 |
Not actually Erin. & is used with permission. |
Last month I talked about using trekking poles for my nightly neighborhood walks and I stated that "my results are inconclusive because I feel like I haven't yet gotten the hang of Nordic walking." In the time since I wrote that post, I have learned the following:
- Trekking poles actually did help relieve the strain on my lower back while walking.
- While walking with trekking poles eventually became more fluid, it never really felt natural and left hand was always numb halfway through a mile walk.
- All of this is because I was using the wrong pole for the task. While trekking poles can be used in Nordic walking, they are far from efficient at it. A suitable analogy would be "Yes, you could use a soup ladle to paddle a canoe, because they're both tools for moving water, but there's a difference between scooping and pushing."
The short version of how I came to this realization goes basically like this: I didn't like my hand going numb, so I looked for poles that had shock absorbers. I found some poles which had such a thing, and they weren't that expensive, so I bought them. These poles were actual Nordic walking poles and not trekking poles, and the performance difference is profound, like going from a fixed-gear bicycle to a ten-speed.
I should perhaps feel dumb about this, but I don't. As an example, the new poles I bought are literally listed as "ATTRAC Trekking Poles Classic 27-53 in Sticks for Hiking with Anti-Shock Cushioning - Lightweight Nordic Walking Poles Telescopic Adjustment Aluminium with Cork Grip". Notice that "trekking poles" comes before "Nordic walking poles"; I just assumed that they were more or less the same thing, with perhaps minor cosmetic differences. Poles is poles, yeah?
Yeah, no. Not at all. So let's talk about the differences between these Nordic walking poles and my Cascade trekking poles.
Non-Slip Cork Handle
In my previous post I said that "No one can seem to agree if cork or foam grips are better" and I honestly can't find any performance or comfort difference between the two. Advantage: neither.
Adjustable Wrist Strap
Perhaps one reason I can't tell the difference is because I don't have to grip the pole at all due to the fact that my hand is connected to it through a wrist strap. This definitely has its benefits; my left hand no longer goes numb because I don't need to grip the handle. Instead, I can relax my hands and still get the benefit of a walking pole. On the other hand, having a pole lashed to my hands makes it very difficult to do anything else with the hand, such as tie a shoe, use my phone, or draw and use a pistol for self defense. I can't even unhook myself quickly, because the strap threads through a plastic loop and folds back on itself, and I have to pull the strap nearly out of the loop to extricate my very small hand.
 |
| https://amzn.to/4486bX7 |
Anti-Shock System
I thought that a shock absorber on a walking stick was a luxury I could do without. I was wrong. The anti-shock system redeems the Attrac's issue with the tether, and it makes walking a much less jarring and therefore much more comfortable experience. Every pole I buy from now on, be it trekking or Nordic, will have one of these.
Advantage: the Attrac by a huge margin.
Safety Reflector
If you're walking at night and you don't have a light or a reflector already on you, these are unlikely to help you.
Advantage: the Cascade doesn't have this, but this is irrelevant. Wear a headlamp and/or safety reflectors like a responsible adult.
Telescopic Function
Both the Cascade trekking poles and the Attrac Nordic walking poles telescope. However, the Cascade's lever-lock system is superior, both in speed of use and reliability of locking, to the Attrac's system of twisting left to unlock and twisting right to lock. I can adjust the Cascade mid-walk quickly and without issue, but if I need to adjust the Attrac, I have to stop and give it my full attention... and there's a better than average chance that I won't fully engage the twist lock, resulting in a suddenly collapsing pole at an inconvenient moment.
Advantage: the Cascade, by a huge margin.
Tips
Both poles came with mud baskets, snow baskets, boot tips, and small tips. Only the Attrac came with asphalt tips, however. Cascade Tips:
 |
| https://amzn.to/3HZvFxf |
Attrac Tips:
 |
| https://amzn.to/4486bX7 |
After a month of walking one to two miles a night, the asphalt tips are worn down such that they have no visible tread, but I don't need the tip for traction; I need it to protect the carbide pole tip, and it does that adequately. I'll let you know when I need to replace the tips. I haven't needed to use the baskets so I have no opinion on those as of yet.
Advantage: technically the Attrac, but I could just as easily use the "forest" or "boot" tips on them as that's what I used with the Cascade.
In Conclusion
I like walking with my Attrac poles, but they're far from perfect. I don't regret buying them, because they make my walking so much easier; I can now easily do two miles per night, whereas with the Cascades, or without poles at all, I could only do one. As exercise equipment, they're great, but speaking as a prepper and concealed pistol carrier, the loss of manual dexterity is a price I really hate paying.
In my ideal world, I would have Nordic poles with the following qualities:
- A rapid lock-unlock system for the wrist straps that I could toggle with the thumb of that same hand.
- A built-in shock absorber.
- Lever locks on the extensions.
While I'm certain poles like this exist, I haven't yet been able to find them. My concern is that when I do, they will be expensive ($50 or more).
I've been enjoying my nightly walks, though. Walking is a low-impact exercise, and I'm able to listen to audiobooks while I walk, so I have been able to effectively "trick" my body into thinking this isn't actually exercise and is, in fact, fun. I'm willing to spend more money on making my walks a better experience, so I'm committed to finding a pole that does everything I need and want it to do.
When I do, I will let you all know.
No comments:
Post a Comment