The effect of backpack heaviness on trunk-lower extremity muscle activities and trunk posture

AL-Khabbaz, Yusuf S.S.M.; Shimada, Tomoaki; Hasegawa, Masashi

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.01.002

Cited by 94 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another study on adults was reported by Al-Khabbaz et al (2008). In this study, 19 males aged 21 ± 3 years were asked to stand in four modes: unloaded standing, 10%, 15% and 20% of body weight load.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…There are articles that have reported on the effects of carrying backpack loads on trunk inclination in adults (Goh et al, 1998;Knapik et al, 1996;Al-Khabbaz et al, 2008;Bloom and Woodhull-McNeal, 1987) and children (Garciaguirre et al, 2007;Rahman et al, 2009;Hong and Brueggemann, 2000;Hong and Cheung, 2003;Li and Hong, 2001;Shasmin et al, 2007;Pascoe et al, 1997). However, studies on the effects of carrying backpack load on adults have been done while walking (Goh et al, 1998) and also while standing (Al-Khabbaz et al, 2008;Bloom and Woodhull-McNeal, 1987). Different methods of carrying backpack load have also been used to investigate the inclination of the trunk, including carrying the load at the front, at the back and at the side of the body, carrying a backpack with one or two straps and carrying a frame backpack.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A biomechanical model via Kane’s equation – solving trunk motion with load carriage

AbdulRahman

Rambely²

2011

AJSIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carrying a heavy backpack has become a phenomenon among school children and adults. A review of the literature on the effect of carrying backpack loads on the trunk backward and forward lean in children and adults showed that with a load of even less than 15% of body weight, children have to walk with a forward lean of the trunk, whereas adults are in a forward lean position only with a backpack loads of more than 27% of their body weight. Due to these biomechanical studies, a mathematical model of the upper body representing trunk and head inclination angles is developed in this paper. The model was a two-link planar of rigid bodies in two-dimensional space. The objectives of this study were to investigate the motion of the trunk and also to develop the mathematical model so that the joint forces and moments acting on the body can be determined. The equations of motion for this model were written based on Kane's dynamical equation of motion.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A biomechanical model via Kane’s equation – solving trunk motion with load carriage

AbdulRahman

Rambely²

2011

AJSIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been widely used for different purposes: students fill backpacks with books and stationery, while hikers and soldiers load them with tents and supplies (Al-Khabbaz et al, 2008). Studies analyzing physiological aspects of load carriage indicate that the energy cost increases progressively with increases in backpack load (Knapik et al, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A longer double support time and duration of stance phase (Birrell and Haslam, 2010) as well as decreased step length (Birrell and Haslam, 2009;Simpson et al, 2012) compared to unloaded gait were evidenced. Increasing load also has been shown to alter lower limb muscle activity (Ghori and Luckwill, 1985;Harman et al, 1992;Simpson et al, 2011a) and rectus abdominal muscle activity (Al-Khabbaz et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground reaction forces and plantar pressure distribution during occasional loaded gait

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThis study compared the ground reaction forces (GRF) and plantar pressures between unloaded and occasional loaded gait. The GRF and plantar pressures of 60 participants were recorded during unloaded gait and occasional loaded gait (wearing a backpack that raised their body mass index to 30); this load criterion was adopted because is considered potentially harmful in permanent loaded gait (obese people). The results indicate an overall increase (absolute values) of GRF and plantar pressures during occasional loaded gait (p < 0.05); also, higher normalized (by total weight) values in the medial midfoot and toes, and lower values in the lateral rearfoot region were observed. During loaded gait the magnitude of the vertical GRF (impact and thrust maximum) decreased and the shear forces increased more than did the proportion of the load (normalized values). These data suggest a different pattern of GRF and plantar pressure distribution during occasional loaded compared to unloaded gait.K e y w o r d s :

show abstract

“…Increased variability, within certain limits, may be interpreted as variations in an increased motor repertoire, probably used to minimize gait destabilization and to maintain balance (Singh and Koh, 2009). Furthermore, 20% BW backpack weight causes the most significant muscular and postural changes in any conditions (Al-Khabbaz et al, 2008), so it should be avoided. Fellin et al (2016) found increased DStP and DStPSD with incremental loads from 20 kg to 40 kg using a backpack in soldiers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of backpack loads and positions on the variability of gait spatiotemporal parameters in young adults

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: People carry backpacks of different weight in different positions every day. The effects of backpack wearing under different loads and positions were assessed according to the gait's spatiotemporal parameters and their variability in young adults. Methods: Twenty-one subjects performed trials of 4 min in the conditions: control condition with no backpack; bilateral back load consisting of 10% body weight (BW); bilateral back load of 20% BW (B20); unilateral load of 10% BW; unilateral load with 20% BW (U20); bilateral frontal load with 10% BW; bilateral frontal load with 20% BW. Results:Step length (SL) and step frequency (SF) show that frontal conditions differed from others as seen in B20. Gait cycle phases showed an increase in the B20 condition for double stance phase and stance phase, swing phase presented reduction in the B20 condition. There were significant main effects in position for SL, SF, and walk ratio, in load only for stride width. The highest variability of spatiotemporal parameters occurred in the U20 condition. All load conditions with 20% BW showed a greater variability when compared to the 10% BW counterpart. Conclusion:We concluded that young adults can cope with up to a 15% BW load under a bilateral back position, but in the frontal position not even a 10% BW load was proven to be a safe limit. 20% BW loads should be avoided in any position. These recommendations may assure increased gait stability, decreased trunk forward lean and decreased muscle activation and fatigue reducing back pain occurrence.

show abstract

The effect of backpack heaviness on trunk-lower extremity muscle activities and trunk posture

Cited by 94 publications

References 23 publications

A biomechanical model via Kane’s equation – solving trunk motion with load carriage

A biomechanical model via Kane’s equation – solving trunk motion with load carriage

Ground reaction forces and plantar pressure distribution during occasional loaded gait

Effects of backpack loads and positions on the variability of gait spatiotemporal parameters in young adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About