# How Different Load Carriage Scenarios Impact the Gait in Police Officers
## 3 Results  
Basic descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.  
Figure 1 shows spatial gait changes under different loading conditions. Heavier loads had no significant time effects on left foot (\(F_{1,3}=1.104\), \(p=0.351\), \(\eta^{2}=0.031\)) and right foot rotation (\(F_{1,3}=0.519\), \(p=0.670\), \(\eta^{2}=0.022\)), step length of the left foot (\(F_{1,3}=0.376\), \(p=0.351\), \(\eta^{2}=0.012\)), step length of the right foot (\(F_{1,3}=0.863\), \(p=0.463\), \(\eta^{2}=0.030\)), stride length (\(F_{1,3}=0.534\), \(p=0.660\), \(\eta^{2}=0.025\)), and step width (\(F_{1,3}=1.688\), \(p=0.175\), \(\eta^{2}=0.053\)).  
Time changes for temporal gait parameters under different loading conditions are presented in Figure 2. Similar to spatial variables, more mass added resulted in nonsignificant time effects for step length of the left foot (\(F_{1,3}=0.467\), \(p=0.706\), \(\eta^{2}=0.012\)) and right foot (\(F_{1,3}=1.377\), \(p=0.254\), \(\eta^{2}=0.045\)), stride time (\(F_{1,3}=0.958\), \(p=0.416\), \(\eta^{2}=0.033\)), cadence (\(F_{1,3}=1.293\), \(p=0.281\), \(\eta^{2}=0.041\)), and gait speed (\(F_{1,3}=0.949\), \(p=0.420\), \(\eta^{2}=0.039\)).  
Results in ground reaction forces for forefoot, midfoot, and hindfoot region of both feet are shown in Figure 3. Heavier loading conditions significantly increased ground reaction forces in left forefoot (\(F_{1,3}=31.773\), \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.506\)), midfoot (\(F_{1,3}=2.458\), \(p=0.048\), \(\eta^{2}=0.074\)), and hindfoot (\(F_{1,3}=18.150\), \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.368\)), and in the right forefoot (\(F_{1,3}=24.686\), \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.444\)), midfoot (\(F_{1,3}=3.155\), \(p=0.028\), \(\eta^{2}=0.095\)), and hindfoot (\(F_{1,3}=14.903\), \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.323\)) regions. A post hoc analysis showed that ground reaction forces under different regions of both feet significantly and gradually increased with heavier loads, compared to the no-load condition (\(p<0.05\)).  
Finally, Figure 4 presents changes in plantar pressures under forefoot, midfoot, and hindfoot regions of the feet under different loads. Heavier load carriage significantly increased plantar pressures in the left forefoot (\(F_{1,3}=2.549\), \(p=0.041\), \(\eta^{2}=0.074\)), midfoot (\(F_{1,3}=2.029\), \(p=0.050\), \(\eta^{2}=0.050\)), and hindfoot (\(F_{1,3}=5.207\), \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.147\)) and in the right forefoot (\(F_{1,3}=2.930\), \(p=0.037\), \(\eta^{2}=0.085\)), midfoot (\(F_{1,3}=2.865\), \(p=0.039\), \(\eta^{2}=0.082\)), and hindfoot (\(F_{1,3}=4.901\), \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.133\)) regions. Similar to ground reaction forces, a post hoc analysis showed that plantar pressures under different regions of  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Study Variables** & **Mean (SD)** & **Min** & **Max** \\ \hline Age (years) & 40.0 (6.0) & 27.0 & 55.0 \\ Height (cm) & 180 (5.0) & 174.0 & 189.0 \\ Weight (kg) & 89.0 (8.0) & 78.4 & 96.5 \\ Body-mass index (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 27.5 (1.8) & 24.8 & 30.5 \\ Loading conditions & & & \\ Load 1 (kg) & 5.0 & / & / \\ Load 2 (kg) & 25.0 & / & / \\ Load 3 (kg) & 45.0 & / & / \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Basic descriptive statistics of the study participants (N = 30).  
both feet significantly and gradually increased with heavier loads, compared to the no-load condition (\(p<0.05\)).  
Figure 1: Changes in spatial gait parameters under different loading conditions of no load (only body weight), L1 (5 kg load), L2 (25 kg load) and L3 (45 kg load), (N = 30).  
Figure 2: Changes in temporal parameters under different loading conditions of no load (only body weight), L1 (5 kg load), L2 (25 kg load) and L3 (45 kg load), (N = 30).