Literature DB >> 24838747

Partitioning the metabolic cost of human running: a task-by-task approach.

Christopher J Arellano1, Rodger Kram2.   

Abstract

Compared with other species, humans can be very tractable and thus an ideal "model system" for investigating the metabolic cost of locomotion. Here, we review the biomechanical basis for the metabolic cost of running. Running has been historically modeled as a simple spring-mass system whereby the leg acts as a linear spring, storing, and returning elastic potential energy during stance. However, if running can be modeled as a simple spring-mass system with the underlying assumption of perfect elastic energy storage and return, why does running incur a metabolic cost at all? In 1980, Taylor et al. proposed the "cost of generating force" hypothesis, which was based on the idea that elastic structures allow the muscles to transform metabolic energy into force, and not necessarily mechanical work. In 1990, Kram and Taylor then provided a more explicit and quantitative explanation by demonstrating that the rate of metabolic energy consumption is proportional to body weight and inversely proportional to the time of foot-ground contact for a variety of animals ranging in size and running speed. With a focus on humans, Kram and his colleagues then adopted a task-by-task approach and initially found that the metabolic cost of running could be "individually" partitioned into body weight support (74%), propulsion (37%), and leg-swing (20%). Summing all these biomechanical tasks leads to a paradoxical overestimation of 131%. To further elucidate the possible interactions between these tasks, later studies quantified the reductions in metabolic cost in response to synergistic combinations of body weight support, aiding horizontal forces, and leg-swing-assist forces. This synergistic approach revealed that the interactive nature of body weight support and forward propulsion comprises ∼80% of the net metabolic cost of running. The task of leg-swing at most comprises ∼7% of the net metabolic cost of running and is independent of body weight support and forward propulsion. In our recent experiments, we have continued to refine this task-by-task approach, demonstrating that maintaining lateral balance comprises only 2% of the net metabolic cost of running. In contrast, arm-swing reduces the cost by ∼3%, indicating a net metabolic benefit. Thus, by considering the synergistic nature of body weight support and forward propulsion, as well as the tasks of leg-swing and lateral balance, we can account for 89% of the net metabolic cost of human running.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24838747      PMCID: PMC4296200          DOI: 10.1093/icb/icu033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Integr Comp Biol        ISSN: 1540-7063            Impact factor:   3.326


  53 in total

1.  Partitioning the energetics of walking and running: swinging the limbs is expensive.

Authors:  Richard L Marsh; David J Ellerby; Jennifer A Carr; Havalee T Henry; Cindy I Buchanan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-01-02       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Energy cost of running.

Authors:  R MARGARIA; P CERRETELLI; P AGHEMO; G SASSI
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1963-03       Impact factor: 3.531

Review 3.  Understanding muscle energetics in locomotion: new modeling and experimental approaches.

Authors:  Brian R Umberger; Jonas Rubenson
Journal:  Exerc Sport Sci Rev       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 6.230

4.  Effects of independently altering body weight and body mass on the metabolic cost of running.

Authors:  Lennart P J Teunissen; Alena Grabowski; Rodger Kram
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.312

5.  Muscular force in running turkeys: the economy of minimizing work.

Authors:  T J Roberts; R L Marsh; P G Weyand; C R Taylor
Journal:  Science       Date:  1997-02-21       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Mechanical work in terrestrial locomotion: two basic mechanisms for minimizing energy expenditure.

Authors:  G A Cavagna; N C Heglund; C R Taylor
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1977-11

7.  Oxygen cost of exercise hyperpnea: implications for performance.

Authors:  E A Aaron; K C Seow; B D Johnson; J A Dempsey
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  1992-05

8.  Energetics of walking and running: insights from simulated reduced-gravity experiments.

Authors:  C T Farley; T A McMahon
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  1992-12

9.  Speed, stride frequency and energy cost per stride: how do they change with body size and gait?

Authors:  N C Heglund; C R Taylor
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 3.312

10.  Running springs: speed and animal size.

Authors:  C T Farley; J Glasheen; T A McMahon
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.312

View more
  24 in total

1.  Author's Reply to Candau et al.: Comment on: "How Biomechanical Improvements in Running Economy Could Break the 2-Hour Marathon Barrier".

Authors:  Wouter Hoogkamer; Rodger Kram; Christopher J Arellano
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 2.  How Biomechanical Improvements in Running Economy Could Break the 2-hour Marathon Barrier.

Authors:  Wouter Hoogkamer; Rodger Kram; Christopher J Arellano
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Step time asymmetry increases metabolic energy expenditure during running.

Authors:  Owen N Beck; Eric N Azua; Alena M Grabowski
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Comparison of running and cycling economy in runners, cyclists, and triathletes.

Authors:  Wannes Swinnen; Shalaya Kipp; Rodger Kram
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Connecting the legs with a spring improves human running economy.

Authors:  Cole S Simpson; Cara G Welker; Scott D Uhlrich; Sean M Sketch; Rachel W Jackson; Scott L Delp; Steve H Collins; Jessica C Selinger; Elliot W Hawkes
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 3.312

6.  Oxygen consumption of elite distance runners on an anti-gravity treadmill®.

Authors:  David K P McNeill; John R Kline; Hendrick D de Heer; J Richard Coast
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 2.988

7.  Cyclically producing the same average muscle-tendon force with a smaller duty increases metabolic rate.

Authors:  Owen N Beck; Jonathan Gosyne; Jason R Franz; Gregory S Sawicki
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Running economy: measurement, norms, and determining factors.

Authors:  Kyle R Barnes; Andrew E Kilding
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2015-03-27

9.  Applying the cost of generating force hypothesis to uphill running.

Authors:  Wouter Hoogkamer; Paolo Taboga; Rodger Kram
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 10.  Is There an Economical Running Technique? A Review of Modifiable Biomechanical Factors Affecting Running Economy.

Authors:  Isabel S Moore
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 11.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.