Rucking: Why Walking With Weight Might Be the Best Cardio You Are Not Doing

Rucking has had a strange decade. It went from something soldiers did because they were ordered to, to a boutique fitness category with $300 packs, branded weight plates, and a marketing apparatus built on one specific claim: that walking with weight burns two to three times the calories of walking without it.

That claim is wrong, and it is wrong by a large enough margin that anyone repeating it has not run the numbers. We will run them below.

Here is the frustrating part. Rucking is genuinely one of the best conditioning tools available to a person who lifts, and the reason has nothing to do with calorie burn. The case for it is a case about cost. In our breakdown of the interference effect, we identified four dials that determine how much your cardio damages your lifting: frequency, duration, mode, and proximity to your training session. Rucking sits at the friendliest possible setting on the one dial you cannot easily change, which is mode. It is low-impact, concentric-dominant, and produces almost none of the eccentric muscle damage that makes running expensive for lifters. You get an aerobic stimulus, a meaningful calorie sink, and postural and foot durability, and you pay for it in almost no recovery capacity.

That is the honest pitch. Not a metabolic cheat code. A cheap one.

What Rucking Actually Is

Rucking is walking with a weighted pack on your back. The word comes from military usage, where a "rucksack" is the pack and a "ruck march" or "foot march" is a timed movement over distance carrying a specified load. In the US Army the standard benchmark has historically been 12 miles with roughly 35 pounds in under three hours, though standards vary by unit and role.

The civilian version is looser. Most people rucking for fitness are covering 2 to 6 miles at somewhere between 3.0 and 4.0 miles per hour with 20 to 35 pounds, on pavement or trail, two or three times a week. That is a fundamentally different activity from what the military research population is doing, and confusing the two is where most of the bad advice in this space comes from.

Two things rucking is not. It is not a substitute for strength training, and it is not a substitute for high-intensity aerobic work if you are chasing VO2max specifically. It occupies a middle ground: harder than walking, easier to recover from than running, and considerably more transferable to real life than either.

The Calorie Math Nobody Wants to Show You

The energetics of load carriage are one of the better-studied problems in exercise physiology, mostly because armies have spent seventy years trying to predict how far a soldier can walk before falling over. The foundational work is the Pandolf equation, published by Pandolf, Givoni, and Goldman in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 1977. It predicts metabolic rate in watts from five inputs: body mass, external load, walking velocity, grade, and a terrain coefficient.

The structure of the equation matters more than the arithmetic. The load term scales with the square of the load-to-body-mass ratio. In plain terms, a light pack costs almost nothing, and the cost accelerates as the pack gets heavier relative to your size. That single feature explains why the popular claims are so far off. Marketing math assumes cost scales linearly with weight added, which would be a reasonable guess and is not how bodies work.

Here are the numbers for a 180-pound (82 kg) person walking on flat pavement, calculated directly from the Pandolf equation and converted to kilocalories per hour. These are gross figures, meaning they include resting metabolism.

Read the first four rows again. Strapping 30 pounds to your back on flat ground buys you roughly 36 extra calories per hour. Over a typical 45-minute session that is about 27 calories, which is a third of an apple. If your entire reason for rucking is fat loss, you have chosen an inefficient way to get there and you would be better served by the arithmetic in our calorie counting guide.

Now read row seven. Walking that same 30-pound pack up a 5% grade nearly doubles the burn compared to the flat unloaded walk. The hill is doing five times more work than the plate is.

The Four Levers That Actually Move the Number

If you want a ruck to be metabolically demanding, you have four inputs and only one of them is the pack.

1. Grade

By an enormous margin, the biggest lever. The Pandolf grade term is multiplied by both total mass and velocity, so hills compound with everything else you are doing. A 10% grade with a 30-pound pack more than doubles the cost of the same walk on flat ground. If you have access to hills, you do not need a heavier pack. You need a hill.

2. Terrain

The terrain coefficient in the Pandolf equation is a multiplier on the entire velocity-and-grade term, and it ranges from 1.0 for blacktop up to roughly 2.1 for loose sand. Here is what that does to the same 30-pound, 3.0 mph, flat-ground ruck:

Moving a 30-pound ruck from the sidewalk to soft sand does more for your metabolic cost than adding 40 pounds to the pack would. It is also easier on your joints than adding plates, because the additional cost comes from mechanical inefficiency rather than compressive load.

3. Speed

The velocity term is squared, so speed compounds fast. Going from 3.0 to 3.5 mph with the same 30-pound pack adds roughly 80 kcal per hour, more than doubling what the pack itself contributed. This is why competitive ruckers care about pace and why the military benchmark is a time standard rather than a load standard.

4. Load

Last on the list, and the one everyone buys equipment for. Load matters, but it matters least per unit of added misery, and it is the input that carries the most injury risk. That combination should tell you where to spend your progression.

Why Rucking Is the Cheapest Cardio a Lifter Can Buy

Here is where rucking earns its place in a lifting program, and it has nothing to do with anything in the last two sections.

The concurrent training literature is reasonably clear that not all cardio interferes equally. Wilson's 2012 meta-analysis in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research broke the interference effect down by modality and found that resistance training performed alongside running produced significant decrements in both hypertrophy and strength, while cycling did not. Gergley's 2009 trial compared cycle ergometry against incline treadmill walking alongside identical lower-body lifting and reached a compatible conclusion.

The leading explanation is mechanical rather than molecular. Running has a flight phase. Every stride ends in a landing that the quadriceps and calves absorb eccentrically, and eccentric loading is the kind that produces muscle damage. Stack that damage on top of the damage from squatting and you have spent recovery capacity you needed for growth. Cycling, by contrast, is almost purely concentric. There is nothing to absorb.

Rucking sits with cycling on that spectrum. Walking has no flight phase. Both feet never leave the ground simultaneously, which is the technical definition separating walking from running. Peak vertical ground reaction forces in loaded walking stay in the neighborhood of 1.2 to 1.5 times body weight plus load, while running routinely reaches 2.5 to 3 times body weight even unloaded. The pack raises the force, and the absence of a landing impact keeps it far below what running produces.

Rucking then adds something cycling cannot. It loads you through a standing, upright posture. Your spinal erectors, traps, hip stabilizers, and feet all work under load for the duration of the session. That is not enough stimulus to grow anything in a trained lifter, but it is real durability work in a position that matters, and it is the reason rucking transfers to carrying groceries, moving furniture, and hiking with a kid on your back in a way that a stationary bike simply does not.

What the Military Data Shows, and Where It Stops Applying

Almost everything we know about load carriage comes from armies, which creates a persistent translation problem. The research population is carrying 60 to 100 pounds, moving 12 or more miles, in boots, over broken terrain, frequently sleep-deprived and under time pressure, on a schedule they did not choose. You are carrying 25 pounds for 4 miles on a Saturday.

The findings still matter, because they identify the variables that produce injury. They just need to be read as a map of the failure modes rather than as a description of your risk.

What the literature consistently finds:

• Load carriage injuries are common at military doses. Orr and colleagues surveyed 338 Australian Army soldiers and found 34% had sustained at least one load carriage injury during their career, with 14% reporting more than one. The majority involved the lower limb or the back.
• Foot marching is a meaningful share of total injury burden. Military foot marches have been attributed with roughly 17% to 22% of Army musculoskeletal injuries, with low back pain a frequent complaint.
• Load is a dose-dependent risk factor. US Army injury surveillance has reported that service members carrying loads above roughly 30 pounds are on the order of 50% to 60% more likely to sustain a musculoskeletal injury.
• Distance and frequency matter independently. Roberts and Grier's analysis of road marching in a US Army infantry brigade found injury risk tracked mileage. Soldiers who march more often and with heavier loads develop more overuse lower-extremity injuries.
• Women carry more risk at the same absolute load. Reviews report a relative risk of roughly 1.56 for musculoskeletal injury during load carriage in women compared to men. The most plausible driver is that a standardized military load represents a much larger fraction of body mass for a smaller person, which is exactly what the squared load term in the Pandolf equation predicts.
• Aerobic fitness predicts performance and protects against failure. VO2max is among the best predictors of ruck march performance. In one ROTC cadet analysis, each one-point increase in the 2-mile run score raised the odds of completing a foot march by about 9%.

Notice what every risk factor on that list has in common. Load, distance, duration, frequency, and how fast you ramped are all variables you set yourself, and a recreational rucker sets all of them at a fraction of the military value. This is a dose-response problem, and you are dosing at the bottom of the curve.

The training guidance in that literature is worth stealing directly. Knapik and colleagues have recommended that loaded marching be trained roughly twice a month with operational loads, supplemented by a combination of aerobic and resistance work. Other reviews suggest one load carriage session every 10 to 14 days for military populations carrying military loads. That is a lower frequency than most rucking enthusiasts assume, and it reflects the fact that heavy load carriage carries a real recovery cost. At 15-20% body weight the cost is far lower and two to three sessions a week is fine.

How Much Weight You Should Actually Carry

The honest answer is that there is no validated optimal civilian rucking load, because nobody has run that study. What exists is military optimization work aimed at a different objective, plus injury surveillance that tells you where the risk starts climbing.

Military efficiency studies have found that mechanical efficiency of load carriage peaks at surprisingly high loads, in the range of 40% to 50% of body mass at walking speeds around 4.5 to 5.0 km/h. That figure gets quoted a lot and it is close to useless for you, because "efficiency" there means calories per kilogram-kilometer transported, which is a logistics metric. It answers the question "what is the cheapest way to move supplies using humans." It does not answer "what load produces the best fitness return per unit of injury risk."

The practical recommendations in the literature run much lower. Physiological-limit analyses based on holding work below roughly 35% of VO2max suggest permissible level-ground loads in the 21 to 36 kg range depending on speed, and various militaries advise fighting loads in the 30% to 35% of body weight territory as an upper bound rather than a target.

For a civilian whose goal is conditioning that does not compromise lifting, the sensible window is well below all of that.

Two rules make this work. First, hold the load constant while you extend distance, then hold distance constant while you add load. Changing two variables at once is how people find out where their tibia's limit is. Second, do not increase weekly rucking volume by more than roughly 10% to 15% at a time, which is the same conservative rule that applies to running mileage and for the same reason: bone and connective tissue adapt on a slower timeline than the cardiovascular system does, so your legs will feel ready long before your shins are.

The Injury Ledger

Every training modality has a characteristic failure list. Knowing rucking's in advance lets you screen for the early version of each.

Foot blisters and hot spots

The single most common complaint in the foot marching literature, and the most avoidable. Blisters come from repeated shear between skin layers, aggravated by moisture and by boots that either move or grip too aggressively. The fixes are boring and effective: shoes or boots that are broken in, moisture-wicking socks (many ruckers run a thin liner sock under a thicker wool sock), and stopping to address a hot spot the moment you feel one rather than at the end of the session. A hot spot treated at minute 15 costs you two minutes. A blister treated at minute 60 costs you a week.

Low back pain

A pack shifts your center of mass posteriorly, and the body compensates by leaning forward at the trunk. That forward lean loads the lumbar erectors isometrically for the entire session and increases lumbar extensor demand. Most back complaints in rucking come from a pack that is too low, too loose, or riding away from the spine. A pack whose weight sits high and tight against the upper back requires far less forward lean than one sagging at the lumbar spine.

Metatarsalgia and forefoot pain

Added load concentrates pressure under the forefoot during push-off. Cushioning and a shoe with adequate forefoot volume handle most of it. If you have a history of Morton's neuroma or metatarsal stress reactions, ruck lighter and on softer surfaces.

Bone stress injuries

The serious one. Load carriage increases ground reaction forces, and repeated elevated ground reaction forces are the mechanism behind stress fractures, most often in the tibia and the metatarsals. The risk profile is almost entirely about ramp rate. Bone remodels on a timeline of months, and stress injuries cluster in people who increased load or mileage sharply. Shin pain that is diffuse and warms up during a session is usually a soft-tissue complaint. Pain that is focal, that you can cover with a fingertip, and that gets worse as the session continues deserves attention and a break, not a heavier pack. Our guide to managing training injuries covers the general triage logic.

Shoulder and neck

Straps compressing the brachial plexus produce the classic "rucksack palsy" tingling or numbness down the arm. It is usually transient and resolves with better strap positioning and a properly loaded hip belt that transfers weight off the shoulders. Persistent numbness is a reason to unload and reassess, not to push through.

The Bone Density Claim, Honestly

Rucking marketing leans heavily on bone density, and the evidence is more mixed than the pitch suggests.

The optimistic side is real. Snow and colleagues published a five-year study in The Journals of Gerontology in 2000 in which postmenopausal women performed weighted vest exercise plus jumping three times a week for 32 weeks of each year. Over five years, exercisers changed hip bone mineral density by +1.54% at the femoral neck, -0.24% at the trochanter, and -0.82% at total hip, while controls lost 3.4% to 4.4% at every site. Preventing four percentage points of hip bone loss over five years is a meaningful clinical outcome.

The pessimistic side is more recent and more rigorous. The INVEST in Bone Health randomized clinical trial, published in 2025, enrolled 150 older adults with obesity (mean age 66.4, 74.7% women) and compared caloric-restriction weight loss alone, weight loss plus daily weighted vest use (up to 8 hours a day, weighted to replace up to 10% of body weight lost), and weight loss plus supervised progressive resistance training three times weekly. Daily weighted vest wear did not prevent weight-loss-associated bone loss at the hip.

Read the two together and the pattern is legible. The Snow protocol involved loaded movement including jumping. The INVEST vest arm involved wearing weight for long periods with no specified loading stimulus. Bone responds to strain rate and to novel, high-magnitude loading, which is why jumping and heavy lifting are the interventions with the strongest bone evidence. Carrying weight while walking is a mild strain stimulus. It is not nothing, and it is not the same category as a heavy squat.

The defensible claim is that rucking is likely modestly osteogenic and considerably better than sedentary time. The overclaim is that it is a substitute for resistance training for bone health. If bone is your primary concern, load a barbell.

Gear: Packs, Plates, and Footwear

The gear discourse around rucking is disproportionate to how much gear actually matters. Two things matter a lot, one matters somewhat, and the rest is preference.

Footwear matters most

This is the least intuitive finding in the load carriage literature and the most actionable. Weight carried on the feet is metabolically far more expensive than weight carried on the back. Classic work found that each 100 g added to footwear increases oxygen consumption by roughly 0.7% to 1.0%, while each 100 g added to a backpack increases it by only about 0.15%. Per gram, a shoe costs roughly five to six times what a pack does.

The implication runs both directions. Heavy boots make every step more expensive, which is fine if you want the extra cost and bad if you are trying to cover distance. More importantly, footwear is where blisters and forefoot pain originate, so this is the one purchase worth optimizing. Broken-in, adequate forefoot volume, enough cushioning for the load, and a sock system you have tested. Trail runners work well for most civilian rucking on mixed terrain. Boots make sense if you are training for a boots event or on genuinely rough ground where ankle protection earns its weight.

Pack fit matters second

Backpack design measurably changes metabolic cost. One comparison found roughly 5% lower oxygen consumption with a better-designed rucksack versus a traditional one at the same load. Beyond the metabolic effect, fit determines whether you get back pain and shoulder numbness.

What you put in it matters least

A branded steel plate and 30 pounds of sand in a dry bag are metabolically identical. The only real difference is packing behavior: rigid plates ride tight and high by design, while loose fill sags and shifts unless you pack it properly. Sandbags, water jugs, bagged gravel, and dumbbells wrapped in a towel all work. Pack the weight high, close to your spine, and immobile. If it sloshes or slides, it will cost you in trunk fatigue and lower back load.

Technique and Terrain

There is less technique here than in most training modalities, which is part of the appeal. Four things are worth attention.

Pack the load high and tight. The higher the weight sits and the closer it rides to your spine, the less forward lean it forces and the less lumbar demand it creates. A pack whose center of mass is low and away from the back is the single biggest contributor to rucking back pain.

Use the hip belt if you have one. A properly tensioned hip belt transfers a meaningful fraction of the load from your shoulders to your pelvis and off the brachial plexus. Load the belt first, then snug the shoulder straps, then tension the load lifters if the pack has them.

Shorten your stride slightly and keep cadence up. Loaded walking naturally pushes people toward longer strides and heavier heel strikes, which raises peak ground reaction forces. A slightly quicker, shorter step keeps forces lower and is also more efficient over distance.

Respect downhills. Descending with a pack is where eccentric loading actually shows up in rucking, and it is the one part of the activity that behaves like running from a muscle-damage standpoint. Load carriage studies consistently show higher oxygen cost and higher joint loading on downhill grades than the flat equivalent. If you want the low-damage benefit of rucking, walk up the hill with the pack and take a gentler route down, or slow down noticeably on the descent.

Programming Rucking Around a Lifting Week

The scheduling logic follows directly from the concurrent training research. Three principles cover almost everything.

Keep the dose moderate. Wilson's 2012 meta-analysis found negative correlations between endurance training duration and resistance outcomes ranging from -0.29 to -0.75, stronger than the frequency correlations. Duration is the variable that bites. Two or three rucks of 30 to 60 minutes plus one longer weekend session sits comfortably inside the range where Schumann's 2022 pooled analysis of 43 studies found a standardized mean difference for hypertrophy of -0.01, which is indistinguishable from zero.

Separate it from lifting. Robineau's 2016 trial in 58 rugby players compared 0, 6, and 24 hours of recovery between concurrent sessions and concluded that scheduling contradictory qualities less than six hours apart blunts both. Ruck on non-lifting days, or in the morning if you lift in the evening.

Put the long ruck after leg day, not before. Rucking produces little muscle damage, so it recovers fast, but it does deplete glycogen and accumulate low-grade fatigue in the calves and hip stabilizers. Putting your longest session the day before a heavy squat or deadlift day means walking into your most important session already taxed.

Template 1: Lifter adding conditioning (4-day upper/lower)

• Mon: Lower body lifting
• Tue: Upper body lifting + 30 min ruck at 12-15% BW after lifting or in the AM
• Wed: 40 min ruck, mixed terrain, 15% BW
• Thu: Lower body lifting
• Fri: Upper body lifting
• Sat: 60-75 min ruck, hills, 15-18% BW
• Sun: Off or easy unloaded walk

Template 2: Fat loss phase (rucking as the calorie sink)

• 4-5 rucks per week, 40-60 min, 12-15% BW
• Keep load conservative because you are already in a recovery deficit from the calorie deficit
• Maintain lifting volume; the deficit is the fat loss driver, and rucking is there to raise the ceiling on your intake, not to replace the deficit
• Pair with the strategy in our cutting guide and the walking case in walking for fat loss

Template 3: Event prep (12-mile ruck standard)

• One long progressive ruck weekly, building distance at roughly 10% per week toward event distance at event load
• One shorter, faster ruck weekly at event load or slightly above, focused on pace
• Two lower-body lifting sessions weekly, kept heavy and low-volume so they do not compete with the rucking volume
• Taper long ruck volume by roughly 40% in the final 10-14 days

Rucking vs. Every Other Cardio Option

The right way to compare conditioning modalities for a lifter is not calories per hour. It is return per unit of recovery capacity spent, and how much of that return is aerobic versus structural.

Running still wins on pure aerobic development per minute, and if VO2max is the target, running or hard intervals get you there faster. See our HIIT vs. LISS comparison for that tradeoff in detail. Cycling matches rucking on the damage dimension and beats it on aerobic return per minute, at the cost of being seated, indoors-biased, and transferring to nothing outside a bike.

Rucking's distinct advantage is that it is the only entry on that list that combines a low damage cost with a standing loaded posture and zero equipment barrier. You can do it in any weather, on any terrain, at any age, while carrying a conversation, and it accumulates hours of low-intensity aerobic work that most lifters otherwise never get. That case is made at more length in our piece on slow steady-state cardio, and rucking is arguably the best-executed version of that argument.

Who Should Skip It

Rucking is broadly safe and there are still people for whom it is a poor first choice.

• Anyone with an active lower-extremity bone stress injury. Adding compressive load to a bone that is already failing to remodel is the exact wrong intervention. Unload first.
• Acute or unstable low back pain. Loaded forward lean is provocative for most lumbar presentations. Get the back settled, then reintroduce loaded carries deliberately.
• Significant untreated foot pathology. Plantar fasciopathy, Morton's neuroma, and metatarsal stress reactions all get worse under added forefoot pressure.
• People with no walking base at all. If 30 minutes of unloaded walking is currently hard, build that first. Loading a movement your tissue has not adapted to unloaded is a reliable way to get hurt.
• Anyone already at the ceiling of their recovery capacity. If your lifting is stalling, your sleep is short, and you are under-eating, adding a fifth training stress is the wrong lever. Fix sleep and food first.

Pregnancy, uncontrolled hypertension, and significant cardiovascular disease all warrant a conversation with a physician before adding loaded carries, mostly because the load raises blood pressure response and shifts your center of mass and balance.

Common Mistakes

Buying the calorie claim

If you started rucking because a company told you it burns three times what walking does, you will be disappointed by the scale and quit. The real number on flat ground with 30 pounds is roughly 12% above an unloaded walk. Ruck because it is a cheap way to accumulate aerobic hours, and because it makes you durable. The calories are a bonus.

Starting too heavy

The most common single error. Someone reads that soldiers carry 45 pounds and starts there. The load carriage injury data says that is precisely the region where risk climbs, and it is being applied to a person with none of the conditioning base that soldier has. Start at 10% of body weight and be bored for a month.

Progressing load instead of terrain

The metabolic math is unambiguous. A 5% grade does roughly five times more for your energy expenditure than 30 pounds does, at a fraction of the compressive cost. Chasing plate weight is the expensive, risky way to make a ruck harder.

Rucking in whatever shoes are by the door

Footwear drives the blister and forefoot complaints that account for most rucking dropouts, and each 100 g on the foot costs five to six times what the same 100 g in the pack does. This is the one place to spend money and attention.

Stacking it against leg day

Rucking is cheap, and cheap is not free. A 75-minute hilly ruck the evening before a heavy squat session will show up in your squat. Put the long one after.

Treating it as a hypertrophy stimulus

Carrying 30 pounds while walking is nowhere near the mechanical tension required to grow muscle in a trained lifter. Rucking is conditioning. Your growth still comes from the same place it always did, which is described in our progressive overload guide.

All ruck, no ramp

Going from zero to four sessions a week because it felt easy the first time is how tibias get angry. Cardiovascular readiness outruns skeletal readiness by weeks. Cap weekly increases at roughly 10% to 15% of total volume.

The Bottom Line

Rucking is oversold on the one dimension that markets well and undersold on the one that actually matters.

The calorie story is close to a fiction. Thirty pounds on your back adds roughly 12% to the metabolic cost of a flat walk, which is a rounding error against a day of eating. Anyone promising two or three times the burn of walking has either not run the equation or is counting on you not to.

The real case is about cost. Concurrent training research says the interference you pay for cardio scales with duration, frequency, and above all with mode, and that running interferes where low-impact concentric work does not. Rucking is walking, so it has no flight phase, no landing impact, and almost no eccentric damage, while still delivering an aerobic stimulus, a loaded upright posture, and durability through the feet, hips, and spinal erectors. Per unit of recovery capacity spent, nothing else on the cardio menu returns as much to a person who lifts.

The military data is a map of the failure modes rather than a prescription. Every risk factor it identifies is a dose variable, and the recreational rucker sets all of them at a small fraction of the military value. Stay under about 20% of body weight, ramp at 10% to 15% per week, spend your progression on distance, terrain, and hills before plates, sort your footwear out, and put the long session after leg day.

Then do it for years. That, more than any equipment decision, is what makes it work.

References

1. Pandolf, K.B., Givoni, B., & Goldman, R.F. (1977). Predicting energy expenditure with loads while standing or walking very slowly. Journal of Applied Physiology: Respiratory, Environmental and Exercise Physiology, 43(4), 577-581.
2. Drain, J.R., Aisbett, B., Lewis, M., & Billing, D.C. (2017). The Pandolf equation under-predicts the metabolic rate of contemporary military load carriage. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(Suppl 4), S104-S108.
3. Looney, D.P., Santee, W.R., Karis, A.J., Blanchard, L.A., Rome, M.N., Carter, A.J., & Potter, A.W. (2022). Metabolic costs of standing and walking in healthy military-age adults: a meta-regression and modeling of heavy military backpacking. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise / US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine.
4. Knapik, J.J., Reynolds, K.L., & Harman, E. (2004). Soldier load carriage: historical, physiological, biomechanical, and medical aspects. Military Medicine, 169(1), 45-56.
5. Knapik, J.J., & Reynolds, K. (2014). Injuries and injury prevention during foot marching. Journal of Special Operations Medicine, 14(4), 79-86.
6. Orr, R.M., Pope, R., Johnston, V., & Coyle, J. (2014). Reported load carriage injuries of the Australian Army soldier. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25(2), 316-322.
7. Orr, R.M., Pope, R., Johnston, V., & Coyle, J. (2016). Gender differences in load carriage injuries of Australian Army soldiers. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 17, 488.
8. Roberts, D., & Grier, T. (2017). Risk factors for injury associated with low, moderate, and high mileage road marching in a U.S. Army infantry brigade. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(Suppl 4), S45-S50.
9. Walsh, G.S., & Low, D.C. (2021). Military load carriage effects on the gait of military personnel: a systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 93, 103376.
10. Beekley, M.D., Alt, J., Buckley, C.M., Duffey, M., & Crowder, T.A. (2007). Effects of heavy load carriage during constant-speed, simulated, road marching. Military Medicine, 172(6), 592-595.
11. Haisman, M.F. (1988). Determinants of load carrying ability. Applied Ergonomics, 19(2), 111-121.
12. Stuempfle, K.J., Drury, D.G., & Wilson, A.L. (2004). Effect of load position on physiological and perceptual responses during load carriage with an internal frame backpack. Ergonomics, 47(7), 784-789.
13. Legg, S.J., & Mahanty, A. (1986). Energy cost of backpacking in heavy boots. Ergonomics, 29(3), 433-438.
14. Soule, R.G., & Goldman, R.F. (1969). Energy cost of loads carried on the head, hands, or feet. Journal of Applied Physiology, 27(5), 687-690.
15. Snow, C.M., Shaw, J.M., Winters, K.M., & Witzke, K.A. (2000). Long-term exercise using weighted vests prevents hip bone loss in postmenopausal women. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 55(9), M489-M491.
16. Beavers, K.M., et al. (2025). Weighted vest use or resistance exercise to offset weight loss-associated bone loss in older adults: a randomized clinical trial (INVEST in Bone Health). JAMA Network Open.
17. Wilson, J.M., Marin, P.J., Rhea, M.R., Wilson, S.M.C., Loenneke, J.P., & Anderson, J.C. (2012). Concurrent training: a meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2293-2307.
18. Schumann, M., Feuerbacher, J.F., Sünkeler, M., Freitag, N., Rønnestad, B.R., Doma, K., & Lundberg, T.R. (2022). Compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training for skeletal muscle size and function: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(3), 601-612.
19. Robineau, J., Babault, N., Piscione, J., Lacome, M., & Bigard, A.X. (2016). Specific training effects of concurrent aerobic and strength exercises depend on recovery duration. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(3), 672-683.
20. Gergley, J.C. (2009). Comparison of two lower-body modes of endurance training on lower-body strength development while concurrently training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(3), 979-987.