When bike touring I find that I can make do without all the usual amenities so I leave the easy chair, TV, and kitchen sink behind and try to keep the 'fully loaded' gear weight down to 20 lbs. That means that my bike, gear load, and rider still weigh less in total than lots of riders on their weight-weenie carbon racing bikes and there's no particular need for heavier than normal tubes or heavy touring tires. I've found lightweight tubes and flexible 23 mm tires to work fine with a fully-loaded bike - at least for on-road (and mostly paved) touring in the US.

But the point I was making was that another poster was putting undue emphasis on the weight difference of the tubes and claiming that the lighter weight was the *only* advantage for the thinner models. You seem to do the same above when you emphasize the weight difference in grams. But rolling resistance is mainly related to hysteresis losses and although there tends to be a correlation to weight (other things being equal a thinner tire or tube will be more compliant and have less hysteresis loss), that isn't always the case. I've had tires where one model was substantially heavier than another but due to construction differences the rolling resistance was greater for the lighter one. And even in the case where one is comparing tubes of the same material where there is a good correlation, the added rolling resistance means that thicker tubes with an extra weight of 30g each will have a much greater impact on the required pedaling effort than just adding a 30g weight to each rim.
Now depending on your own preferences the difference may still be insignificant (you're likely to still make it to camp in time to fix dinner either way), but the advantage of a thinner tube is not *only* due to weight savings.