Inter-individual variability in load carriage economy and comparisons between different load conditions.

Equivocal findings exist for the economy associated with load carried close to the body's centre of mass. Individual variation could explain some of the equivocal findings. This research aimed to examine the extent of individual variation in loaded walking economy. Eighteen females carried load on the back, head and split between the front and back. Individual variation in relative load carriage economy (ELI) was primarily assessed using standard deviation, coefficients of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). There was large inter-individual variation in ELI values with highest mean CV's of 16%, 12% and 10% for head-, back- and combined front and back-loading. Mean ELI values were not significantly different between methods. The large amount of individual variation found here suggests future load carriage research should account for individual variation, particularly when considering sample size and when making inferences on the economy associated with different types of load carriage using group mean data.

A comparison of economy and sagittal plane trunk movements among back-, back/front- and head-loading.

It has been suggested that freedom of movement in the trunk could influence load carriage economy. This study aimed to compare the economy and sagittal plane trunk movements associated with three load carriage methods that constrain posture differently. Eighteen females walked at 3 km.h-1 with loads of 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 20 kg carried on the back, back/front and head. Load carriage economy was assessed using the Extra Load Index (ELI). Change in sagittal plane trunk forward lean and trunk angle excursion from unloaded to loaded walking were assessed. Results show no difference in economy between methods (p = .483), despite differences in the change in trunk forward lean (p = .001) and trunk angle excursion (p = .021) from unloaded to loaded walking. We conclude that economy is not different among the three methods of load carriage, despite significant differences in sagittal plane trunk movements. Practitioner summary: This article shows, based on mean data, that there is no difference in economy among back, back/front and head-loading, despite differences in trunk movement. It is possible a combination of factors align to influence individual economy, rather than a single set of factors, applicable to all individuals for each method.

The Extra Load Index as a method for comparing the relative economy of load carriage systems.

The Extra Load Index (ELI) has been proposed as a suitable method of assessing the relative economy of load carriage systems. The purpose of this study was to determine, based on empirical evidence, that the ELI can accommodate variations in both body composition and added load. In total, 30 women walked carrying loads of up to 70% body mass at self-selected walking speeds whilst expired air was collected. In addition, each of the women had body composition assessed via dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results show that the ELI is independent of body composition variables, the magnitude of additional loads and the speed of progression. Consequently, it is suggested that it represents an appropriate method of comparing load carriage systems in both scientific and commercial arenas. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: This paper demonstrates that ELI is independent of body composition, added load and speed and is therefore an appropriate method to generalise comparisons of load carriage systems. It has the advantage of being easily understood by manufacturers and consumers whilst retaining appropriate scientific precision.

A pilot investigation of load-carrying on the head and bone mineral density in premenopausal, black African women.

Although the influence of weight-bearing activity on bone mass has been widely investigated in white women, few studies have been conducted in black, African populations. We investigated bone mineral density (BMD) in black South African women, with and without a history of load-carrying on the head. We also investigated whether load carrying may offer protection against low BMD in users of injectable progestin contraception (IPC). Participants were 32 black, South African women (22.4 +/- 3.2 years). Load carrying history was determined by questionnaire and interview; participants were grouped as load carriers (LC; n = 18) or non-load carriers (NLC; n = 14). Ten women were using IPC and 6 were load-carriers. Total body (TB), lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (H) BMD were measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. There were no differences in BMD between LC and NLC, and after controlling for age and BMI using two-tailed partial correlations. IPC users had lower BMD at all sites compared to non-IPC users (p < 0.05) and there were no associations between load carrying and BMD in this group. When IPC users were excluded from analysis, LC had higher LS BMD than NLC (p < 0.005). Correlations were found between the weight of load carried and LS BMD (r = 0.743, p < 0.005), and between years of load carrying and LS and TB BMD (r = 0.563, r = 0.538, respectively; both p < 0.05). Load carrying on the head may offer osteogenic benefits to the spine but these benefits did not appear in women using IPC.