[at-l] Probably NOT Worth repeating ;-) - hiking poles

[daveh at psknet.com (Dave Hicks)]

I suspect, for my anecdotal observations, that there a two major different
in trekking pole use:

   Those who use them for propulsion assistance
      vs.
   those who use them a walking/balance aids.

Those who use them primarily for propulsion assistance probably do use more
calories per hour.  However, I suspect they cover more ground in that same
hour.  I wonder what (if any) difference there is in calories per mile.

I suspect that those who use them a walking/balance aids would burn only
slightly more calories than carrying them.  If one uses them as part of
their tent/tarp setup also, that would reduce the carry weight by the
savings in not carrying tent poles.

Many years ago, (when my speed and balance was far better) I hiked PA w/o
them.

The last time I hiked PA I used them.  True it took me longer.  However, I
doubt I would have made it, the last time, without the additional stability
and recovery assistance they provided.

Many years ago my FSO was heaver (including some comfort and distraction
items, which I no longer carry).

Today, when I weight the trade-offs, I'll take the comfort of
walking/balance aids over the camera, the paper back, etc.

As always YMMV.

Chainsaw

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "rick boudrie" <rickboudrie@hotmail.com>
To: <at-l@backcountry.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 4:04 PM
Subject: [at-l] Probably NOT Worth repeating ;-) - hiking poles

>>
SNIP
Apart from their base weight, it has been written that hiking poles will
cause one to burn 20% more calories.  I am not sure if that is true, but if
it is, a person who resupplies every 4 days might be forced to carry an
extra 2 lbs of grub. When you add that to the 1.5lbs for the poles, that is
a lot of weight by any standard.
<<