Benefits of lighter trekking poles?

I'm sure I will get more arguments to the contrary than agreement here on BPL but I feel that the difference is minimal. Unless your poles are spending a majority of the time strapped to my pack I don't see the advantage. For me, even over a fairly long hike, the additional energy expended lifting that extra few ounces goes unnoticed. My arms don't register the weight difference.

I suppose over an extended hike where resupply is an issue and ever calorie needs to be counted (the Arctic 1000 trek undertaken in 2006 by Ryan Jordan, Jason Geck, and Roman Dial comes to mind) there could be some benefit. But for my usual backpacking trip I've decided that I'd rather have the security of beefier poles, especially since I'm usually covering fairly rough terrain and poorly maintained trails.

.

Think of it as wearing 3/4 pound weights on each wrist, much the same as those that are designed for exercising your arms…. that's about the weight of a set of normal Leki's. I really don't feel that I need to be using my strength lifting those weights all day. Once I began using my TiGoat AGP's (3.2 oz each) I've never considered going back to the Leki's.

It may make a difference if you are doing 20-30 mile days. Doug seems to think so.

"I know that taking, say, 6 oz. out of my pack would make a difference. But I'm not convinced that taking 6 oz. off of poles that spend half their time on the ground is going to make me a faster or more efficient hiker."

I think, from a physics standpoint, the 6 oz taken off the poles would make a significantly bigger impact on overall energy expenditure than 6 oz taken out of the pack. The reason being that you expend energy to move those poles a total of a much greater distance than the pack moves — up down, forward, and stopping the poles' momentum at the end of the forward swing. The pack just generally moves forward a bit with a tiny bit of up and down. But it's interesting seeing all the other views in this thread. Maybe I'm wrong.

At the risk of toeing the party line: It's actually spending half the time on the ground that makes the difference, because the other half of the time is in the air. Just like shoes we lift our poles up and down continuously through the day and that adds up to significant work against gravity. I'd actually say this would be more significant then the same weight in your pack as that's being carried mostly by your skeleton and not your muscles.

That being said it's just a few ounces and most of us are in good enough shape to handle the extra load in what ever form we choose to carry it. So no I don't think you'll notice a huge difference from that change alone, but it all adds up.

There's definitely a durability trade off that each decides for themselves. For me I don't consider the poles essential equipment. If they break I'm still able to walk, so giving up some durability is fine for me. The biggest draw back I see in the AGP carbon poles I use is the vibration.

I agree with Christopher, from a physics point of view the mass of things that accelerate and declerate matters much more than mass at constant velocity. Even more to the point it is the mass of the tip of the pole that matters most not the mass of the handle because the tip accelerates and decelerates fast the handle slowly.
There is also the carried weight effect on different muscles but I think that effect is smaller.
The ergonomics also matters, so Pacerpoles although they have heavier handles may use less energy because of the lesser grip needed.

I have two sets of poles: a very light set made from golf club shafts and REI Peak UL poles. I don't know the weights, but the golf club poles are much lighter.

In my opinion, I find the light poles VASTLY more comfortable and perfectly adequate for my hiking, and wouldn't even consider buying the Peak UL poles again. Others may have a different preference.

I too switched to Ti Goat poles from Leki's. I don't think there is a noticeable difference in excertion/energy consumption for me. However, I generally strap the poles on to my pack in hairy situations…which is the best time not to have extra weight strapped to the furthest points from your center of gravity…so I prefer the significant weight savings in that regard.

My evolution in poles has been from a 20 oz adjustable aluminum set to a 12 oz adjustable carbon set, and soon to an 8 oz fixed carbon set.

I noticed a big difference dropping from 20 to 12 oz. The 40% drop was very noticeable in terms of total effort expended throughout long mileage days.

I don't expect the drop to the 8 oz set to be as noticeable a difference, but I am still waiting for them to ship, so right now the difference is pretty significant!

Why not just ditch the poles entirely. Shave some serious weight.

Backpackers got along just fine without them until in just recent years. All of a sudden, we are deluged with this idea we have to have trekking poles. Who says so? I backpacked for decades without trekking poles and I dont use them now. When I need trekking poles will be the day Im too old, too sick and too lame to safely venture into the backcountry.

Eric

All the more power to you. If you can get away without poles, that's great. I wish I could. Trouble is my poles give me several more hours each day before my knees and feet give out. They also give me the confidence to push harder and faster since I am more protected from slips and falls. I'd rather take my poles than give up long distances altogether.

My brother doesn't use poles, but he is more agile than I. He was always more athletic than me. But my poles allow me to keep up with him, so it helps even things out.

Lastly, I don't know how the trails are in North Carolina, but I often find myself ascending or descending 1000 ft/mi here out West. Descents are often steep enough that I am having to slow down to keep from sliding on the dusty/gravelly path. Poles let me fly down descents like this, and I've seen my brother take a few spills in this type of terrain. I don't use poles on flatter terrain. Maybe there are regional differences in pole usage?

.

Eric, what shelter do you sleep in?

If you live where poles are an advantage worth carrying, then yes, I think you'll notice the difference when using the lighter ones quite a bit.

I switched from aluminum 3-sections (REI, $90) to some bamboo cross country ski-poles. The difference was huge. Super easy to place precisely, no tired hands at the end of a long day. The calore defecit and upper body / arm tiredness was the same though. It seems to be caused by pushing down on the pole, not lifting it.

See below for why I don't carry poles at all anymore.

Pole Benefits:
1. My poles help me to go faster up hills since I can push with my arms.
2. My poles help me to go faster down hills since I don't have to worry about falling very much.
3. My poles can be used to pitch some shelters and the dual use aspect help make up for the weight difference.
4. My poles help me to walk more upright rather than leaning forward so my lower back doesn't get sore.

Pole Disadvantages:
A. My poles are irratating on rocky terrain since the tips get wedged between rocks so often they require my constant attention.
B. When I'm tired and "slogging along" the poles are enough extra work that the only thing keeping me from leaving them on the trail is their cost.
C. The poles weigh more and pack-up bigger than the tent poles they are replacing if used as a dual use item.
D. The poles aren't nearly as good for fending off stray dogs as a 4 ft wooden hiking stick due to both strength and weight.
E. Situation A above happens a lot on trails that are flat and easy to walk on without poles.
F. The poles have to be stowed during scrambling sections of the trail. On some trails this comes up pretty often.
G. Most of Benefit 4 above disappears if I pack my weight close behind my shoulder blades or higher and just remind myself not to lean forward.
H. Benefit 2 above, results in more twisted/rolled ankles – even with the poles, since I clumsily set my foot on an uneven surface (rock edge) and can't get my weight off it fast enough because I'm moving downhill too fast (they are all minor though, just sore for 3-7 days).
I. The poles get caught on branches when stored in the side pockets of my pack or in the ice-axe loops. The fixed length poles were even more inconvenient. Storing them between my back and the pack diagonally seemed to work best – but still interfered with scrambling up/over many steep rocky areas, boulders, etc.

End result:
– I use my poles on shorter "training" hikes because they are fun to play with – ie: getting my technique just right to maximize my speed and stride length by using my arms or extra balance points.
– I don't bring them on long hikes where I know I'll get tired, or where it's rocky, or where there is bushwalking, or where there is a lot of scrambling.

I hike mostly along the AT in VA, MD and Southern PA. I also hike in the Appalachians in Upstate NY, and once in a while in the Grand Canyon. None of these areas have a lot of scree slopes. In those areas, I see a lot of hikers carrying (rather than using) their poles on flat sections and rocky sections. They just take them out to use on the uphill and downhill sections. Since most of the terrain is rolling hills, most of the uphills and downhills are OK (but harder) without poles.

The question is whether the speed and "easiness" boost the poles give on hills are worth it. For the areas I hike, the poles are beneficial about 25% of the time, and only give a 50% benefit over no-poles for that 25% of the time. Therefore, 87.5% of the time I'm no worse off without poles – so I don't take them unless I'm doing training hikes.

ps: Most of my Boyscouts get poles. Most of them stop using them after a month or two of weekend uses – even though most of the cooler "role-model" adults use them.

I switched from Leki Maliku's to the Gossamer Gear's, and I will never go back. The best analagy is the one on shoes, and even though they're on the ground a lot, I have always been told a pound off your feet is like five pounds off your back – and since I've changed to Inov8 Roclite's, I'm never going back again on those either.

For me I don't notice that my arms feel better – or my feet either for that matter, but I can absolutely say that at the end of the day my hike has been much more comfortable/enjoyable, and I feel much better as a whole.

I'm using Ti Goat APG's.

I'll echo John Carter's post above.

For me it is a safety and efficiency issue. I hike alone. On steep descents I'm faster and confident. No holding back, no tentative steps on loose ball bearing, no Whew! when I recover from a roller under foot. On ascents there are no baby-steps to assure traction, I'm over waterbars easily, and my arms can take some of the load off of isometric leg muscles trying to maintain balance.

Lighter makes a big difference for me as I seldom put them away. When not actively being used they are easy to carry, cradled in my fingers. If a slip occurs I can clench and stab to prevent a fall. If a questionable section of trail pops up I don't have to decide if I want to get my poles out of my pack – I swing the pole forward, the handle slips into my hand, the tip finds purchase, and three slippery rocks later I'm back into cradle mode. I seldom go 30 minutes without taking advantage of poles. It's all up or down, wet, or loose.

The peace of mind, the saved ankle, or the additional 5 miles are more than worth it. There Is an energy/calorie cost for using poles, so the lighter the better.

I use a Tarptent Contrail. For my tent pole, I either use the pole Henry Shires sent with the tent, or use a custom made pole that is lighter than two lightweight trekking poles.

Eric

You can do extremely long distances without poles.

Eric

A lot depends on the terrain. As mentioned earlier, using poles on steep descents can really ease the stress on knees (a typical descent in the Northwest is 4,000 feet in 4 miles). For going up, they have less of a benefit. For level ground, even less.

When I day hike, I tend to store my poles on my pack unless I am descending. When I backpack, I tend to carry my poles. Even though the overall exertion may be higher (weight on the hands or feet is more taxing then weight on the back) I prefer it on my hands just because I've "reached my limit" as far as backpack comfort. In other words, another 12 oz. on my back makes me less comfortable, while 12 oz. in my hands is more of an annoyance. If I can drop my pack weight low enough, I may get to the point where I put my poles on my pack for the flat areas (where the poles are a big annoyance) and maybe even the uphills (where they are less of an annoyance, but still unnecessary to me).

Lord Baden Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, was never seen without a hiking stick. Oh, and Moses wandered the wilderness for 40 years with one. Need I say more? =)

Seriously, walking staffs are certainly not a new trend. Just the modern materials and handles that make us look like skiers.

I have encountered many a person (mostly older ones) hill walking that state that they have found trekking poles have extended their hill walking life span as their old knee injuries gave them less pain since they started using poles. Some even have said their aches and pains have healed up as a result of less weight and force going through their knees on decent.

Poles work uphill, downhill and on the flat. I’ve walked with out them and with. No doubt with is the only way to go. I don’t have knee problems and I don’t expect to as I know that the most punishing time they will have is hill walking and I give them protection thanks to trekking poles. Light poles or heavy are beater then no poles.

As Martin states above- poles put me back on the trail and helped old knee injuries. Like Eric, I walked for decades without poles, but my knees paid the price. So I was at he point where I was "too old, too sick and too lame to safely venture into the backcountry" as Eric so aptly put it above. Then I discovered poles.

They turned me from a biped to a quadra-ped. The added stability means less knee and ankle torque and fewer injuries. The braking power downhill and the some limited pulling power up hill helps a little with the load, but their main advantage is in keeping me from stumbling. And it is not that I am a particular klutz on the trail, but with a pack on, I weight 15 to 20 lb more than usual and my center of gravity is higher. So the bigger they are the harder they fall.

They are not for everyone, but since I started using poles I hike further, am less tired, and have had fewer injuries. So they work for me. Of course YMMV. I like lighter poles.

-Mark

I think it's mostly a feel thing. It just feels so nice to have feather weight poles. What the physics are… what the science is… what the energy expenditure is… doesn't really matter to me at all… it just feels so nice to have poles so light that you sometimes forget they are even there. Also… a feather-light pole is really nice for whacking spider webs crossing your path.