Even if you just put two 10kg bags of oats in your backpack, that's going to last.
20kg? Soldiers have that much to carry, and often more, with weight of gun, ammo, rations, bedroll, and more... yet march day long.
(Yes I have carried a 95lb pack on 2week mountaineering expeditions)
There’s a lot of variables though!
A far cry from 35C, as another option.
35C, you'd almost have to factor in the weight of salt you'd take on a month's trip.
EDIT: Oops! Should have read farther in the comments. FartyMcFarter already mentioned Huskies just a couple of comments down.
This podcast about the nutrition and planning for an unsupported 100 day crossing of Antarctica was absolutely fascinating but somehow felt nearly useless in terms of things to apply to my own (far far less substantial) trips. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/keto-2700-km-through-a...
>in practice about a month and a half’s logistics buffer is the maximum that’s possible and even doing that is expensive.
My first paragraph is about a man, a backpack, and a little cart behind him ... to carry food.
My last paragraph has nothing to do with food, only to show that a man can march with full kit, all day with 40kg. That it is done all the time.
You response mixes the two, and then replies with a quote about an army, which must drag a full kit and food too.
It is not applicable to this thread...
If you can carry enough food for X days, you could travel out X/4 days, leave a cache with enough supplies for X/2 days, then travel back with the last X/4 days of supplies. During the actual push, take X/4 from the cache on your way out, and X/4 from the cache on your way back. By using the cache, your range has increased from 0.5X to 0.75X. (This is a simplified example that assumes only a single cache of supplies is being used, and that the same size party is used for both trips.)
More extreme resource planning can also be used for expeditions, though can raise questions of ethics. The first successful expedition to the South Pole [0] set off with 52 sled-dogs, 45 of which survived the first month of the expedition. At that point, the supplies were light enough that they only required 18 dogs for the final push. The remainder were killed and butchered, both to reduce the number of mouths to feed and to provide food for the humans and remaining dogs.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%27s_South_Pole_expedi...
On the use of dogs as an expendable resource, Scott said "One cannot calmly contemplate the murder of animals which possess such intelligence and individuality, which have frequently such endearing qualities, and which very possibly one has learnt to regard as friends and companions.", poor guy. Quite the gentleman.
(As an aside, he did pioneer the use of motor sleds for antarctic expeditions, but that was a disaster for him too.)