Are poles effective and PP poles more so?

>>”VO2 and calorie figures are estimates derived from that data”

True, but depending upon which model HRM you use there is typically one (and sometimes two) of three other pieces of info that is coupled with HR and time.

1. A generic ~30yr, ~154pound male in reasonably good physical and cardiovascular condition. This is the most basic method of estimating calorie consumption when coupled with time and HR and is the least accurate for most users. The “Model” is atypical of most users of HRM the solely use this method.

2. Demographic info, viz. age, gender, height, weight, and an approximation of physical condition (e.g. 1 = poor through 5 = exceptional).

3. Basal Metabolic Test – a simple resting test to determine VO2-max

4. Demographic Info PLUS a Basal Metabolic Test mode. Of the four of these methods this is the most accurate estimate.

>>”it is far steeper than most trails”

You should hike some New England trails. My favorite State Park in Southern CT is very similar in grade to a flight of stairs – sometimes steeper, sometimes less.

Robert, for this simple test, whatever exercise routine you feel that you can control the pace of and reproduce fairly reliably would be fine. I think stair climbing a very tall building might be good, or your parking garage. It would be nice if you could ascend continuously for 12-20minutes with any descents.

I couldn’t get permission to climb the DropTestTower – possible injury??? I may just use my treadmill on a steep (8-15 deg) incline with a Kelty Tioga external frame pack loaded with six one-gallon jugs of water. I do this from time to time, but have never used trekking poles when doing so.

pj,

Thanks for educating me about the user demographics variables. I went to the Polar website in Finland to find owners manuals to confirm that those variables can be manually input. I think I’m good to go.

>>sometimes steeper

What you guys never heard of switchbacks? Out here many trails have been realigned to incorporate switchbacks since my scouting days.

>>I couldn’t get permission

Yep, sounds like a potential workers comp issue to me.

>>six one-gallon jugs of water

Your knee must be doing good. Why so much weight? Wouldn’t it be better to approximate your typical load?

Thanks again,
Robert

>>”sometimes steeper

>>What you guys never heard of
>>switchbacks? Out here many trails have
>>been realigned to incorporate switchbacks
>>since my scouting days.”

Yeah, the old trails often lack them. The steep ones have them (usually those above 30deg or so). This is perhaps one reason why RayJ mentions that the AT can be tough even though, for the most part, you’re not sucking thin air. The ups and downs can get old pretty quick – unless you’re carrying a light load.

>>”I couldn’t get permission

>>Yep, sounds like a potential workers comp
>>issue to me.”

I couldn’t get an explanation, but that’s what I suspected. Hey…20yrs ago they used issue Software Engineers “safety scissors” so we didn’t injure ourselves!!! – just kidding.

>>”six one-gallon jugs of water

>>Your knee must be doing good. Why so
>>much weight? Wouldn’t it be better to
>>approximate your typical load?”

Yeah, it’s off and on – meaning the sprain hasn’t really healed completely yet, so it’s easy to re-injure. It’s more of a problem with higher step-ups. However, I was speaking from memory – i.e., just remembering the the pack and what was loaded into it (I know currently it’s six, but sometimes I’ll drop it to just four). I wouldn’t last too long right now with that much weight. I probably would have hoisted it up and started out, and after two minutes muttered “Johnson, you idiot” for the very reason you stated. Sometimes, I still think I’m young – maybe only in the stupidity department thoug When healthy, if I’m working out indoors, I always work out at higher loads than I use on the trail. Plus I’m only on the treadmill 90minutes instead of all day. At least at home, I could drop weight if I wasn’t up to it, and usually would loose the pack to “sprint” (please take that word with a grain of salt) the last half mile anyways

I didn’t need them when I was 18. Wouldn’t leave home without them now at 50/s. My subjective impression is that using 2 poles reduces lower body fatigue by 1/3. Your esperience will be enhanced by losing the two guts: the one around the middle as well as the one on your back – go lighterweight. Of my ‘geezer’ hiking buddies (adult scout leaders) most are pole users now. Prior to poles, I used an elongated-handled ice-ax. I think that using two poles is a completely different experience than one and can’t be equated. Can’t give you any science behind it but I don’t like hiking/backpacking without them.

Good luck,
Charlie

I’ve used trekking poles in the Australian bush for 20 years and would now never go in rough terrain without the advantage and security afforded by them. One feels like a mountain goat, as if U have four legs on steep inclines and going up, the upper body can be used to push up over obstacles.

As regards calories, there are different techniques applicable to different pole lengths from my experience and any suggested 20% figure of additional calories burned, seems ill-sourced unless further info can be provided ie. experience of those tested, technique used, types of poles etc. as well as the speed of the walking. i’m adamant that i can walk 10% faster at least with poles.

It’d be beaut if there was some detailed controlled testing with a clear description of the testing regime in place.

The course – asphalt one mile with a near linear climb of 320 feet, foggy ~65F.

The test dummy – 6′-2″ 200lb 49 yo male, no pack, 125cm GG Lightrek poles

The data –

. . . . 5/20/06 6:22AM. 5/20/06 6:56AM
poles? .no . . . . . . .yes
time . .16:27 . . . . . 17:30

Last measured section in bpm
Max HR .108 . . . . . . 104
Av HR . 104 . . . . . . 100

Thoughts –

The data is terribly flawed because of the disparity in the elapsed times (16:27 vs 17:30) between the two sessions. Although flawed it is interesting to compare to the studies on page 2 of this thread. If you compare my average Av HR in the last section (102bpm) and speed (3.5 mph average of two sessions) to those on page 2, up to 133bpm and speeds of 3.7-4.6 mph, you can see the page 2 groups are doing more work than what I considered to be a comfortable walking pace. My bpm rate is similar to the Jordan et al study and so may be of greater interest to this group.

Furture tests –

I believe I have a better way to control my speed. Hopefully I will get the chance to test again Sunday morning. I’m also considering starting further back to elevate my HR to 50% of HRMax before entering the timed section. In todays tests I started the section from a 35% HRMax. Please speak up if you have any objections.

In an effort to minimize fatigue between sessions I stashed a mountain bike at the top of the hill so I could coast back down to the starting area. Upon my arrival at the top this little bundle of joy had taken up residence within 6″ of my rear wheel.

His coiled body is only 3″ diameter. I guess I didn’t have to lock my bike after all!

As an aside, an elderly friend of mine broke his hip in late November. As his rehabilitaion progressed beyond a walker the therapist put him on a cane. Another friend turned him on to trekking poles with rubber tips. Compared to the cane the poles greatly increased his stability and range. I believe poles can be a great benefit to others going through similar types of rehabilitaion.

All I know is when I climb up & back down a 3500 ft. gain over 3 miles without poles, my knee is swollen the next day. However, with poles, my knee is just a tiny bit sore. I have used the same pair of on sale for $35 REI poles for 4 years now. I would never go down steep grades without them to save my knees. They also come in handy for stream crossings.

Same course, same test dummy, better data.

. . . . . 5/21/06 7:53a . 5/21/06 8:49a
Poles? . . .Yes . . . . . . No
Overall . . 17:16. . . . . .16:32
Max HR . . .114 . . . . . . 115
Av HR . . . 107 . . . . . . 107

finish . . .1:16 . . . . . .1:17
Max HR . . .112 . . . . . . 112
Av HR . . . 109 . . . . . . 108

All numbers above are in beats per minute (bpm)

If you throw out the segment one data the remaining segments are nearly identical when comparing with or without poles. IMO the heart rate data does not support earlier studies claims of 20% increase in energy expenditure.

My question is slightly different than what has been posed already…
How many calories are expended while hiking with poles vs. how many calories are expended while hiking sans poles but with tent/tarp poles? I currently use my poles to rig my tarp. If I didn’t hike with them I would need to carry poles in my pack (I can’t leave it up to chance to find sticks on the trail). I am currious if it is more energy effective to use poles with a lighter pack or if it is, energy expendture wise, better to carry the extra weight in the pack but not have poles? That might level the results a bit. (I hope that makes sense).
NITRO

My semi-educated guess is that the poles require more energy (but nowhere near the reported 20% additional that the exaggerated Nordic Walking style of pole use may produce). Why more energy? Use of smaller, less efficient muscle groups to “off-load” the gluts and quads, plus the extra “work” performed to lift (at the end of the foreward swing) the forearms against gravity plus lifting the weight of the poles which in many (non-UL feather-weight CF poles) cases weight more than single-use poles carried in the pack for erecting a shelter.

The point of using poles is NOT to save energy. A few of the benefits of pole use are as follows: better balance, reduced workload on the muscle groups of the legs and buttocks, less stress on the knee joints in particular, generally speaking one can move faster with poles (though i don’t know why Roberts times don’t show this).

Not having to pack the shelter poles is a very minor benefit and most of the time is not an issue (one case where it may be is if someone is using a small hunter’s lumbar pack for a 2-3day trek – poles may be hard to stow inside the pack or secure to the outside so that they don’t work their way free while hiking).

Precisely how many more calories would be dependent, at least, upon the individual, the terrain being covered (ascents, descents, level, etc), and the weight of the poles used.

Robert, good data. Thanks for performing the testing and reporting your results. Why did the use of trekking poles not result in faster times, or at least the same times as w/o trk. poles? Do you have any idea?

PJ,

You’re right pole times did tend to be slower. Several weeks ago in this thread you had commented about the exaggerated pole movements in pictures that accompanied some referenced article. I shared your concerns and tried to pace my test at a speed that would be closer to what we as backpackers would use.

One of the mistakes on my first day was walking without poles on the first session. In the session with poles after 5 minutes I knew I was falling behind but the effort to increase my speed felt too rapid because my arm motions were being exaggerated by the incline and fixed length poles. I believe it would have been easier to pick up the pace if the poles were an inch or two shorter.

I reversed the order of testing on day two. The pace would be set by the pole session and the pace of the without pole session would be slowed to match.

Looking through the data this morning I also see another trend I didn’t see before. The day two session with poles segment times are more consistant than the session without. This could be because –
a) I wasn’t skilled at matching the control pace set by the pole session or
b) the use of poles helps maintain a more steady pace.

I don’t recall anyone commenting on how poles can regulate the users pace before and I’d like to discuss it but I got to go. I will post my ideas later.

Robert