Vine, CA, Coakley, SL, Blacker, SD, Doherty, J, Hale, B, Walker, EF, Rue, CA, Lee, BJ, Flood, TR, Knapik, JJ, Jackson, S, Greeves, JP, and Myers, SD. Accuracy of metabolic cost predictive equations during military load carriage. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-To quantify the accuracy of 5 equations to predict the metabolic cost of load carriage under ecologically valid military speed and load combinations. Thirty-nine male serving infantry soldiers completed thirteen 20-minute bouts of overground load carriage comprising 2 speeds (2.5 and 4.8 km·h) and 6 carried equipment load combinations (25, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 kg), with 22 also completing a bout at 5.5 km·h carrying 40 kg. For each speed-load combination, the metabolic cost was measured using the Douglas bag technique and compared with the metabolic cost predicted from 5 equations; Givoni and Goldman, 1971 (GG), Pandolf et al. 1997 (PAN), Santee et al. 2001 (SAN), American College of Sports Medicine 2013 (ACSM), and the Minimum-Mechanics Model (MMM) by Ludlow and Weyand, 2017. Comparisons between measured and predicted metabolic cost were made using repeated-measures analysis of variance and limits of agreement. All predictive equations, except for PAN, underpredicted the metabolic cost for all speed-load combinations (p < 0.001). The PAN equation accurately predicted metabolic cost for 40 and 50 kg at 4.8 km·h (p > 0.05), underpredicted metabolic cost for all 2.5 km·h speed-load combinations as well as 25 and 30 kg at 4.8 km·h, and overpredicted metabolic cost for 60 and 70 kg at 4.8 km·h (p < 0.001). Most equations (GG, SAN, ACSM, and MMM) underpredicted metabolic cost while one (PAN) accurately predicted at moderate loads and speeds, but overpredicted or underpredicted at other speed-load combinations. Our findings indicate that caution should be applied when using these predictive equations to model military load carriage tasks.