Hi pj and Dondo

> IME (in my experience) they work fine for balance.
Oh, I agree entirely. I also agree that for people with sore knees they can be a blessing on descents. I dare say they can be useful on difficult ascents.
Where I start doubting is when I see people walking along an asphalt road poling vigorously.

If we are doing a tricky river crossing over boulders with fast water I will find a couple of stout sticks for my wife and myself for balance in the fast water. No hesitation.

Brett wrote:
> I am growing dependent on my poles, not for efficiency or survival, but for balance. Before I had them I never needed them; now I seem to.
> We saw a similar phenomenon in downhill skiing. When I try to tell my skiing friends that you can downhill ski just fine with no poles, they recoil in horror or stare in scepticism. (note, does not apply to x-country skiing)
:-)
Yes, one can become used to using them in rough terrain. They can be useful there.
But I had to laugh about the skiing comments: so true! I have seen some very elegant downhill skiing without poles: a row of instructors, each one carrying a flare in each hand, at night coming down the whole side of a resort.

>>Where I start doubting is when I see people walking along an asphalt road poling vigorously.

LOL. I think I would start doubting, too. As much as I love my Pacerpoles, I don't think I would take them out for a walk around the park.

>Where I start doubting is when I see people walking along an asphalt road poling vigorously.



I find that I hike about 0.25 to 0.3 mph faster using poles. I tested this over the same trail multiple times, with standard heavy and ultralight poles, using them in the Nordic-walking style. I'm not claiming that I burn less energy or am less tired (although I don't notice any difference, and they do help my knees) but the speed difference over a full day is worthwhile on its own. YMMV.