Lloyd R, Cooke C B
School of Sciences, University of Sunderland, UK.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Apr;81(6):486-92. doi: 10.1007/s004210050072.
The purpose of this study was to assess the energy expenditure associated with load carriage using both a traditional rucksack and a new rucksack design, the AARN rucksack, which incorporates front balance pockets. Nine volunteers walked at 3 km h(-1) at various uphill and downhill gradients on a treadmill without a load and carrying a load of 25.6 kg in each of the rucksacks. The oxygen consumption associated with both of the loading conditions was significantly (P < 0.001) higher than that associated with unloaded walking at all downhill gradients tested, although there was no significant difference between the two loading conditions. During the uphill gradients the oxygen consumption associated with the AARN pack was significantly (P < 0.05) lower than that associated with the traditional pack at the 0%, 5%, 10% and 20% gradients. The mean (%) differences at these gradients, expressed in ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) were 1.18 (9%), 1.45 (8%), 1.76 (8%) and 1.88 (6%), respectively. On average for the whole protocol, the oxygen consumption associated with the AARN rucksack was 5% lower than that associated with the traditional rucksack [mean (SD) 17.28 (7.46) ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) for the AARN pack and 18.20 (7.84) ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) for the traditional pack]. The findings of the present study suggest that a load carriage system that allows the load to be distributed between the back and font of the trunk is more appropriate for carrying relatively heavy loads than a system that loads the back only.
本研究的目的是评估使用传统背包和一种新的背包设计——AARN背包（其设有前部平衡口袋）负重行走时的能量消耗。九名志愿者在跑步机上以3 km h⁻¹的速度在不同的上坡和下坡坡度上行走，一次不背负任何负重，另一次分别背负25.6 kg的上述两种背包。在所有测试的下坡坡度中，两种负重条件下的耗氧量均显著高于（P < 0.001）无负重行走时的耗氧量，尽管两种负重条件之间无显著差异。在上坡坡度中，在0%、5%、10%和20%的坡度下，与AARN背包相关的耗氧量显著低于（P < 0.05）与传统背包相关的耗氧量。这些坡度下以ml x kg⁻¹ x min⁻¹表示的平均（%）差异分别为1.18（9%）、1.45（8%）、1.76（8%）和1.88（6%）。在整个实验方案中，与AARN背包相关的耗氧量平均比与传统背包相关的耗氧量低5%[AARN背包的平均值（标准差）为17.28（7.46）ml x kg⁻¹ x min⁻¹，传统背包为18.20（7.84）ml x kg⁻¹ x min⁻¹]。本研究结果表明，一种能使负重分布于躯干前后的负重系统比仅使负重集中于背部的系统更适合背负相对较重的负荷。
