The Era of the Toothbrush Handle Hack is Over.

The rugged, unforgiving trails of Colorado’s Electric Pass, a landscape that once tested my mettle with a daunting 45-pound pack on my first overnight backcountry adventure in 2011, were the initial proving grounds for my nascent backpacking journey. Back then, the concept of "ultralight" was a distant whisper, an esoteric philosophy understood only by a select few. Yet, in the intervening years between that initial arduous trek and my transformative thru-hike of the Appalachian Trail in 2015, the weight-saving ethos had not just gained traction, it had exploded into a full-blown revolution within the thru-hiking community. The most dedicated ultralighters of the AT were known for their minimalist approach, often seen with 30-liter glorified sacks and an almost spiritual aversion to hip belts, viewing them as unnecessary appendages.

On the trail, these purists freely dispensed their hard-won wisdom, a seemingly endless stream of advice that often included pronouncements like, "I can’t believe you’re bringing a full toothbrush," or offering impromptu pack shakedowns in bustling trail towns, urging fellow hikers to "Send this bag of extra clothes home immediately." This rigorous dedication to shedding every conceivable ounce was a defining characteristic of the ultralight movement. However, a noticeable shift has occurred in recent years. Hikers today appear to be far more amenable to carrying a few extra ounces if it translates to enhanced comfort and enjoyment on the trail. This evolving perspective is largely facilitated by the remarkable advancements in outdoor gear technology. What once necessitated drastic measures, like the infamous toothbrush handle hack, is now often addressed by the sheer lightness of modern equipment. Tents, sleeping bags, sleeping pads, and backpacks have all undergone significant weight reductions over the past decade, making it easier than ever to achieve a lighter base weight without resorting to extreme modifications. This article will delve into five of the most common, and at times amusingly excessive, weight-saving hacks witnessed throughout my years on the trail, and critically assess whether they still hold merit in today’s gear landscape. Prepare for a spirited debate in the comments section.

The Folly of the Toothbrush Handle Hack

The practice of meticulously sawing the handle off one’s toothbrush, a ritualistic act for many early ultralighters, now appears as a relic of a bygone era. The memory of dragging myself into camp after a grueling day, grasping the truncated nub of my toothbrush between pinched fingers, desperately trying to reach every molar without inadvertently introducing my entire hand into my mouth, is still vivid. This maneuver was not only awkward but also served as a constant reminder of the minimal benefit gained. The sole perceived advantage was the fleeting sense of smugness derived from adding another item to my ultralight-ready kit. However, this self-satisfaction quickly evaporated when I calculated the actual weight saved: at most, a meager six grams. Let me be unequivocal: six grams is inconsequential in the grand scheme of backpacking. The only tangible benefit, albeit minor, was that the shortened toothbrush might fit more snugly into a compact zip-top toiletry kit. Yet, even this convenience is now easily circumvented. A plethora of purpose-built, shorter toothbrushes are readily available on the market, such as the Aurelle Toob Brush, negating the need for DIY modifications. The weight savings are negligible, and the practical inconvenience often outweighs any perceived advantage. The effort expended in modifying the toothbrush, coupled with the diminished comfort during use, renders this hack a clear case of diminishing returns. In essence, it was a symbol of dedication to the ultralight creed, but a functionally inefficient one.

• What you saved: Approximately 6 grams.
• Verdict: This hack was never truly worth the effort, and certainly not in retrospect.

The Tent Stake vs. The Cathole Conundrum

For an extended period, employing a tent stake as a makeshift trowel for digging catholes was a celebrated ultralight hack, a testament to resourcefulness and a desire to minimize carried items. However, the reality of this practice often falls far short of the idealized scenario. The fundamental requirement of Leave No Trace principles for a cathole is a depth of six to eight inches and a diameter of four to six inches. Attempting to achieve this with a standard six-inch tent stake, typically boasting a half-inch diameter, is an exercise in futility and frustration. It transforms a necessary, albeit sometimes unpleasant, task into an arduous ordeal. The very notion of making this chore more difficult than it already is, especially after a long day of hiking, is antithetical to the pursuit of enjoyment in the backcountry. While the market has seen the emergence of combination trowel/tent stake tools, their effectiveness is often compromised. Even a seemingly robust option like Vargo’s Dig Dig Tool, measuring a mere 1.7 inches wide, struggles to perform adequately in either role. It often functions poorly as a tent stake, lacking the necessary grip and stability, and is equally inefficient as a trowel, failing to excavate the required depth and width for a proper cathole. Furthermore, the continuous innovation in tent stake design has led to increasingly lightweight materials, including carbon fiber. These ultra-lightweight stakes, while excellent for their intended purpose, are virtually useless for digging. The weight savings derived from eschewing a dedicated trowel are minimal when weighed against the environmental impact and the sheer difficulty of properly burying human waste. The solution is readily available and remarkably efficient. Modern trowels have become incredibly lightweight, often weighing less than a traditional tent stake. The TentLab DirtSaw Deuce #2, for instance, offers a generous 2.6-inch width and tips the scales at just over half an ounce. Prioritizing a dedicated trowel is not just a matter of convenience; it’s an essential component of responsible backcountry ethics.

• What you saved: Approximately 5 grams.
• Verdict: Invest in a proper trowel; your convenience and the environment will thank you.

The Trash Compactor Bag: A Waterproofing Champion

My early multi-week expeditions often saw me diligently employing a pack cover, a seemingly indispensable piece of gear for warding off the elements. However, I soon discovered a fundamental flaw in this approach. In the unpredictable, often sideways-blowing rain characteristic of mountainous regions, pack covers proved remarkably ineffective. The rain would invariably find its way underneath, pooling at the bottom of the cover and saturating the base of my pack, rendering the entire exercise somewhat futile. Across various brands, sizes, and materials, pack covers consistently underperformed, often proving to be bulkier than alternative solutions and requiring constant adjustment and reattachment during storms. The true revelation came with the adoption of a trash compactor bag or a similar heavy-duty pack liner. This simple yet ingenious solution resides inside the backpack, creating a waterproof barrier that effectively shields all gear within the main compartment. By simply rolling down the top of the bag, one can achieve excellent waterproofing. While this method necessitates a separate strategy for protecting items in external pockets, it’s important to acknowledge that these items would likely have become wet regardless with a traditional pack cover. The trash compactor bag offers superior protection for the core of your gear, is significantly less cumbersome, and requires no fiddling during inclement weather. Its effectiveness, especially for long-distance hikers facing unpredictable weather patterns, is undeniable. The weight savings are substantial when compared to the bulk and often ineffective performance of many pack covers.

• What you saved: Approximately 4 ounces.
• Verdict: The trash compactor bag remains an elite and highly effective waterproofing solution.

The Hip Belt Paradox: A Weight-Saving Illusion

One of the ultralight hacks that consistently baffled me was the widespread practice of ditching backpack hip belts. Many hikers embracing the ultralight philosophy, opting for diminutive 30-liter packs, would meticulously remove their hip belts only to immediately reintroduce a fanny pack into their kit. I recall a particularly memorable instance where a fellow hiker vehemently argued for the removal of the hip belt from my Gossamer Gear Mariposa, citing a potential nine-ounce saving. This was a not insignificant weight reduction, I conceded. However, the same individual then suggested replacing the hip belt’s function with a fanny pack, thereby adding back at least some of the saved weight. The logic behind this maneuver remained elusive. While I understand the appeal of a smaller, more accessible bag for town excursions, the trade-off involves sacrificing the fundamental benefit of hip belt functionality: weight distribution. Even with a meticulously curated lightweight base weight, transferring a portion of the load from the shoulders to the hips is a far more ergonomic and comfortable strategy for extended periods of hiking. The hip belt is designed to bear the majority of the pack’s weight, alleviating stress on the shoulders and spine. Removing it and replacing it with a fanny pack, which typically carries a fraction of the load, negates the primary advantage of a well-designed backpack. The perceived weight saving is often an illusion, as the added bulk and weight of the fanny pack can easily negate the ounces shed from the hip belt. For most hikers, the comfort and support provided by a hip belt are essential for enjoyable and sustainable long-distance trekking.

• What you saved: Potentially none, as fanny packs often add weight back.
• Verdict: Keep your hip belt; for the vast majority of hikers, its benefits far outweigh any perceived weight savings from its removal, especially when considering the common addition of fanny packs.

The Smartwater Bottle: A Lightweight Hydration Staple

Even before the ultralight movement reached its zenith, a vocal contingent of hikers championed the replacement of the venerable, yet admittedly weighty, Nalgene bottle. While I retain a certain fondness for my classic Nalgene, its 32-ounce iteration tips the scales at a considerable 6.5 ounces. When factoring in the common practice of carrying two water bottles, this translates to a substantial 13 ounces dedicated solely to hydration vessels. Enter the humble Smartwater bottle. Two of these disposable, lightweight bottles offer a significant advantage, undercutting the weight of two Nalgene bottles by a remarkable 11 ounces. Beyond their inherent lightness, Smartwater bottles offer a crucial practical benefit: their threaded necks are compatible with a wide array of water filters, most notably the Sawyer Squeeze. This compatibility allows for direct filtration into the bottle, streamlining the water procurement process and eliminating the need for additional components or separate filter bags. For those concerned about the environmental impact and potential microplastic exposure associated with the prolonged use of disposable plastic bottles, a viable and increasingly popular alternative has emerged. Newer iterations, such as Cnoc bottles, offer a similar threading system and are designed for repeated use, providing a more sustainable and durable option for backcountry hydration. The enduring appeal of the Smartwater bottle, and its lighter, reusable counterparts, lies in its elegant simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and seamless integration with essential water filtration systems. It represents a genuine and enduring weight-saving solution that enhances both convenience and functionality on the trail.

• What you saved: Approximately 11 ounces.
• Verdict: This has consistently been a wise choice and continues to be a highly recommended hydration strategy.