You'd think if they were going to do a study about something so mind-numbingly obvious they'd at least make sure to do it right, but as others have pointed out they don't seem to be taking into account that the wearer of such armour would be trained and experienced in its use. There's no denying it's heavy, I mean really a bloody scale can determine that, but if you want to somehow judge how it effected battlefields and combat conditions you've got to take the human element into account as well.
You wouldn't just randomly send a group of people into a tank expecting them to have the knowledge and experience to use it right, if at all. Same for their medieval counterparts.
A more appropriate study would be to have selected groups wearing the armour and exercising in it on a regular basis over the course of a few months then have a control group that are brought in for testing without the same experience. Ideally you would even have different groups in different types of armour over different amounts of time.
But then that would also be expensive and time consuming, so I guess they decided to go with the more obvious approach.
SCIENCE
You wouldn't just randomly send a group of people into a tank expecting them to have the knowledge and experience to use it right, if at all. Same for their medieval counterparts.
A more appropriate study would be to have selected groups wearing the armour and exercising in it on a regular basis over the course of a few months then have a control group that are brought in for testing without the same experience. Ideally you would even have different groups in different types of armour over different amounts of time.
But then that would also be expensive and time consuming, so I guess they decided to go with the more obvious approach.
SCIENCE