The determinants of energy saving phenomena reported for load carried on the head, back and in a doublepack remain unclear. This study compared the energetic, kinematic and kinetic responses to head (H), back (B) and doublepack (DP) loading. Fifteen volunteers walked on an instrumented treadmill at 3 km.h-1 with 0, 3, 12 and 20 kg in each loading method. Whole body motion, ground reaction forces (GRF) and metabolic cost were measured. H was less economical than B (p = 0.014) and DP (p = 0.010). H was also associated with increased step length (p = 0.045), decreased cadence (p = 0.001), greater trunk (p < 0.001) and hip (p < 0.001) extension and greater minimum vertical GRF (p = 0.001) than B and DP. In conclusion, no energy saving was found for head- or back-loading but economy may be improved with methods that cause smaller perturbations from unloaded walking. Practitioner summary: Energy saving phenomena have been reported for load carried on the head, back and in a doublepack, yet the determinants are unclear. This study shows that smaller perturbations from unloaded to loaded walking are associated with improved economy for certain load carriage conditions, such as the doublepack.
Keywords: Load carriage; economy; kinematics; kinetics.