We compared two backpack designs (back/front or back only) in twelve recreational runners (age 22.0 ± 1.7years). An initial incremental exercise test (VO2max 52.2 ± 4.7 ml kg-1.min-1) 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 (O2 cost), heart rate (HR) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). Repeated measure ANOVA revealed a non-significant main effect for CR, O2 cost, HR, RPE between systems. Post-hoc comparison of significant time × position interaction showed for CR, F(3,33) = 5.34, p < .01, ηp2 = 0.33, and O2 cost, F(3,33) = 5.15, p < .01, ηp2 = 0.32, that carrying weight in the back/front were significantly lower after 20 min (CR: p = .02 and O2 cost: p = .03). These results suggest, that for longer runs the equal distribution of weight is advantageous.

中文翻译：

---

两种不同的跑步背包设计之间的经济性比较。

我们比较了十二名休闲跑步者（年龄22.0±1.7岁）的两种背包设计（仅背面/背面或背面）。进行了最初的增量运动测试（VO2max 52.2±4.7 ml kg-1.min-1），然后进行了四个20分钟持续时间的测试（跑步速度9.8±1.1 km / h），负载分别为0、1 kg，3公斤和6公斤，两个背包设计按随机顺序排列。通过跑步的能源成本（CR），氧气成本（O2成本），心率（HR）和感知劳累率（RPE）评估经济性。重复测量的方差分析显示系统之间的CR，O2成本，HR，RPE的主要影响不显着。事后比较显着时间×位置相互作用显示CR，F（3,33）= 5.34，p <.01，ηp2= 0.33和O2成本，F（3,33）= 5.15，p <.01， ηp2= 0.32，则20分钟后后/前的载重量显着降低（CR：p = .02，氧气成本：p = .03）。这些结果表明，对于更长的运行时间，重量的相等分布是有利的。