Equipment Compatibility and Performance of Men and Women during Heavy Load Carriage

Abstract

This study examined the relative load-carrying ability of men and women. Nineteen male and fifteen female soldiers carried loads of 18, 27, and 36 kg during individual voluntary maximal speed 10-km road marches. Measures included march times, pre- post-march vertical jump and grenade throw, and a post-march questionnaire about equipment compatibility. The major findings were that the average march rates for both male and female soldiers in all load conditions were faster than the rates published in U.S. Army field manuals. This suggests that the test subjects were within the published zone of acceptable performance. Men completed the marches an average of 21% faster than the women. Women reported more problems with the shoulder straps, fit of the waist belts, and the fit and stability of the backpack. Data suggest that at least a portion of the gender differences in march rate may be explained by equipment problems reported by the women.

The Impact of Occupational Load Carriage on Carrier Mobility: A Critical Review of the Literature

“…Table 2 shows the methodologies, major findings, and critical appraisal quality scores for the investigations that met the review criteria. The methodological quality scores were generally high, M (SD) of 73.92 (5.56), ranging from 66% [22,23,24] to 84% [25,26]. The most noted limitations of these studies when viewed through the lens of the Downs and Black protocol [20] was the inability to blind either the participants or assessors to the various load carriage interventions and difficulty in randomising intervention groups.…”

“…In all included publications, tasks and loads carried were clearly outlined. The reported loads carried varied in type and included tactical vests and body armour [11,22,27,28,32], military uniforms with and without additional loading such as backpacks and firearms [23,24,25,26,28,29], and firefighting PPE with and without SCBA [2,30]. The loaded conditions in the reported studies ranged in load weight from 5.5 to 61 kg.…”

“…Given these outcome measures, all studies observed a reduction in mobility with increases in external load weight. The negative consequence of carrying increasing load weights varied from slower overall performance times [11,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,31] to decreases in foot clearance when stepping over an obstacle [2,30].…”

“…CAS = critical appraisal score, ALICE = all-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment, PPE = personal protective equipment, SCBA = self-contained breathing apparatus. The participants involved in the studies were diverse and involved males only [2,25,26,27,28,29,30], females only [11,31], or both genders [22,23,24]; active duty military soldiers/ officers [22], light infantry soldiers [26,27], special forces soldiers [25,28,29], noncombat soldiers [23,24]; and firefighters [2,30]. In all included publications, tasks and loads carried were clearly outlined.…”

“…The loaded conditions in the reported studies ranged in load weight from 5.5 to 61 kg. A variety of mobility outcomes were measured to assess the impacts of load carriage on both aerobic [22,23,25,26,28,29,31] and anaerobic [2,11,22,24,27,29,30] performance. Aerobic outcome measures included strenuous road marching tasks over distances of 3.2 [31], 10 [23], and 20 km [25,27,28,29] and a maximal incremental treadmill assessment [22].…”