Are poles effective and PP poles more so?

Mark, you hit the nail on the head. I believe this Nordic Walking is similar to so-called Power Walking. Exaggerated arm movements and elevation of at least the hands (and the weights/poles) in them at or especially above heart level is key to achieving the 20% increase.

This is fine if cardio benefit is the desired end of such exercise. For the hiker, this often, but not always, is NOT the goal. Hence we use poles of the proper length for our height (whether they be adjustable or fixed-length matters not) and don’t do exaggerated arm movements which elevate the hands above the level of the heart and certainly NOT to shoulder level.

This is NOT to say that there is no increase in overall effort, but it’s certainly NOT 20%, IME. I’m sure that a hiker using poles IS doing more work – we have to be, we’re lifting something even if it’s only 2.7oz GG LightTrek poles (not to mention the weight of our arms and hands). There’s no getting around this fact, viz. MORE WORK IS BEING DONE, hence more energy is required, hence more calories consumed.

I often wear a Polar HRM on near daily fitness hikes (still use GG poles of the proper length and before that Leki poles adjusted properly for length) and I can tell you from empirical observation on myriads of occasions over several years that proper form when using of trekking poles adjusted to the proper length to keep the hands at or below heart level when traversing level ground DOES NOT PRODUCE A 20% INCREASE IN MY HR, or even a 10% INCREASE can I ever recall seeing on the receiving unit versus not using any poles. The time I’ve really noticed an increase in HR with trekking poles is that it’s so much easier to “trek on” that I’m hiking faster, hence my rate of energy expenditure increase and my HR rises.

Psychology sure plays a part. Everyone knows that athletic performance is less if one is very depressed. I was once running on the treadmill in my basement, pushing myself near the end of my workout and was listening to music. I was exhausted and ready to cut short the finishing half-mile “sprint” (take that term with a grain of salt), when the theme from “Chariots of Fire” came on. My whole mental attitude changed and I lost all sense of fatigue. I even kicked the speed up ~0.5mph partway through. My daughter runs marathons and uses that Theme-song during training runs when her legs feel like “Lead” and her mind is weakening (it gets hot in Los Angeles where she lives)

Pumping blood above the level of the heart is hard work. Why do we often lower the head (lay them down vs. sit them up) of an individual in certain medical emergencies?!! We know why.

Try this one out: Step-aerobics – a simple 4″ to 8″ step. Hold some 2-5lb weights in each hand hanging down at the side. Step up and down slowly for several minutes – whatever it takes to get a fairly stable elevated HR. Then step up and down with 2lb weights (or 5lb weights if you want) in each hand and do alternating shoulder presses (the arms and weights are above heart level – don’t lower them, i.e. arms and weights below shoulder for the entire period) for somewhere between 2 and 6 minutes. Note the HR. Then, without resting switch to alternating bicep curls (the weights and hands are below heart level). Note the HR. Even though exercise is continuing, the HR will drop simply because the arms and weights are below heart level.

Ok. This is a more exaggerated example than the Nordic/POWER trekking pole walking, but it’s only to illustrate the point. To hold the HR down and the work required to be performed down, keep the hands at or below heart level. I truly do not believe a 20% exertion increase will result if this is done. Some, yes, and I don’t know what that percent increase is, but it won’t be 20%.

If anyone feels I’m wrong, please correct me AND tell me WHY so that I can understand my misinterpretationof what I’ve observed during my workouts and hikes.

Paul,

You got me thinking about how to account for so many hikers who feel and may be aided by poles. And yet there is evidence that this is not actually always the case.

I do know from prior experience and research that hearrt rate is not always correlated with increased workload, and at the very least is not linear, so as measure of work done we should not rely on it from one case personal experitment or rigorous studies.

From a factual understanding it is likely, imo, not research, that the less weight of the hiking poles, the less distance and height moved by poles and arms, and the less energy done, the less the loss.
This is what we find about everything else in the UL world of backpacking, the less the load the further we go with the same energy expended.

I think it would be interesting if a really rigorous study was designed that was double blind and had control groups, etc. and the findings were that in pure work done, the situationa that poles DECREASED total energy expenditure are in very steep and difficult to balance terrain, OR when carrying very heavy loads where balance is improved markedly by pole use, and for those of us due to injury, balance problems.

For those of us fortunate to not have health or balance issues, pole use on non-technical terrain may show that energy consumption is significantly higher, less with lighter poles, and more as pole weight increases, and MARKEDLY more as one depends more and more on the pole, due to the factors you mention Paul and others here.

Of course there is the realm of what is called the “placebo effect” often mistaken as something phony, but actually a real effect of strong belief and expectations, which can actually lead to hiking in a manner that is more balanced and efficient and thus less actual energy expenditure.

Lastly is the realm of snake oil artists who help us dissociate while in pain and with fatigue to ignore and float above the pain deluding ourselves we are young Olympians on the march to glory, all the while our increasingly fatigued bodies are getting more so. Hey this may be a benefit also, feel good even though really exhausted, at least until we hit the wall!

(Please remember I am both serious and searching for some humor here and take in the best way possible, online remarks get mistaken often!)

In searching for how many calories we are burning hiking I stumbled across an article in Runners World that compares running vs walking by calories burned per mile. This article introduced me to the concept of net calorie burn (NCB) which is the additional calories burned beyond what are burned at rest.

A rough formula for NCB per mile walked is – weight times 0.3 – which yields ~52 calories per mile for the average male.

If the studies on nordic walking are using the NCB for their baseline, and I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t, the use of poles comes at a cost of ~10 calories per mile. YMMV ;-)

Robert

Lee, it sounds like you’re a candidate for a “BPL Extreme Makeover”. Post your gear list and I’m sure we can help you out.

Yea, I think you are right Robert, I need an extreme BPL Makeover. Ha, funny that you should say that…after I just spent about 2000 dollars on equipment!
Most of it is in clothing but the tent, is a huge Mother Huba!

So, what forum do I got to to post this list?

I am new to Backpacking; I have been three times but will be going about every other week. I live in SC and hope to eat up the Foothills Trail along the Blue Ridge.

I have a lot of questions about ultralight backpacking and this forum seems to be the right place to get the right answers:-)

Thanks
Lee Deavers

Lee,

Use this link to post your gear list. There are many helpful members here that will help with you with suggestions.

This article was invaluable in my conversion to UL. Read it. There will be a quiz on Friday.

Robert

Bernard, You’ve made some good points. One I’d like to address a bit, i.e. the issue of balance. When I said work, I was speaking in terms of a physical quantity (i.e., force applied over a distance). An isometric muscular contraction (i’m sure most/all readers can think of an isometric exercise or two) does not do any work in the sense of this physical definition/equation, but expends energy none-the-less. So too with the issue of balance. We subconsciously utilize many stabilizing muscles (spinal erectors, obliques, abominals, etc) for many body movements. Using trekking poles reduces the strength of the contracture of some of these muscles in some cases. An example might help to illustrate what I’m very poorly describing here. Everyone reading these words knows both by teaching and by experience that it is much easier and less stressful to sit still for several hours on an upright chair, leaning back slightly against the backrest (unloading our core stabilizing muscles) than it is to sit still for several hours on a stool with no back. On the stool all of our “core” stabilizers (obliques, abominals, and spinal erectors) are recruited to maintain balance and hold our torso erect. These same muscles get to rest somewhat in a chair with a backrest on it. I believe that to some degree this same phenomenon occurs when using trekking poles especially in situation (uneven terrain) which effects our balance.

Again, I believe simply because we need to lift the poles and our hands too (higher than in our normal stride sans poles) that we do more work. To some small degree this extra work and the muscular constractures required to stabilize ourselves (using our arms and upper torso) is offset slightly by some small reduction in energy expended by our core muscles. Again, I’m surmising here, but to me at least, it’s makes sense (maybe I’m forgetting some aspect that bears upon this however?). I’m distributing the workload to more muscles (which is good) and even though I’m creating a little more work, I can carry on further by reducing the load on the more heavier loaded muscles (lower body and core) so that they don’t fatigue as quickly – a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Anyways, poles work for me – no doubt about it – especially since so much of trails I hike are very uneven and many hills – rarely am I on level ground for any period of time (not even 100 meters, usually not even 50m of straight and level trail). Even though I believe that I’m doing more work and even a small net increase in calorie expenditure, I can go faster and farther by redistributing this slightly increased work to more muscles and improving balance. Like the old Scotsman says, “it’s better felt than telt”.

pj,

I see where you’re going here but…

Ones spine does not turn to linguini when using poles. Any input from the pole to your upper body for balance must have a firm spine to absorb it.

Lets return to the walker unencumbered with poles where the arms are very close to being pendulums. As you know pendulums are very energy efficient. The energy required may be very close to zero. One could argue that some of the increased energy expenditure in a runner would be in the more vigorous use of the runners arms compared to a walker.

Returning to a walker with poles, the arms are now in a distinct stepping motion. Stepping consumes energy, that’s why it is so important to get shoe/boot weight down.

I’m with you, poles are a great benefit to me. I never would have guessed that they used 20% more energy.

Interesting thread.

Thanks,
Robert

I take your point. Thanks for your insight.

Personally, I don’t think that poles when used properly use 20% more energy.

If one uses them as in PowerWalking/Nordic Walking for cardio conditioning, then I’ll agree. However, when hiking, I’ve never used proper length poles with such extreme arm swings (which involve some lifting of the poles, i.e. it’s NOT purely ballistic in nature).

I going to opt for far less than 20% when used properly based upon my experience. OMMV (other’s MMV).

Since Ryan is alleging they are going to do a review and my hope an experiment regarding poles and energy, I am waiting for their BPL-meter to give us the definitive scoop on this!

Go Ryan! Maybe he can attach the BPL-ometer on his far north hike/buttbuster he is planning!

I don’t know about a meter…but…I do know that I hike longer, with less turned ankles and less stressed knees with poles…The benefits are so great IMHO that it is probably doubtfull if I would still enjoy hiking without them…

Yes, at 59 they definately have a value…still averaging 15-17 miles per day with occasional 20s….get poles, get a comfortable hammock and go light.

Pan

pj,

As I stated earlier the 20% seems high to me too. So I’m going to play devils advocate.

I think we can agree with properly sized poles your forearm is parallel to the ground. Additionally any one pole is off the ground for half the time spent walking.

Leaving pole weight out of the equation, how many calories would be expended to hold ones forearm parallel to the ground for one hour?

Enjoying the exchange but I got to run some errands,
Robert

ps – note that all the studies were prior to the widespread use of carbon fiber.

>>”…how many calories…”

Not many I would imagine.

>>”prior to…carbon fiber”

Understood. However, and I think you agree based upon your posts, even in this, the CF era of trekking poles, if one is serious about Nordic Walking, one is going to opt for heavier poles. Nordic walking is about low intensity cardio exercise if I understand it correctly.

I too enjoy the balance (no pun intended) you bring to this and other exchanges we’ve had. Two heads are generally better than one as the saying goes.

Hell, I’ll weigh in on this one too, since we look like we’re back at dogma over science. I’m good at that. :)

I don’t use poles. I’m young(ish). I’m fit(ish) I’m also often holding someones hand while I’m walking. BUT I think they work, especially for hills, up and down.

Try this simple test. Walk up some stairs (Remember them. They look like an escalator, but {here’s the giveaway} they don’t move) You’ll have to lift your own feet up each one. People will look at you funny, while they’re waiting for the lift, but tell them you’re training

Okay, you’re up to the fifth flight of stairs (Yep, still without supplementary oxygen). Now take a big gasp and….let go of the hand rail. Yep just lift your hand off, and go solo. Try this for two flights.

Now, in the interests of science, just to try to eliminate any cofounders, put your hand back on and walk another two flights up, using the rail.

Which one was easier? Which one would you prefer to do all day?

That’s why I think poles work.

Cheers, Rod

Bravo!!!

Much, Much better than my chair vs. stool illustration/test. Good for you. Everyone knows the truth of what you explained, since everyone, to some degree, has probably experienced this first hand. I know that I have.

However, I don’t think that it is truly dogma though. Dogma isn’t, and in some cases can’t be, proven by experimentation. Your suggestion is really more of an astute observation. If we call it a field experiment and provide some way to control, measure, and quantify the results, then we can call it Science. The worst that I could call it is anectdotal. But in this case, that’s NOT to disparage your observation, since what you say is obviously, to my mind at least, true.

I wonder how many more calories are burned using the hand rail??? Maybe I’ll try your example while wearing a HRM. That would be rather telling, wouldn’t it? I know that using the simple Basal Metabolic Test and VO2-max estimate capabilites of my HRM, and how it functions, that IF using the hand rail results in an average lower HR, then it will estimate a LOWER calorie burn. I think I’ll try to get permission to climb the “drop-test” Tower stairs at work during lunch next week – it’s more than 5stories tall.

Hey, I though we were interested in science here? Facts are not equal to intuition nor the intensity of the idea held. Truth? Sheesz!

It takes X energy to lift Y lbs. up Z feet in T time period. Whether one can be more efficient by utilizing the arms (biceps) which are one of the smallest and puniest muscles in most folk, vs well conditioned large muscles in the legs and hips is the question. Again, if balance is somehow improved and this translates into more effective use of the legs and the work done by the arms does not cancel this out, maybe, but not likely.

Have you never experienced anything in your life that was counter-intuitive to understand that your hard convictions can be remarkably and dramatically inaccurate?

I remain open to any outcome here, just would love to get to the facts vs holding onto a certain idea that is congruent with my prior understanding of what is causing what.

Bernard,

I don’t think that it will be more efficient. Even proper use of trekking poles requires more extreme arm movements than walking without them.

I’ve have one of those Crosswalk treadmills. If the arms are used, then to maintain the same HR on the same incline, requires the speed to be lowered. This is true even if the friction dampers are NOT tightened to produce resistance (this is a bit closer to trekking pole use, but still not precisely like it). Just the arm movements and the weight of the levers increases workload. I’ve never quantified the data, but I’ve done this too many times. I know that I have to lower the speed when using the levers in order to maintain the same heartrate. Now, I’ll admit, this example is a bit different than using trekking poles. I should try the treadmill with trekking poles – have to find the plastic tip covers so as to not tear up the treadmill belt.

I’ll try to get permission to climb the drop-test tower stairs at work. It has railings on both sides. My HRM will give me info on my max and avg HR, amongst other info, and also an estimate of calories burned based upon my current VO2-max. I’m thinking that a 20min rest between climbs will negate the order that I do the tests in. I’ll try to repeat the test for a couple of weeks, reversing the order of the climbs (hands vs. no hands) each time.

Not sure what the results will be. This won’t exactly duplicate trekking poles. I can add 16oz wrist weights to make the test a little closer to trekking poles.

Will that simple test satisfy you to some small measure?

I would contend that a field test is science in some cases. A laboratory is NOT always needed for science. Also, a lot of poor science comes out of studies and labs when the experiments are poorly designed.

Also, I do place some stock in some anecdotal evidence which is very widespread and long standing. Case in point, long before aspirin was discovered by a german-jewish chemist (no, Bayer wasn’t his last name, that was his german laboratory assistant’s name), Native American’s in the NE used willow bark for the same purposes. As you probably know, willow bark contains essentially the same chemical as in aspirin. No lab experiments were done by the Indians, just observation and so for centuries it was anecdotal, but true none-the-less.

Mankind has used hiking staffs (in some cases long hunting spears) the world over for millenia. I don’t have to stretch my imagination to believe that there must be some overall benefit, otherwise its use would have been discarded long, long ago.

My interest has nothing to do with efficiency. Personally, I don’t care if it burns more calories, trekking pole use on much terrain results in better balance and more stability, I believe there is less overall fatigue (i don’t care if it’s only perceived – it probably is not otherwise i wouldn’t be able to repeat the performance on the second and third days – one can only delude themselves for so long). For me, trekking poles made quite a difference in speed, fatigue level, and miles covered.

Many of these comments of mine don’t prove anything, I’ll admit that. I’ll be happy to try to perform the test if you desire it.

It’s nice to know I’m not the only one who needs the handrail!

pj,

How about using poles in the stairwell? Maybe with a 18″ length of pipe insulation on the lower portion of the pole to protect it. Pole placement may be difficult if the stair treads are too narrow. If your HRM has a pace feature this could be a very good test.

IMO the problems with past studies are 1) heavier poles compared to todays and 2) the studies were conducted on a flat track. Most people seem to agree this is where poles are least beneficial.

I may consider getting a HRM too and doing my own tests. I have access to a few tall buildings and over the next couple of weeks I’ll try to check their stairwells to find the widest treads available.

Anybody have a preference in HRMs?

Robert

Robert,

I’ve used HRMs for ~30yrs now. I’m only familiar with Polar HRMs. They employ a chest band as the transmitter. My current one is the S210 – typically around $160-$170, but occasionally I’ve seen it for less.

I picked it because I was familiar with what features I like and which ones I don’t really need or use. That said, the S210 has many features I don’t use.

Here’s a brief description of the features I find useful and why:

1) Basal Metabolic Test mode to estimate VO2-max. Better than plain demographic info (age, gender, height, weight, approx. fitness level, etc), and provides a better estimate of calories expended, and max HR, etc. This is nice because each month you can repeat the test and see how your fitness is increasing.

2) Avg and Max HR for exercise period. This model will also provide stats on %VO2-max during the exercise period – i don’t look at this %VO2-max data though.

3) Calories expended for exercise period.

4) Ability to establish 3 HR “bands”. I generally, now at my age (downhill to 100), I set the bands at 140 and 160. So, my time below 140bpm is accumulated for the exercise period, my time b/t 140 & 160 is accumulated, and my time over 160bpm is accumulated. I turn the audible alarm off for both HR and over upper band/limit (don’t want the noise and want to increase battery life). I pick the three bands to provide a rough indication of when I’m at a very low HR zone (nearly all fat supplying energy requirements), a mid-range (a combo of fats and carbs), and a high-range with carbs providing most of the energy requirements.

5) of course, the chronograph feature is used every time.

There may be better Polar models out there, or even some from other Mfr’s, but I’m unfamiliar with them and so can’t recommend them or comment on them.

The only other thing that I will say is that any HRM that uses a finger tip sensor (generally optical in nature sensing blood pulsing – some are sorta’ like a pulse-ox sensor) can provide poor results if the hands clench at all (restricting blood flow and so misses beats). This might occur if trekking poles are used.

Also, as far as the earlobe clips, some people have thicker earlobes which give poor readings, or in the cold these don’t always work as well if the ears are exposed and chilled.

Hope this info helps.

Please no one get me wrong, not interested in criticizing. And, I love the posts and it is good to see how many uses folks find for poles. I use them sometimes myself. No rant here.

And, just to remind, I started the post just wishing to learn more about ONLY ONE ASPECT, are these big claims that pole use actually saves energy. I have always been one of those folks who really like to know stuff like this!

Understood. I think that a good HRM can give some insight into the question that you are looking to answer. Over a couple of week period, repeat the same exercise regimen with and without trekking poles. The HRM will give average HR (or %VO2-max) for the exercise period and calories consumed over that time period. Summarize the results obtained over that period of time and see what falls out. Maybe I’m missing the point, but I think that this should provide a simple answer to your question.

Mr Johnson,

Because of your age I felt it proper to address you in a more formal manner, be warned though, in four more months I will be cresting that hill too so watch out behind you! ;o)

Thanks for your input on the HRM. Sheesh, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more confusing product line than Polars offerings. After perusing their website I think this model offers the features you recommend plus a fabric transmitter band.

Thanks again. I greatly appreciate your input,
Robert

Robert, Looks like a nice model. Nice price too – especially with all of the features. It seems to do everything that I find valuable in the S210. The only question I have about it is the “Opt.” next to the “calorie” reference. I’d double check that it displays calories expended during the exercise period.

Here’s a link to website that I purchased the S210 from about 3-4yrs ago

pj,

Are the calorie calcs necessary for this test? I’m one of those people that are blessed with good genes and never have to count calories.

Robert

Probably not. So, for our simple purposes, calories should correlate with avg HR, so avg HR or avg %VO2-max will probably suffice. Just need to keep the test exercise simple and very easily reproducable in terms of duration and intensity with only the use of trekking poles changing the work performed. Should also pick an intensity that is low enough to represent most long duration hiking intensity.

pj,

Correct me if I’m wrong. The only things the HRM is measuring are heart rate and time. VO2 and calorie figures are estimates derived from that data.

I like the idea of stairs because it limits because it fixes ones stride. I don’t like the rate of ascent. It is far steeper than most trails. I’m considering using a parking structure instead.

Any thoughts?
Robert