Literature DB >> 25031455

The metabolic cost of human running: is swinging the arms worth it?

Christopher J Arellano1, Rodger Kram2.   

Abstract

Although the mechanical function is quite clear, there is no consensus regarding the metabolic benefit of arm swing during human running. We compared the metabolic cost of running using normal arm swing with the metabolic cost of running while restricting the arms in three different ways: (1) holding the hands with the arms behind the back in a relaxed position (BACK), (2) holding the arms across the chest (CHEST) and (3) holding the hands on top of the head (HEAD). We hypothesized that running without arm swing would demand a greater metabolic cost than running with arm swing. Indeed, when compared with running using normal arm swing, we found that net metabolic power demand was 3, 9 and 13% greater for the BACK, CHEST and HEAD conditions, respectively (all P<0.05). We also found that when running without arm swing, subjects significantly increased the peak-to-peak amplitudes of both shoulder and pelvis rotation about the vertical axis, most likely a compensatory strategy to counterbalance the rotational angular momentum of the swinging legs. In conclusion, our findings support our general hypothesis that swinging the arms reduces the metabolic cost of human running. Our findings also demonstrate that arm swing minimizes torso rotation. We infer that actively swinging the arms provides both metabolic and biomechanical benefits during human running.
© 2014. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanics; Energetics; Locomotion; Upper body rotation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25031455     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.100420

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Biol        ISSN: 0022-0949            Impact factor:   3.312


  12 in total

1.  Split-arm swinging: the effect of arm swinging manipulation on interlimb coordination during walking.

Authors:  Moshe Bondi; Gabi Zeilig; Ayala Bloch; Alfonso Fasano; Meir Plotnik
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Clinical Implications of Hand Position and Lower Limb Length Measurement Method on Y-Balance Test Scores and Interpretations.

Authors:  Kim Hébert-Losier
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 2.860

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

Authors:  Christopher J Arellano; Rodger Kram
Journal:  Integr Comp Biol       Date:  2014-05-16       Impact factor: 3.326

4.  VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF VIDEO-BASED ANALYSIS OF UPPER TRUNK ROTATION DURING RUNNING.

Authors:  Carolyn F Weber; Shane McClinton
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2020-12

Review 5.  Running Economy from a Muscle Energetics Perspective.

Authors:  Jared R Fletcher; Brian R MacIntosh
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 4.566

6.  Triathlon wetsuit removal strategy: physiological cost of running with a wetsuit.

Authors:  Mihaela Ciulei; Aaron Prado; James Navalta; John A Mercer
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2016-07-02       Impact factor: 2.193

7.  Economical Speed and Energetically Optimal Transition Speed Evaluated by Gross and Net Oxygen Cost of Transport at Different Gradients.

Authors:  Daijiro Abe; Yoshiyuki Fukuoka; Masahiro Horiuchi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  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 9.  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

10.  Stroller running: Energetic and kinematic changes across pushing methods.

Authors:  Ryan S Alcantara; Cara M Wall-Scheffler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.