Ultra Sports Science Foundation, Pierre Benite, France; British Forces Germany, RRU Sennelager, Normandy Barracks, BFPO 16, Germany; Institute of Sports Medicine, Department of Health, University of Paderborn, Germany.
Institute of Sports Medicine, Department of Health, University of Paderborn, Germany.
Appl Ergon. 2020 Apr;84:103038. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103038. Epub 2020 Jan 10.
We compared two backpack designs (back/front or back only) in twelve recreational runners (age 22.0 ± 1.7years). An initial incremental exercise test (VOmax 52.2 ± 4.7 ml kgmin) was conducted, followed by four tests of 20 min duration (running speed 9.8 ± 1.1 km/h) with loads carried of 0, 1 kg, 3 kg, and 6 kg with the two backpack designs in a randomized order. Economy was assessed by energy cost of running (CR), oxygen cost (O cost), heart rate (HR) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). Repeated measure ANOVA revealed a non-significant main effect for CR, O cost, HR, RPE between systems. Post-hoc comparison of significant time × position interaction showed for CR, F(3,33) = 5.34, p < .01, η = 0.33, and O cost, F(3,33) = 5.15, p < .01, η = 0.32, that carrying weight in the back/front were significantly lower after 20 min (CR: p = .02 and O cost: p = .03). These results suggest, that for longer runs the equal distribution of weight is advantageous.
我们比较了两种背包设计（前后背或仅后背）在 12 名休闲跑步者（年龄 22.0±1.7 岁）中的效果。进行了初始增量运动测试（VOmax 52.2±4.7 ml·kgmin），随后进行了四次 20 分钟的测试（跑步速度 9.8±1.1 km/h），携带 0、1、3 和 6 公斤的负荷，两种背包设计以随机顺序进行。通过跑步的能量成本（CR）、氧气成本（O 成本）、心率（HR）和感知用力程度（RPE）评估经济效果。重复测量方差分析显示，两种系统之间 CR、O 成本、HR 和 RPE 没有显著的主效应。对显著的时间×位置交互作用的事后比较显示，对于 CR，F（3，33）=5.34，p<.01，η=0.33，以及 O 成本，F（3，33）=5.15，p<.01，η=0.32，负重在前/后背时在 20 分钟后明显更低（CR：p=0.02 和 O 成本：p=0.03）。这些结果表明，对于更长的跑步，重量的均衡分布是有利的。
