Orr, Rob Marc

English

Bond University Research Portal

Bond UniversityResearch RepositoryOccupational Load Carriage for Tactical Populations: Green, Blue and RedOrr, Rob MarcPublished: 01/01/2018Document Version:Peer reviewed versionLink to publication in Bond University research repository.Recommended citation(APA):Orr, R. M. (2018). Occupational Load Carriage for Tactical Populations: Green, Blue and Red. Tactical Strengthand Conditioning Conference, Virginia, United States.General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.For more information, or if you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact the Bond University research repositorycoordinator.Download date: 10 May 20194/11/2018Load Carriage across Tactical Personnel: Green, Blue and RedDr Rob Orr (PhD, PHTY, BFET, TSAC‐F, ADFPTI)Conflict of Interest Statement• I have no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this presentation.4/11/2018Content• Military• Law Enforcement • Fire and Rescue• Injuries• Impacts• ConditioningBackground• From the early Assyrian spearman of antiquity (circa 800 B.C.), soldiers have been required to carry external loads consisting of weaponry, equipment and food(Orr, 2010; Knapik et al., 2012:2004)• Downstream effects of these loads have been shown to impact on the tactics of warfare, cause injury and reduce fighting force size(Lee, 2007; Breen, 2002;Lothian , 1921)HISTORICAL CONTEXT – MILITARYHISTORICAL CONTEXT – MILITARY(Orr, 2010: Orr et al., 2015)4/11/2018On Operations (2001‐2010)• PO loads • M=28.4 ± 10.0 kg• heaviest mean load in 2008 (M=36.9±10.8 kg)• MO loads • M=56.7 ± 15.3 kg • heaviest mean load in 2009 (M=65.1 ±16.3 kg)• OVERALL loads• 47.7±21.0 kg, (mean range over 10 years = 40.7 kg to 50.9 kg) (Orr et al., 2015) CURRENT CONTEXT – AUSTRALIAN ARMY(Orr et al., 2015).• Approximate relative load carried by Roman Legionnaires = 56%• Australian Soldiers in East Timor = 56% • US Soldiers in Afghanistan = 57%  http://www.roman-empire.net/army/pics/marius-mules.jpg 1 Joint Public Affairs Unit - AchievesCURRENT CONTEXT – AUSTRALIAN ARMY(Orr et al., 2010)• Currently female soldiers carry lighter absolute loads than male soldiers but only slightly heavier relative loadsABSOLUTE LOADS*FEMALE: M = 26.4 kg MALE: M = 39.0 kgp=.045RELATIVE LOADSFEMALE: M = 43%MALE: M = 47%p=.55ABSOLUTE VS RELATIVE LOADS(Orr et al., 2015)4/11/2018ABSOLUTE LOADSLight 20%: M = 34.7 kg Heavy 20%: M = 35.7 kgp=.902RELATIVE LOADSLight 20%: M = 49%Heavy 20%: M = 36%p=.0509• Currently lighter soldiers carry the same absolute loads as heavier soldiers but heavier relative loadsABSOLUTE VS RELATIVE LOADS(Orr et al., 2015)1890s 1970s 2010HISTORICAL CONTEXT – LEOhttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xHtSiLRFIMQ/UfewLRnEgAI/AAAAAAAAIpc/54yapn_ibtE/s1600/Curious+Black+&+White+Photographs+of+The+Police+Officers+from+1890–1930+(28).jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HO26ffMhqS4/UiHkEhycroI/AAAAAAAAMR4/qGsg2ryfWKA/s640/Pictures+of+Life+of+the+New+York+Police+Department+in+the+1970's+(7).jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/WBell_PoliceHolsterHist/Police-Holster-History-012.jpghttp://images.smh.com.au/2012/12/04/3861588/art-police-uniforms-620x349.jpghttp://images.smh.com.au/2009/03/09/410908/policebelt.jpg• Police are becoming Christmas treeshttp://images.canberratimes.com.au/2012/06/24/3400673/art729-st24policewomen-420x0.jpg http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_03/TabGunGirlLEWIS_468x715.jpgHISTORICAL CONTEXT – LEO4/11/2018• Increasing levels of threatHISTORICAL CONTEXT - LEOPhotograph taken by authorILAV type (A‐C) & Normal station wear (N) ILAV Weight (kg) Duty load Complete (kg) Total load including officer weight (kg) A  4.12 ± 0.65*  11.53 ± 0.77‡  88.03 ± 20.49 B  3.54 ± 0.70*  11.01 ± 1.01‡  87.51 ± 20.60 C  3.24 ± 0.48*  10.77 ± 1.16‡  87.27 ± 20.66 N  NA  8.69 ± 0.68  85.19 ± 20.24 * Significantly different (p<0.05) between vests: ‡ Significantly different (p<0.001) from normal station wearCURRENT CONTEXT – AUSTRALIAN LEO(Orr et al., 2016)FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALEILAV typeILAV + Duty Loads (kg)ILAV + Duty Loads (kg) %BW %BWA 11.14 11.85 16.90 14.90B 10.80 11.18 16.43 13.91C 10.24 11.22 15.60 13.95N 8.68 8.70 13.20 10.92*p=0.009*p=0.225CURRENT CONTEXT – AUSTRALIAN LEO(Orr et al., 2016)4/11/2018COMBINED(n=246)Age (yrs) 30.82±5.84Years sworn (yrs) 3.62±3.46Body Wt (Kg) 85.69±15.08Load Wt (Kg) 10.72±1.73Relative load (%) 11.83±2.38(Dulla et al., 2017)CURRENT CONTEXT – US LEOFEMALE (n=43)MALE(n=203)Age (yrs) 30.60±4.56 30.86±6.09Years sworn (yrs) 4.03±2.92 3.54±3.56Body Wt (Kg) 68.78±10.96* 89.27±13.31Load Wt (Kg) 9.99±1.66* 10.87±1.71Relative load (%) 13.36±2.46* 11.50±2.24* Significantly different from male sheriffs, p<.001 (Dulla et al., 2017)CURRENT CONTEXT – US LEOCohort Mean ± SD(Range)Male Mean ± SD(Range) FemaleMean ± SD(Range)Age (years) 38.79 ± 7.97(22 – 66)38.36 ± 8.06(22‐66)40.88 ± 7.68(25‐50)Height (cm) 177.45 ± 8.36(156.21 – 195.58)179.53 ± 6.95(165.10 – 195.58)167.32 ± 7.49(156.21 – 177.80)Weight (kg) 88.61 ± 19.44(51.71 – 154.59)91.35 ± 18.20(66.04 – 154.58)75.22 ± 20.95(51.71 – 118.16)Absolute load (kg) 9.57 ± .94(7.08 – 12.02)9.61 ± .97(7.08 – 12.02)9.34 ± .81(8.26 – 10.70)Relative load (% of body weight) 11.19 ± 2.14(5.93 – 17.02)10.82 ± 1.87(5.93 – 14.56)13.00 ± 2.56(8.41 – 17.02)CURRENT CONTEXT – US LEO (2) (Dawes, Kornhauser, Holmes, et al., submitted)4/11/2018• Both LEO studies found female officers carried either the same (AUST) or lighter (US) absolute loads compared to the male officers• However when expressed as a percentage of their body weight female officers carried significantly more relative load than male officersABSOLUTE VS RELATIVE LOADSCURRENT CONTEXT – AUTRALIAN LEO (TOU)Photograph taken by authorMean ± SD RangeAbsolute load carried (kg) 22.8 ± 1.8 20.6-25.6Relative load carried (%BW) 25.9 ± 4.0 21.2-28.8(Carbone et al., 2014; Carlton et al., 2014)1770 1879 2016HISTORICAL CONTEXT - FIREFIGHTINGhttp://www.stacksplace.com/EMS/ffadd1.jpg4/11/2018MEAN ± SDAge (yrs) 34.14 ± 7.69Years of Experience (yrs) 7.00 ± 8.18Unloaded Weight (kg) 90.96 ± 9.65Weight of Supervisor PPE (kg) 11.03 ± 0.10Weight of Firefight PPE‐FF (kg) 22.61 ± 0.31Relative Weight of PPE (% body weight) 13.13 ± 0.05Relative Weight of PPE‐FF (% body weight) 22.23 ± 2.18(Orr, Gorey et al., 2015)CURRENT CONTEXT – AUST FIREPosition Driver Firefighter Officer ParamedicAge (yrs) 41.89 ±8.22 35.63 ± 8.67 49.85 ± 6.48 39.00 ± 10.24Height (cm ) 175.61± 8.73 178.17 ± 6.12 176.39 ± 4.86 178.16 ± 4.65Weight (kgs) 93.01± 16.16 87.55 ± 12.17 90.50± 15.16 88.45 ± 10.35BMI 30.15 ± 4.41 27.49 ± 3.17 28.59 ± 4.22 27.82 ± 2.74PPE Load (kgs) 27.25 ±6.27 27.99 ± 1.92 27.00± 2.01 28.02 ± 2.177PPE Load (%bw) 30.49 ± 10.46 32.57 ± 4.99 30.40 ± 4.58 32.10 ± 4.67CURRENT CONTEXT – US FIRE (Dawes et al., unpublished)4/11/2018• Mean ARA population over 2 years = 24,876 personnel• Female n= 2441 (10%): Male n= 22435 (90%) • 401 reported injuries associated with load carriage • Female n=40 (10%): male n= 361 (90%) • RR = 1.02 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.41)• SPI• Female n=6 (15%): male n= 23 (6%) • RR of SPI = 2.40 (95% CI 0.98 to 5.88) SEX DIFFERENCES IN LC INJURIES (Orr et al., 2016)(Orr et al., 2016)• Decrements in performance: • ↓ Marksmanship (Knapik et al., 1990:1991:1997: Rice et al., 1999).IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MARKSMANSHIP4/11/2018• Reduced performance• Survey of  218 soldiers on operations-1.24-0.80-0.96-0.99-0.95-2 -1 0 1 2Attention to TaskAdministrationGrenade ThrowMarksmanshipMobilityOperational TasksImpact of Load Carriage on PerformanceIMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MARKSMANSHIP(Orr et al., 2013)• Distance to centre of target• DCOT• Horizontal shot spread• X‐Dispersion• Vertical shot spread• Y‐Dispersion(Carbone et al., 2014)IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MARKSMANSHIP4/11/2018• MarksmanshipIMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MARKSMANSHIP(Carbone et al., 2014)• No significant difference when TLIMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MARKSMANSHIP(Orr et al., accepted)4/11/2018• Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MARKSMANSHIP(Orr et al., accepted)• Perceived significant improvement in marksmanship when TL• Primary – VAS +3.00 ± 2.53 (p = 0.016)• Secondary – VAS +2.83 ± 2.93, (p = 0.039)• Correlations between perceptions of load carriage impacts on performance and actual marksmanship scores• Primary: Short move: r = ‐0.347, (p = 0.500) and mobility task: r = ‐0.401 (p = 0.431) • Secondary: Short move: r=‐0.631 (p = 0.179) and mobility task: r = ‐0.306, (p = 0.555)IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MARKSMANSHIP(Orr et al., accepted)• GD police (n=11) • Average marksmanship scores (p=.118)• ILAV B – smallest SD, • ILAV A: a negative impact, ‐2.1 (95% CI ‐5.5 to +1.3)• ILAV B: a positive impact, +2.7 (95% CI +0.4 to +5.0)• ILAV C: a negative impact, ‐1.7 (95% CI ‐4.4 to +0.9)• Normal station wear: a positive impact, +1.4 (95% CI ‐2.2 to +5.0)IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MARKSMANSHIP(Schram et al., submitted)4/11/2018(Schram et al., unpublished)• Decrements in performance: • ↓ Mobility• Impeded mission success (Breen 2000)IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MOBILITY• Victim Drag (10m)• Police Vehicle Exit and SprintIMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MOBILITYVictim Drag Vehicle ExitCondition Time (s) Time (s)ILAV A 5.74±0.28 3.49±0.94ILAV B 5.47±0.23 3.41±0.87ILAV C 5.50±0.38 3.40±1.06N 5.56±0.43 3.41±0.85(Schram et al., submitted)4/11/2018Unloaded Loaded10m sprint (sec) 2.40 ± 0.22 2.46 ± 0.1510m dummy drag (sec) 6.89 ± 0.44 7.79 ± 0.75*Total time (sec) 9.29 ± 0.53 10.25 ± 0.77** Indicates statically significant differences between unloaded and loaded, p<0.01.IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - MOBILITY(Carlton et al., 2014)Cohort Mean ± SD(Range)Male Mean ± SD(Range) FemaleMean ± SD(Range)Age (years) 38.79 ± 7.97(22 – 66)38.36 ± 8.06(22‐66)40.88 ± 7.68(25‐50)Height (cm) 177.45 ± 8.36(156.21 – 195.58)179.53 ± 6.95(165.10 – 195.58)167.32 ± 7.49(156.21 – 177.80)Weight (kg) 88.61 ± 19.44(51.71 – 154.59)91.35 ± 18.20(66.04 – 154.58)75.22 ± 20.95(51.71 – 118.16)Absolute load (kg) 9.57 ± .94(7.08 – 12.02)9.61 ± .97(7.08 – 12.02)9.34 ± .81(8.26 – 10.70)Relative load (% of body weight)11.19 ± 2.14(5.93 – 17.02)10.82 ± 1.87(5.93 – 14.56)13.00 ± 2.56(8.41 – 17.02)IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - POWER(Dawes, Kornhauser, Holmes et al., submitted)Unloaded LoadedVJ (cm):CohortMaleFemale49.49 ± 8.4651.39 ± 7.5040.22 ± 6.7943.62 ± 7.68†45.32 ± 6.78†35.31 ± 6.54†PAPw (W):CohortMaleFemale4963.02 ± 879.175202.74 ± 708.753794.38 ± 686.645039.83 ± 913.92**5269.80 ± 773.37*3918.69 ± 714.72†P:W (W/kg):CohortMaleFemale56.67 ± 6.4157.72 ± 6.1251.56 ± 5.5251.66 ± 4.93†52.60 ± 4.58†47.03 ± 4.04†IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - POWER(Dawes, Kornhauser, Holmes et al., submitted)4/11/2018IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE - AGILITY(Dawes, Kornhauser, Holmes, et al., submitted)Example: Active Shooter Resulting from a High Risk Warrant Execution(Robinson, Irving, et al., 2015)4/11/2018Example: Physical Assessments to mimic physiological stress encountered during key tasks-SPURT(Robinson, Irving, Orr, et al., 2015)PRACTICAL APPLICATION ‐ Conditioning• Tactical personnel need to be reconditioned to carry loads following injury as part of a RTW process• F (7‐10 days), • I (loads required), • T (work duration), • T (Load carriage / combined RT & Aerobic)(Orr et al., 2010; Knapik et al., 2012) Measure Pack March 1 (mins:sec) Pack March 2 (mins:sec) Pack March 3 (mins:sec) Pack March 1 (mins:sec) 1 .840** .815** Pack March 2 (mins:sec) .840** 1 .881** Pack March 3 (mins:sec) .815** .881** 1 Body Weight (kg) 0.097 0.010 0.081 1 RM Bench Press (kg) -.360* -.318* -.295* Bench Ratio (%) -.465** -.365* -.379** 1 RM Squat (kg) -.401** -.335* -.316* Squat Ratio (%) -.500** -.381** -.396** 1 RM Deadlift (kg) -.288* -0.248 -0.215 Deadlift Ratio (%) -.403** -.294* -.305* 1 RM Pull up (kg) -.452** -.439** -.416** Pull up Ratio (%) -.607** -.512** -.541** Vertical Jump -.501** -.541** -.523** Shuttle Run (Level) -.712** -.709** -.711** 10 meter sprint .373* 0.178 0.217 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).  	4/11/2018PRACTICAL APPLICATION ‐ Conditioning• Tactical personnel need to be reconditioned to carry loads following injury as part of a RTW process• F (7‐10 days), • I (loads required), • T (work duration), • T (Load carriage / combined RT & Aerobic)• Must RTW stronger than when they were injured(Orr et al., 2010; Knapik et al., 2012)Load Carriage across Tactical Personnel: Green, Blue and RedDr Rob Orr (PhD, PHTY, BFET, TSAC‐F, ADFPTI)https://bond.edu.au/trurorr@bond.edu.au

Occupational Load Carriage for Tactical Populations: Green, Blue and Red

https://pure.bond.edu.au/ws/files/27327997/Load_Carriage_across_tactical_personnel_green_blue_red.pdf

Occupational Load Carriage for Tactical Populations: Green, Blue and Red

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bond University Research Portal