[at-l] Hiking Poles - ARGUABLY.

[stephensadams at hotmail.com (Steve Adams)]

Reference Hoplite's post, dated 11-16-03.

I’m borrowing part of that subject heading, “Arguably.”

This word should be used openly more often.  I haven’t read all the posts 
regarding Hiking Poles - - they do become tiresome - - but the topic seems 
poised to surpass “Hiking with dogs,” which boils down to, “I don’t care 
what the facts are, or what anyone thinks, I want to because I want to.”

People seem to argue two basic things about Hiking Poles:

1)    Caloric expenditure.  Everyone seems to agree, If you carry more 
weight, you burn more calories.  Hiking Poles add weight.  You can argue, 
Hiking Poles allow your propulsion performance to improve, and the caloric 
savings offset the additional calories used carrying their additional 
weight.  This argument is suited for measured (scientific) proof, which I 
have not seen offered.  I am dubious of the assertion; it reminds me of 
claims for perpetual motion machines.  When you carry more weight, you burn 
more calories.

2)    Destruction caused by hiking pole usage.  Holes in the ground tend to 
erode.  Erosion is generally considered destructive.  Hiking Poles with 
metal tips make holes.  Virtually all of the Hiking Poles with metal tips, 
which I’ve seen used, haven’t had the rubber caps.  Why not?   A)  The 
rubber cap defeats the purpose of the metal tip.   B)  The metal tip cuts 
through the rubber cap.  I haven’t noticed a single gear or resupply list 
which includes replacement rubber caps.

If you want to enlarge the argument, and ask whether some people are 
prohibited by health reasons from hiking the trail without Hiking Poles, 
that’s another matter entirely.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays!  Snappier product search... 
http://shopping.msn.com