I was curious how much hiking pole weight really matters...found only a few papers studying effect of pole weight, and wrote up something on that.

for those that used heavier and lighter versions, do you notice any significant effect? in the upper extremities only or a whole body effect?

When your not using then and they are strapped to your pack, weight matters. I strap my trekking poles on my pack until I descend. That's when I use them.

Hotoven wrote:When your not using then and they are strapped to your pack, weight matters. I strap my trekking poles on my pack until I descend. That's when I use them.

I agree it's going to make a difference, but how big of a difference is it? let's say you drop a total of 1 lb from your poles. This will be less than 1% increase in workload at most. I don't see that as important on a dayhike; but perhaps in combo with trying to go ultralight that 1lb (+ another 10 lbs elsewhere) does matter.

Ze wrote:I agree it's going to make a difference, but how big of a difference is it? let's say you drop a total of 1 lb from your poles.

Drop one pound from your poles?

What kind of poles are you using? Mine don't weigh a pound for the pair!

I just weighed my ersatz pair of BDs:

normal flicklock, one pole: 9.5 oz.
whippet flicklock, one pole with ice ax head: 14.2 oz.

I use poles in the snow only.

Ze wrote:

Hotoven wrote:When your not using then and they are strapped to your pack, weight matters. I strap my trekking poles on my pack until I descend. That's when I use them.

I agree it's going to make a difference, but how big of a difference is it? let's say you drop a total of 1 lb from your poles. This will be less than 1% increase in workload at most. I don't see that as important on a dayhike; but perhaps in combo with trying to go ultralight that 1lb (+ another 10 lbs elsewhere) does matter.

Yes it all depends on who the person is. Some people do ridicules things to cut back on weight. When I want to go ultra light, I leave the poles behind. All in All, a few Oz. won't affect much, but if you absolutely need them, and your an ultra light person, the light ones would be the way to go. I like something a little more beefy so it can take a beating and I'm not concerned about banging it around. The real light ones seem weak. (I could be wrong though)

This thread is a bit confusing. Was the OP about the effect of pole weight on the training that is gotten by hiking or just about pole weight. If the first is the case, then the post is located in the proper forum, but none of those answering it actually addressed the intended topic. If the second is the case, then the post should have been in the Gear forum. I guess it's a bit too much to expect people to actually read something. The question is who didn't read: the OP or those who answered?

Yeah one lb is steep but could happen. Just used that number as an extreme example.

As for proper forum, sure probably makes better sense to be in the 'gear' section, although I think there is a training aspect to it. Don't know how to move it.

Ze wrote:Yeah one lb is steep but could happen. Just used that number as an extreme example.

As for proper forum, sure probably makes better sense to be in the 'gear' section, although I think there is a training aspect to it. Don't know how to move it.

It's not really a biggy, but you'd probably get more answers if it was in the Gear forum. As to the other aspect, I've noticed for some time that lots of people respond to a post apparently without really reading what they are responding to. Either that or they are responding to what they would like to be responding to.

I doubt that the few extra ounces of heavier poles (vs lighter poles) would make a large enough difference to be measured by total energy use. I can see that the greater activation of certain arm and shoulder muscles could be measured, but I'm not surprised that the less direct measure of total energy use isn't sensitive enough to detect the slight difference.

On a related topic: A long time ago I read that cross country skiiers expend about 25-35% of their energy with their arms. I'm wondering if the percentage is similar for hikers using poles. Most hikers I've seen use shorter poles than cross country skiiers, so I'd be surprised if the hikers use their poles as much as x-country skiiers.

Finally, do they really sell poles without wrist straps?

I don't normally read the forums, except those on the what's new section of the front page. I read or respond to what catches my interest, I don't pay any attention to what category it is posted in.

For long distance hiking, lighter really is better, even when using them, not so much hand and arm fatigue. I had the Komperdell carbon fiber ones in Peru (12+ ounces a pair I think) but sold them recently before I left there. I was hoping to get them or the REI ones on sale when I got back here to the U.S., but there are not on sale now!
Vic

In my personal experience, weight is not a signifcant issue in hiking because you are not picking up the pole very high and your turnover is not great, even at 3-4 mph.

However, in nordic skiing, weight is an issue because your turnover is much higher.

My opinion is based upon long distance hiking of 35 to 75 miles/day using heavy metal poles and 12 to 24 hour nordic ski races.

BTW: I don't have a strong upper body.

For hiking, I want a metal pole that can take a good rap on a rock without shattering or a good twist in a crack without splitting.

In contrast, a nordic ski pole is used typically in a much more forgiving environment and can be more fragile. Unless you are doing an extreme wilderness race (e.g., Arrowhead Ultra or Sustina 100) where you would pack spare poles.

IMHO the overall weight of the pole is a bit more arbitrary than the swing weight in terms of energy efficiency and fatigue.

For example, an aluminum pole may only weigh one ounce more than a carbon pole, but the swing weight will be significantly different. In the carbon pole, a good portion of the weight will be up in the handle, making for a very light tip. The aluminum pole will have more weight in the shaft making for a heavier tip. In my experience having a lower swing weight reduces the energy used and fatigue of the wrist and forearm.

Edit: But this is solely based on how I feel at the end of a hike. That being said, I guess the difference isn't all that significant for simple day hikes.

mtngeek wrote:IMHO the overall weight of the pole is a bit more arbitrary than the swing weight in terms of energy efficiency and fatigue.

For example, an aluminum pole may only weigh one ounce more than a carbon pole, but the swing weight will be significantly different. In the carbon pole, a good portion of the weight will be up in the handle, making for a very light tip. The aluminum pole will have more weight in the shaft making for a heavier tip. In my experience having a lower swing weight reduces the energy used and fatigue of the wrist and forearm.

Edit: But this is solely based on how I feel at the end of a hike. That being said, I guess the difference isn't all that significant for simple day hikes.

good point about the inertia, do you know if carbon poles are specifically weighted like that for this reason?

along the same lines, slightly more weight in the shoes will have a bigger effect than more weight in a backpack because of the large moment arm of the leg. hiking poles are similar, but I think the absolute weight is smaller. If people hiked with 4lb poles, I'd bet it would be taxing!

Ze wrote:

mtngeek wrote:IMHO the overall weight of the pole is a bit more arbitrary than the swing weight in terms of energy efficiency and fatigue.

For example, an aluminum pole may only weigh one ounce more than a carbon pole, but the swing weight will be significantly different. In the carbon pole, a good portion of the weight will be up in the handle, making for a very light tip. The aluminum pole will have more weight in the shaft making for a heavier tip. In my experience having a lower swing weight reduces the energy used and fatigue of the wrist and forearm.

Edit: But this is solely based on how I feel at the end of a hike. That being said, I guess the difference isn't all that significant for simple day hikes.

good point about the inertia, do you know if carbon poles are specifically weighted like that for this reason?

along the same lines, slightly more weight in the shoes will have a bigger effect than more weight in a backpack because of the large moment arm of the leg. hiking poles are similar, but I think the absolute weight is smaller. If people hiked with 4lb poles, I'd bet it would be taxing!

I intentionally extend the lighter/skinnier bottom sections of my poles more than the tops for this reason, although I never swing my poles forward when going uphill or moving on flat ground, as that would create a vector force pushing me backwards. I only swing them forward when going downhill.