I have been backpacking since the early 1960’s, so I started without trekking poles. I’ve tried them multiple times, but the only times I have felt like they provided any real utility have been very limited: crossing a stream, as an arrest tool when crossing unexpected snow patches, as a tent pole substitute, when I had a sore knee, all of which require only one. Well no – I just remembered that I found having two very helpful on the rare occasions when I had to bushwack through brush taller than my hips. So two for that rare thing, at least where I go. But I almost always end up just carrying them, usually in hand, sometimes strapped to my pack.
Other than the times when I’m anticipating one of those infrequent needs, they don’t really make sense to me. I think:
- Obviously they cost more to buy than not buying them at all, whatever the price point
- They don’t provide better stability in general; in fact, I question whether a user is in fact more likely to be fundamentally unbalanced when depending on poles instead remaining balanced without them
- Careful and secure placement of pole tips on technical terrain requires focus and concentration that detract from focus and concentration on the more important fundamental aspect of foot placement
- They are less reliable for traction on technical terrain such as bare rock and boulders than boots alone
- They inhibit one’s ability to regain balance after a significant slip and make a bigger fall more likely
- They interfere with your ability to protect your upper body and head in a significant fall or stumble and are therefore more dangerous in a significant fall
- They interfere with scrambling and climbing
- They weigh much more than tent poles
- They obviously require more work and burn more calories than walking without them
Some of those negatives/reservations might be attributed to the fact that I didn’t grow up with them, so maybe I haven’t developed intuitive, natural use of them. I know that many of y’all and plenty of long distance professional trekkers swear by and endorse them, but that is 0% convincing to me because my personal experience has been entirely the opposite. For example, I did the Sierra High Route last summer using them only 5-10% of the time, while my two younger companions used them the entire time. It appeared to me that they slipped, stumbled, and fell more often than I did, and their injuries were worse (though still minor fortunately). They often commented on how they were amazed that I did so well without them. When traction and conditions underfoot were unstable I would lower my center of mass, focus 100% on foot placement and balance and traction, keep my arms out and a bit forward for balance and stability, and stay low so that if I did slip or fall I would do so from a lower height and consequently less destructive kinetic energy would be generated. But I did not convince them that I did well because I don’t use poles.
In any event, most of my issues with trekking poles are issues of ergonomics and physics.
So, questions:
1. You’re carrying more weight, which according to the laws of physics unequivocally requires more work, s therefore more calories and more food. It takes a certain amount of work to lift or move a certain mass a certain distance, period. So if you are lifting or moving more mass, no matter whether it makes walking feel easier or more efficient somehow, the total amount of work done and calories burned is greater. How can you argue with that?
2. Following on #1, unless you have a particular need or use for them, doesn’t it make more sense to just carry very light tent pole(s) instead of trekking poles that weigh 3x-10x more?
3. Not only are you carrying more weight with poles, you’re lifting and placing them repeatedly, like doing thousands and thousands of mini bicep curls. More work = more calories. The same argument that applies to lighter shoes apply to lighter hands as well.
4. Even if claims of “more power” are true, according to the laws of physics that necessarily means even more work and even more calories.
5. I believe that using trekking poles makes you dependent on them and detracts from developing and optimizing strength, balance and stability. Similar to the way tall boots don’t increase or develop ankle stability, and the studies that show deep soft insoles actually increase rather than decrease foot stability and injuries because they decrease feedback and mask problems in a runner’s stride when compared to thin, unpadded track shoes that give the runner feedback and lets them adjust their stride to reduce impact. Do you disagree?
6. My personal experience with several forward stumbles is that poles interfered with my ability to raise my arms and hands quickly and completely to protect my head, face and upper body. Worse than that, a CF pole that snapped on a rock during one such forward fall almost pierced my chest. Leaving aside the question of whether you think poles make a fall more or less likely, do you agree that poles are less safe when a fall does in fact occur?
7. Doesn’t careful placement on technical terrain such as scree and boulders require focus and concentration that detracts from focus and concentration on the more important fundamental of foot placement?
8. Since we didn’t evolve covering long distances using our hands, isn’t there a likelihood of developing repetitive stress injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome when using the poles constantly, as opposed to using them only in situations that require them?