[pct-l] footwear weight, was UL danger

[Len Glassner]

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to read the full paper.
Can you post it somewhere that won't clog up the PCT-L?

Among other things, I'd like to know:

- why was study performed?
- was there any discussion of prior papers that contradicted these
results, with an explanation provided to explain the contradictions
(e.g, the flaws in prior methodologies)?
- was energy consumption perceived as insignificant over lengthening
time periods?

Assuming that there is a weight-carrying free lunch at amounts up to
6.6 pounds (3 kg), then the first application that comes to mind is
not heavier footwear, but more pack weight moved down to the ankle
area - voila, the footie pack!  If my shoes weigh two pounds, I should
be able to pack four pounds plus around my ankles.

Market opportunity!  I've already contacted my patent attorney.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Yoshihiro Murakami
<completewalker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sean 'Miner' Nordeen
>
> I became anxious about the ergomics, and I searched several papers,
> which may be important for hiker. I will report in near future.
>
> today's important finding:
>
> According to Abe et al. (2004 ) reported in Journal  of Applied
> Ergonomics 35, 329-335. , eight young men walked on a treadmill at
> various speed with ankle weight ( 0, 1, 1.5, 3 Kg for each leg), and
> energy consumption per walking speed were measured. The results were
> astonishing. The energy consumption 1, 1.5 conditions were slightly
> higher than that of 0 Kg condition, but not statistically significant.
> When walking speed became slower, they  were completely no difference
> with that of 0 Kg condition.  I thought this experiment indicated that
> it is no use to worry about boots weight, if the weight of each boot
> is less than 1.5 Kg, there is no difference on the  energy
> consumption.
>
-- 
'Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit' - Oscar Wilde

Sent from home by my carrier pigeon.