EISPIRATEN

I was curious how much hiking pole weight really matters...found only a few papers studying effect of pole weight, and wrote up something on that.

for those that used heavier and lighter versions, do you notice any significant effect? in the upper extremities only or a whole body effect?

So the muscles are indeed being used more as a result of the varying weight of the poles, but no more energy is being expended? It's a very small difference?

Sorry, I'm out of my realm here. This doesn't involve beer.

Zé wrote:I was curious how much hiking pole weight really matters...found only a few papers studying effect of pole weight, and wrote up something on that.

for those that used heavier and lighter versions, do you notice any significant effect? in the upper extremities only or a whole body effect?

I've used a couple of different trekking poles. The heaviest were from Life-Link (around 10 oz ea) and the lightest are my current Komperdells (7 oz ea). I don't think the few extra ounces make a differnce in hiking performance or muscle workout, but I can definitely feel the difference in swingweight. It was enough to make the Life-Links annoying so I stop using them. Other people might not be so picking. I guess it's a feel thing, like with tennis racquets or golf clubs.

how many more beers do you get to drink if hiking with poles than without?

but you're right, there's an increase in upper arm muscles used. they claim no signfiicant different in energy expenditure. but that doesn't mean there isn't any at all, it just means that they found the change to be so small that it wasn't 'statistically significant". but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

like if you drank 1/3 of a beer. do you consider that significant?

Tim wrote: I've used a couple of different trekking poles. The heaviest were from Life-Link (around 10 oz ea) and the lightest are my current Komperdells (7 oz ea). I don't think the few extra ounces make a differnce in hiking performance or muscle workout, but I can definitely feel the difference in swingweight. It was enough to make the Life-Links annoying so I stop using them. Other people might not be so picking. I guess it's a feel thing, like with tennis racquets or golf clubs.

yeah that's what I would figure. but maybe the 10oz would give the benefit of massive PYTHONS?

Hell no.

And Tim, very good point. The feel of the weight.

My arms are scrawny without much muscle. Even so, with heavy trekking poles (20oz pair), they don't get very tired.

What usually limits me in the mountains is the whole energy/oxygen delivery system- heart, lungs, digestion. Poles let me hike faster for a while but then I bonk.

I only use them when needed for traction, big step ups, and downhill. I'm convinced that hiking uphill on a trail at the same speed, using poles bumps my heart rate by about 10.

The first study linked used a treadmill set at 20% grade. Good steady uphill, but not a real trail. Often in the real world you end up raising your arms pretty high to plant above a big step. I think the pole weight makes a bigger difference in the real world where you have to carefully plant them, raise them high, etc.

When I first started hiking, I used Leki poles, and last year I switched to REI ones that were an ounce or two lighter each. I noticed the difference when weighing each standing on the trail, but no difference when using on the trail. I have two kids, and don't have the time to workout as much as I should/could, so my legs take a beating on the trails. The poles definitely remove a lot of the strain and stress on the quads and hamstrings, so to me, they are a life saver. Overall, I don't notice a performance difference with the slight weight change.