Load distribution and postural changes in young adults when wearing a traditional backpack versus the BackTpack
Introduction
Load carriage can be the most convenient way to transport items (e.g. military, students, athletes). Previous reports indicated over 40 million students in the United States used backpacks on a regular basis [1]. Improper backpack use (unilateral or excessive posterior loading) has led to alignment issues such as forward head posture (FHP), rounded shoulders, kyphosis, low back pain, and an asymmetrical axial skeleton [2], [3], [4], [5].
Posture is the amalgamation of the position of multiple joints, bones, and muscles along the longitudinal axis of the body [6]. A neutral posture aligns these components in equilibrium. However, continuous poor postural compensations can lead to musculoskeletal imbalances and pain. Forward head posture occurs when the head is held anterior to its neutral, balanced position and stresses the cervical vertebrae and posterior neck muscles [7], [8]. Low back pain may be caused by forward flexion of the trunk, which stresses the ligaments and intervertebral discs of the lumbar region [9], [10].
Researchers have investigated the weight of backpacks, duration of wear, and postural and gait changes during load carriage. Postural compensations have been reported in conjunction with loads above approximately 20% body weight [11], [12]. These compensations were reported in static trials where increased weight was correlated with an increase in FHP, trunk flexion, spinal asymmetry, and tensile forces in the intervertebral discs [4], [5], [13]. Similarly, postural changes with backpack use are seen during gait, including FHP, rounded shoulders, and forward trunk lean [14], [15], [16]. Backpack loads can also impact gait by increasing horizontal braking forces [14], ankle dorsiflexion, and hip and knee flexion [16].
By maintaining a neutral posture through load displacement around the body's vertical axis, nontraditional backpacks seek to reduce, and perhaps avoid, postural compensations seen in traditional backpacks. Alterations in load distribution have been assessed using a double-pack design, which distributed the load both in front and behind the participant and demonstrated decreased trunk lean and smaller center of mass displacement compared to traditional backpacks [17]. Alternatively, front-packs, which place the load anterior to the wearer, produce less FHP and hip flexion than traditional backpacks resulting in greater upright posture [18]. However, front-packs have also created an increase in thoracic kyphosis [19].
The principal purpose of this study was to assess postural changes at the spine between a traditional backpack and a nontraditional backpack (load placed bilaterally on the wearer). Additionally, the effects of load distribution on hip and knee joint mechanics during static stance and heel strike during walking were evaluated. It was hypothesized that the nontraditional backpack would result in more upright posture showing less forward trunk inclination and FHP. It was also hypothesized that the nontraditional backpack would result in smaller joint moments in the sagittal plane than the traditional backpack.
Section snippets
Participants and sampling procedures
Twenty-four healthy young adults (22.5 ± 2.5 years, 12 males) participated in this study. Participants were free from lower extremity and back injury and any other musculoskeletal or neurological condition inhibiting their ability to carry a backpack at 15% and 25% of their body weight. Participants carried a traditional backpack on a regular basis (3+ days/week) and completed a university-approved consent form and health questionnaire prior to participation.
Measurements
Posture and gait mechanics were captured
Results
A summary of means and standard deviations for variables analyzed during walking is presented in Table 1. Post hoc comparisons defining significant differences for walking trials are presented in Table 2. Summary statistics for significant results during static and walking trials are presented in Table 3.
Discussion
The primary goal of the current study was to determine the impact of load distribution on both gait and posture between two backpack styles in young adults. The hypothesis that the BTP would result in more upright posture than the BP was confirmed for both walking and static trials with less forward trunk lean and FHP for the BTP over the BP. Joint moments at the hip and knee in the sagittal plane were hypothesized to be less for the BTP, which was confirmed for the knee at the 25% load.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while not equal to the No Load condition, load displacement of the BTP allowed the wearer to maintain a more upright posture than the BP—the trunk was more erect and the head was less hyperextended. The more upright stance facilitated by the BTP may reduce the potentially negative effects of poor posture such as neck and shoulder pain, low back pain, and musculoskeletal asymmetries. While not always significantly different from the BP, the BTP more closely resembled the
Conflict of interest
There was no conflict of interest regarding this study among any of the authors.
Acknowledgments
This study was partially funded by Ball State University's ASPiRE Grant. The nontraditional backpacks were provided by BackTpack.
References (28)
- et al.
The effect of backpack heaviness on trunk-lower extremity muscle activities and trunk posture
Gait Posture
(2008) - et al.
Gait and posture responses to backpack load during level walking in children
Gait Posture
(2003) - et al.
Influence of carrying a backpack on pelvic tilt, rotation, and obliquity in female college students
Gait Posture
(2006) - et al.
A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill walking
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
(1998) - et al.
A comparison of variability in spatiotemporal gait parameters between treadmill and overground walking conditions
Gait Posture
(2016) - et al.
A three-dimensional kinematic and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill walking in healthy elderly subjects
Clin Biomech
(2010) - et al.
Evaluation of book backpack load during walking
Ergonomics
(2001) - et al.
The impact of habitual school bag carriage on the health of pubescent scholars
Afr J Phys Health Educ Recreat Dance
(2001) - et al.
Deduction of spinal loading from vertebral body surface strain measurements
Exp Mech
(2007) - et al.
The effects of load carriage on spinal curvature and posture
Spine
(2004)
The effect of frontpacks, shoulder bags and handheld bags on 3D back shape and posture in young university students: an ISIS2 study
Stud Health Technol Inform
The physiology of the joints
Cited by (29)
School backpack design: A systematic review and a summary of design items
2021, International Journal of Industrial ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :Since there was limited literature identified for the dimension of backpack design, more surveys and experiments are expected in this direction. BackTpack (Fig. 2A), a proprietary product, involved a novel type of carrying method that distributed some of the load from the back to the two sides of the trunk (Dahl et al., 2016; Ramadan and Al-Tayyar, 2020). As compared with the backpack, the BackTpack design was associated with more natural gait patterns when not loaded (Dahl et al., 2016), in the aspects of trunk angle and head angle, while both walking and standing.
Influence of school bag loads and carrying methods on body strain among young male students
2021, International Journal of Industrial ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :The decrease in lumbar lordosis (i.e., LSA) and the increase in head and trunk forward flexion (i.e., HA and TA) and tilted shoulders (i.e., LST) as the weight increases (Table 2) might be attributed to the heavier backpack or bag forcing the participants to increase their efforts to counterbalance the excessive external loads. The result was in agreement with that of previous studies (Chansirinukor et al., 2001; Orloff and Rapp, 2004; Chow et al., 2009; Kistner et al., 2013; Mo et al., 2013; Dahl et al., 2016). The carried load had a significant effect on LSA, similar to the study of Chen and Mu (2018), which indicated that LSA drastically decreased when the backpack weight increased from 10% to 15% of BW.
The Musculoskeletal Disorders Related to Backpack Loading Assisting Evaluation among Last-Mile Delivery Workers -A Review
2023, AIP Conference Proceedings