EISPIRATEN

AlanK, very interesting:

While this is true, one should remember that 1000 ft-lbs (although it sounds like a lot) is only 0.3 Calories. Compare that to dragging my 175 pound carcass up 1000', which expends 175,000 ft-lbs, or 57 Calories. (Actually, it takes about 3 times that -- because the body is only about 30% efficient -- plus the calories burned in covering whatever distance it takes to gain that 1000'.)

Next time someone is burnt out from carrying too much weight and wants me to carry some of their load or wants to spend $100 more on a product to save an ounce or two, I'll simply give them a candy bar and say this is more than enough to make up for any excess weight.

And Fight On said

It is extra energy using your arms but less off your legs. I believe if one uses them over a long period of time they will eventually become like extra legs. Like a dog lol. No really, imagine a dog running on only his hind legs.

Once upon a time before most of America and many in the world put on too many pounds, much slower two legged humans would wear down much faster four legged animals in the long haul and then move in for the kill.

Any engine, mechanical or biological only has so much available power. Add weight and you compromise performance. Conditioning is part of it but I've seen many people burned out (myself included) from carrying even small amounts of excess weight and the trend now-a-days seems to be to go as lite as possible...why if very few Calories used?

When I started using poles, my knees stopped hurting. As someone said earlier, poles reduce radial stress & strain on knees & ankles. My Walmart poles are celebrating their 1-year birthday.

I like trekking poles. I prefer to use just one because I like having my other hand free. I currently use a carbon fiber model from Komperdell because they were on sale at STP. Each pole weighs 6 oz so they're very light. The swing weight feels like nothing. I'm not sure how strong these carbon fiber poles are but I'm not that hard on them. The only time I've bent poles was while thru hiking the Zion Narrows, but that involved walking down a river full of rocks for 16 miles.

All I know is that for me, they help out a lot. I'm not sure whether it's because I feel more balanced with them so my muscles aren't as tense, but I feel a big difference with and without them, going up or down. One time I had to hike to Strawberry Peak twice in one day, the first time without poles and the second time with and I could totally feel a difference.

I think, at least approximately, a 15% of bodyweight increase in load (.15 * BW) increase physical exertion 10%. So for me, BW ~ 188...188 * .15 = 28.2 lbs. Let's say additional poles adds 2 lbs, which is only 1/14 of 10% which is about a 0.7% increase in energy expenditure.

I mean, if I was in a race, sure this would make that % difference in time, but when I hike I'm not racing. If I was, I would stop weightlifting and drop 20+ pounds, so I'm already at a point that I don't care that much about weight.

There's no real need for poles going uphill so no need for wasting energy swinging arms, only downhill and then you aren't exerting lots of energy anyways so not going to be a big deal.

I like burning calories (= get to eat more), so I don't mind extra calories burned downhill. In fact, that's always why I don't mind carrying weight.

In terms of leg strength, um I'm gonna say I'm getting enough of a workout on my legs going uphill. If I busted it up to Allison Saddle in 1 hr, that would be enough of a leg workout, don't care about the downhill. The more whole body the workout, the better, IMO.

JM. Give em an "honest" trial. Try to make them work. I just thought of something. If you are hiking fast w/o poles, your arms aren't just dangling next to your sides, they ARE swinging right? So why not use that weight lifted upper body of yours and help out your legs? Try em. I dare ya. I heard you can buy stupid ones at Walmart for like 10 bucks.

FIGHT ON wrote:JM. Give em an "honest" trial. Try to make them work. I just thought of something. If you are hiking fast w/o poles, your arms aren't just dangling next to your sides, they ARE swinging right? So why not use that weight lifted upper body of yours and help out your legs? Try em. I dare ya. I heard you can buy stupid ones at Walmart for like 10 bucks.

Yeah the logic is saying I don't have any reason not to use poles, but will $10 walmart poles really not break from 190 lbs of weight?!

JMunaretto wrote: . . . will $10 walmart poles really not break from 190 lbs of weight?!

Joe, I bought a pair of WalMart poles in June 2007, and they're still working fine with my 180 lbs + daypack. BTW, I think $10 WalMart poles cost $15 now.

Rick. I got other examples of why to use poles. Let's say you are in a four wheel drive vehicle that only is using two wheel drive. Using poles is like adding the switch in your cab to enable the use of all four wheels. The unused two wheels are dead weight that can be switched help the rear two wheels power you up inclines. And if two lbs are going to make a person labor more to the point that it makes a difference during a hike, I believe that would cause them to eventually, if not sooner, lose those two lbs via the seat and thigh area which would result in no extra net weight, and thus the use of extra power, for FREE!
What about this, Let's take an opposite way of looking at it. Let's take off weight. Take off your left shoe and hike only with your right leg. lol. Less weight right but you have lost all of the power from your left leg. Your right leg is going to get tired faster because it is carrying all the weight. And by correctly using the poles, added two lbs. you take off weight/load from your legs. Your legs don't get as tired and you can go longer and further because they don't work as hard.
I found this on the internet: Benefits

Each pole, when planted, reduces weight on the legs and back by at least that of the arm (4 - 6 kg / 9 - 13lb). Applying pressure to the poles can easily raise this number to 7 - 11 kg (15 - 25 lb.) per step! Anyone who does not believe this should try hiking with a 18 kg (40 lb.) pack for 30 minutes while effectively using hiking poles, then continue without the poles for a few minutes. They will notice the difference -- It is major!

Oh and I got another one, As a person exercises they get more muscles right? More weight yes but more weight that will make what ever you are doing physically easier. Same with poles.

man $15 is steep.

Nice try Fight On My 4x4 never gets the gas mileage that my lighter weight 2 wheel drive car gets. Get rid of those "unused two wheels" and you're left with a lightweight efficient dirt bike (a Rick K for example). Why put training wheels on it. Some how I missed seeing any ski poles in his recent day hike of Diablo http://www.rickkent.net/ViewerPlus/view ... x?ID=95515

I grew up pretty much before trekking poles took off and I do have a set that I've carried strapped to my pack on one trip. And there are a few times I look around for a tree branch to help in stream crossing. JM posted on this thread the link to that report about more energy used when using poles going downhill (in the article on "Exertion During Uphill, Level and Downhill Walking with and without Hiking Poles" in the Journal of Sports Science & Medicine). But you are right Fight On (is there something to your “name” ), I’m sure using poles will help build your arm muscles…if you are on a trip with muscle building and burning calories as the goal then by all means use them. I should too since my upper body strength is not what it used to be since I don’t rock climb much these days but my legs get exercise carrying my increased weight (30 pounds extra...for possible survival situations). And again, if muscle building is the objective, why spend money on super light, or even for some, not taking gear.

But in my golden years, I should start thinking about using them to help protect my battered knees. I should also give up search and rescue (not exactly the best thing in the world for old bodies to be doing). Maybe, like most things in life, if they make you happy use them.

Perhaps Rick K might chime in with his thoughts on trekking poles. Rick, you there?

I use trekking poles because I am old enough to appreciate the help they provide for aging knees, etc. My son doesn't use them because they just slow him down. Using them costs energy. That cost is relatively small and the benefits more than compensate -- for me, not for my son. They must help build arm muscles, but that help is negligible compared to what a few good weight lifting sessions provide.

Rick M. makes a good point. If you want to burn more calories, there is always the option of carrying a heavier pack, wearing heavier boots, loosening up on the diet...

In any case, I like 'em.

No way Alan, I was glad to have gone to plastic boots and gotten rid of my heavy double leather mountaineering boots...no chance, not possible, not gonna happen. Where are they, let me dig them out of the garage and throw them away before I think about using them again as "exercise".
No wait, ebay, those antiques should be worth thousands!!!

Hey, Rick -- you just don't want to burn calories badly enough.

Actually, that's ok too. We have threads telling people how to eat a lot of calories while they hike. There's something for everyone! 8)

Like I said Alan, I am probably due for using the poles. I also have my mother's walker in the garage that I seriously thought about using on trails for when I get to that point. Seriously.

Rick M wrote:I also have my mother's walker in the garage that I seriously thought about using on trails for when I get to that point. Seriously.

I like that image. Now I'm wondering what the record is for the Mt. Whitney trail with a walker. You have to know someone has done it!

First ascent with a rocker. Back to my rocket science.

hmm, is there such a thing as an 'incline' walker that has 2 legs shorter than the other two? A walker with adjustable legs (4 x $15 walmart poles), I smell an engineering breakthrough!

Yes JM. The walkers legs could be spring loaded so they could collapse or extend to adjust to the perfect level position and then with a flick of a switch on the bar would lock them into place. After you muscle yourself up and get your footing and balance you flick the switch again and the legs unlock. BUT you must have the arm strength for this to work and the ONLY way this can be is if you use HIKING POLES ON EVERY HIKE PRIOR TO NEEDING THIS STUPID WALKER!

FIGHT ON wrote:BUT you must have the arm strength for this to work and the ONLY way this can be is if you use HIKING POLES ON EVERY HIKE PRIOR TO NEEDING THIS STUPID WALKER!

Well, it's that or caffeine.

ya know I did not look at that (Exertion During Uphill, Level and Downhill Walking with and without Hiking Poles" in the Journal of Sports Science & Medicine) that JM posted. I skimmed through it. Lots of fancy stuff and I understand about 13.5% of it.
I was just wondering about the people who were tested. Specifically if they were using these poles for the first time or had been USING them for like five years correctly. You have to admit that it would make a difference in that study. If you take the two extremes, the guy that had been using them would already have developed all the muscles and coordination to work these poles to move his body much more easily than the dork that just saw them for the first time. I believe also that if you get one person that looks like JM vs. someone who hardly can lift anything, that would effect that study.
FIGHT ONS "OFFICIAL" conclusions are as follows: DUDE, THEY HARDLY WEIGH ANYTHING!!!

OH and don't EVEN talk to me about caffeine

FIGHT ON wrote:OH and don't EVEN talk to me about caffeine

Dude, you seem so stressed out. Maybe you should switch to decaf?

I did a little analysis of energy expenditure based on some treadmill studies