The number that isn't

"Poles take 25% off your knees" traces to one 1999 study by Schwameder and colleagues: eight male participants, walking down a ramp declined at 25°. The abstract: "Significant differences between downhill walking with and without hiking poles were observed for peak and average magnitudes of ground reaction force, knee joint moment, and tibiofemoral compressive and shear forces (12-25%)." So the famous figure is the top of a 12–25% range spread across several measures, not one number for the knee.

The next sentence is the one nobody quotes: "Similar reductions were found in patellofemoral compressive force, the quadriceps tendon force and the activity of the vastus lateralis; however, because of a high variability, these differences were not significant." The patellofemoral joint is what most people mean by "my knees", and that reduction was not statistically significant. No study shows a flat 25% knee-force reduction in normal trail hiking, and we will not print one.

Keep the mechanism, though, because it tells you what you must do to get any benefit at all: the reduction came from "the forces applied to the hiking poles and… a change in posture to a more forward leaning position of the upper body, with the effect of reducing the knee moment arm." Poles you carry do nothing. Poles you push through do something.

Sources: Schwameder et al., J Sports Sci 1999 — PMID 10622357.

What is established — and why it is a descent tool

The strongest biomechanical evidence is not a percentage; it is a consistency. Bohne and Abendroth-Smith crossed poles versus no poles with three pack conditions — none, 15% of body weight, 30% — across 15 experienced male hikers: "A significant reduction was observed for the sagittal plane moment at each of the joints in the lower extremity with pole use… These results held true across pack conditions." Note what is missing: numbers. That abstract publishes no percentages, so we attach none to it.

A 2023 review agrees on direction — "Plantar pressure and ground reaction forces decreased with the use of poles in all included studies". But on level ground with inexperienced users the effect nearly vanishes: foot impulse down 2.1%, peak vertical ground reaction force down 3.4%, rate of loading down 5.2% — in a paper that opens "Current research is unclear with respect to whether pole walking reduces lower limb loading", and reports that "as pole loading increased, foot loading decreased." So the honest summary is a range: roughly 2–5% on the flat for untrained users, 12–25% across several measures on a steep descent with committed technique. Poles are a technique multiplier, and the multiplier can be near zero.

Which half of the day does that point at? In Austrian Alps hiking data, "About 75% of all falls happened during the descent", 75% of fall accidents on rubble or grass and only 6% on snow; a second cohort of 7,368 accidents found women had 69% of theirs on the way down. That is where the pole evidence is strongest, the loading highest and the legs already spent — the half most people never plan for, which is the argument our when to turn back guide is built on.

Sources: Bohne & Abendroth-Smith, Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007 — PMID 17218900; Saller et al., Bioengineering 2023; Di Bacco et al., Transl Sports Med 2022; German Journal of Sports Medicine — Faulhaber et al., 2020; PMC — Rausch et al., 2024.

The best real-mountain study — and the journal everyone gets wrong

The strongest field evidence comes from an actual mountain: 37 physically active participants (26 men, 11 women) carrying a 5.6 ± 1.5 kg daysack up and down "the highest peak in England and Wales (Mount Snowdon)". The findings: "RPE was significantly lower in TP during the ascent. The TP group showed attenuation of reductions in maximal voluntary contraction immediately after and 24 and 48 h after the trek; muscle soreness was significantly lower at 24 and 48 h after the trek, and CK was also lower at 24 h… No differences in vertical jump were found."

A citation correction, because the misattribution is everywhere. This study is in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (2011;43(1):140–5) — not the British Journal of Sports Medicine. The BJSM version is repeated across gear writing and is simply wrong. Our house rule: a source you cannot cite correctly is a source you have not read.

Three caveats travel with it: it was parallel-group, not crossover, with no stated randomisation; vertical jump, the one functional measure, showed no benefit; and the authors' phrase about reducing "the potential for subsequent injury" is an inference from surrogate markers — nobody counted injuries. The corroborating downhill-treadmill study, which blunted the rise in creatine kinase and the cartilage marker COMP, is eight young obese women followed for two hours.

Sources: Howatson et al., Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011 — PMID 20473229; Cho & Roh, J Phys Ther Sci 2016.

What poles cost: oxygen, and how hard it feels

Poles can raise the energy cost of walking. Fourteen recreational hikers on a field course showed "significantly higher physiological responses for VO2, VE and HR in the pole-condition at all grades", with no difference in perceived exertion; a treadmill study localised the penalty to the descent — "VO2 values were significantly higher with the use of hiking poles during downhill walking (+ 19%, p < 0.05)".

Add a heavy pack and it flips. At 30% of body mass, poles imposed "no metabolic consequence" while producing "a longer stride length (1.27 vs 1.19 m)… and reduced activity in several lower extremity muscles", with lower perceived exertion; a 15 kg-pack study likewise found lower exertion at no metabolic cost. Then a later field study found the reverse: poles "may not be helpful to lower the exertion perceived… when walking with an additional load."

So the most-repeated benefit of poles — that they make hiking feel easier — is not unanimous: two studies found it, one found the opposite, two found no change. The joint-loading benefit on a long descent may be paid for in oxygen on the way up.

Sources: Saunders et al., J Strength Cond Res 2008 — PMID 18714242; Perrey & Fabre, J Sports Sci Med 2008; Knight & Caldwell, Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000 — PMID 11128857; Jacobson et al., Int J Sports Med 2000 — PMID 10950445; Brito et al., Sports Med Int Open 2018.

Balance: better sideways, unchanged forwards

Eleven Nordic walking instructors on a treadmill gave the clearest result available: pole techniques show "larger mediolateral margins of stability and similar anterior-posterior margins of stability in comparison with walking (p < 0.001)", and the 2023 review reports the same split. Poles widen your base sideways; they do not measurably help in the pitch-forward direction where most trips and stumbles happen — and this is 11 instructors on a flat treadmill, best-case technique on the easiest surface.

On real falls the evidence is observational. On Mount Fuji's Yoshida route "fall risk was lower in climbers who used trekking poles and reported less fatigue. In contrast, on the Fujinomiya route, fall risk was unaffected by trekking pole use or fatigue level." An earlier survey of 1,061 Fuji climbers found the association "in women only". People who choose to carry poles differ from those who do not: association, not causation.

Sources: Peyré-Tartaruga et al., J Biomech 2022 — PMID 35193062; Saller et al., Bioengineering 2023; Uno et al., Wilderness Environ Med 2026 — PMID 41138261; Uno et al., Wilderness Environ Med 2023 — PMID 36870861.

The alpine clubs publish the downside themselves

The most interesting critics of trekking poles are the organisations that recommend them. The joint "Safe Mountain Hiking" folder — a resolution of the Club Arc Alpin, whose members are the Italian, French, German, Austrian, Slovenian, Swiss, South Tyrolean and Liechtenstein alpine clubs — puts both halves in three sentences: "Hiking poles. Used correctly, poles help take load off the joints and support balance. However, our natural sense of balance and coordination is impaired by poles. If using telescopic poles, make sure they lock securely."

UIAA MedCom goes further: "Long-term use of sticks may reduce balance and coordinative ability of the subject… In fact, the most common type of hiking accident, a fall by tripping or stumbling, can actually be made a greater risk as a result." Be precise about what that is — an expert-body position, not a trial. The stronger version you will read elsewhere, that poles cause long-term dependence or deconditioning, has no evidence either way, so we make no such claim.

And the claim you see most often is the one nobody has tested. No trial has ever measured injury incidence with and without poles; the only supportive data is a cross-sectional survey of 1,295 Appalachian Trail hikers in which "Stabilizing footwear and poles/sticks were associated with fewer MSK complaints (all P<0.001)". "Poles reduce hiking injuries" is not an established fact and we do not state it as one.

One more figure, handled carefully. In a three-year study of 405 fall victims in Tyrol, "Use of hiking sticks… 233 (58%)" — most people who fell were using poles when they fell. That is a case series with no control group and no denominator, so no risk ratio can be computed. It does not say poles cause falls.

Sources: Club Arc Alpin / ÖAV — Safe Mountain Hiking (PDF); ÖAV — Bergwandern card folder, German 9th ed. (PDF); UIAA MedCom Recommendation No. 11 — Hiking Sticks (PDF); Hawke & Jensen, Wilderness Environ Med 2020 — PMID 32980249; Chrusch & Kavin, Wilderness Environ Med 2021 — PMID 34301477; Faulhaber et al., Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020.

Where a pole is officially recommended, and how to size one

Two places, and neither is the summit push. For river crossings, NZ Mountain Safety Council states "The safest way to cross a river on your own is with a sturdy pole that's about 2 metres long" — note the order of preference: a branch found nearby first, and "If you can't find one, a trekking pole extended to its maximum length is another option." Plant it at 45° upstream and ahead of your feet, both hands in front of the body. For slick riverbed rock, the National Park Service on Zion's Narrows: "Every hiker in The Narrows should have closed toed shoes… and a walking stick".

On length, this guide has least to give you, and saying so is the point. The one experiment located: 12 Nordic walking practitioners using poles 7.5 cm shorter than self-selected found "Uphill Nordic walking with short poles… caused 3% greater energy expenditure… Horizontally and downhill energy expenditure and comfort were similar between pole lengths." That is the entire verified empirical basis. The ubiquitous elbow-angle sizing rule could not be sourced to any admissible body — not the alpine clubs (both Club Arc Alpin folders were read in full; they cover poles and give no length guidance), not SAC-CAS, not Mountaineering Scotland, not the peer-reviewed literature, not a citable manufacturer page. The same goes for shortening on the climb and lengthening on the descent, and the one relevant experiment cuts against the first half of it.

We are not going to restate an unsourced rule with a hedge in front of it. What the evidence supports is narrower: poles help most on a loaded descent, and they help in proportion to how hard you push through them.

Sources: NZ MSC — river safety; NPS Zion — The Narrows; Hansen & Smith, J Strength Cond Res 2009 — PMID 19528847.

Sources