Hiking poles — when they save knees, when they're dead weight

Educational journalism, not medical advice. Every claim here is checked against its cited sources by editor Tim Bunce — a health writer, not a physician. It isn’t specific to your situation: for health decisions, talk to your own clinician. How we work →

What the studies actually measured

Two biomechanics studies anchor what we know about trekking poles and the knee, and both looked specifically at walking downhill. Schwameder and colleagues measured ground reaction force, knee joint moment, and the compressive and shear forces inside the knee during steep downhill walking with and without poles. They found that poles reduced those forces by roughly 12 to 25 percent.1

Bohne and Abendroth-Smith extended this to a more realistic scenario: hikers descending while carrying an external load. They found that poles significantly reduced joint moments and peak power absorption at both the knee and the ankle — and, importantly, that this protective effect held even when subjects carried a loaded pack.2 That study did not report a single headline percentage, so the 12-to-25-percent figure above belongs to Schwameder's work, not Bohne's.

Knee-load reduction on descent

The mechanics are straightforward. Walking downhill places the quadriceps in a controlled eccentric contraction, absorbing the energy gravity adds with each step, and the knee bears much of that load — especially when the descent is steep enough that the front leg must catch most of the body's weight as the foot lands. Poles let the upper body absorb part of that load through the arms and shoulders before it reaches the knee.

The measured payoff is a reduction in knee joint force on the order of 12 to 25 percent during steep downhill walking.1 Because that sparing happens on every descent step, it adds up over a long downhill stretch. And because the benefit survives the added stress of a loaded pack,2 poles are most defensible exactly where descents are steep and packs are heavy.

Energy cost of using poles

The other half of the picture is that poles are not free. Saunders and colleagues measured oxygen consumption and heart rate while hikers walked with and without poles, and found that using poles raised both VO2 and heart rate — yet hikers did not rate the pole-assisted walking as feeling any harder.3 In other words, you do more physiological work but perceive the same effort.

That trade-off cuts both ways. If your goal is metabolic conditioning — working more muscle groups and raising heart rate without it feeling tougher — the added cost is a feature. If your goal is efficient long-distance walking, that same extra cost is a small tax you may not want to pay where the knee-protection rationale is weakest.

Pole technique that captures the benefit

The published knee-load figures come from active pole use, not from carrying poles like walking canes. To capture the load reduction on a descent, plant the pole ahead of your leading foot and let your arm and shoulder bear genuine load as your body weight transfers down — the descent should feel braked, not merely guided. Used casually, poles still help with balance, but the joint-sparing effect depends on that deliberate, loaded plant. (This is practical coaching, not a finding from the studies above — the trials measured load reduction during active pole use without isolating a single "correct" technique.)

Wasaga and Blue Mountain: where poles earn their keep

Because the strongest evidence is about steep descents, the local recommendation follows the terrain. Wasaga Beach Provincial Park trails are largely flat, well-graded forest paths with little sustained descent, so the knee-protection rationale barely applies there — poles on those routes are mostly a matter of preference or a deliberate harder workout.

Blue Mountain and the wider Niagara Escarpment, by contrast, include Bruce Trail sections with sustained, steep descents — exactly the conditions where the measured knee-load reduction applies.1 On those trails poles move from optional toward genuinely worthwhile, particularly for hikers carrying a pack2 or with a history of knee problems.

Pole length — the simple rule

Set pole length so that, with the tip on the ground beside your foot on level terrain, your elbow forms roughly a 90-degree angle. For many adults that lands near their height in centimetres minus about 50 — a person 175 cm tall often ends up around 125 cm. On long descents, slightly longer poles help the tip reach the ground downhill of your body; on ascents, a touch shorter gives a more efficient pushing angle. This is standard gear-fitting guidance rather than a clinical finding.

Z-pole vs telescoping vs grip material

Three buying variables matter. Z-fold poles collapse small enough to fit inside most daypacks but use a fixed length you can't adjust in the field. Telescoping poles pack longer but adjust through a range, so you can lengthen for descents and shorten for climbs. Grip material is a comfort call: cork tends to stay comfortable and wick sweat over long days, foam is light and grippy when wet but wears faster, and rubber is durable but can feel slick on long humid hikes. These are practical preferences, not health claims — pick for how and how often you hike.

When to leave the poles in the car

Short flat trails, beach walks, and paved urban paths offer little of the descent loading that poles are best at reducing, so the joint-protection case there is weak. The honest exception is the hiker who wants the extra cardiovascular dose: because poles raise VO2 and heart rate without feeling harder,3 a flat trail with poles is a deliberately tougher session. Just be clear which goal you're pursuing — joint protection on descents, or added conditioning on the flat.

Practical takeaways

• On steep descents, poles cut knee joint forces by about 12 to 25 percent.1
• The knee and ankle protection holds even when carrying a loaded pack.2
• Poles raise VO2 and heart rate without feeling harder — a workout bonus, not a free ride.3
• Wasaga's flat trails rarely need poles; Blue Mountain's steep descents are where they pay off.
• Pole length: roughly your height in cm minus 50, fitted to a 90-degree elbow.

Extended takeaways

The first useful adjustment is to stop treating poles as default kit and start treating them as a tool for specific terrain. The measured benefit is a reduction in knee joint force on steep downhill walking,1 and it persists under pack load.2 Those are the conditions — steep, sustained descents, ideally with weight on your back — where carrying poles is clearly worth it.

The second pattern is technique. The published figures assume active pole use with a loaded plant on each descent step. Carry poles passively and you capture far less of that benefit, so a few minutes practising a deliberate plant on a moderate descent meaningfully changes what the same equipment does for you.

The third theme is that poles also change the energy equation. Because they raise physiological work without raising perceived effort,3 the same poles that protect your knees downhill can double as a conditioning aid on the flat — provided you've decided that's what you want from the hike.

Frequently asked questions

Do I really need poles for a flat trail hike?

Probably not for joint protection — the measured knee benefit is specific to steep downhill walking.1 If you want a harder cardiovascular session, poles will raise your heart rate and oxygen use without feeling tougher,3 so bring them for the workout rather than the knees.

How much knee protection do poles actually provide?

On steep descents, studies measured roughly a 12 to 25 percent reduction in knee joint forces with poles.1 The protective effect at the knee and ankle also held when hikers carried a loaded pack.2

What's the right pole length?

A common starting point is your height in centimetres minus about 50, adjusted so that with the tip beside your foot on level ground your elbow forms roughly a 90-degree angle. This is gear-fitting guidance, not a clinical recommendation.

Do poles still help if I'm carrying a heavy pack?

Yes. The study that tested descending with an external load found poles still significantly reduced joint moments and power absorption at the knee and ankle.2 If anything, a loaded descent is a strong case for poles.

Should I use one pole or two?

For sustained descents and technical terrain, two poles let both arms share the load symmetrically. A single pole can serve for balance or as side support, but the descent studies used two-pole technique, so two is the better default for joint protection.

References