[pct-l] Hiking pole study

[dude@coruscant.net (The Dude)]

different srudy, similar results.  here is an abstract:

A field test comparison of hiking stick use on heartrate and rating of perceived exertion. 
Jacobson BH - Percept Mot Skills - 1998 Oct; 87(2): 435-8 
>From NIH/NLM MEDLINE, HealthSTAR 

Source Title:
Perceptual and Motor Skills 

Authors:
Jacobson BH; Wright T 

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to compare heartrate carrying a load and rating of perceived exertion with and without hiking sticks while ascending and descending a slope. 11 novice, moderately fit volunteers, ages 18 to 21 years (M = 19.3 yr.) completed two alternate 50-meter, uphill and downhill hikes on a 40 degrees slope during randomly ordered trials with and without fitted hiking sticks and backpacks (15 kg). Paired t test comparisons for 4 trials indicated that mean heartrate was significantly lower only following the first ascent by those using hiking sticks than those without sticks. Rating of perceived exertion also was significantly lower (p < .05) for those using hiking sticks. Perhaps heartrate may be lower at the onset of climbing using hiking sticks, but as the duration the hike is extended, heartrates become comparable, presumably due to the transfer of energy utilization from the legs to the upper body. 


>From: Jeff Jones <jjonz@gte.net>
>To: pct-l-digest <pct-l@edina.hack.net>
>Subject: [pct-l] Hiking pole study
>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:11:20 -0800
>
>Howdy listers,
>Just published in the American College of Sports Medicine journal
>"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise".  I saw the article in the
>Riverside Press Enterprise and haven't been able to find it (for free)
>on the web. Exercise physiologist Christopher Knight tested 5 men and 5
>women on a treadmill set at 5% grade carrying 30% of their body weight. 
>They hiked with poles and without poles.  The poles made a small
>difference - pole users took slightly longer strides, their knees bent
>slightly less, and their ratings of the strain of the treadmill walks
>were a bit lower.  The poles did not save energy - the metabolic rate
>was the same with and without poles.  The author said he couldn't
>simulate the energy saved which is used for keeping balance on uneven
>terrain.  My guess was poles would use more energy - kind of like hiking
>with heavy hands but the study showed there was no difference.  This
>article didn't mention whether anything like foot impact force was
>measured and that would be what I'd find most interesting.
>        Jeff Jones
>
>_______________________________________________
>PCT-L mailing list
>PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
>http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l


------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by the Coruscant Holonet at http://www.echostation.com