arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Soldier load carriage: Does the type of pack matter?

Robin Orr et al.

Applied Ergonomics2026https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104733article
AJG 3
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

How a soldier's load is carried can elicit different physical and physiological costs on the carrier. As such, this study aimed to profile and compare the impacts of three different load carriage backpack systems on physical and physiological outcomes during and following a load carriage march. Twelve soldiers were randomly allocated to one of three pack variants (Variant A, B, or C) using a Latin Square design and completed three 5 km load carriage marches (30 kg at 5.5 km/h) over three separate sessions wearing the different Variants for each march. Outcome measures during the march were heart rate and oxygen consumption and pre and post march were a counter movement jump, grip strength, and postural sway. There were no significant differences (p > 0.01) in any of the objective outcome measures across pack Variants. These results suggest that load weight will impact on the physical and physiological costs associated with load carriage to a greater extent than military backpack design.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104733

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{robin2026,
  title        = {{Soldier load carriage: Does the type of pack matter?}},
  author       = {Robin Orr et al.},
  journal      = {Applied Ergonomics},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104733},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Soldier load carriage: Does the type of pack matter?

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.