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

[sloetoe at yahoo.com (Sloetoe)]

--- Shane <shane@theplacewithnoname.com> wrote:

> I found another link.  I really like the circle graphic at the
> top:
> http://www.medicineau.net.au/clinical/obesity/obesit2024.html
#### Ewwwwww. It's not a collaborating link, Shane, it's just
more marketing goofballs citing the first goof-balls.

1) Scandanavia-- which includes Finland, has been cross-country
skiiing since the middle of the last MILLENIA; "XC" ain't "new'.


2) If poling weren't efficient, there'd be a lot of dead
Scandenavians wishing they'd not used poles. Ever try to
cross-country ski without poles? It's possible, but you'll be
using a lot more energy than with poles, and if it's 5*F and
you've got to get somewhere as safely as possible, and need to
live to talk about it, then, along with your map ("Har!"),
you'll want to be taking poles.

To quote:
"Well there is good news. Thanks to the Finns, one of the most
physically active races in the world, a relatively new form of
exercise has been developed based on the most aerobic of all
activities, namely cross-country skiing. It fulfils all the
above criteria. Ski poles have been adapted for brisk walking
with or without snow (therefore great on the beach), but
maintaining the cross-country skiing style. 

"Research at the US Cooper Institute in Dallas and elsewhere has
shown that with Nordic walking poles one burns 20-40% more
energy than walking at the same level of perceived activity
without poles."

### Don't hurt yourself trying to figure out that Cooper
Institute cite, though -- they have rather interesting usage of
the terms "efficient" and "effective" that are just plain dumb.
Aside from the fact that they (pointedly) don't clarify that the
people who they measured were doing track laps at the same rate
of speed, they also state that poles were "46%" more efficient.
One is or one isn't; else it's bad science.

### Bad science, btw, can come from anywheres. I sat here in
Indianapolis, 150 yards from where the women's 100 meter world
record was set, at "The National Institute of Fitness & Sport",
and heard what the host described as "a world leader in
childhood obesity" (from USC, no less -- a decent school)
conclude was statistically shown: Children in Minneapolis were
"different" from children in San Diego in relation to their
obesity. Now, understand that the control variables *included*
location, so what he was saying was that Minnesotan children
were like a different species that SoCal kids. I had him
clarify. No lie; no shit. So if the MN kiddies all moved to
SoCal, and substituted roller-blading for ice-skating, there
would *still* have to be some hugoid "curriculum" modifications
needed to stave off childhood obesity. Then he said the magic
words: he was waiting for the next grant to come through to do
just such research. My point, I guess, is that one doesn't have
to be from "US Cooper Institute" to be bought and sold.

Scientoe

=====
Spatior! Nitor! Nitor! Tempero!
   Pro Pondera Et Meliora.

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