[at-l] hiking poles' efficiency...

[sloetoe at yahoo.com (Sloetoe)]

--- Shane <shane@theplacewithnoname.com> wrote:
> > > 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, ...
> >
> > ### Nah -- not true. (Somebody's fed you bad science, Rick.)
> 
> This is actually true.  I was rather surprised myself, to be
> honest, but two or three Backpacking magazines ago they
published the test results. 
> Shane
### The same BackBreaker magazine that popularized the UPenn
Masters' thesis that long distance backpackers *must* gorge in
town because the caloric requirements of backpacking exceeded
the ability to carry the food needed? The same BackBreaker
magazine that has been preaching water filtration for years, but
just recently decided, hmmmm, maybe, just maybe, other vectors
of GI upset are in fact more prevelent than "dirty water"? The
same BackBreaker magazine that bitched about lousy "Ultralite"
packs because they wouldn't carry a 40 pound load as comfortably
as the 7 pound pack used as a standard? Shannnnnnne.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree