- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
-
Hi,
This topic always draws out a range of opinions.
Just to add some fuel on to the debates…
I saw this wee item:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100602121000.htm
“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. “
Has anyone seen any other independent research? or have anecdotal comments?
-s
-
Hmmmm. I’ve been trying to find the actual study, but without any luck. The ScienceDaily article simply claims there was a study, but doesn’t reference it. So far all I can find around the web are a scattering of similar articles which seem to regurgitate the same PR… nothing even seems to indicate which journal or conference proceedings or whatever to look in. I guess the sports-medicine newswire is just re-phrasing a university press release, or something like that.
The cited researcher (Dr Glyn Howatson) has a website at http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/psychsport/ses/sportstaff/GlynHowatson/ but there’s no reference to a study on trekking poles that I can see with a quick scan.
All of this aside, I guess I was wondering what effort was made to rule out muscular bias, which is a term I made up because it sounds like what I think I mean. eg. If you take someone who’s used to using poles, then tell them to walk up a mountain without them, they might walk with a technique that’s less efficient without poles, and the article’s unclear about how people were selected. Could there also be a placebo effect involved? eg. Give someone a couple of poles and let them walk away with an impression that makes them more confident, and their body might react differently to that of someone who already thinks they’re disadvantaged without the poles. The article mentions they recorded *perceived* exertion rates, which possibly isn’t completely the same as actual exertion rates (but maybe it’s close), and it might be affected by what people think they should be feeling.
Muscle damage and function were measured at 24, 48 and 72 hour intervals after the experiment, but the article isn’t specific about how the subjects were controlled between those measurements. Supposedly they were all physically active, so what’s to say some didn’t go out and do something randomly active (or randomly inactive) the next day? Did the people using the poles have less muscle damage because they walked at half the pace of everyone else?
So many questions. I’m just being nitpicky ‘cos I’m annoyed at them not actually referencing the study, which would be far more authoritative, and instead presenting it like a trekking pole commercial.
One study that could be interesting would be to compare experienced people in similar environments who regularly use poles with people who regularly don’t, and see if there’s any discernible difference in muscle damage, etc. If there isn’t, it might imply that people gravitate towards what suits them best.
-
-