## 3 Results
### Carrying Strength  
Table 6 shows the means and standard deviations of the carrying strength. The ANOVA results showed that the effects of the gender, posture, and gloved conditions were all significant (\(p\) < 0.01) on carrying strength. The effects of handedness were not significant. [PERSON]'s multiple range test results showed that the carrying strength for males (51.7 \(\pm\) 12.3 kgf) was significantly (\(p\) < 0.05) higher than that for female (30.1 \(\pm\) 6.9 kgf). The carrying strength under straight posture (41.4 \(\pm\) 14.7 kgf) was significantly (\(p\) < 0.05) higher than that under semi-squat posture (39.0 \(\pm\) 14.4 kgf). The carrying strength with glove 2 (41.5 \(\pm\) 14.8 kgf) and glove 3 (42.7 \(\pm\) 14.8 kgf) conditions were significantly (\(p\) < 0.05) higher than those with glove 1 (37.6 \(\pm\) 14.3 kgf) and bare hand (38.9 \(\pm\) 14.2 kgf) conditions. The difference between gloves 2 and 3 conditions was not significant. The difference between glove 1 and bare hand conditions was also insignificant. The reduction of carrying strength when wearing gloves, compared to that of the bare hand condition, was termed as RCS. It was calculated using an equation similar to Equation (1). Negative RCS values indicate an increase in the carrying strength because of wearing gloves. Table 7 shows the means and standard deviations of the RCS for different \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Postures**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Glove**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Female**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Male**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **Dominant** & **Non-Dominant** & **Dominant** & **Non-Dominant** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Semi-squat} & 0 \({}^{\lx@sectionsign}\) & 28.7 (\(\pm\)6.4) & 27.1 (\(\pm\)6.6) & 53.6 (\(\pm\)12.0) & 49.5 (\(\pm\)10.3) \\  & 1 & 26.7 (\(\pm\)6.3) & 26.0 (\(\pm\)6.6) & 52.2 (\(\pm\)12.5) & 45.2 (\(\pm\)8.5) \\  & 2 & 32.0 (\(\pm\)7.9) & 31.5 (\(\pm\)8.2) & 45.7 (\(\pm\)20.6) & 48.5 (\(\pm\)11.4) \\  & 3 & 30.9 (\(\pm\)5.5) & 30.6 (\(\pm\)7.6) & 54.3 (\(\pm\)11.2) & 52.2 (\(\pm\)8.6) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Straight} & 0 & 30.3 (\(\pm\)5.1) & 30.1 (\(\pm\)6.9) & 50.2 (\(\pm\)15.2) & 47.9 (\(\pm\)10.6) \\  & 1 & 28.5 (\(\pm\)5.4) & 26.4 (\(\pm\)4.5) & 53.0 (\(\pm\)11.4) & 48.7 (\(\pm\)10.8) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2 & 33.2 (\(\pm\)6.5) & 32.8 (\(\pm\)7.0) & 56.5 (\(\pm\)8.3) & 57.2 (\(\pm\)11.2) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & 33.0 (\(\pm\)7.1) & 33.0 (\(\pm\)7.4) & 59.4 (\(\pm\)15.2) & 53.9 (\(\pm\)9.7) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\lx@sectionsign}\) bare hand condition.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Carrying strength (kgf) under experimental conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Gender** & **Hand** & **Glove** & **Regression Coefficient** & \(p\)**-Value** & \(\mathbf{R^{2}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{female} & & 0 \({}^{\lx@sectionsign}\) & 3.73 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.91 \\  & Dominant & 1 & 3.35 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.93 \\  & 2 & 3.38 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.92 \\  & 3 & 3.17 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.93 \\ \cline{2-5}  & & 0 & 3.36 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.89 \\  & Non-dominant & 1 & 3.06 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.92 \\  & 2 & 3.13 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.90 \\  & 3 & 2.91 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.93 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{male} & & 0 & 6.13 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.94 \\  & 1 & 5.53 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.94 \\  & Dominant & 2 & 5.78 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.94 \\  & 3 & 5.44 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.93 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & & 0 & 5.73 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.93 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Non-dominant & 1 & 5.06 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.94 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2 & 5.23 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.93 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & 4.84 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.94 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\lx@sectionsign}\) bare hand condition.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Regression analysis results of the grip strength over grip span. gender, handedness, and glove conditions. The ANOVA results showed that the effects of posture (\(p<0.01\)) and gloved conditions (\(p<0.0001\)) were both significant on the RCS.