage, but I think that it would be fair to assess that I am in the advanced or master’s category, if such a thing existed. But I don’t just understand this topic from an experiential perspective (does being a gunshot victim make you a trauma medicine expert?), I make every effort to balance my anecdotal experience with rigorous evidence-based research. What is interesting is how much the empirical evidence differs from the anecdotal. They are both valid, but we should be mindful of bias.
The military has a way of sucking the fun out of damn near everything. They can make SCUBA diving, skydiving, and shooting guns into the most painful experiences imaginable. So imagine what they can they can do with an already aching activity like rucking? As such, most military guys have a very biased understanding of rucking. The default understanding is that rucking is bad, it causes an inordinate number of injuries, and it should be avoided. My assessment is that these conditions only exist as a result of improper preparation, a topic we will cover in depth. Oddly, many veterans return to rucking once they leave the service in some vain attempt to reclaim their former self. It makes sense in that rucking has a low barrier to entry and you can see (and feel) immediate gains in performance.
This Rucking 101 series will cover all this lore. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the truth. We will look at the gear, the workouts, and the science. This will undoubtedly be very opinionated. I can’t separate my years of experience from my writing and research, but we will always endeavor to accurately cover the counterargument and the evidence as well. I want you to be informed, but I also want you to be a little entertained. Nobody likes reading a textbook.
Why Rucking?
Humans are human. We are designed to move, specifically on foot. Bipedalism, the ability to walk upright on two feet, might be the single most important evolutionary adaptation to rocket humans to the top of the pyramid. Walking, the use of tools, and our universal and rightful disdain for the metric system…all equally important. About 6 million years ago, we descended from the trees to walk on two feet, and we probably started a pre-historic version of rucking shortly thereafter. The ability to carry loads was integral to our early nomadic lifestyle. When early hunter-gatherers chased down game, they hauled that meat back to the group on their backs. So, rucking is just a part of who humans are and how we are built.
The scientific literature is pretty clear on the benefits of rucking. First, rucking improves bone density like nearly any load bearing activity (Dlugolecka & Jowko, 2022). Rucking engages major muscle groups like your legs, back, and core (Orr, Dawes, Lockie, & Godeassi, 2019). Rucking can be excellent for your cardiovascular health (Chatterjee, Chatterjee, Bhattacharyya, Sen, & Pal, 2018). Rucking can provide improved mental clarity and focus as well (Sax van der Weyden, Merrigan, Newman, Hahn, & Martin, 2024). It remains a (relatively) low impact sustainable activity that can increase your muscular strength, improve your cardiovascular endurance, increase your mental clarity, and even improve your mood. But, all things in moderation. In essence, rucking is just walking. So the level of intensity (and thus strength gains and cardiovascular improvement) depends on the amount of weigh that you are carrying and the pace at which you are carrying it.
Can you get the same benefits from something that doesn’t require you to look like a deranged homeless vagrant wandering the trails? Sure, but you gotta pick your poison. The best activity to compare rucking to is likely running, since most fitness enthusiast are already somewhat familiar with running and its associated stimuli and benefits. But even running can have some detrimental effects. A comparison of injuries from rucking versus injuries from running is a complicated matter. Joint pain from the running impact is the most often cited, and the differences with rucking are not insignificant. But severity of injuries from rucking are higher than running. Total number of injuries, severity of injury, and type of injury are all variables that often get evaluated. I have been studying rucking, including a deep analysis of the available literature, for at least a decade. I’m not a physician, or a certified trainer, but I’m a competent researcher and a skilled practitioner. My expert assessment (take that qualification for whatever you want…I encourage professional skepticism) is that the data is inconclusive.
There is nothing more inherently risky or injury producing about rucking. A casual glance at the scientific literature might lead a reasonable person to conclude that rucking will cause immense back and knee issues. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate that rucking can cause injuries. There is a plethora of studies that show that rucking produces more injuries than running, even when controlled for mileage. And the overwhelming prevailing narrative of many military practitioners is that rucking is just bad. But the one variable that is never present in these studies is conditioning. No study that I have ever encountered accounts for this. You must adequately prepare your body to engage in the activity at hand. Any physical activity is likely to cause injury if you don’t properly prepare for it. No reasonable person would expect to go run a 5K at pace and not expect some sort of injury the next day unless you have adequately trained for it. If you wandered into the gym and started max weightlifting, you’re likely to suffer a debilitating injury. And the annals of CrossFit are rife with tales of Rhabdo the Clown from under-prepared athletes that were capable of completing a particularly intense MetCon workout, but the lack of proper conditioning forced them into life threatening conditions soon thereafter. It seems obvious, but it’s a factor that rucking opponents continually dismiss.
This is especially important given that rucking has such a low-perceived barrier to entry. It’s “just walking” after all, isn’t it? It certainly can be, especially in the context of our Prologue. But it is walking under load. It’s a unique stimulus. It’s a unique stimulus that requires proper preparation. And this reality is especially pertinent for the military population. The bias here is laughably extreme. There seems to be some universal conceit that all Service Members are inherently fit. There is a culture of fitness in the military and Service Members have physical training programmed into their daily training schedules. But the variance for type, intensity, and enforcement of these conditions is wide. Every member is expected to be fit, but compliance to this cultural norm is not universal. And just because a Service Member maintains a good score on their respective assessment tool, and even maintains a fairly robust individual preparedness routine, the rigors of military rucking are unique. As such, they need to be prepared for uniquely.
With a low barrier to entry of a simple bag, a few pounds, and a little stroll rucking is easy to access. But the military maintains a minimum performance metric of 35 pounds for 12 miles under 3 hours. This near universal metric gets stringently enforced, but rarely prepared for. What happens is that most units enforce this assessment on a bi-annual or quarterly basis, but neglect to program regular rucking and ancillary weight training to support this performance. So the inevitable outcome is injury. What would a reasonable person expect? Why should rucking be different from any other physical modality? And to make matters worse, rucking maintains some familiarity bias in that many believe that because they had at one point, say during Basic Training, been able to adequately perform a ruck march, that they should be able to just jump right in and do it now. Regardless of how far removed they are temporally or physically from type. Ah, those glory days.
So no, there is no conclusive evidence that rucking, when properly prepared for, is any riskier for injury than running...or any other fitness activity. We will discuss what properly prepared for entails in a moment, but it’s not a huge burden. When rucking, you’ll experience less pounding on the knees than when running, making rucking a good choice for low-impact exercise. The weight also requires more force from your muscles, which makes rucking a cardiovascular exercise that will build strength and stamina, too. So if you are a regular runner, then you can transition without too much drama to rucking, or certainly augment your running with ruck training. The other factor, beyond proper preparation, that influences rucking injury prevention is proper programming. The variables of load, duration, and pace are ever present. In our next installation we’ll look at what proper programming entails.
Programming Ruck Workouts
First, we should reinforce our prologue notion that there is absolutely nothing preventing you from just throwing on your book bag and walking. You’ll likely survive unscathed all but the most adventurous and aggressive of outings. There is no need to overcomplicate and gatekeep rucking. But I like to think of rucking from a performance perspective. I want to ruck as fast as I can, with a reasonable weight, for a reasonable distance, with a mind towards not getting injured and arriving at my destination in some semblance of physical and mental condition that I can be effectively present. Military guys might call this “fighting condition” …as in I want to carry my ruck with all my stuff to my designated area of operations and not be so smoked when I get there that I’m still able to carry out the mission. That’s sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? From a civilian perspective, I want to be able to be able to enjoy the physiological wellness benefits of rucking without being so fatigue that I can’t go about the rest of my day effectively.
The best way to build rucking performance is field based progressive load carriage, usually 2-3 times a week, focused on short intense sessions. That’s a bit of a mouthful. Rucking performance? What if I don’t want to build performance? I just want to get out and stretch my legs and take a break from running! Sure, but why not build some durability. Why not build some resilience. Why not get better? You don’t need to be preparing form some skull and dagger death race or Instagram worthy event. But building performance is the really the purpose of rucking. You may never get to Special Forces Assessment and Selection readiness levels, but you can still build performance. So the best way to build rucking performance is field based progressive load carriage, usually 2-3 times a week, focused on short intense sessions. Think of this methodology as the most intense to build the most performance and then adapt to your training needs.
This statement is at the core of our ruck programming, and it garners more criticism than almost anything else. This shouldn’t be contentious, but it is. It throws the established conventional wisdom on its head. It counters decades of “that’s what I did” institutional and personal momentum. Thirty years ago, the program for SFAS prep was 8 weeks of rucks with a 6-miler week one and a 24-miler in week eight, adding a few miles each week. You started at 35 pounds and slowly moved up to 75 pounds by the final week. You complemented this with the classic body-building split of chest and tri, back and bi, and shoulders and legs. Throw in some Fartleks (remember those?) and maybe an “advanced” technique like a swim or two and there was your SFAS prep plan. For many, this remains ‘the plan” today. You might throw in some updates like AMRAP, or HIIT, or track repeats, but the rucking remains nearly identical. Just look at the official SWCS produced SFAS Prep plan or any of the official THOR3 plans. Some of these don’t even have weightlifting! But they definitely get the rucking part wrong as well.
Most Soldiers hate rucking. It is almost seen as punishment and there is little wonder why. Most units don’t train for rucking. They simply host an annual or semi-annual 12-mile ruck march event for unit validation. It becomes, predictably, an emotionally significant event. Because nobody in the unit has adequately prepared for it, there is always a marked increase in associated injury rates. Put plainly, it sucks. It spawns the ‘rucking is bad for you, wear dress socks to prevent blisters, and load up on creatine and energy drinks’ narrative that prevails almost uncontested. Boomer Fudd-lore bullshit. This is the reality that so much of the literature addresses. We’re not unsympathetic to the misery, we simply maintain that those people aren’t preparing correctly. And our recommendation is hard work, so it’s bound to be unpopular. It is a relentless and intense process (just like SFAS). So, lots of people predictably resist it. We should note that our training statement is not our opinion, it is what the evidence…the peer reviewed, real world recorded evidence…shows us. You can certainly make an argument that “peer-reviewed” doesn’t hold the credibility that it once did. But it is still the gold-standard. And we should recognize that experience does matter, so your observations and practice can certainly inform your argument. But not at the exclusion of what the empirical evidence demonstrates. In the Taxonomy of Information, data and evidence outweigh narrative and anecdotes. Let’s take a look at the counter-argument.
What our position doesn’t say might be a more revealing place to start. We don’t say the only way, we say the best. There are many ways to train rucking. You could program the antithesis method…treadmill based, set pace and weight, once every 2 weeks, focused on long slow distance…and you would certainly see some sort of stimulus, particularly in poorly trained athletes. But not better than our method. Not the best. There is also a significant distinction to be made with how we define best. Best for what? Injury prevention or VO2 Max? Muscular endurance or flexibility? There are near unlimited variables and the literature seems to favor injury prevention. Fair enough, but we’re training to get selected, not to primarily avoid injury. We define best as increased speed and weight carrying capacity. Finally, we say build rucking performance, not maintain performance. We are assuming that the athlete is beginning from a relatively low performance benchmark. Once you build to a high-performance benchmark there is little evidence to suggest that more than once a week is indicated. But were specifying the best way to build. Words matter.
The field based progressive load carriage component is very well established in the literature. You would struggle to find a study that concludes anything but this. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Physical Training on Load Carriage Performance (Knapik, Harman, Steelman, & Graham, 2012) is a fairly comprehensive meta-analysis of this component and should provide more than enough support for this conclusion to even the most doubtful skeptic. Many critics also cite that this article concludes only one weekly progressive load carriage session, not our recommended 2-3. But this isn’t the conclusion in the studies that it reviews. The full conclusion is “…field-based training conducted at least three times per week that incorporates a wide variety of training modes and includes one weekly progressive load carriage…”, so three times a week is much more relevant, and one might conclude at least one weekly progressive load carriage. The conclusion is not clear in this literature, so we should continue to seek clarification elsewhere, as we have done.
The Army itself has published some guidance via the Uniformed Services University Human Performance Resources Initiative and recommends “limiting ruck marches to one every 10–14 days, planned in coordination with resistance training and cardio days.” (Uniformed Services University, 2023) They base this recommendation on Technical Information Paper No. 12-054-054-0616 (Army Public Health Center, 2016). But the TIP itself concludes that this methodology:
“…may provide optimal performance with the least risk of injury. Because exceeding four marches a month may unnecessarily increase risk, training regimens should not exceed one distance march a week. Unit mission, baseline fitness levels, other physical activities and training, as well as terrain and climate must also be considered.”
Again, the focus of these recommendations is injury prevention, not performance. And even this recommendation includes uncertainty (may) and the caveat that mission and baseline fitness levels must also be considered. Our mission is building elite rucking performance. Our mission is SFAS. We are certainly mindful of injury prevention, but it is not the primary consideration. All of the literature that recommends rucking frequency less recurrently than at least once a week are prioritizing injury prevention, not performance gains. We also prioritize establishing high baseline fitness levels before rucking in earnest. Our methodology includes eight weeks of preparatory fitness…strength, flexibility, mobility, and cardio baseline…before rucking is prescribed. This is exactly in accordance with the literature already cited (Orr, Pope, Johnston, & Coyle, 2010). Evidence.
We should also note the actual recommendation in the TIP is “…field-based training conducted at least 3 times per week…”. Why the distinction between load carriage and other field-based activities? Other than injury prevention in low-fitness trainees, what is the difference in load carriage training versus any other physical training modality? There is no evidence that in a properly conditioned athlete that more frequency correlates to higher injury rates. Would any reasonable credentialed coach program any other physical event only 2 or 3 times a month? What sort of performance gains could one realistically expect training an activity every 10-14 days? One should be mindful of overtraining, but what about undertraining? Can you realistically expect optimum performance gains with such infrequent training? Which method is better, twice a month or twice a week? Not what methods are acceptable, rather what is the best.
Finally for frequency, we absolutely must layer on top of this the analysis of the specific training mission of SFAS. No reasonable person believes that training twice a month would be adequate to build rucking performance for Selection. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion. At SFAS you will be rucking nearly every day for the duration. During Gate Week you will have several timed rucks of an unknown distance. If you are fast enough, you get to go to Land Nav Week. Here you will be rucking every single day. You will be under a ruck for 8-10 hours a day. Again, if you’re fast enough and you can manage the inherent cognitive load and find your points, you earn a shot at Team Week. In Team Week you will be under a ruck, and then some (see: The Sandman) for upwards of 22 or 23 hours a day. And finally, the Long Range Movement. Seemingly endless miles on a bruised and battered body with likely shredded and compromised feet. Twice a month prep? Good fucking luck. In the Knapik, et al meta-analysis the training frequency is as varied as 3-5 times a week, while the intensity and duration were manipulated (Knapik, Harman, Steelman, & Graham, 2012). So, following well established exercise protocols we can conclude that 2-3 times a week is the best frequency for building performance, particularly SFAS level performance.
The final variable in our recommendation is intensity. You can manipulate intensity with three common variables: speed, distance, and weight. Some studies cite duration, but duration is a derivative of speed and distance. We use all three of these variables in our programming with our benchmark variable being speed. And because we focus on short intense sessions, we can focus our programming manipulation on the speed and weight. We develop our understanding of short intense sessions from five key studies, Soldier Load Carriage: Historical, Physiological, Biomechanical, and Medical Aspects (Knapik, Reynolds, & Harman, 2004), Optimizing Operational Physical Fitness (NATO's Research & Technology Organization, 2009), The Development of a Preselection Physical Fitness Training Program for Canadian Special Operations Regiment Applicants (Carlson & Jaenen, 2012), The Role of Strength and Power in High Intensity Military Relevant Tasks (Maladouangdock, 2014), and Optimizing the Physical Training of Military Trainees (Orr & Pope, 2015). We should also note that these studies and many of their cited sources, further support the 2-3 times week frequency conclusion.
What these studies conclude is that intensity matters, particularly with regards to load carriage training. Intensity must be sufficient to elicit a physiological response proportionate to that recommended for cardiovascular and metabolic fitness development, with the speed and weight gradually progressed to levels that meet programming needs (Kraemer, et al., 2004). These studies also note that one of the key factors in injury prevention is fatigue and that fatigue sets in at the tail ends of duration, so shorter is better (Bloch, et al., 2023). Some studies cite distances as short as 2-3 miles and even .25 mile sessions (Poel, 2016). We conclude that this is too short, except for specific targeted sessions, to achieve the fitness, technique, and misery management elements of rucking specific fitness. We determined that the ‘sweet spot’ of maximum intensity and sustainable misery balanced with relative injury prevention is 5 miles. We could have chosen 4 and we could have chosen 6 as the evidence is inconclusive at this level of detail, so we assessed 5 miles as optimum. You can certainly train for longer distances, but your intensity will suffer, and intense sessions are better. Remember, we are looking for the best method.
There it is. The thesis statement: The best way to build rucking performance is field based progressive load carriage, usually 2-3 times a week, focused on short intense sessions. You have the argument, the counter-argument, the logic, the evidence, and the literature review. We only cite about a dozen sources here, but there as many as several thousand articles to support these conclusions. This is an evidence-based conclusion, supported by countless peer-reviewed articles, following all of the most accepted and well-established fitness programing principles. Just because it goes against what you did, or what your buddy recommends, or what Skull and Dagger SpecOps Fitness, LLC recommends doesn’t mean much in the face of the overwhelming evidence. You are free to program your rucking train-up in any manner that you choose. But if you aren’t doing it as field based progressive load carriage, usually 2-3 times a week, focused on short intense sessions then you aren’t doing it the best way. Choose your experts, and your expert advice, carefully. SFAS is an upside-down world and requires a deliberate and informed prep.
What Ruck to Use
Welcome to the jungle, fellow Geardos (a gear weirdo…it’s a term of endearment). Welcome to the endless debates, unanswerable questions, and hotly contested opinions on what bag is best. And heaven help us when we get ambushed by the vest wearing philistines. The topic of what ruck to use is almost too much to tackle. It’s not too much because there is no “best ruck”, it’s too much because there are so many “best rucks”. And the answer really is, “It depends”. It depends on how much weight you want to carry; it depends on your body type and size; it depends on your use case requirements. And it ultimately depends on how much money that you want to spend. But don’t worry too much about committing to a particular ruck, because no matter what you choose you are almost guaranteed that you’ll find something wrong with it and some other bag will catch your eye before too long. For an endeavor with such a low barrier to entry, the mastication over the bag seems endless. I’m always struck by new ruckers who think they need permission from some imaginary sanctioning body to wear this or do that. I am the Director of the United States Department of Rucking and I have zero authority over you. Do what you want, use what you want, and just start rucking.
So let’s start this analysis by highlighting what we noted in the introduction to the Rucking 101 series: you don’t need anyone’s permission to use any bag that you chose. I did a GoRuck challenge a few years ago and there was a young lady with a no-kidding old-school Jansport bookbag…in pink…who outlasted all of the Gear Queers (again…it’s a term of endearment) with their fully kitted GR1s. The bag doesn’t really matter, until it does. Think less about brand or cost and think more about capability to match your ability. If you’re just carrying a 20-pound load then you don’t need a full frame pack, or 1000D Cordura, or double bar-tacked stress points, or custom fit straps. For this use case you just need a simple bag with decent straps. You probably don’t even need a waist strap/hip pad. That’s right, you probably don’t need a waist strap. That’s a bold statement, so let’s discuss it further.
The Case For Waist Straps
This may be one of the most hotly debated topics in the rucking community. Is wearing a waist strap required” Is wearing a waist strap acceptable? Is wearing a waist strap the sign of a weak constitution and an embarrassment to your family name? The answer, again, is it depends. This will be a nice little introduction to gatekeeping and a primer for how much the connection to the military influences how we think about rucking. So on what factors does the case for waist straps make the argument? Let’s be measured and deliberate here. And a little bit reasonable.
There is a good two-prong case for not using a waist strap. One prong is tactical, and the other prong is practical. The tactical argument is very sound. It states that using a waist strap prevents a soldier from shedding their ruck rapidly to enable them to react to enemy contact. The doctrinal method for troops to respond to taking enemy fire is usually to quickly drop your cumbersome ruck to allow you to maneuver to a position of either safety and cover or positional fire superiority. It’s hard to run quickly with a heavy ruck and military ruck design accounts for this eventuality and incorporates quick-release (QR) shoulder straps that can be easily activated, even under heavy load. Anyone who has tried to “unclip” a standard fastex type buckle when it was pulled tight might understand how hard this can sometimes be. But these designs do not extend to the waist strap, so waist straps were seen as “dangerous”. Truth be told, I have seen many Soldiers who ignored this maxim and forgot to unclip the waist strap before they activated the QR shoulder straps who were now pinned around the waist by this awkward, unyielding, and often grotesquely heavy ruck. In a real-world running gunfight, it would be catastrophic. In the military world, if a leader can mitigate risk and avoid casualties with a little low-grade Enlisted-man misery, then so be it. So, the “rule” that waist straps are forbidden was born. Many units go so far as to leave the hip pad intact, but actually cut the straps off to deter non-compliance. And traditions die hard in the military, so the tactical consideration is valid even if it’s a knee-jerk cliche.
The practical consideration is equally as nuanced. The concept is that the bulk of the weight should be carried on the hips rather than the shoulders, requiring a waist strap to be used. This is more comfortable and anatomically more advantageous for the athlete. This makes lots of sense conceptually, but…it depends. For lighter weights there really isn’t significant burden on your shoulder straps. Lighter weight probably translates to 20-25 pounds and lighter for most people. It also depends on how the weight is packed, meaning “sloppy” weight negates most of the potential benefit of hip loading. Bulk water, loose loads, and improperly placed loads can be troublesome no matter where on the body it is anchored. In fact, a properly packed (center of gravity centered high and close to the back) of light to moderate weight without a waist strap is likely less burdensome than a poorly packed load with a waist strap. And we haven’t even gotten to the biggest component here, and that’s the pack design.
In order to maximally leverage the hip weight-bearing capacity of a pack, the pack should include a rigid frame. That’s right, if your pack doesn’t have a rigid frame (of sorts) then the waist strap is just window dressing. I get it. It’s nuanced, and for some it’s near heresy to say this. But it’s also the truth. Whenever I am looking to analyze a deeply nuanced topic, I find that its often helpful to look at the extremes to help us suss out the intricacies of that nuance. So, what is the extreme here -- what is the opposite of a framed pack? It would be a very unstructured sack. Imagine a trash bag, filled with a loose load. If you attached some shoulder straps to the top of the bag you could carry it, albeit entirely suspended from your shoulders. If I somehow attached a waist strap to the bottom of the bag, would I really be transferring much of that load to my hips? Probably not. If you have a new GoRuck or other quality bag, it may seem (and is) quite stiff due to the thickness of the materials and newness of their condition. So, you may enjoy an element of support from the waist strap. But given even a moderate load and some light usage, that pack will quickly deteriorate (okay…it will quickly “patina”, or “develop character”, or “gracefully refine” – so you don’t feel bad about it). At the extremes, you will simply have a floppy load suspended from your shoulders, but now unceremoniously attached at your waist as well. Conversely, with a well-constructed pack board and robust padded waist strap you could carry the burden almost entirely on your hips with the shoulder straps only stabilizing the load and keeping it from flopping over. Nuances and extremes.
So logically, a frame is needed to maximize the load bearing capacity of a waist strap. Unless you are carrying a large amount of weight (unscientifically set at over 25 pounds) then you likely don’t need a waist strap and unless your pack has a frame you likely won’t get the hip weight-bearing effect that you seek. You can manipulate this a little though. Some packs have aluminum or polymer stays (long thin strips sewn into the back of the pack to provide structure. I like to take a piece of kydex or just a plastic sheet (the lid of a discarded storage tote is excellent) and cut it to shape to fit into the hydration bladder sleeve of my unstructured assault packs. You can get surprising support from just a little bit of structure. It’s not likely to withstand a 50-pound load but it can help, and it is excellent at keeping the pack structured enough to make rooting around for gear much easier. And it weighs almost nothing.
But a waist strap can do more than just carry the weight. Even in an unstructured pack, it can also help secure the load from flopping around if you are negotiating an obstacle or even just running. And the waist strap makes an ideal location to secure a pocket for electronics or snacks. On my personal heavy ruck, I keep my pouches stocked with gels and my personal favorite, bite-sized Snickers. I’ve navigated some of my most difficult routes with nothing except candy and iodine-tinged tepid water and my waist strap was my personal handy pantry. So the answer to the enduring debate about waist straps is…“It Depends”. It depends on the pack, the load, the use case, and the individual. There’s nothing wrong with using a waist strap except under the most extreme instances, like a water crossing or a tactical scenario. But understand that the disdain that many have for a waist strap is rooted in the hard-earned lessons of war, and that sort of experience can be a tough lesson to unlearn.
Frame Or No Frame
We’ve already touched on the merits of a frame in our waist strap discussion, but there are few things that we didn’t cover yet. I think it’s safe to conclude that for larger loads a waist strap is warranted, but it is most effective when paired with a frame. There are essentially four types of framed packs. External, internal, vertical stays, and plate. I classify the lightweight plastic sheet described above as the “plate” frame. Frames are generally aluminum or polymer as these are the most cost effective and lightweight. There are some bespoke applications for alloy and exotic materials, but you’re not likely to need something like this. One of the other benefits of a framed pack is the frame itself. At an extreme you might have just a pack board, which is essentially a frame with a small shelf, and just straps. No real bag to speak of. These are ideal for bulky and odd shaped loads. These are not uncommon in hunting circles for packing out a large game animal that’s been harvested and the military has a rich history of packing ammunition boxes and crates, weapons, and munitions. You don’t have to worry about squeezing anything into a bag because there is no bag. An external frame itself makes a strong and convenient lash and anchor point.
Some frames, like the ALICE frame, provide some standoff of the bag from the body. This little gap can be critical in providing airflow and cooling in extreme temps. A sticky backside, plastered to a sopping shirt, pressed to the back by a ruck can get pretty old pretty quick. Not to mention the potential rashes, hot spots, abrasions, and even blisters. But the same things that frames are good for (providing structure to the load) can be negatives. You are essentially strapping yourself into a medical traction device that prevents you from flexing, twisting, and adjusting your body. A poorly sized and inadequate frames pack can feel like a medieval torture device. Finally, I might add that unless you’re the type that has a dedicated gear locker with multiple load outs for different applications (I’m not too embarrassed to admit that I have a dozen rucks, so I’m free to be as pedantic about my applications as I’d like), a framed pack can be sort of limiting in its dual-use applications. Not many folks are willing to carry a framed pack through an airport as a carry on, whereas a GR1 barely gets noticed.
The Case for Weighted Vests
Can I use a weighted vest in lieu if a ruck? Yes. But it’s not rucking, it’s vesting.
Is the work/calories/results the same? Yes. But its not rucking.
Will people judge me for being a weirdo? Yes. Because it’s not rucking.
Using a weighted vest is perfectly fine. It balances the load a little, you can use a vest for other workouts, and its often less expensive than a quality pack. But you need specific weights to fit the vest (and will likely be limited in the top end weight you can carry), they can inhibit breathing and ventilation, and you would be one of the few people who look weirder than the weirdo walking around the neighborhood with a ruck on. I have a camouflage plate carrier with steel “ballistic plates” that I use for garage gym workouts. But I never leave the driveway because I’m not a weirdo.
And it’s not rucking. Settled. Case dismissed.
Just Tell Us What The Best Ruck Is Already!
I can’t. There is no best ruck for everyone. For military applications I think the ALICE ruck is the absolute gold-standard. And I’m not the only one. Years ago, Terry Baldwin wrote what I believe is the definitive treatise on this topic. It is well researched, logically analyzed, and clearly written. The problem is that hardly anyone reads it. This is a mistake. Everyone should read The Baldwin Articles – ALICE Pack Trilogy (The Baldwin Articles - ALICE Pack Trilogy: Part 1 of 3 | Soldier Systems Daily Soldier Systems Daily) and not just because his conclusions align almost perfectly with my own analysis. Everyone should read it because Terry lays out an excellent analytical framework on what to look for in a good ruck. You don’t have to agree with his conclusions, but you should see how a guy who spent his life under a ruck…the pain, the pleasure, and the misery…thinks about features, and fit, and function. Then you can decide what things are important to you as you navigate the market. There are a whole ton of amazing rucks. I own a bunch of them. So, let me see if I can channel my inner-Baldwin and tell you what features I like and why, so you can evaluate the market with a more informed eye.
Material
The outdoor industry is obsessed with proprietary fabrics, technical coatings, and exclusive features. Most of that stuff is just marketing. Most of it. Proprietary fabrics can be challenging to fix and maintain, technical coatings can degrade, and exclusive features rarely deliver much functionality. I always look for simplicity. Time-tested design, mission proven materials, and basic functionality. My ruck is rarely the limiting factor in my performance. So, while I like to masticate over this stuff, I also continually remind myself that I am the weak link, not my gear. Cordura nylon (a brand name) is largely seen as the industry standard, and it is categorized in terms of its denier, or weight. 1000D nylon is very heavy duty and can be quite stiff. 100D is lightweight and useful for linings. You can venture into heavyweight poly-coated (rubberized) versions and super lightweight versions like Dyneema (feels like Tyvek) and then there is weaving techniques like rip-stop that can add some functionality. The possibilities are near endless.
What is perhaps more important than the material is the construction. The sewing techniques and stitching, edge bindings, and design likely all play a larger role in durability than outright material failure. Techniques like bar tacking, box stitching, and proper placement and reinforcement of anchor points are likely to produce long-lasting products. And let’s not forget the role that equipment maintenance plays in material longevity. Proper laundering, proactive inspections, preventative maintenance, zipper lubrication, and appropriate storage are critical. Just like the Ranger Creed states, “…my care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow…” At first, this stuff can be pretty intimidating, but this is one of those knowledge domains that really benefits with experience. Just get your hands on the gear and feel it. Look at it closely. Do panels align? Are the seam edges bound? Is there excessive loose threads? Do the zippers align move freely? Is the finish on the zipper tabs intact? Do the straps adjust freely and then hold fast when set? Are the buckles sound?
You can feel a cheap buckle by the finish, and you can visibly see injection molding quality. Buckles and tri-glides from Fastex ITW/Nexus and stuff from National Molding are good bets. A decent slide release buckle usually runs a dollar or so, while the cheap stuff runs 10 bucks for a chub pack of 35. If you’ve ever had a buckle fail in the field, then you know that the stuff from “Feng Shui Manufacturing” just doesn’t last and manufacturers that use that junk are sacrificing your comfort and functionality for 50 cents of profit. Vote your dissatisfaction with your purchases. The same can be said for straps or webbing. The cheap stuff is polypropylene and feels almost waxy. Its slick finish makes it perform poorly in buckles and slides. The nylon webbing is stiffer, but hold sin position and when abraded usually resists deterioration better.
But…WHICH ONE IS THE BEST RUCK?!?!
Before I render an opinion, lets cover what design features make the most impact. I care less about what I like and much more about why I like what I like. I want you to see my analytical framework so that you can start to develop the list of what is important to you and why. Then when you go out to start dropping a couple of hundred bucks on a ruck, you can do so with at least an element of confidence. But remember, no matter what you pick you will inevitably find something that you don’t like and you will soon be shopping for your next purchase. It took me a decade of regular rucking before I dialed in my perfect rig.
Shoulder Straps – This comes down to padding and adjustment. The straps have to have the right amount of padding, and more isn’t always better. I’ve seen some thickly padded straps that actually start to turn or flip under load and actually defeats the padding. And the density of the foam makes a difference as well. High density isn’t necessarily better, it’s just different so you have to spend some time determining which you prefer. In terms of adjustment, I’m looking at the anchor points (the top and bottom positions where the straps attach to the ruck) and the mid-point (sternum) strap. For the bottom anchor point I’m looking at how easily the straps can be adjusted for tension, how well they maintain position once adjusted, and how easily I can emergency release the straps. I’m not likely to be in a firefight soon, but there are plenty of circumstances where I may need to get out from under a fouled ruck. For the top anchor point I’m looking for “load lifter” straps. For lighter loads, like on an assault pack, I probably don’t need them. But on a heavy ruck, these adjustment straps can drastically alter the way the load rides on your back, and you will find that even minute adjustments can provide relief of an otherwise untenable load. You will find yourself constantly pulling, tugging, releasing, shifting, adjusting, and fine-tuning your straps throughout a movement. Some days you will settle in quickly and others you will fuss with it for the entire session. But having that ability to refine that fitment is something that you will likely find endlessly useful.
The final, and maybe the most critical adjustment strap, is the sternum strap. I never had one when I started rucking. They just weren’t issued with the equipment and augmenting your gear with after-market accoutrements wasn’t something that was in the realm of possibility. But I finally got my hands on a sternum strap, and I never looked back. Total game changer. Such a simple thing yet so incredibly impactful. I will admit that I’ve been near-beheaded by my sternum strap when I activated my quick-release buckles, but if you can practice that battle drill effectively the sternum strap is one of those hidden little performance hacks that you just can’t do without once you’ve used it. The combination of load lifters, proper padding, and the sternum strap give you so much flexibility in managing the misery of the ruck load. A must have. An honorable mention goes to the hip belt pockets that we discussed previously, but we should mention their close cousins the shoulder strap pouches. The right strap with the right pouch becomes the perfect place to stash low-density/high-demand items like a phone, lip balm, light, or nutrition. I’ve also used some water bottle holders that position the bottles just right so you can position the straw for easy hands-free drinking. This set up is particularly helpful for quick fill or change-out of your bottles as the large open-top mouths and easy access to the bottles is ideal. And adding the water weight to the straps helps balance some of the load from the back. Not a tenable configuration for a tactical pack, but something that adventure racers have been using for years. Definitely worth considering.
The Bag – There are endless designs to satisfy whatever your heart desires, but I always like to focus on simplicity. I like a big central pouch with some smaller outer pouches for specific items. I don’t like PALS webbing because the ‘busyness” bothers me, and I know I don’t need to swap pouches around. I don’t like multiple compartments because its makes waterproofing it difficult. And I don’t like too many features because that’s just staff that I have to maintain. I think of it in terms of being ‘bombproof”. Simple is always better. There is no question that the Y-Shaped zipper design of a Mystery Ranch bag is a nice feature to make acing your stuff easier…until that zipper splits. You would struggle to find a lighter pack than the Black Diamond Beta Light…but that lightweight limits options and durability. But if you prioritize cutting edge design, advanced materials, or modular options then there is an endless bevy of options available to you. A speed-freak through-hiker has different priorities than the Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol.
Functionality – I want a bag that can serve multiple roles. I absolutely do not a want a rucking rig that I can only use for a ruck workout. The idea of a ruck trainer (a frame with straps that accepts plates but has no actual bag) seems wasteful. The same goes for a bag design that is so small that it functionally can only carry a plate. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a bag that you can use as an actual bag? Particularly if you are rucking in preparation for military service. If you are training for a ruck-based selection event, then get the ruck that you will be using on that event. There are some nuances for each pack that you will want to explore and adapt to before you are being assessed. To be clear, I’m not against advanced design and unique features. I’m not so biased by my service that I declare that military surplus is the only acceptable route. To wit, I despise PALS webbing that has seeped into many civilian products.
So the best bag is the bag that fits your specific criteria. It fits your body type, your use case profile, and your budget. It doesn’t have to be a specific brand. It doesn’t have to cost a specific amount. It doesn’t have to look a certain way. It doesn’t even have to be a bag. You can wear a vest if that’s what you like. Don’t let anyone gatekeep you from using what you like or even just using what you have. Just remember that no matter what bag you pick, because no matter what you choose you are almost guaranteed that you’ll find something wrong with it and some other bag will catch your eye before too long. Unless you pick the exact bag that I carry because it’s the “perfect” ruck, the only perfect ruck. Until I find a replacement.
In our next release we’ll talk about rucking fitness wearables. Stay Tuned!
Works Cited
Army Public Health Center. (2016). TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12-054-0616: Foot Marching, Load Carriage, and Injury Risk. Aberdeen Proving Grounds: TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12-054-0616.
Bloch, A., Steckenrider, J., Zifchock, R., Freisinger, G., Bode, V., & Elkin-Frankston, S. (2023). Effect of Fatigue on Movement Patterns During a Loaded Ruck March. Military Medicine.
Carlson, M., & Jaenen, S. (2012). The development of a preselection physical fitness training program for Canadian Special Operations Regiment applicants. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
Chatterjee, S., Chatterjee, T., Bhattacharyya, D., Sen, S., & Pal, M. (2018). Effect of heavy load carriage on cardiorespiratory responses with varying gradients and modes of carriage. Militray Medical Research.
Dlugolecka, B., & Jowko, E. (2022). Effects of Weight-Bearing and Weight-Supporting Sports on Bone Mass in Males. Polish Journal of Sport and Tourism, 9-14.
Knapik, J. J., Harman, E. A., Steelman, R. A., & Graham, B. S. (2012). A Systematic Review of the Effects of Physical Training on Load Carriage Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 585-597.
Knapik, J., Reynolds, K., & Harman, E. (2004). Soldier load carriage: historical, physiological, biomechanical, and medical aspects. Mil Med.
Kraemer, W., Vescovi, J., Volek, J., Nindl, B., Newton, R., Patton, J., . . . Häkkinen, K. (2004). Effects of concurrent resistance and aerobic training on load-bearing performance and the Army physical fitness test. Military Medicine.
Maladouangdock, J. (2014). The Role of Strength and Power in High Intensity Military Relevant Tasks. University of Connecticut .
NATO's Research & Technology Organization. (2009). Optimizing Operational Physical Fitness. Neuilly: NATO.
Orr, R., & Pope, R. (2015). Optimizing the Physical Training of Military Trainees. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 53-59.
Orr, R., Pope, R., Johnston, V., & Coyle, J. (2010). Load carriage: minimizing soldier injuries through physical conditioning –a narrative review. Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, 31-38.
Orr, R., Dawes, J., Lockie, R., & Godeassi, D. (2019). The Relationship Between Lower-Body Strength and Power, and Load Carriage Tasks: A Critical Review. International Journal of Exercise Science, 1001-1022.
Poel, D. (2016). The Effects of Military Style Ruck Marching on Lower Extremity Loading. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Sax van der Weyden, M., Merrigan, J., Newman, K., Hahn, J., & Martin, J. (2024). Army Combat Fitness Test Scores Moderate Cognitive Function Improvements After a Ruck March: A Hierarchical Linear Model Approach. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
Uniformed Services University. (2023). Load carriage strategies to improve military fitness. Retrieved from Human Performance Resources by CHAMP: https://www.hprc-online.org/physical-fitness/training-performance/load-carriage-strategies-improve-military-fitness
