Pacerpole 2-Section Trekking Pole REVIEW

Roger, briefly skimmed the article. good article, IMO. Here's some observations from one who likes to be as techical as the next guy:

1) the article concerns itself with only one aspect of T-pole use, viz. traversing level terrain. it does not appear to concern itself with ascending or descending steep grades, not with stepping up and down. This is one of two areas that i feel T-poles excel in.
2) commonsense tells anyone that using T-poles when stepping up or down off-loads the lower body. Simply stand on a bathroom scale with T-poles in your hands and lean on them. The weight registered will be reduced. Not exactly stepping up, but it illustrates the principle involved.
3) where does balance and the workload performed by core body musculature come into play? certainly not in that study (as good as it is for what it was trying to show – level ground traversal). This is another very important area that T-poles excel in. Anyone who has ever reached out to touch/grab something to steady themselves or keep themselves from falling knows this – even a young child.
4) we have centuries of history of man using walking staffs or even using long spears/javelins in this fashion. do we simply ignore the somewhat common experience of geographical distributed man for centuries? Anecdotal? sure. Do we really need a simple laboratory experiment to teach us something that our ancestors knew from actual practice? of course not!

Like i've tried to make clear in my prev. Posts, trekking, particularly over extremely rough terrain is much too dynamic for dogmatism regarding both form as well as for a trivial/simple experiment touching upon just one aspect of T-pole use to have much meaning upon the whole.

HYOH.

Roger,

The concluding paragraph of the the sportjournal study states:

"It is plausible that the ground reaction variables measured in the current study were compromised by the short duration of testing. In contrast to actual hiking, the average testing duration for the current study involved a practice period and thee successfully completed trials, which lasted a total of betwenn15 and 20 minutes. In normal hiking situations, the duration of walking is extended by several hours and as fatigue becomes a factor, the reliance on the hiking poles is likely to become greater in order to reduce the demand on the lower extremities. Further, greater dependency on hiking poles may become evident as the terrain changes from flat to incline, decline or lateral slant. Recommendations for future studies should encompass longer walking durations, inclined/declined walking, and lateral slant in order to more closely resemble actual hiking activity."

The study itself seems to have little to do with real hiking conditions outside of the lab.

>>"For that matter, if you go back a couple of decades, trekking poles didn't exist, and yet walkers still managed to get up and down mountains at high speed."

I go back more than a couple decades and admit that I did fine in the mountains without them. But since I started using Pacerpoles my experience of the act of hiking has become so much more enjoyable. Anecdotal, to be sure, but I go out there to have fun, not to test scientific theories.

It is possible that the use of trekking poles is still another example of the delusion of the masses. But, based on my experience, I think that there is a little more to it than that.

My comments were intended for the article referenced in another Post. I was attempting to point out that i was aiming to be consistent in my thought processes and application of my principles to varied situations – hence, my reference to a point i had made earlier. My apologies to you that you took offense (none was intended) at them and thought that they were addressed to you instead of Roger who i had addressed my Post to. I will try to be clearer in the future.

Roger, have to agree with you on the efficiency aspect. Many thanks for your clarifying remarks.

Hi Roger, I actually haven't read any of the science or the advertising on trekking poles beyond what is in this thread.

For me, it's very simple. I know how I feel when hiking without poles, with a walking stick, with conventional trekking poles, and with Pacepoles based on the feedback my body is giving me.

On that basis alone, it's a slam dunk for Pacer Poles.

> C'mon Roger, Do these people look like greedy capitalist pigs to you?

Nope. Thanks for the URL in fact. I shall watch to see whether the rest of the world agrees with them or not.

One place where I question the concept is when you are not 'walking along' but trying to negotiate tricky country (river, snow-covered granite scree, neve, etc). Balancing – or teetering. I am not saying they wouldn't work, just asking whether the conventional straight grip might not be better. However, not having tried the Pacer Poles I just don't know.

At a tangent – whether you would call people who love wandering around in the less hospitable UK weather sane is another matter. But then, been there, done that myself, so who am I to talk? :-)

Roger, IME (in my experience) they work fine for balance. No problems at all on some of the most uneven rock & root covered trails (you might recall Dale Wambaugh posted a pic of a portion of a PNW trail he had been on – it looked just like many of the trails i'm forced to hike on, virtually 0% even/flat ground or large rounded rocks for a foot placement; also, totally uneven & near constant ascents & descents). When i know that i'll be on such surfaces, i use the 3section Al poles and not the lighter more fragile 2section CF poles.

[Note: this post is intended to share with DrC some of my own personal experiences and should not be misconstrued to be a criticism in any fashion of PacerPoles.]

Hi pj and Dondo

> IME (in my experience) they work fine for balance.
Oh, I agree entirely. I also agree that for people with sore knees they can be a blessing on descents. I dare say they can be useful on difficult ascents.
Where I start doubting is when I see people walking along an asphalt road poling vigorously.

If we are doing a tricky river crossing over boulders with fast water I will find a couple of stout sticks for my wife and myself for balance in the fast water. No hesitation.

Brett wrote:
> I am growing dependent on my poles, not for efficiency or survival, but for balance. Before I had them I never needed them; now I seem to.
> We saw a similar phenomenon in downhill skiing. When I try to tell my skiing friends that you can downhill ski just fine with no poles, they recoil in horror or stare in scepticism. (note, does not apply to x-country skiing)
:-)
Yes, one can become used to using them in rough terrain. They can be useful there.
But I had to laugh about the skiing comments: so true! I have seen some very elegant downhill skiing without poles: a row of instructors, each one carrying a flare in each hand, at night coming down the whole side of a resort.

>Where I start doubting is when I see people walking along an asphalt road poling vigorously.

I find that I hike about 0.25 to 0.3 mph faster using poles. I tested this over the same trail multiple times, with standard heavy and ultralight poles, using them in the Nordic-walking style. I'm not claiming that I burn less energy or am less tired (although I don't notice any difference, and they do help my knees) but the speed difference over a full day is worthwhile on its own. YMMV.