The purpose of this study was to validate peak acceleration data from an accelerometer contained within a wearable tracking device while walking, jogging and running. Thirty‐nine participants walked, jogged and ran on a treadmill while 10 peak accelerations per movement were obtained (n = 390). A single triaxial accelerometer measured resultant acceleration during all movements. To provide a criterion measure of acceleration, a 12‐camera motion analysis (MA) system tracked the position of a retro‐reflective marker affixed to the wearable tracking device. Peak raw acceleration recorded by the accelerometer significantly overestimated peak MA acceleration (P < 0.01). Filtering accelerometer data improved the relationship with the MA system (P < 0.01). However, only the 10 Hz and 8 Hz cut‐off frequencies significantly reduced the errors found. The walk movement demonstrated the highest accuracy, agreement and precision and the lowest relative errors. Linear increases in error were observed for jog compared with walk and for run compared to both other movements. As the magnitude of acceleration increased, the strength of the relationship between the accelerometer and the criterion measure decreased. These results indicate that filtered accelerometer data provide an acceptable means of assessing peak accelerations, in particular for walking and jogging.

This study assessed the validity of a tri-axial accelerometer worn on the upper body to estimate peak forces during running and change-of-direction tasks. Seventeen participants completed four different running and change-of-direction tasks (0°, 45°, 90°, and 180°; five trials per condition). Peak crania-caudal and resultant acceleration was converted to force and compared against peak force plate ground reaction force (GRF) in two formats (raw and smoothed). The resultant smoothed (10 Hz) and crania-caudal raw (except 180°) accelerometer values were not significantly different to resultant and vertical GRF for all running and change-of-direction tasks, respectively. Resultant accelerometer measures showed no to strong significant correlations (r = 0.00–0.76) and moderate to large measurement errors (coefficient of variation [CV] = 11.7–23.9%). Crania-caudal accelerometer measures showed small to moderate correlations (r = − 0.26 to 0.39) and moderate to large measurement errors (CV = 15.0–20.6%). Accelerometers, within integrated micro-technology tracking devices and worn on the upper body, can provide a relative measure of peak impact force experienced during running and two change-of-direction tasks (45° and 90°) provided that resultant smoothed values are used.

Armed forces worldwide utilize some form of body armor as part of their personal protective system. This is particularly essential in recent times because of the increased sophistication of weapons employed during modern warfare and the advent of unconventional combat methods (such as the increased use of improvised explosive devices). There is some evidence to show, however, that the usage of military body armor impairs physical performance. This review of the literature will focus on the effect of body armor on the performance of, and physiological and subjective responses during, military-style physical tasks. Because of the paucity of research investigating body armor, this review will also draw upon more generalized personal protective clothing and equipment literature from a range of physically demanding occupations (i.e., firefighting and other emergency services). The review will conclude with suggested directions for future research in this area.