Science Study -Trekking Poles Positive Benefits

[Rocketman]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0602121000.htm

Science News

How Trekking-Poles Help Hikers Maintain Muscle Function While Reducing Soreness

ScienceDaily (June 3, 2010) — A study by academics at Northumbria University has shown for the first time that trekking-poles help hikers maintain muscle function while significantly reducing soreness in the days following a hike.


In the study, 37 physically active men and women were split into two groups of equal fitness and asked to hike up and down Snowdon, the highest mountain in England and Wales.


One group was issued with and trained in the use of trekking poles while the other group made the climb unaided. Each group ate the same evening meal on the night before; they ate the same breakfast, carried similar weight in day packs and took the same scheduled rests during both the ascent and descent.


The participants' heart rates and their personal perceived exertion ratings were recorded during the hike. Then, at the end of the hike, and at 24-, 48- and 72-hour intervals afterwards, muscle damage and function were assessed through a variety of tests.


The results showed that there was significantly less muscle soreness in the group using trekking poles. This group demonstrated a reduced loss of strength and a faster recovery immediately after the trek compared to the control group. Self-rated soreness peaked at 24-hours in both groups but was significantly lower in the trekking-pole group, both at this point and at the 48-hour point. In addition, levels of the enzyme creatine kinase (which indicates muscle damage) were much higher at the 24-hour point in the non-pole group, while the trekking-pole group's levels were close to the pre-trekking levels. This shows that the muscle damage they were experiencing was negligible.


Pole manufacturers have suggested that trekking poles can reduce forces on lower-limb joints by as much as 25 %. However, the existing research has been restricted to the laboratory or to non-mountainous outdoor settings, such as running tracks, and has only focussed on biomechanical investigations into stress on the ankle, knee and hip. This is the first documented study into the effectiveness of trekking poles in the environments for which they were designed.


"The results present strong evidence that trekking poles reduce, almost to the point of complete disappearance, the extent of muscle damage during a day's mountain trek," says Dr Glyn Howatson, who conducted the study.
"Preventing muscle damage and soreness is likely to improve motivation and so keep people enjoying the benefits of exercise for longer. Perhaps even more advantageously, the combined benefits of using trekking poles in reducing load to the lower limbs, increasing stability and reducing muscle damage could also help avoid injury on subsequent days trekking. It is often the reduced reaction time and position sense, associated with damaged muscles that cause the falls and trips that can lead to further injury in mountainous or uneven terrain.


"These findings have particularly strong application for exercisers wishing to engage in consecutive days' activity in mountainous terrain."

[Pedaling Fool]

This looks to be a short term study. It would be similar to studying a group of people that performed specific exercises at the gym with the only difference being the weight lifted. Well the people that lifted the least weight would exhibit similar things, i.e. less soreness, less muscle damage, less recovery time...

But the ones that lifted the least amount of weight would also be weaker (overtime), because they simply did not push themselves harder.

I know this opens the question of how much one should push themselves, but that really is a whole different topic that we should not drift into here.

I smell a marketing campaign.

[The Solemates]

This looks to be a short term study.

I smell a marketing campaign.

The study would obviously have a strong amount of bias, and the conclusions given in this write-up do not inform the reader without any actual data-based results to back them up. There are too many unknown variables and how they controlled them in the study without reading the whole report.

[Pedaling Fool]

The study would obviously have a strong amount of bias, and the conclusions given in this write-up do not inform the reader without any actual data-based results to back them up. There are too many unknown variables and how they controlled them in the study without reading the whole report.

Sounds like a marketing campaign

[JAK]

"Muscle Damage" ?

I can see the advantage of hiking pole when hiking down hills, especially on wider footpaths where there are no tree available to grab onto or push off of now and then to control your descent. For myself, if there are no trees around and the trail is slippery I will grab a stick, but I don't need trekking poles. People that use trekking poles to allow them to carry more weight are really misguided. You should reduce your pack weight before resorting to trekking poles, and the best thing to do for yourself to enjoy a lifetime of hiking, or running, is to reduce your body weight to' well within the so-called 'normal range', which isn't very normal by today's standards.

"Muscle damage", as they call it, is how we get stronger. If it isn't excessive, it is good for you. If you have weak joints, or are overweight, then you will benefit more from treking poles in order to allow you to get out there, but by the logic of this study people should never run, they should always walk. Some people shouldn't run, and some people should only hike with poles, but in general, studies like this tend to over-promote the use of trekking poles. The study is likely sponsored in some way. Run when you can. Hike when you can. Use poles if you must, or when they are helpful. Don't overuse them, as a crutch, or like overbuilt hiking boots or running shoes.

Most important - lose some weight !
If poles help you do that, by all means hike with poles.
Pole vs No poles is insignificant compared to the benefits of weight reduction.

[Panzer1]

The study is likely sponsored in some way.

The article said "A study by academics at Northumbria University"'
Sounds impartial to me.

Panzer

[JAK]

Most academic studies are sponsored in some way, and many are not as objective as they should be.

[JAK]

It would also be nice to read the research paper, rather than an article about the paper.

[Rain Man]

Perhaps even more advantageously, the combined benefits of using trekking poles in reducing load to the lower limbs, increasing stability and reducing muscle damage could also help avoid injury on subsequent days trekking. It is often the reduced reaction time and position sense, associated with damaged muscles that cause the falls and trips that can lead to further injury in mountainous or uneven terrain.

I've hiked with and without trekking poles, with and without heavy packs. Didn't really need a study to teach me the above conclusion, but still nice to read that my anecdotal experiences are confirmed by scientific study.

RainMan

.

[Yukon]

My own personal study has shown me that trekking poles work great for me...that's all I need to know.

[JAK]

It's not that I doubt that hiking poles can reduce the strain on the leg muscles and joints. It's the use of the term "muscle damage" that raises a flag for me. Also the articles reference to trekking pole manufacturers claims and so forth, and the way the conclusions and implications of the study are worded. Also, anytime a commerical product is endorsed by a 'scientific study', you have to ask questions, especially when it is a magazine or e-zine article about the study, and not the peer-reviewed paper itself.

This is junk science, maybe not the research itself, or the research paper, but the article is for sure, whether there was any direct advertising associated wirth it or not. If it isn't deliberately misleading, it is certainly leaning in the direction of allowing people to become ill-informed and mislead. It provided very little in the way of useful information.

[JAK]

I would agree with rainman that the article provides no information that people should not be able to figure out for themselves with a limited trial, or even without trial.

So what is the purpose of this research, or this article? Junk science.

[Rocketman]

It would also be nice to read the research paper, rather than an article about the paper.

I agree.

Then why do you do all of this "Junk Science" labeling?

You haven't read the paper, so shouldn't you avoidthis kind of namecalling?

[jesse]

The article said "A study by academics at Northumbria University"'
Sounds impartial to me.

Panzer

They could have had funding from an outside source. The article did not say. Few studies are impartial.

[bigcranky]

This looks to be a short term study. It would be similar to studying a group of people that performed specific exercises at the gym with the only difference being the weight lifted. Well the people that lifted the least weight would exhibit similar things, i.e. less soreness, less muscle damage, less recovery time...

In this case, the subjects hiked the same mountain with the same pack weight -- so no, it's not at all similar to studying two groups of people lifting different amounts of weight. Sheesh.

It takes the same amount of energy to climb the mountain -- possibly more if one is lifting hiking poles with each step. From my own experience, I suspect the reason for the study's findings is that the subjects spread the load out to all four limbs, reducing the impact on the legs (and knees, etc.) From my own anecdotal evidence, I do experience less soreness and have more energy left at the end of the day when I am using poles, than when I don't use them -- even though I am walking the same mountains carrying the same pack.

[GGS2]

No! Namedalling is FUN! Besides, without namecalling, WB would be practically silent. Just saying.

[JAK]

I agree.

Then why do you do all of this "Junk Science" labeling?

You haven't read the paper, so shouldn't you avoidthis kind of namecalling?

True, I haven't read the research paper, so I can't really comment on it.

The article is junk science.

[JAK]

I am more sore after I run. Does that mean I should walk? Maybe. Maybe not.

More to the point, does that mean that no one should run on trails? I don't think so.

The research paper, as described by the Science Daily article, is meaningless nonsense.

[peakbagger]

My positive conclusions for poles are based on observations of northbound through hikers. Generally when they make it to Gorham NH, they have pared back the non essentials they are carrying to only things that are a net benefit to the hike. The majority of the apparent through hikers coming through town usually have poles or hiking sticks, so my conclusion is that poles must have been a net beneift to their hike.

Now obviously there are potential errors in this type of observational study. I dont keep numerical results and dont stop and ask a person if he or she is a through hiker. It also may be the people who dont use poles only enter the town under cover of darkness or skip it altogether. . Another possibility is that the damage to the hiker has already occured and the poles are used as aids.

Sure sounds to me like this is a good research topic for a PHD candidate as it comes up frequently.

[JAK]

Would the Phd be in kinesiology, or psycology or sociology or marketing?

One thing I know well is that it isn't easy to make money selling nothing.