41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements

      1 , 1 , 1 , 1
      Journal of Applied Physiology
      American Physiological Society

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We twice tested the hypothesis that top running speeds are determined by the amount of force applied to the ground rather than how rapidly limbs are repositioned in the air. First, we compared the mechanics of 33 subjects of different sprinting abilities running at their top speeds on a level treadmill. Second, we compared the mechanics of declined (−6°) and inclined (+9°) top-speed treadmill running in five subjects. For both tests, we used a treadmill-mounted force plate to measure the time between stance periods of the same foot (swing time, t sw) and the force applied to the running surface at top speed. To obtain the force relevant for speed, the force applied normal to the ground was divided by the weight of the body ( W b) and averaged over the period of foot-ground contact (F avge/ W b). The top speeds of the 33 subjects who completed the level treadmill protocol spanned a 1.8-fold range from 6.2 to 11.1 m/s. Among these subjects, the regression of F avge/ W b on top speed indicated that this force was 1.26 times greater for a runner with a top speed of 11.1 vs. 6.2 m/s. In contrast, the time taken to swing the limb into position for the next step ( t sw) did not vary ( P = 0.18). Declined and inclined top speeds differed by 1.4-fold (9.96 ± 0.3 vs. 7.10 ± 0.3 m/s, respectively), with the faster declined top speeds being achieved with mass-specific support forces that were 1.3 times greater (2.30 ± 0.06 vs. 1.76 ± 0.04 F avge/ W b) and minimum t sw that were similar (+8%). We conclude that human runners reach faster top speeds not by repositioning their limbs more rapidly in the air, but by applying greater support forces to the ground.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Energetics of running: a new perspective.

          The amount of energy used to run a mile is nearly the same whether it is run at top speed or at a leisurely pace (although it is used more rapidly at the higher speed). This puzzling independence of energy cost and speed is found generally among running animals, although, on a per gram basis, cost is much higher for smaller animals. Running involves little work against the environment; work is done by muscles and tendons to lift and accelerate the body and limbs. Some of the work is recovered from muscle-tendon springs without metabolic cost and work rate does not parallel metabolic rate with either speed or size. Regardless of the amount of work muscles do, they must be activated and develop force to support the weight of the body. Load-carrying experiments have shown that the cost of supporting an extra newton of load is the same as the weight-specific cost of running. Size differences in cost are proportional to stride frequency at equivalent speeds, suggesting that the time available for developing force is important in determining cost. We report a simple inverse relationship between the rate of energy used for running and the time the foot applies force to the ground during each stride. These results support the hypothesis that it is primarily the cost of supporting the animal's weight and the time course of generating this force that determines the cost of running.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The mechanics of running: How does stiffness couple with speed?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mechanical work and efficiency in level walking and running.

              1. The mechanical power spent to accelerate the limbs relative to the trunk in level walking and running, W(int), has been measured at various ;constant' speeds (3-33 km/hr) with the cinematographic procedure used by Fenn (1930a) at high speeds of running.2. W(int) increases approximately as the square of the speed of walking and running. For a given speed W(int) is greater in walking than in running.3. In walking above 3 km/hr, W(int) is greater than the power spent to accelerate and lift the centre of mass of the body at each step, W(ext) (measured by Cavagna, Thys & Zamboni, 1976b). In running W(int) W(ext).4. The total work done by the muscles was calculated as W(tot) = W(int) + W(ext). Except that at the highest speeds of walking, the total work done per unit distance W(tot)/km is greater in running than in walking.5. The efficiency of positive work was measured from the ratio W(tot)/Net energy expenditure: this is greater than 0.25 indicating that both in walking and in running the muscles utilize, during shortening, some energy stored during a previous phase of negative work (stretching).6. In walking the efficiency reaches a maximum (0.35-0.40) at intermediate speeds, as may be expected from the properties of the contractile component of muscle. In running the efficiency increases steadily with speed (from 0.45 to 0.70-0.80) suggesting that positive work derives mainly from the passive recoil of muscle elastic elements and to a lesser extent from the active shortening of the contractile machinery. These findings are consistent with the different mechanics of the two exercises.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Applied Physiology
                Journal of Applied Physiology
                American Physiological Society
                8750-7587
                1522-1601
                November 01 2000
                November 01 2000
                : 89
                : 5
                : 1991-1999
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Concord Field Station, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
                Article
                10.1152/jappl.2000.89.5.1991
                11053354
                3d51c52c-60b2-4e08-9368-39e27413da05
                © 2000
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article