Trekking poles or not?

Posted by: toddfw2003

Trekking poles or not? - 04/10/16 08:53 PM

I have never used them but in 3 weeks I will be backpacking in the Escalante Canyons area of southern Utah and will have a lot of stream crossing. Wanted to see what others think. They always looked like extra weight to me. Also I do have knee issues and keep one of my knees wrapped when backpacking. I thought maybe this would help with the knee issue
Posted by: wandering_daisy

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/10/16 10:17 PM

I resisted for years and when I finally used them, I found them very useful. I still do most side-trips or day hikes from base camp without, because I find them a pain when taking lots of photos. I do not collapse them and put on my pack, rather, simply hold them kind if tucked under my arms when not actually using them. My wrists get stressed if I use them all the time. It is sort of second nature now and I do not even notice this much.

1) VERY helpful to essential for stream crossings
2) Essential for me on steep downhill carrying a pack because of my knees
3) Can actually go faster off-trail - makes me into a four-legged animal
4) useful when going through brush and tall grass
5) good upper body work-out
6) keeps my hands from swelling
Posted by: BrRabbit

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/10/16 11:19 PM

A single trekking pole is the best compromise to me between extra weight, and extra stability. 2 of my legs + 1 pole create a triangle, which is the most stable of all bases. And I still have 1 handle free.
Posted by: BrianLe

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/11/16 12:19 AM

Quote:
"A single trekking pole is the best compromise to me between extra weight, and extra stability."

Another example of "what's right for me might not be right for you". I like a single trekking pole in some specific situations: snowshoeing when there's a lot of vegetation to go through, for example. If *just* for stream crossing, a single pole might be good in some situations.

For me, however, carrying two poles is a fundamentally different thing than just one. It alters how I hike much more significantly. After some sort of knee issue in my 40's (I forget details now), I've been a two-stick hiker ever since. For all the reasons that Wandering Daisy listed. She mentioned being more like a 4-legged animal off-trail, but I would add that this is valuable on-trail too. With two poles, I can look around a lot more when I hike, presuming that the trail isn't super rough. And FWIW, both of my trekking poles are used as tent poles at night, so some weight offset there.

They're also quite helpful in snow, of various types. Quite a number of times I've appreciated having poles at the ready to fend off somebody's "oh, he's never like this at home" dogs, which IMO is perhaps the biggest animal danger to be faced in the back- (or front-) country, apart from homo sapiens. But if snakes bother you, on (normally very rare) occasion a pole can be helpful there too. But in the case of snakes, a single pole is fine. For dogs, I've really (really) appreciated having both poles deployed in several instances.

When I first switched to using two poles I was concerned about never having either of my hands free. In my case, at least, I've become pretty good about doing just about anything I need with a pole hanging from my wrist with the strap, or quickly tucking one or both poles under an arm.

I'm NOT saying that being a two-stick hiker is right for you or for anyone in particular, just adding some thoughts on the 'pro' (vs. 'con') side.
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/11/16 04:18 PM

I used a staff for years, but finally (at the urging of my daughter) got a pair of trekking poles 12 years ago and have never looked back.

I was amazed at the difference going uphill, downhill and even on the level. They especially help with balance issues on rough ground (an increasing issue as I get older). In fact, I soon started using the poles for exercise walking--they turn an exercise for legs and hips into a whole body exercise somewhat similar to X-C skiing (often called nordic walking).

I have had no problems either with camera or with the dog's leash. It does take some practice, though, as does their proper use. Unfortunately the bible of trekking poles, "Pete's Poles Page," is now dead. Its demise is recent, so I need to look up something with similar information. If anyone finds one with the same detail, please post the link!

If you're not sure, pick up a pair of cheap hiking poles at Costco or Walmart, or a pair of used ski poles at your local thrift shop, and try them out. If you find them useful, look for a good pair.
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/11/16 04:18 PM

Sorry, double post.
Posted by: Franco

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/11/16 07:30 PM

I fully agree that poles do need to be used in a certain way to get the best out of them.
It is my experience that most pole users I come across don't get the full benefit in fact in some cases they just more or less drag their poles along.
Anyway, the good news here is that Pete's page is alive in a new form, here :
http://medphys.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/gear/poles/poles1.html
Posted by: toddfw2003

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/12/16 12:07 AM

IM sold. Im going to order a pair off amazon. I hike with a dog. this trip I wont be. I wondered how hiking with trekking poles and a leash would work
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/12/16 12:26 AM

Train the dog by walking him while using the poles every day. Be sure to get the rubber caps for the poles so you won't inadvertently stab the poor beast! (You need those on paved surfaces anyway to preserve both the points on the poles and your neighbors' sidewalks.) The late Hysson was two years old when I got my poles, and he soon learned to avoid them. Of course that meant when he was in the "heel" position, he was too far out, but since we weren't in obedience shows, that didn't matter. I trained him to walk behind me on narrow trails so I wouldn't trip over him when he stopped dead right in front of me to investigate an interesting smell!

It also helps to teach your dog what is often called the "flip finish" in which the dog returns to the heel position without going around you and winding you up in his leash. Here's how to do it!
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/12/16 12:34 AM

Franco, thank you, thank you, for the new link!!!
thanks awesome
Posted by: Nebraska

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/12/16 08:46 AM

I resisted trekking poles for a long time, but bad knees make your try new things. I consider myself to be in good shape, but a long soccer career have put some stress on my knees. I picked up a paid and found a lot of relief. Give them a shot!
Posted by: Franco

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/12/16 05:42 PM

You are VERY welcome.
Posted by: toddfw2003

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/12/16 10:12 PM

I ended up ordering a pair offline. I am sure they are not the best. Kelty Upslope 2.0. They are 18oz for two
Posted by: wandering_daisy

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/12/16 11:53 PM

Hey OM, your mailbox is full! I am driving by Biggs Sunday. Any chance we could meet? at least for coffee. I could spare a half day. A short (2 hour or so) hike would be great.
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/13/16 12:36 PM

I sent you a PM, now that I got rid of all the extra stuff that resulted from my former moderator position and also anything over 5 years old. So I should be PM-able now!
Posted by: Rick_D

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 04/13/16 03:31 PM

Will pile on that I'm a convert and am especially grateful to have them on steep and rocky trails.

Something to add on their use is to have a quick way to stow them on the go so as to free up your hands when doing class 3 scrambling, crossing creeks on logs, etc. It's annoying to have to take off the pack and lash them.

I prefer carbon to aluminum both for the weight and the better vibration damping. They used to be expensive but last time I was in Costco they had a pair of collapsible CF for something like thirty bucks. Quality seemed fine.

Cheers,
Posted by: Coyote

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 05/15/16 09:13 AM

A vote for yes - not only do they help with stability on uneven terrain, but they can give you a little extra "umph" when going uphill.
Posted by: Reggie

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 05/16/16 05:38 AM

Hi Todd
I'm too late to stop you crossing over to the dark side - you've bought them. I'm a bit of a naysayer on the poles. Partly as a knee-jerk reaction to the marketing. Apparently we can't walk unless we are quadripeds again according to the marketers. We need $100 poles to move around with. I prefer to keep my hands free for other things, and watch my footing.
I agree with the posters that argue if you are going to use them, use them properly. www.sectionhiker.com (nothing to do with me) provides a balanced view on this.
River crossing is a possible exception - in which case a single sturdy pole on the upcurrent side is required.
Now to the constructive stuff... the knees. I too have knee problems from overuse (army). I favor strengthening and conditioning over a knee brace. Check out orthoinfo.org/PDFs/Rehab_Knee_6.pdf, http://www.webmd.com/osteoarthritis/knee-pain-16/slideshow-knee-exercises, and http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=a00564 Carry a brace with you, but avoid it unless you tweak something on the trail.
Hope this helps
Posted by: bluefish

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 05/16/16 09:02 AM

Trekking poles for my wife and I are mandatory, rather than being pieces of consumer jewelry. I don't think their true utility is realized unless they are used with lots of elevation gain/loss and multi-day trips. My wife has balance problems, yet she has negotiated some sections of trail with huge exposure and done OK. Without them, she would not even try. I often day hike without them, but my knees (even with constant training to strengthen them) are relieved tremendously by their use on steep and rugged trails. Like with almost all things that can be sold for profit, they are over-sold and hyped, but they are not items that are to be dismissed, and can be very purposeful. Something I learned as a fly fishing guide: 2 poles are better than one in stream crossings and wading in general. I would carry client's rods, and let them use 2 wading staffs. Reduces the numbers of dunkings significantly.
Posted by: Reggie

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 05/16/16 12:23 PM

I didn't mean to offend users! I liked the argument sectionhiker.com put forward - using them sensibly with proper adjustment for heights and inclines. He kind of moderated my view of them. I just see a lot of people dragging them along behind them. I figure if you have something - use it properly.
The river crossing is a very good point. I was thinking more of obstacles, rather than the necessary fishing crossings.
I agree having a stick will stop you stepping into a hole, and help brace you. Also accepting you are going to get your feet wet - don't try to tiptoe over the dry rocks. Get firm footing.
Cheers, Reggie
Posted by: wandering_daisy

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 05/17/16 03:41 PM

Trekking poles will incredibly add to your hiking efficiency if used properly. Reinhold Messner, world famous mountaineer, used them 20 years ago, and he is a climbing animal- he used them to become a mean hiking machine, not because he had any balance problems. I did a few climbs with a fellow from New Zealand and he was like a mountain goat with his poles. He literally could run down a steep rocky slope. So I got some. It took some time to build up my arm strength, but now they add to my uphill walking as well as protect my knees going downhill. I just finished a 3-day trip with two steep 3000+ ft uphill sections and two 3000 foot downhills. Could not have done it without trekking poles! Now if you are just ambling down a flat trail, probably no need for them. It depends on where you hike. Very useful for steep off-trail travel.

For we older backpackers, poles are a godsend. I doubt I would still be at this without poles.
Posted by: toddfw2003

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 05/23/16 10:19 PM

I just got back from my two week backpacking trip in Southern Utah. Trekking pole were awesome. m I trained my brain to walk in them correctly ( left foot out- right pole out and vise versa) and it completely made a difference. My knees did not bother me at all. I am sold
Posted by: jobob

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 08/01/16 07:33 PM


Newbie here, first post. Hello!

I've been reading up on poles and I kept seeing mentions of Pete's Pole Pages, but every link I found brought me to the "decommissioned" page. I could not find an updated site using The Google, but it did help me find this forum. So I joined, figuring someone here might know if Pete's Page still existed somewhere. And sure enough, the first thread I found, success!

Thank you Franco. laugh

And thanks in advance for all the other useful info I'll no doubt find in this forum.

Cheers, - jobob
Posted by: Glenn Roberts

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 08/01/16 07:48 PM

Welcome! I'm glad we made a good first impression (way to go, Franco!)
Posted by: Snappypepper

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 08/02/16 01:23 PM

Every time I decide to leave my poles at home to save weight I end up regretting that decision. Now they come on every trip that is an overnight or longer.
Posted by: Jim M

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 10/17/16 08:17 PM

I am getting into my twilight years and I wouldn't be able to climb some of the mountains that do on a regular basis without poles. Believe me I lean on them. It makes me a quadreped (sp?). Reinhold Messner said he would not have been able to solo Everest without his poles.
Besides, my tarp tent requires poles (although trees worked every night on my last outing)
Posted by: toddfw2003

Re: Trekking poles or not? - 10/17/16 10:27 PM

I have been using them religiously since I made this thread. took a little while to learn how to properly walk in them. Now its second nature. I love them