I'll give a +1 for the young trekking pole users.

I'm only 20, reasonably fit (6' 170-175lbs), and I just started using poles--actually bought them in the Gear Swap a few months ago. I just got back from doing a 48-hour, ~32 miler, and I KNOW those poles helped reduce the strain on muh knees. Scientific... no... but a person, whether registered scientist or not, is able to tell a difference in the impact strike of his foot both with and without trekking poles.

I DO like what someone mentioned earlier about people NOT knowing how to use poles, and after reading the descriptions of the different pole-usage-styles I believe that I utilize BOTH styles- support in front on both up/down hill, and angled slightly behind me helping push off when on level ground.

As well, it seems more studies have been put out lately concerning the impact force of running/walking, insert cool link to barefoot running here =). Now, while it may not be that trekking poles exhibit this magical pressence of power in themselves, it's fairly easy to realize that if a person has something to use as support, he is going to be able to step with a lighter impact strike, resulting in less joint/muscle stress.

As for the study, yeah there are plenty of coulda's and shoulda's to be said, but I think it helps make a pretty simple concept even more... well... simple =)

btw, say the title with an Arnold Schwarzenegger voice

Thanks for reading,
Clint

Well, I don't know this way or that about the measured efficacy of trekking poles. I only know that I don't like carrying them, especially on very steep terrain because they always get in the way and knock into things. However, I do find that they actually do impart benefits. One time after a very long, rocky climb and descent (about 14 hours), my right knee began to hurt so badly that I couldn't bend my leg. Just putting weight on my leg sent excruciating stabs of pain up my leg. If I hadn't had a hiking pole to bear my weight with each step I wouldn't have made it down the mountain. When your legs are doing well and they are strong from conditioning probably you don't use poles to bear that much weight, but there must be some less perceived weight bearing going on. And it's not just weight bearing, it's also the third and fourth leg advantage that you get from added "appendages". I do find, though, that I get more careless when I walk with poles; instead of, when I descend, keeping a very careful eye on the rocks and placing my feet carefully, I tend to project my balance onto my poles and allow my bodyweight to under-compensate. I tend to slip more when I use poles.

Wow. Yeah. Some of the earlier comments about how to design scientific studies were a bit... unorthodox.

There is no way to do this study in a true double-blind fashion, unless you could hypnotize people into thinking they used poles when they didn't. Also, the crack about how any study that isn't a twin study done in a laboratory is invalid displays a fundamental misunderstanding about the statistics involved. (Sorry to sound peremptory, but it does.) That's why we test populations, not individuals. With a large enough N the variables fall out. Of course you CAN argue that 37 isn't a big enough N. I'd have to see the real study to know. It sort of depends upon just how big the difference in results is between the two groups. Generally, you need a larger N when testing for smaller differences whereas a small N will demonstrate greater differences adequately.

Generally.

Anyway, I think it'll be an interesting paper, if I can get my hands on a copy. And I probably can- I can get it through my hospital library, though it may take me a week or so.

The hiking community in general seems to have strong opinions on this subject, bordering on theology. I don't understand why. If you don't want to use poles... don't. Why try to convince everyone else that they don't work? Some perverse need to justify that you're "doing it right", or something? That's kinda pitiful.

And, if you don't like the results you are free to cite a study that shows different results. Or, do your own study. Right now, this is the best we got, IIRC.

On to the opinion portion of this rant...

Personally, I think it is obvious that they help SOMEHOW. When you're on the verge of muscle failure and you're trying to get up those last few steps what do you do? You push down on your knees with your hands. It makes it easier. Also, when the going gets steep enough to qualify as a "scramble" rather than a "hike", it is definitely easier to climb using your hands in addition to your legs, right? Obviously, being able to apply force with your arms will unload your legs to some extent. I mean, that's simple physics. If you stand between two tables and exert a force downward with your hands, your legs get unloaded. Likewise, if you push backward with your poles, that's less force that your legs need to exert to propel you forward, however trivial it may be.

But I understand that biomechanics isn't just simple physics, so: what isn't so obvious is exactly how MUCH this helps. It may be trivial. But when we're talking about what is, essentially, an athletic activity sometimes incredibly small advantages make a difference. And it still in no way invalidates the "purity" of those who hike without poles- this is NOT an attack on you people, so calm down. This isn't theology. Some times I use poles and sometimes not. Generally, I use them on days with a significant elevation to climb- for balance aids if nothing else. (But, incidentally, if you aren't constantly struggling to keep your balance you're using less energy, aren't you?) On flatter terrain I may go without them or, more commonly and purely for aesthetic reasons, use a single staff. (I'm the kind of guy who has to keep his hands busy...) On flat terrain I think they probably can help you go faster for longer using Nordic technique, but if I just wanted to go faster and get a workout I'd run. And I do trail run on occasion, but when I'm walking I just want to walk- you know, stroll a bit. So the poles are just a nuisance to me. If you're just walking a normal pace (i.e. not Nordic-ing for exercise purposes) on flat terrain I doubt they help much. (Thus, likely Roger's experience in the Australian bush.) After all that's what humans were designed to do. We're endurance plains pack predators.

So... NOT theology. Calm down. You know who you are.

Big hug.

I will now wait for mention of Nazis, guns, global warming, or internet censorship.

Edited by acrosome on 06/06/2010 21:01:25 MDT.

My university has access to this journal, so I looked up the article. Based on the original article, it appears to have been funded by an internal grant from "St Mary’s University College Research Support Fund." We have similar sources of funding at my university. So, regardless of the merits of the study, it does not appear to have been "industry funded." It seems to have been publicly funded. The actual trekking poles were donated by a trekking pole company.

In the methods section of the paper, the subject selection, study protocol, and group assignments are clearly stated and well described. They did use a "posttest-only control group" design, which is a "true" experimental design and completely legitimate. Of course, there are several things that I would have done differently if we were assisting the study, but it seems like a decent preliminary study.

The researchers do state that: "It is possible that the TP participants assumed the poles afforded a benefit when ascending..." And, in their conclusion, the researchers write that "this is the first investigation to examine the efficacy of trekking poles on indices of muscle damage; furthermore, to our knowledge, it is also the first documented study to use an ecologically valid environment to test this type of equipment." (Note: I can't give the page numbers, because this is a pre-release copy.)

So, overall, from reading the actual paper, I'd say this study does have a few weaknesses, but is generally a good start.

So as they say on Mythbusters, "Plausible."

Well, like others, I find that trekking poles help my knees a lot. I'm pretty young (29) and I have an old soccer injury that flares up when hiking downhill. Though I would prefer to not carry them, I find them invaluable for my knees. I have to say that I do like the fact that the University conducted an interesting study relating to backpacking/hiking.

Whats there to doubt? They obviously burn more calories, if for no other reason than you're carrying more weight, and yes they reduce strain on your lower body; any force exerted by the poles is pressure no longer on your feet. As far as exact numbers and percentages, who cares? There's so many variables that it wouldn't tell me anything relevant, or anything that I wouldn't better understand just by picking up a pair of poles and using them.

I'm 24, 6'0", 180lb, just started using trekking poles and I'm never going back! I did my first hike in vibram 5 fingers a few weeks ago (63km + ~20km back while hitchhiking) and there's no way I would have made it without trekking poles. When my feet were sore and tired they saved me from losing my balance many times. When I had to climb down steep parts of the trail they let me put my feet down as light as I would on flat ground saving them the unbearable impact (my feet were really tender and bruised, new to minimalist footwear!). They also saved me from slipping on wet logs and falling in bogs and beaver ponds!

They're well worth it for the safety reasons alone.

I find it hard to believe that there are still folks who wish to claim that trekking poles are of no benefit. I, like many older folks, hiked quite happily for decades without poles. So yes, you don't NEED poles. However, they have clearly helped me and my long time hiking buddies in that they make it all a bit easier, up hill or down, crossing streams and boulders, and to push nasty scrub and spider webs out of the way. I agree the biomechanics of it are pretty obvious...less weight on your legs and more points of stability are hard to deny. Doesn't mean you have weak legs just because trekking poles are helping you.

I'm with you. I don't always use them, but I usually carry them, and use them on steep and/or rough areas. Having been through a blown and re-constructed ACL, I'm very careful about my knees, in spite being very strong. Trekking poles help a lot with that.

"I find it hard to believe that there are still folks who wish to claim that trekking poles are of no benefit."

There are, I'm one of them. If I manage to put enough pressure on the pole(s) to help my legs my neck/shoulders hurt. They cause pain for me. But a single staff for crossing streams is useful.

I didn't mean benefit on an individual level. As mentioned above, trekking pole use should not be a theology. If they don't benefit you, then there is no point in using them. But to apply your personal experience to the general population is fallacious given both the research cited here as well as the multitude of positive experiences noticed by a collective of individuals. It's kinda like saying "I don't benefit from reading glasses, therefore they are of no benefit to anyone."

Edited by retropump on 06/08/2010 18:26:50 MDT.

If I manage to put enough pressure on the pole(s) to help my legs my neck/shoulders hurt.

Try Pacerpoles. They're a whole different animal.

I have no doubt that others find them useful. I just don't. I do have to admit that I find them silly looking. But that may change if "everyone" starts using them. ;^)

It's also not the first research showing physiological benefit:

Effects of hiking downhill using trekking poles while carrying external loads.

Bohne M, Abendroth-Smith J.

Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL 61455, USA. M-Bohne@wiu.edu
Abstract

Hiking is a recreational activity shown to offer significant positive effects on the human body. However, walking downhill and external load carriage have both been shown to increase the risk of musculoskeletal pain and injury. The use of hiking poles has been demonstrated to be successful in reducing forces placed on the lower extremities. However, whether these effects can be observed with load carriage has not been examined. PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to examine the effectiveness of pole use in hiking downhill while carrying different external loads. METHODS: Fifteen experienced male hikers volunteered. Conditions included hiking with and without the use of hiking poles for each of three backpack conditions (no pack, day pack (15% BW), and large expedition pack (30% BW). Ten trials were completed for each condition, for a total of 60 trials per participant. All conditions were performed in a random order. The net joint moments and power at the ankle, knee, and hip, as well as the net joint forces at the knee were examined statistically using a 2 x 3 (poles x packs) repeated-measures ANOVA, with a family wise alpha level of 0.05. RESULTS: A significant reduction was observed for the sagittal plane moment at each of the joints in the lower extremity with pole use. Reductions were also observed in the peak power absorption for the ankle and knee. These results held true across pack conditions, as packs only resulted in a larger power generation at the hip. CONCLUSION: A reduction in the forces, moments, and power around the joint, with the use of poles, will help reduce the loading on the joints of the he lower extremity.

Muscular and metabolic costs of uphill backpacking: are hiking poles beneficial?

Knight CA, Caldwell GE.

Department of Exercise Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst 01003, USA. caknight@excsci.umass.edu
Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to compare pole and no-pole conditions during uphill backpacking, which was simulated on an inclined treadmill with a moderately heavy (22.4 kg, 30% body mass) backpack. METHODS: Physiological measurements of oxygen consumption, heart rate, and RPE were taken during 1 h of backpacking in each condition, along with joint kinematic and electromyographic comparisons from data collected during a third test session. RESULTS: The results showed that although imposing no metabolic consequence, pole use elicited a longer stride length (1.27 vs 1.19 m), kinematics that were more similar to those of unloaded walking, and reduced activity in several lower extremity muscles. Although pole use evoked a greater heart rate (113.5 vs 107 bpm), subjects were backpacking more comfortably as indicated by their ratings of perceived exertion (10.8 vs 11.6). The increased cardiovascular demand was likely to support the greater muscular activity in the upper extremity, as was observed in triceps brachii. CONCLUSION: By redistributing some of the backpack effort, pole use alleviated some stress from the lower extremities and allowed a partial reversal of typical load-bearing strategies.

Edited by retropump on 06/08/2010 18:36:41 MDT.

Roger wrote:
>>There are a LOT of Australian bushwalkers well over 60 years of age who have never used trekking poles. In fact, up until about 10 years ago they were relatively unknown in Australia.

>>It's only the young novices who buy them here in Australia. They fall for the marketing spin. The older walkers (with 40 years of experience) know they don't need them. Anyhow, you'd look rather silly in our scrub with poles!

Woah there! Roger you've been a long time "anti-poler" both on this site and here in Australia. I have always felt that your rather dogmatic stance condemning trekking poles has been a little unfair to those of us who do use poles.

The numbers of people using poles here in Australia is increasing and there are many of us who have used them for many years. To categorise and then dismiss all who do so as "young novices" is hardly helpful.

As so many people keep constantly pointing out, trekking poles make walking easier and more enjoyable for them. It is a personal choice. If people don't want to use them - fine, don't use them. But there's no need to make those who do feel uncomfortable about doing so.

Trekking poles are a hot-button issue. Which is strange. No other piece of gear causes so much controversy. Those who don't use them seem to have an evangelical zeal to save us benighted polers from our deluded state.

The bottom line should be (as it is with any other bit of gear): if it works for you use it, if it doesn't don't. And whatever choice you make, it should then be respected by others as an informed and considered choice.

Edited by lushy on 06/08/2010 18:50:11 MDT.

The only problem I have with people using trekking poles is when they fling them about without regard to those around them. Had one such individual almost whack me with his. If I hadn't moved he would have. This was on the lower asphalt portion of the mist trail in Yosemite. Obviously, not everyone is so careless. ;^)

"The bottom line should be (as it is with any other bit of gear): if it works for you use it, if it doesn't don't. And whatever choice you make, it should then be respected by others as an informed and considered choice."

Well put, Andrew!

LOL. We can add trekking poles to the list of "no go" topics around here. It can join guns, drugs, healthcare, and all those other subjects which seems to polarise folks. Who'd have thought???

With Roger C's comments I have to wonder if he has ever tried them. Or just poo poos the whole idea.

Edited by kthompson on 06/08/2010 22:25:15 MDT.

I agree with your comment Andrew. I use poles and expect they will help me hike well into my dotage. Horses for courses: I wouldn't dream of using my poles in many of the bush tracks in New Zealand and Australia, but in open country, yes.
Again, I enjoy using my Pacerpoles, and respect the science behind their design. I have no commercial connection with the designer or manufacturer.