MILITARY MEDICINE, 184, 1/2:e83, 2019

The Physiology and Biomechanics of Load Carriage Performance

David Boffey*; Idan Harat*; Yftach Gepner*; Cheyanne L. Frosti*;
MAJ Shany Funk†; Jay R. Hoffman*‡

ABSTRACT Introduction: The weight that soldiers are required to carry in training and in combat has continually
increased over the years. Changes in load carried or pace of activity will alter the physiological and biomechanical
stress associated with the activity. Whether it is part of the soldier’s training or an actual operation, managing the
proper load and speed to minimize fatigue can be integral to the soldier’s success. Without a proper understanding of
the multitude of factors that may affect load carriage performance, mission success may be jeopardized. The purpose

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/184/1-2/e83/5106693 by guest on 08 February 2024

of this review is to summarize and clarify the findings of load carriage research and to propose a new method for ana-
lyzing the intensity of load carriage tasks, the Load–Speed Index. Materials and Methods: We reviewed studies that
examined military load carriage at walking speeds and included articles that featured non-military participants as
deemed necessary. Results: Major factors that can affect load carriage performance, such as speed of movement, load
carried, load placement, body armor, and environmental extremes all influence the soldier’s energy expenditure. A crit-
ical aspect of load carriage performance is determining the appropriate combination of speed and load that will maxi-
mize efficiency of the activity. At the higher end of walking speeds, the walk-to-run transition represents a potential
problem of efficiency, as it may vary on an individual or population basis. Conclusions: This review provides a com-
prehensive overview of these factors and suggests a new Load–Speed Index, which can be utilized to define thresholds
for load and speed combinations and contribute to the understanding of the physiological and biomechanical demands
of load carriage marches. The literature recommends that load and speed should be managed in order to maintain an
exercise intensity ~45% VO2 max to delay time to fatigue during prolonged marches, and the Load–Speed Index cor-
roborated this finding, identifying 47% VO2 max as a threshold above which intensity increases at a greater rate with
increases in load and speed. The Load–Speed Index requires validation as a predictive tool. There are no definitive
findings as to how load affects the speed at which the walk-to-run transition occurs, as no investigations have specifi-
cally examined this interaction. Additional research is clearly needed by examining a wide range of loads that will
facilitate a clearer understanding of speed and load combinations that optimize marching pace and reduce energy
expenditure.

INTRODUCTION must be carried by soldiers as a last resort due to lack of

Load carriage is a crucial aspect of a soldier’s physiological vehicle ability or terrain issues). Recommendations regard-
performance during many military operations.1 Managing ing fighting loads have been defined as 30% of body weight
the proper load and speed to minimize fatigue can be integral (BW) or 22 kg, and approach march loads as 45%BW or
to mission success. A historical perspective of military load 33 kg.3 In a recent, updated report these loads were
carriage reveals a linear increase in load weight over time.2 increased; fighting loads ranging from 27 to 36 kg (30%
This is significant because there have been casualties and BW), approach march loads ranging from 36 to 45 kg (45%
major operational inefficiencies due to mismanagement of BW), and emergency approach loads ranging from 45 to
the load carried into combat.2 Post-WWII more attention in 57 kg (46–70%BW).1 These new guidelines were similar to
the U.S. Army has been paid to the effects of load and load data collected from light infantry-brigade operations in
carriage guidelines. Load echeloning is the fundamental Afghanistan in 2003, in which average fighting loads of
approach to the problem, with combat loads defined as the 29 kg and approach march loads of 46 kg were reported.4
minimum essential equipment necessary for the current situ- The increase in absolute load (kg) but maintenance of rel-
ation.1 The three subdivisions of combat loads are fighting ative load (%BW) in the recent U.S. Army guidelines1
load (direct contact with enemy), approach march load reflects the increase in BW of American soldiers. The aver-
(fighting load plus minimum equipment for sustained fight- age height and body mass of soldiers have increased con-
ing), and emergency approach march load (equipment that comitantly from 171 cm, 64 kg in 1864 during the Civil
War5 to 178 cm, 83 kg during Operation Enduring Freedom
*Sport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL in 20056 (BMI increase from 21.9 to 26.2). Increases in both
32816. load carried into combat, and soldier’s body mass, places the
†Israel Defense Forces, Combat Fitness Branch, Netanya, Israel. current infantry soldier in a situation in which the manage-
‡Burnett School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Central Florida, ment of energy expenditure (EE) via cardiorespiratory and
Orlando, FL 32816.
biomechanical efficiency are paramount. In addition, the
doi: 10.1093/milmed/usy218
© Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2018. All rights load being carried during extreme environmental tempera-
reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]. tures can significantly increase EE7 and lower time to

MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 184, January/February 2019 e83

 Load Carriage Performance

fatigue.8 With longer duration operations (actual mission or Military Load Placement
training), muscle injury and acute overuse symptoms may be Multiple studies have examined the effects of load placement
more of a limiting factor than the physiological capability if via a backpack, double pack, head basket, head strap, hip
cardiorespiratory workload is maintained at a low level.9 belt, and trunk vest.2,22,23 Due to the nature of military tasks,
One of the purposes of this review is to delineate the thresh- the only appropriate way to carry a load is via backpack or
old at which the cardiorespiratory system becomes a limiting double pack because they allow versatility while also keep-
factor in load carriage performance. Another purpose is to ing the load close to the body’s center of gravity.24 Carrying
examine the interactions of speed and load with special a load close to the body’s center of gravity reduces bio-
attention to their effect on task duration and on the walk-to- mechanical alterations and has the lowest EE of any arrange-
run transition (WRT) during load carriage. ment.23 While the double pack causes fewer deviations in
gait, it inhibits movement of the torso and arms, making

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/184/1-2/e83/5106693 by guest on 08 February 2024

BIOMECHANICS OF LOAD CARRIAGE the backpack the most ergonomic form of military load
carriage.10,13,22,25
Gait Variability The U.S. Army employs two types of backpacks, the All-
The primary aspect of biomechanics that has been studied in Purpose Lightweight Individual-Carrying Equipment (ALICE)
conjunction with marching with a load is gait variability.2,10–14 pack and the Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment
When carrying a load, individuals adjust their stride rate, stride (MOLLE) pack, both of which allow loads to be placed in dif-
length, and speed, employing a gait pattern that attempts to ferent locations within the pack.2 A low load creates more sta-
maximize efficiency and minimize EE.15 The manipulation of bility, but causes a more drastic forward lean which further
any of these factors will inherently affect all three parameters.16 distorts the gait pattern.26,27 However, proper upright posture
Changes in gait pattern resulting from an increase in load is more sustainable with higher load placement, ultimately
increase metabolic cost and reduce the capacity for prolonged resulting in lower EE, making high placement preferable for
duration marches.15,17,18 managing fatigue.26–29
Numerous investigators have examined the effect of load car-
riage on the spatiotemporal parameters of gait. When marching
pace was self-selected, loads up to 18 kg (approximately 27% Effects of Essential Military Equipment on EE
BW) produced a non-significant increase in stride length, stride Mechanical obstruction of the lungs due to thoracic load
rate, and speed.14 In contrast, others have reported that loads placement affects the cardiorespiratory system’s ability to
less than 16 kg (approximately 21%BW) did significantly endure prolonged activity. Tight body armor and a backpack
increase all three parameters.10 Increases with lighter carriage chest strap mechanically limits the lungs’ ability to expand
loads may be due to an over-compensation effect; soldiers may to their full capacity, limiting tidal volume and thereby
be subconsciously attempting to maintain their speed by increas- reducing maximal working capacity and increasing oxygen
ing their stride length and stride rate, which ultimately results in cost during submaximal tasks.30,31 In addition, when the
a faster walking speed.10,14 Loads >16 kg (>21% BW) signifi- respiratory muscles fatigue as a result of mechanical restric-
cantly decreased all parameters, which decreased speed.10 The tion (metaboreflex), this can lead to vasoconstriction of
21% BW load threshold for significant changes in gait pattern is lower body muscles and peripheral fatigue, increasing heart
lower than the 30%BW fighting load defined by the U.S. rate (HR), and blood pressure.30,32–34 With a given load,
Army1, revealing the importance of keeping loads below this wearing body armor may increase oxygen consumption
threshold for optimal mechanical efficiency. more than backpack carriage.35 Body armor weighing 10 kg
Fixed-pace studies have also examined the effect of load (approximately 16%BW) has been reported to cause a
on the interaction between stride rate and stride length. As 12–17% increase in VO2 compared with no load,35 whereas
load carried increases, stride length decreases to provide 15%BW increase in backpack load increased metabolic cost
greater stability.12,19 Therefore, at a fixed speed, stride rate by 5–6%.36 At a given HR, ratings of perceived exertion
would need to increase in order to maintain a consistent were higher with body armor weighing 10 kg (16%BW)
pace.12,13,20 Two investigations have demonstrated that as than with no load,35 potentially pointing to a mechanism in
load increases, a significant decrease in stride length was which breathing is more constricted with body armor than
compensated by a significant increase in stride rate, with with no load or equivalent backpack load. An additional
loads ranging from 9 to 37 kg (14–56%BW) to maintain a investigation reported that pulmonary ventilation increased
fixed speed of 6.4 km h−1,20 and with loads ranging from 6 exponentially once participants reached an intensity eliciting
to 47 kg (8–61%BW) at speeds ranging from 3.9 to 5.4 km 75% of their VO2max, suggesting a physiological threshold
h−1.12 Increasing load carriage during fixed-pace marches may be induced by thoracic restriction from the body
alters gait patterns and increases EE.18 Although height and armor.37
leg length account for stride length variability, gait pattern is Loads carried on the extremities have also been studied.
not always significantly affected because of other factors Due to their placement far from the center of gravity, mili-
such as; force, angles, and flexibility.21 tary boots increase EE 7–10% for every kg of weight

e84 MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 184, January/February 2019

 Load Carriage Performance

added.38–40 The weight of military boots range from 0.5 to walking protocol at 5.4 km h−1 with 55%BW.52 The load
1 kg per boot and inhibit movement of the ankle joint, alter selected for that study was done to replicate the 56.7%
natural gait patterns and increase metabolic cost.38–40 average approach marching load used by Army light infan-
Carrying a load on the thigh has a minimal effect on gait try teams in Afghanistan in 2003.4 Comparisons between
(i.e., ~4% increase in EE per kg), due to its position closer the initial 15 minutes to 1 hour of marching revealed a sig-
to the center of gravity.40,41 Change in EE is not significant nificant increase in both HR and % VO2 max (12.6% and
when carrying a 4.4 kg rifle in the hands, but there is an inhi- 10.3%, respectively). The higher cardiorespiratory output
bition in natural arm swing movement which may become occurring alongside an increase in neuromuscular fatigue
more of a factor only with faster speeds.42 appeared to support previous research suggesting that an
altered muscle recruitment pattern is indicative of fatigue
PHYSIOLOGY OF LOAD CARRIAGE with a load carriage.53 A study by Epstein and colleagues54

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/184/1-2/e83/5106693 by guest on 08 February 2024

reported that at the completion of a 2-hour walking proto-
Energy Expenditure col at 4.5 km h−1, participants had an 8.8% increase in
The effect of load carriage on EE has been studied exten- VO2max compared with baseline while carrying a 40 kg
sively. Predictive models of the physiological demands of load (approximately 60%BW). However, when those sol-
the soldier enable commanders to optimally manage the diers carried a load of 25 kg (approximately 37%BW) no
compounding stresses that soldiers encounter.43 Accurate cardiovascular drift was noted. This difference can be attri-
predictions of EE help commanders to set optimal work: rest buted to both load and duration, as the difference between
ratios, understand nutritional needs, and design efficacious conditions only appeared 100 minutes into the protocol.
training programs.44 EE predictions are especially helpful
when mission planning expediency is key.45
The Pandolf equation published in 1977 was an important Interaction of Speed, Load, Intensity, and Duration
attempt to predict EE based on BW, load, speed, grade, and The soldier’s capacity to carry a heavy load into a military
terrain.46 At grades up to 30% and loads ranging from 0 to operation without substantial fatigue is multifaceted, and is
30 kg (approximately 0–43%BW), the equation was accurate highly related to the soldier’s relative aerobic intensity
at 4.0 km h−1 but significantly underestimated EE at 2.4 km (%VO 2max) and the duration of the task. 55 It is important
h−1.47 With level treadmill walking and at the same loads to understand the interaction between intensity and duration to
(0–43% BW), the equation underestimated metabolic rate by minimize fatigue. As duration of activity increases, the inten-
14–33% at both speeds.47 In contrast, with loads ranging sity of exercise that can be sustained is reduced. Similarly,
from 4.1 to 37.4 kg (approximately 6–54%BW) at grades of higher intensity exercise also results in a shorted time to
0 and 6%, EE of walking at 6 km h−1 did not differ signifi- exhaustion. During a march, VO2 is largely a function of
cantly from predicted values.48 Recently, Drain et al49 speed and load carried. As speed and load increase, there is
assessed the equation’s validity with different combinations an elevation in HR, oxygen uptake, EE, blood lactate concen-
of equipment and a wide range of speeds. Soldiers walked trations, and ventilatory rate.17,37,45,46,50,56–58 With loads rang-
with 22.7 and 38.4 kg (26% and 45%BW) at three-speed ing from 4.4 to 40 kg (approximately 7–61%BW), Pal and
designations: walking (2.5–3.5 km h−1), approach march colleagues59 reported very strong correlations (r = 0.97–0.99)
(4.5–5.5 km h−1), and movement while engaged (6.5 km between load and %VO2max at speeds of 3.5 and 4.5 km h−1.
h−1). The Pandolf equation significantly underestimated EE In another study examining the interaction between load and
for all three conditions, especially at the slowest pace; intensity, each additional kg of load increased oxygen uptake
32–33% at 2.5 km h−1. The Pandolf equation may be more by 33.5 mL min−1, HR by 1.1 bpm and pulmonary ventilation
accurate at speeds above 2.4 km h−1, which is the average by 0.6 L min−1 for participants maintaining a constant work-
marching pace for U.S. infantry during the day across cross- load of 25% and 50% VO2max.37 Quesada and colleagues36
country terrain.1 reported that at the end of a 40-minute march (6 km h−1), a
A major consideration when examining the cardiorespira- significant linear increase was noted in VO2 (30%, 36%, and
tory effects of load carriage and EE predictions from short 41%) with increasing loads (0, 15% BW and 30% BW,
duration protocols is the phenomenon of HR and VO2 drift. respectively).
Predictions are based on a steady state being reached, thus To prevent fatigue and sustain exercise, it is recom-
they underestimate metabolic work during high duration, mended that tasks be performed at or below 50% of one’s
highly fatiguing tasks. HR and VO2 drift occur in prolonged VO2max.60 When physical activity is performed at higher
marches of various speeds (3.96–6.5 km h−1), loads (25–49.4 kg) intensities anaerobic metabolism is elevated, leading to an
and duration (2–3 h), even when the initial intensity is low earlier onset of fatigue. One study requiring participants to
(e.g., 30% VO2max).50,51 For instance, the Pandolf walk on a treadmill at 3 km h−1, reported time to exhaustion
equation underestimated EE 9–18% during a 12 km tread- to significantly decrease from 40.9 to 17.7 minutes as load
mill march.51 In another study, VO2 and HR increased sig- carriage increased from 72.5 to 93.3 kg (approximately
nificantly every 15 minutes up to completion of a 1-hour 90–115%BW).61 This substantial drop in time to exhaustion

MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 184, January/February 2019 e85

 Load Carriage Performance

occurred at 54.9 ± 4.8% VO2 max. Investigations of full and partial protective ensembles during a walking proto-
unloaded walking/running and cycling reported a curvilinear col, heat exhaustion occurs at body temperatures ranging
relationship between relative intensity and time to fatigue, between 38.8 and 39.2°C for 75% of participants.69
with a possible threshold above ~45% VO2max.45,55,62,63 U.S. Caldwell and colleagues8 examined the interaction between
Army guidelines, likewise, suggest that the relationship load and cardiovascular strain in soldiers marching in an
between endurance capacity of load carriage tasks and EE are ambient temperature of 36°C with 60% relative humidity
curvilinear.1,45 During self-paced marches between 1 and 3.5 with loads of 2.05 kg (approximately 3%BW) and 9.41 kg
hours in duration, participants limited their speed and there- (approximately 12%BW) at 2.0 and 4.0 km h−1. The 12%
fore EE in order to maintain an aerobic output of less than BW load significantly augmented the rise in core tempera-
45% VO2max, independent of load carried.64,65 Similarly, ture from 0.37°C per hour to 0.51°C per hour (38% faster),
when soldiers marched 204 km over 6 days, they maintained and significantly decreased predicted time to reach theoreti-
an intensity equating to 30–40% of their VO2max.66

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/184/1-2/e83/5106693 by guest on 08 February 2024

cal HR threshold of 180bpm from 5 hours and 45 minutes to
Supporting these findings, Epstein and colleagues54 reported 4 hours and 10 minutes. In addition, the 12%BW load caused
that cardiovascular drift occurred at a workload that elicited significantly greater sweat loss than the 3% BW load
an aerobic output of 52% VO2max, but not at 46% VO2max. (1.74 kg vs. 1.32 kg) over the 2.5-hour protocol. In another
Present U.S. Army guidelines list marches as totaling study, walking in 40°C compared with 20°C temperature
20–32 km day−1, which equates to a maximum duration of increased time to complete a 5-km march significantly more
5–10 hours per 24-hour period on road or 8–20 hours on than carrying loads of 20, 30, or 50%BW compared with
cross-country terrain.1 Controlling the intensity of the march carrying no weight.70 Marching in the heat will exacerbate
to limit soldiers from exceeding ~45% of their VO2max the effects of dehydration, creating a higher relative intensity
appears to delay the onset of fatigue during extended duration, for a given workload and reducing time to exhaustion.71
loaded marches. Cold weather represents a different physiological chal-
Aerobic intensity, and therefore duration, is greatly affected lenge during load carriage. The increase in EE during mili-
by the interaction between load and speed. To maintain an tary operations in the cold is often due to changes in terrain
intensity of march equating to 35% VO2max, the maximal and added layers of clothing and equipment.7,72 Controlled
load and speed combinations were reported to be 55%BW at studies have also been conducted to isolate the effect of cold
3.5 km h−1 and 32%BW at 4.5 km h−1.59 Another study, temperature. There is uncertainty as to the exact range of
examining 16 different combinations of load and speed, temperatures that negatively affect VO2max, but cold weather
reported the maximal speed and load combination to maintain appears to attenuate maximal aerobic capacity.68 VO2max
relative VO2 <50% to be: 3.5 km h−1 with 50 kg (approximately was significantly lower at −20°C compared with 20°C, but
73%BW), 4.5 km h−1 with 35 kg (approximately 51%BW), and no differences were noted between −10°C and 20°C.73 Hinde
5.5 km h−1 with 20 kg (approximately 29%BW).56 These results and colleagues74 studied the interaction between load and
should be taken into consideration when planning a military mis- cold weather by comparing no load to 18.2 kg (approximately
sion, by prioritizing speed, load or distance and adjusting the 26% BW) while marching at 4 km h−1 in temperatures rang-
other variables accordingly.19,56,61 ing from −10 to 20°C. During the march, the relative inten-
sity of activity was 24% higher at −10°C, and 22% higher at
−5°C when compared to the intensity of exercise performed
Environmental Stress and Load Carriage at 20°C. These changes were consistent regardless of load.
Ensembles However, load carriage had a greater increase on oxygen uti-
Marching with a load in either the heat or cold will have an lization during a subsequent unloaded bout only in the cold-
additive effect on the stress of the activity and must be est conditions of −5 and −10°C, revealing an additive effect
accounted for in mission planning or training.31,67 This of load carriage and cold weather on cardiorespiratory output.
becomes further magnified when the environmental stress is
combined with high levels of fatigue and a nutritional deficit.68
When marching in the heat, the increase in sweat rate results THE WRT WITH LOAD
in further strain on blood volume, which is already being Successfully executing a mission may require soldiers to
diverted to working skeletal muscle.67 Increase in cardiovascu- carry a load at a quicker pace than normally recommended.
lar strain lowers central blood volume, potentially leading to a As walking pace increases, there is a crossover point called
hypotensive response, syncope, or heat exhaustion.67 One of the WRT75, which requires high mechanical energy output.76
the mechanisms of body cooling involves evaporative heat Combat effectiveness and survivability may depend not only
loss, however, load carriage gear and uniforms obstruct effec- on minimizing fatigue during long-duration walking but also
tive evaporative cooling causing an insulatory effect.68 during the approach to battlefield. This phase may require a
Substantial increases in sweat loss during exercise in the faster speed than distance marches, and this speed may occur
heat lead to dehydration, which accelerates the rise in core slightly higher or lower than the WRT,49,77 making this an
body temperature and lowers task duration.68 When wearing important area of research.

e86 MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 184, January/February 2019

 Load Carriage Performance

There is a scarcity of research examining the biomechan- Linear regression analysis was then used to determine the
ics and physiology of the WRT with load. In a study exam- correlation between Load–Speed Index and %VO2max. A
ining volunteers with fitness levels comparable to army significant correlation was found between Load–Speed Index
recruits, some participants were able to jog an entire 3.2-km and %VO2 max (r = 0.932, F = 408.4, p < 0.001) and analy-
simulated approach march with 32 kg (approximately 39% sis produced the following regression equation: y(%VO2
BW) while some participants walked, with average speeds max) = 0.119 × (Load–Speed Index) + 19.851. The Load–
ranging from 7.7 to 9.1 km h−1.77 In an investigation exam- Speed Index accounted for 86.8% (r2) of the variance in %
ining elite soldiers carrying a 20 kg (approximately 26% VO2max. Next, spline regression analysis was used to define
BW) load, some of the soldiers transitioned to running, threshold values at which there was a change in the slope of
while others maintained a walking gait at 8.4 km h−1.57 This the regression line of the relationship between %VO2max
is a slightly higher pace than the 7.04–8 km h−1 reported as and the Load–Speed index. A significant threshold for change
in slope was found at Load–Speed Index of 260 (p = 0.004),

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/184/1-2/e83/5106693 by guest on 08 February 2024

the WRT for non-military populations for unloaded walk-
ing,75,76,78–80 with most investigations reporting a pace which corresponded to 47% VO2max (see Fig. 1). About
closer to 7.2 km h−1.81 It is unclear if the load, or the 47% VO2max is very similar to ~45% VO2max reported in
advanced training status of the soldiers, accounts for this dis- the literature as the threshold above which time to fatigue
crepancy. Interestingly, at 8.4 km h−1 the soldiers who transi- decreases and cardiovascular drift increases.45,54,64,65
tioned to a running pace presented a lowered physiological Using 47% VO2max as the threshold, we can predict the
response (blood lactate, HR, minute ventilation) than those walking speed that can be employed with a given load in an
who chose to maintain a walking pace.57 This revealed a effort to maintain cardiovascular efficiency for high duration
true metabolic crossover point, in which walking at speeds tasks (see Table I for calculations for standard U.S. Army
higher than the WRT, or conversely running at speeds loads1).
slower than the WRT result in higher EE. However, there is Finally, speed and load were tested independently for
overwhelming evidence that during unloaded walking, parti- threshold values in relation to %VO2max by using spline
cipants tend to transition from walking to running at a slower
speed than is metabolically optimal, but rather transition at a
speed that has a lower rate of perceived exertion, possibly
due to lower muscle activation requirements via the engage-
ment of the stretch-shortening cycle during running.81,82
Further research is needed to understand how load affects
the physiological factors of the WRT.

Development of the Load–Speed Index

To clarify the interactions among load, speed, and O2 con-
sumption, we compiled data from studies that reported load,
speed, and VO2 measured during steady state, treadmill
marches. Six investigations of loaded marches are included
in the analysis.51,56,59,61,83,84 All six studies used a fixed
pace, with the bulk of the external load in each investigation
being carried in a backpack. There were slight differences in
FIGURE 1. The relationship between Load–Speed Index and % VO2max.
the manner of weight distribution, but the investigators of Spline regression analysis was used to define thresholds values for % VO2max
each study attempted to place the weights as close to the related to Load–Speed Index. Spline regression analysis revealed a significant
center of gravity as possible, to minimize effects of load change in the slope of the line (p = 0.004) at the Load–Speed Index of 260
and 47% VO2max.
placement on biomechanics and EE.
Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficients were TABLE I. Maximal Walking Speeds
calculated to assess the relationship between the independent
variables and % VO2max. There was a significant positive Type of Load % BW Speed (km h−1)
correlation with % VO2max for both speed (r = 0.787, p < Fighting 30 7.60
0.001) and load (r = 0.623, p < 0.001). The product of load Approach march 45 5.07
(% BW) and speed (km h−1) for a given trial is defined as Emergency approach 70 3.26
the Load–Speed Index, calculated using the following Maximal walking speeds corresponding to an aerobic output of 47% VO2max
equation: at three standard loads established by the U.S. Army.1 Speeds were calculated
based on the linear regression equation Y (% VO2max) = 0.119X (Load–
Load−Speed Index = Speed (km h−1) · Load (% BW) Speed index) + 19.851. % BW = Percent body weight.

MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 184, January/February 2019 e87

 Load Carriage Performance

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/184/1-2/e83/5106693 by guest on 08 February 2024

FIGURE 2. Spline regression analysis for %VO2 and (a) speed (km h-1); (b) load (%BW). Spline regression analysis revealed significant change in the
slope of the line (p < 0.001) at the speed of 4.6 km h-1 and 47% VO2max, and no significant threshold for load (p = 0.832).

regression analysis (Fig. 2). A significant threshold for the by examining a wide range of loads that will facilitate a
change in slope was found at the speed of 4.6 km h−1 (p < clearer understanding of speed and load combinations that
0.001), corresponding to the same value of 47% VO2max optimize marching pace and reduce EE.
discovered by the Load–Speed Index spline regression anal-
ysis. There was no significant threshold for load based on
the spline regression (p = 0.832). This is consistent with the REFERENCES
consensus from several investigations that an increase in
1. Department of the Army (US): Foot Marches. Washington, DC,
speed has more of an effect on EE, HR and VO2 than an Department of the Army (US), 2017.
increase in the load carried.45,59 2. Knapik J, Reynolds K, Santee WR, Friedl KE: Load carriage in military
operations: a review of historical, physiological, biomechanical and
medical aspects. In: Military Quantitative Physiology: Problems and
Concepts in Military Operational Medicine, pp 303–37. Fort Detrick,
SUMMARY
MD, Office of the Surgeon General. Borden Institute, 2012.
The soldier’s load has been increasing steadily through his- 3. Department of the Army (US): Foot Marches. Washington, DC,
tory, creating a need for a better understanding of the effect Department of the Army (US), 1990.
of load on a host of biomechanical and physiological vari- 4. Dean C: The Modern Warrior’s Combat Load. Dismounted Operations
ables. EE during loaded carriage is an important aspect in in Afghanistan, April-May 2003. Ft. Leavenworth, KS, U.S. Army
Center for Army Lessons Learned, 2004.
determining the physiological demands on the soldier. The
5. Friedl K: Body composition and military performance: origins of the
load carried and speed of the march are primarily responsible Army standards. In: Body Composition and Performance, Vol 25 (24,
for changes in EE, and there is much evidence that load and 9): pp. 24–23. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 1992.
speed should be managed in order to maintain an exercise 6. Sharp MA, Knapik JJ, Walker LA, et al: Physical fitness and body com-
intensity ~45% VO2max to delay time to fatigue during pro- position after a 9-month deployment to Afghanistan. Med Sci Sports
longed marches.45,64–66 The Load–Speed Index may be a Exerc 2008; 40(9): 1687–92.
7. Tharion WJ, Lieberman HR, Montain SJ, et al: Energy requirements of
useful tool for predicting aerobic energy requirements of a military personnel. Appetite 2005; 44(1): 47–65.
march with a given speed and load, or for determining the 8. Caldwell JN, Engelen L, van der Henst C, Patterson MJ, Taylor NA:
maximal speed and load that will produce a desired level of The interaction of body armor, low-intensity exercise, and hot-humid
exertion. In addition to load and speed, there are a host of conditions on physiological strain and cognitive function. Mil Med
2011; 176(5): 488–93.
additional factors that can influence load carriage perfor-
9. Knapik JJ, Reynolds K: Load carriage-related injury mechanisms,
mance, such as environmental extremes, body armor, load risk factors, and prevention. In: The Mechanobiology and Mechanophysiology
placement, and the WRT. As such, we also recommend that of Military-Related Injuries, Vol 19: pp 107–37. Edited by Gefen A, Epstein
effort be made in examining flexible/lighter body armor, and Y Cham, Springer International Publishing, 2015.
the potential impact it may have in enhancing WRT, while 10. Attwells RL, Birrell SA, Hooper RH, Mansfield NJ: Influence of carry-
ing heavy loads on soldiers’ posture, movements and gait. Ergonomics
maintaining soldier safety. In conclusion, there are no defini-
2006; 49(14): 1527–37.
tive findings as to how load affects the speed at which the 11. Birrell SA, Haslam RA: The effect of military load carriage on 3-D
WRT occurs, as no investigations have specifically exam- lower limb kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters. Ergonomics
ined this interaction. Additional research is clearly needed 2009; 52(10): 1298–304.

e88 MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 184, January/February 2019

 Load Carriage Performance

12. Harman E, Hoon K, Frykman P, Pandorf C: The Effects of Backpack 36. Quesada PM, Mengelkoch LJ, Hale RC, Simon SR: Biomechanical and
Weight on the Biomechanics of Load Carriage. Natick, MA, Military metabolic effects of varying backpack loading on simulated marching.
Performance Division. U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Ergonomics 2000; 43(3): 293–309.
Medicine, 2000. 37. Borghols EA, Dresen MH, Hollander AP: Influence of heavy weight
13. Kinoshita H: Effects of different loads and carrying systems on selected carrying on the cardiorespiratory system during exercise. Eur J Appl
biomechanical parameters describing walking gait. Ergonomics 1985; Physiol 1978; 38(3): 161–9.
28(9): 1347–62. 38. Abe D, Muraki S, Yasukouchi A: Ergonomic effects of load carriage on
14. Majumdar D, Pal MS, Majumdar D: Effects of military load carriage on energy cost of gradient walking. Appl Ergon 2008; 39(2): 144–9.
kinematics of gait. Ergonomics 2010; 53(6): 782–91. 39. Legg SJ, Mahanty A: Energy cost of backpacking in heavy boots.
15. Maxwell Donelan J, Kram R, Arthur DK: Mechanical and metabolic Ergonomics 1986; 29(3): 433–8.
determinants of the preferred step width in human walking. Proc R Soc 40. Soule RG, Goldman RF: Energy cost of loads carried on the head,
B Biol Sci 2001; 268: 1985–92. hands, or feet. J Appl Physiol 1969; 27(5): 687–90.
16. Danion F, Varraine E, Bonnard M, Pailhous J: Stride variability in 41. Martin PE: Mechanical and physiological responses to lower extremity
human gait: the effect of stride frequency and stride length. Gait loading during running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985; 17(4): 427–33.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/184/1-2/e83/5106693 by guest on 08 February 2024

Posture 2003; 18(1): 69–77. 42. Birrell SA, Haslam RA: The influence of rifle carriage on the kinetics
17. Bastien GJ, Willems PA, Schepens B, Heglund NC: Effect of load and of human gait. Ergonomics 2008; 51(6): 816–26.
speed on the energetic cost of human walking. Eur J Appl Physiol 43. Friedl KE: Predicting human limits-the special relationship between
2005; 94(1): 76–83. physiology research and the Army mission. In: Mil Quant Physiol Probl
18. Gregorczyk KN, Hasselquist L, Schiffman JM, Bensel CK, Obusek JP, Concepts Mil Oper Med Probl Concepts Mil Oper Med., pp 1–38.
Gutekunst DJ: Effects of a lower-body exoskeleton device on metabolic Edited by Friedl KE, Santee WR. Office of the Surgeon General, 2012.
cost and gait biomechanics during load carriage. Ergonomics 2010; 53 44. Williams AG, Rayson MP: Can simple anthropometric and physical
(10): 1263–75. performance tests track training-induced changes in load-carriage abil-
19. Scott PA, Christie CJ: “Optimal” speed–load combinations for military ity? Mil Med 2006; 171(8): 742–8.
manoeuvres. Int J Ind Ergon 2004; 33(1): 63–8. 45. Drain J, Billing D, Neesham-Smith D, Aisbett B: Predicting physiological
20. Martin PE, Nelson RC: The effect of carried loads on the walking pat- capacity of human load carriage—a review. Appl Ergon 2016; 52: 85–94.
terns of men and women. Ergonomics 1986; 29(10): 1191–202. 46. Pandolf KB, Givoni B, Goldman RF: Predicting energy expenditure
21. Lohman EB, Balan Sackiriyas KS, Swen RW: A comparison of the spa- with loads while standing or walking very slowly. J Appl Physiol 1977;
tiotemporal parameters, kinematics, and biomechanics between shod, 43(4): 577–81.
unshod, and minimally supported running as compared to walking. 47. Pimental NA, Shapiro Y, Pandolf KB: Comparison of uphill and down-
Phys Ther Sport 2011; 12(4): 151–63. hill walking and concentric and eccentric cycling. Ergonomics 1982; 25
22. Datta SR, Ramanathan NL: Ergonomic comparison of seven modes of (5): 373–80.
carrying loads on the horizontal plane. Ergonomics 1971; 14(2): 48. Duggan A, Haisman MF: Prediction of the metabolic cost of walking
269–78. with and without loads. Ergonomics 1992; 35(4): 417–26.
23. Legg SJ, Mahanty A: Comparison of five modes of carrying a load 49. Drain JR, Aisbett B, Lewis M, Billing DC: The Pandolf equation under-
close to the trunk†. Ergonomics 1985; 28(12): 1653–60. predicts the metabolic rate of contemporary military load carriage. J Sci
24. Heglung NC, Willems PA, Penta M, Cavagna GA: Energy-saving gait Med Sport 2017; 20: S104–8.
mechanics with head-supported loads. Nature 1995; 375: 52–4. 50. Blacker SD, Fallowfield JL, Bilzon JLJ, Willems MET: Physiological
25. Harman E, Han KH, Frykman P Load-speed interaction effects on the responses to load carriage during level and downhill treadmill walking.
biomechanics of backpack load carriage. Natick, MA, Army Research Med Sport 2009; 13(2): 108–24.
Inst Of Environmental Medicine, 2001. 51. Patton JF, Kaszuba J, Mello RP, Reynolds KL: Physiological responses
26. Bobet J, Norman RW: Effects of load placement on back muscle activ- to prolonged treadmill walking with external loads. Eur J Appl Physiol
ity in load carriage. Eur J Appl Physiol 1984; 53(1): 71–5. 1991; 63(2): 89–93.
27. Stuempfle KJ, Drury DG, Wilson AL: Effect of load position on physio- 52. Lidstone DE, Stewart JA, Gurchiek R, Needle AR, Van Werkhoven H,
logical and perceptual responses during load carriage with an internal McBride JM: Physiological and biomechanical responses to prolonged
frame backpack. Ergonomics 2004; 47(7): 784–9. heavy load carriage during level treadmill walking in females. J Appl
28. Bloom D, Woodhull-Mcneal AP: Postural adjustments while standing Biomech 2017; 33(4): 248–55.
with two types of loaded backpack. Ergonomics 1987; 30(10): 1425–30. 53. Simpson KM, Munro BJ, Steele JR: Backpack load affects lower limb
29. Knapik JJ: Soldier load carriage: historical, physiological, biomechani- muscle activity patterns of female hikers during prolonged load car-
cal, and medical aspects. Mil Med 2004; 169(1): 45–56. riage. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2011; 21(5): 782–8.
30. Brown PI, McConnell AK: Respiratory-related limitations in physically 54. Epstein Y, Rosenblum J, Burstein R, Sawka MN: External load can
demanding occupations. Aviat Space Environ Med 2012; 83(4): alter the energy cost of prolonged exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 1988;
424–30. 57(2): 243–7.
31. Majumdar D, Srivastava KK, Purkayastha SS, Pichan G, Selvamurthy 55. Wu H-C, Wang M-JJ: Determining the maximum acceptable work
W: Physiological effects of wearing heavy body armour on male sol- duration for high-intensity work. Eur J Appl Physiol 2001; 85(3–4):
diers. Int J Ind Ergon 1997; 20(2): 155–61. 339–44.
32. Boushel R: Muscle metaboreflex control of the circulation during exer- 56. Christie CJ, Scott PA: Metabolic responses of South African soldiers
cise. Acta Physiol 2010; 199(4): 367–83. during simulated marching with 16 combinations of speed and back-
33. Harms CA: Insights into the role of the respiratory muscle metaboreflex. pack load. Mil Med 2005; 170(7): 619–22.
J Physiol 2007; 584(Pt 3): 711. 57. Simpson RJ, Graham SM, Connaboy C, Clement R, Pollonini L,
34. Harms CA, Wetter TJ, St. Croix CM, Pegelow DF, Dempsey JA: Florida-James GD: Blood lactate thresholds and walking/running econ-
Effects of respiratory muscle work on exercise performance. J Appl omy are determinants of backpack-running performance in trained sol-
Physiol 2000; 89(1): 131–8. diers. Appl Ergon 2017; 58: 566–72.
35. Ricciardi R, Deuster PA, Talbot LA: Metabolic demands of body armor 58. Beekley MD, Alt J, Buckley CM, Duffey M: Effects of heavy load car-
on physical performance in simulated conditions. Mil Med 2008; 173 riage during constant-speed, simulated, road marching. Mil Med 2007;
(9): 817–24. 172(6): 592–5.

MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 184, January/February 2019 e89

 Load Carriage Performance

59. Pal MS, Majumdar D, Bhattacharyya M, Kumar R, Majumdar D: 72. McCarroll JE, Goldman RF, Denniston JC: Food intake and energy
Optimum load for carriage by soldiers at two walking speeds on level expenditure in cold weather military training. Mil Med 1979; 144(9):
ground. Int J Ind Ergon 2009; 39(1): 68–72. 606–10.
60. Åstrand P-O, Kaare R, Hans AD, Sigmund BS: Textbook of Work 73. Oksa J, Kaikkonen H, Sorvisto P, Vaappo M, Martikkala V, Rintamäki
Physiology: Physiological Bases of Exercise, 4th ed, Champaign, IL, H: Changes in maximal cardiorespiratory capacity and submaximal
Human Kinetics, 2003. strain while exercising in cold. J Therm Biol 2004; 29(7-8): 815–8.
61. Koerhuis CL, Veenstra BJ, van Dijk JJ, Delleman NJ: Predicting march- 74. Hinde K, Lloyd R, Low C, Cooke C: The effect of temperature, gradi-
ing capacity while carrying extremely heavy loads. Mil Med 2009; 174 ent, and load carriage on oxygen consumption, posture, and gait charac-
(12): 1300–7. teristics. Eur J Appl Physiol 2017; 117(3): 417–30.
62. Bink B: The physical working capacity in relation to working time and 75. Falls HB, Humphrey DL: Energy cost of running and walking in young
age. Ergonomics 1962; 5(1): 25–8. women. Med Sci Sports 1976; 8(1): 9–13.
63. Saha PN, Datta SR, Banerjee PK, Narayane GG: An acceptable work- 76. Segers V, Aerts P, Lenoir M, De Clercq D: Dynamics of the body cen-
load for Indian workers. Ergonomics 1979; 22(9): 1059–71. tre of mass during actual acceleration across transition speed. J Exp
64. Evans WJ, Winsmann FR, Pandolf KB, Goldman RF: Self-paced hard Biol 2007; 210(7): 1297–7.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/184/1-2/e83/5106693 by guest on 08 February 2024

work comparing men and women. Ergonomics 1980; 23(7): 613–21. 77. Harman EA, Gutekunst DJ, Frykman PN, et al: Effects of two different
65. Levine L, Evans WJ, Winsmann FR, Pandolf KB: Prolonged self-paced eight-week training programs on military physical performance.
hard physical exercise comparing trained and untrained men. Ergonomics J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22(2): 524–34.
1982; 25(5): 393–400. 78. Usherwood JR, Bertram JEA: Gait transition cost in humans. Eur J
66. Myles WS, Eclache JP, Beaury J: Self-pacing during sustained, repeti- Appl Physiol 2003; 90(5-6): 647–50.
tive exercise. Aviat Space Environ Med 1979; 50(9): 921–92. 79. Margaria R, Cerretelli P, Aghemo P, Sassi G: Energy cost of running.
67. Taylor NA: Overwhelming physiological regulation through personal J Appl Physiol 1963; 18(2): 367–70.
protection. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: S111–8. 80. Farinatti PTV, Monteiro WD: Walk–run transition in young and older
68. Sawka MN, Pandolf KB: Physical exercise in hot climates: physiology, adults: with special reference to the cardio-respiratory responses. Eur J
performance, and biomedical issues. Med Asp Harsh Environ 2001; 1: Appl Physiol 2010; 109(3): 379–88.
87–133. 81. Kung SM, Fink PW, Legg SJ, Ali A, Shultz SP: What factors determine
69. Montain SJ, Sawka MN, Cadarette BS, Quigley MD, McKay JM: the preferred gait transition speed in humans? A review of the triggering
Physiological tolerance to uncompensable heat stress: effects of exercise mechanisms. Hum Mov Sci 2018; 57: 1–12.
intensity, protective clothing, and climate. J Appl Physiol 1994; 77(1): 82. Hreljac A: Preferred and energetically optimal gait transition speeds in
216–22. human locomotion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25(10): 1158–62.
70. Kenefick RW, Heavens KR, Luippold AJ, Charkoudian N, Schwartz 83. Soule RG, Pandolf KB, Goldman RF: Energy expenditure of heavy
SA, Cheuvront SN: Effect of physical load on aerobic exercise perfor- load carriage. Ergonomics 1978; 21(5): 373–81.
mance during heat stress. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2017; 49(12): 2570–7. 84. Phillips DB, Ehnes CM, Stickland MK, Petersen SR: The impact of tho-
71. Craig EN, Cummings EG: Dehydration and muscular work. J Appl racic load carriage up to 45 kg on the cardiopulmonary response to exer-
Physiol 1966; 21(2): 670–4. cise. Eur J Appl Physiol 2016; 116(9): 1725–34.

e90 MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 184, January/February 2019