Well, I guess I'll always be a dumb old fruitcake then, making good fun of pencil necks struggling with trekking poles...

On a more serious note though, I had a look at Wikipedia the other day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_walking
It says that Nordic walking burns 46% more calories than plain walking and also mentions "significant increases in heart rate at a given pace". Which is kind of bad for purposes of trekking or outdoor survival in my view.

OK, if your goal is fat loss then I suppose Nordic walking would be better than plain walking. It would still be an inefficient way to improve one's conditioning, though. I see very few people Nordic walking at anything approaching the intensity sufficient for any significant gains. It's also a poor way to improve upper-body strength or bone density. Maybe acceptable for sedentary old folks or the extremely obese, but other than that everybody else would benefit from a more intense, faster paced activity.

In terms of hiking though, burning 46% more calories per given distance is a major disadvantage. It means you'll need to bring more food and carry a heavier load. No big deal on a short hike but starts to become a factor on longer treks.