The energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to load carried on the back, on the head and in a doublepack

Sean Hudson; Benedicte  Vanwanseele; Martin Barwood; Chris Low; Carlton Cooke; Ray Lloyd

doi:10.1080/00140139.2021.1909754

The energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to load carried on the back, on the head and in a doublepack

Sean Hudson, Benedicte Vanwanseele, Martin Barwood, Chris Low, Carlton Cooke, Ray Lloyd

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The determinants of energy saving phenomena reported for load carried on the head, back and in a doublepack remain unclear. This study compared the energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to head (H), back (B) and doublepack (DP) loading. Fifteen volunteers walked on an instrumented treadmill at 3 km.h-1 with 0, 3, 12 and 20 kg in each loading method. Whole body motion, ground reaction forces (GRF) and metabolic cost were measured. H was less economical than B (p = 0.014) and DP (p = 0.010). H was also associated with increased step length (p = 0.045), decreased cadence (p = 0.001), greater trunk (p < 0.001) and hip (p < 0.001) extension and greater minimum vertical GRF (p = 0.001) than B and DP. In conclusion, no energy saving was found for head- or back-loading but economy may be improved with methods that cause smaller perturbations from unloaded walking

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1191-1204
Number of pages	14
Journal	Ergonomics
Volume	64
Issue number	9
Early online date	8 Apr 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.1909754
Publication status	Published - 1 Sep 2021

Access to Document

10.1080/00140139.2021.1909754Licence: Unspecified

Kinematics_Kinetics_and_Energetics_of_Load_CarriageAccepted author manuscript, 974 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{d7b590eb23ee4982920ebdf2cb03377c,

title = "The energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to load carried on the back, on the head and in a doublepack",

abstract = "The determinants of energy saving phenomena reported for load carried on the head, back and in a doublepack remain unclear. This study compared the energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to head (H), back (B) and doublepack (DP) loading. Fifteen volunteers walked on an instrumented treadmill at 3 km.h-1 with 0, 3, 12 and 20 kg in each loading method. Whole body motion, ground reaction forces (GRF) and metabolic cost were measured. H was less economical than B (p = 0.014) and DP (p = 0.010). H was also associated with increased step length (p = 0.045), decreased cadence (p = 0.001), greater trunk (p < 0.001) and hip (p < 0.001) extension and greater minimum vertical GRF (p = 0.001) than B and DP. In conclusion, no energy saving was found for head- or back-loading but economy may be improved with methods that cause smaller perturbations from unloaded walking",

keywords = "Load carriage, Economy, Kinetics, Kinematics, kinematics, economy, kinetics",

author = "Sean Hudson and Benedicte Vanwanseele and Martin Barwood and Chris Low and Carlton Cooke and Ray Lloyd",

year = "2021",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1080/00140139.2021.1909754",

language = "English",

volume = "64",

pages = "1191--1204",

journal = "Ergonomics",

issn = "0014-0139",

publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",

number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to load carried on the back, on the head and in a doublepack

AU - Hudson, Sean

AU - Vanwanseele, Benedicte

AU - Barwood, Martin

AU - Low, Chris

AU - Cooke, Carlton

AU - Lloyd, Ray

PY - 2021/9/1

Y1 - 2021/9/1

N2 - The determinants of energy saving phenomena reported for load carried on the head, back and in a doublepack remain unclear. This study compared the energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to head (H), back (B) and doublepack (DP) loading. Fifteen volunteers walked on an instrumented treadmill at 3 km.h-1 with 0, 3, 12 and 20 kg in each loading method. Whole body motion, ground reaction forces (GRF) and metabolic cost were measured. H was less economical than B (p = 0.014) and DP (p = 0.010). H was also associated with increased step length (p = 0.045), decreased cadence (p = 0.001), greater trunk (p < 0.001) and hip (p < 0.001) extension and greater minimum vertical GRF (p = 0.001) than B and DP. In conclusion, no energy saving was found for head- or back-loading but economy may be improved with methods that cause smaller perturbations from unloaded walking

AB - The determinants of energy saving phenomena reported for load carried on the head, back and in a doublepack remain unclear. This study compared the energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to head (H), back (B) and doublepack (DP) loading. Fifteen volunteers walked on an instrumented treadmill at 3 km.h-1 with 0, 3, 12 and 20 kg in each loading method. Whole body motion, ground reaction forces (GRF) and metabolic cost were measured. H was less economical than B (p = 0.014) and DP (p = 0.010). H was also associated with increased step length (p = 0.045), decreased cadence (p = 0.001), greater trunk (p < 0.001) and hip (p < 0.001) extension and greater minimum vertical GRF (p = 0.001) than B and DP. In conclusion, no energy saving was found for head- or back-loading but economy may be improved with methods that cause smaller perturbations from unloaded walking

KW - Load carriage

KW - Economy

KW - Kinetics

KW - Kinematics

KW - kinematics

KW - economy

KW - kinetics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105215886&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00140139.2021.1909754

DO - 10.1080/00140139.2021.1909754

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 1191

EP - 1204

JO - Ergonomics

JF - Ergonomics

SN - 0014-0139

IS - 9

ER -

The energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to load carried on the back, on the head and in a doublepack

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this