Aglaja Busch, Karl M. Trounson, Peter Browne, Sam Robertson

• Wearable resistance allows individualized loading for sport specific movements and can lead to specific strength adaptations benefiting the athlete. The objective was to determine biomechanical changes during running with lower limb light-weight wearable resistance. Fourteen participants (age: 28 +/- 4 years; height: 180 +/- 8 cm; body mass: 77 +/- 6 kg) wore shorts and calf sleeves of a compression suit allowing attachment of light loads. Participants completed four times two mins 20-m over-ground shuttle running bouts at 3.3 m*s(-1) alternated by three mins rest. The first running bout was unloaded and the other three bouts were under randomised loaded conditions (1%, 3% and 5% additional loading of the individual body mass). 3D motion cameras and force plates recorded kinematic and kinetic data at the midpoint of each 20-m shuttle. Friedman-test for repeated measures and linear mixed effect model analysis were used to determine differences between the loading conditions (alpha = 0.05). Increased peak vertical ground reaction forceWearable resistance allows individualized loading for sport specific movements and can lead to specific strength adaptations benefiting the athlete. The objective was to determine biomechanical changes during running with lower limb light-weight wearable resistance. Fourteen participants (age: 28 +/- 4 years; height: 180 +/- 8 cm; body mass: 77 +/- 6 kg) wore shorts and calf sleeves of a compression suit allowing attachment of light loads. Participants completed four times two mins 20-m over-ground shuttle running bouts at 3.3 m*s(-1) alternated by three mins rest. The first running bout was unloaded and the other three bouts were under randomised loaded conditions (1%, 3% and 5% additional loading of the individual body mass). 3D motion cameras and force plates recorded kinematic and kinetic data at the midpoint of each 20-m shuttle. Friedman-test for repeated measures and linear mixed effect model analysis were used to determine differences between the loading conditions (alpha = 0.05). Increased peak vertical ground reaction force (2.7 N/kg to 2.74 N/kg), ground contact time (0.20 s to 0.21 s) and decreased step length (1.49 m to 1.45 m) were found with additional 5 % body mass loading compared to unloaded running (0.001 > p < 0.007). Marginally more knee flexion and hip extension and less plantarflexion was seen with higher loading. Differences in the assessed parameters were present between each loading condition but accompanied by subject variability. Further studies, also examining long term effects, should be conducted to further inform use of this training tool.…