There is some evidence that trekking poles might reduce forces on the hip when hiking downhill, but no published evidence that they reduce hip forces when walking on level ground.
I’m not a medical professional, and I'm not offering medical advice. You should consult with a physician or other qualified medical professional for diagnosis, treatment, and advice. The content on this site is for informational purposes only.
Prior to my hip replacement, I was an avid trail runner and hiker. I never used trekking poles, preferring to have my hands free and to rely on my natural balance. Post-surgery, I’ve been thinking about using poles to safeguard against falling (which now carries more risk) and to reduce the force and possibly wear on my new artificial hip — especially when hiking downhill. I’m confident that using poles will increase stability, but is there empirical evidence that they’ll reduce the force and wear on my hip?
Unsurprisingly, there’s no study of individuals with hip replacements where half the subjects hiked for years without trekking poles and the other half hiked the same terrain, distances, and years with poles, and then researchers extracted their socket liners and examined the difference in wear. So we have to start thinking about proxy measures of wear, which is what researchers actually study.
Bearing wear in an artificial hip results from friction, and friction is a function of contact force between the surfaces and lubrication. Friction and contact force in artificial hips can be measured directly, but it requires implants with force sensors. For example, a study using implanted sensors found that friction in artificial hips was high during the initial step after rest due to reduced synovial fluid, and that friction fell and stabilized once the subject began walking continuously. But I found no study comparing friction in artificial hips with and without trekking poles. Similarly, there have been studies using implanted sensors to measure hip contact forces during activities like walking, squatting, jogging, and even stumbling, but none involved the use of trekking poles.
Moving farther down the causal chain, contact forces are a function of external load (more weight pushes the socket liner onto the femoral head) and muscular forces that pull the joint together. Muscular forces increase when stabilization demands on the joint increase. In the context of hiking, particularly downhill, those stabilization demands are largely created by the moment arms that result from knee and hip flexion when the leg is supporting weight. Thus we land on two proxies that studies of trekking poles often use: ground reaction forces (an external measure of the force on the ground under the foot) and external joint moments (which reflect stability demands).
So that’s the best we have: studies examining whether trekking poles decrease ground reaction forces or joint moments, from which we must infer potential reductions in contact force and wear in artificial hips.
A 2005 study compared no poles, standard poles, and anti-shock poles when carrying a 40-pound backpack on level ground. They found no significant difference between ground reaction forces on the feet, and thus no significant weight transfer from lower to upper body. The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations: short duration and lack of inclines or declines.
A 2001 study found that walking poles allowed faster speeds over level ground while reducing vertical GRF (between 2.9 and 4.4%), knee joint reaction forces, and other knee loading measures. However, the study found no reduction in hip forces.
A 2023 systematic review found three studies (which included the 2001 study cited above) that measured ground reaction forces when using poles for level walking. They found that pole use decreased GRF by 3–8%.
Taken together, these studies suggest that trekking poles modestly reduce ground reaction forces when walking on level ground, but there is no evidence that they reduce forces on the hip.
A 1999 lab study found that using hiking poles on a 25-degree decline reduced ground reaction forces and various knee joint forces 12–25%. Part of the reduction was attributed to a change in knee mechanics (less flexion) as a result of postural changes (more forward lean) from use of the poles. Unfortunately, the study did not assess forces on the hips.
One might think that a reduction in GRF and forces on the knee suggests reduced forces on the hips as well. But the increased forward lean mentioned would create a longer moment arm on the hip which could, in principle, increase the forces acting on the hip. On the other hand, the lean is due (presumably) to shifting weight onto the poles, so the hip extensors shouldn’t need to counteract that moment arm, meaning there might not be an increase in muscular force on the hip. Obviously, this is all speculative. The simple fact is that the study did not assess hip forces, and there’s nothing we can conclude a priori.
A 2007 study of downhill hiking, with carrying loads ranging from 0 to 30% of body weight, found that using trekking poles led to “a reduction of the peak primary joint moment of the ankle, knee, and hip of 16.4, 10.61, and 9.65%, respectively.”
While moment arms aren’t the same as joint forces, reducing moments should lower the muscular forces needed to counteract them, which in turn may reduce the forces on the joint itself.
When shopping for poles, I came across some bold claims from Leki, a German pole manufacturer. They claim their Dynamic Suspension System (DSS) antishock technology “reduces impact on joints, muscles, and ligaments by up to 40%.” On a different webpage they claim, “According to a study by the University of Tübingen, [DSS] reduces the impact force by approx. 40%, thereby relieving the musculature, joints, and tendons.” (Quotes retrieved on April 11, 2026.)
Unfortunately, Leki provides no link or citation to the research backing their claim, and Google and PubMed searches yield no published study matching the one they describe. So we’re left wondering: 40% compared to what? Poles without anti-shock? No poles at all? And which joints, muscles, ligaments, and tendons specifically?
Might the frequent use of poles reduce one’s strength, proprioception, and balance long-term, creating a vicious cycle of pole dependency? Such concerns are expressed in a medical consensus statement by the UIAA (Union Internationale des Associations d’Alpinisme):
Unfortunately, the UIAA offers no references for these assertions, and I wasn’t able to find any studies addressing them.
If you’re interested in additional questions like whether poles increase caloric burn, improve cardiovascular benefits, increase speed, or reduce perceived exertion, check out this article from Outside Magazine which summarizes this 2020 literature review.
- - -
Posted April 2026.