Energetics and mechanics of running men: the influence of body mass

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.

The work done at each step during level walking and running to lift the centre of mass of the body, Wv, and to increase its forward speed, Wf, and the total mechanical energy involved (potential + kinetic) Wext, have been measured at various 'constant' speeds (2-32 km/hr) with the technique described by Cavagna (1975). 2. At intermediate speeds of walking (about 4 km/hr) Wv = Wf and Wext/km is at a minimum, as is the energy cost. At lower speeds Wv greater than Wf whereas at higher speeds Wf greather than Wv: in both cases Wext/km increases. 3. The recovery of mechanical energy, through the pendular motion characteristic of walking, was measured as (/Wv/ + /Wf/ - Wext)/(/Wv/ + /Wf/): it attains a maximum (about 65%) at intermediate speeds. 4. A simple model, assuming that in walking the body rotates as an inverted pendulum over the foot in contact with the ground, fits the experimental data better at intermediate speeds but is no longer tenable above 7 km/hr. 5. In running the recovery defined above is minimal (0-4% independent of speed), i.e. Wext congruent to /Wv/ + /Wf/: potential and kinetic energy of the body do not interchange but are simultaneously taken up and released by the muscles with a rate increasing markedly with the speed (from about 1 to 4 h.p.). 6. Wext increases linearly with the running speed Vf from a positive y intercept owing to the fact that Wv is practically constant independent of Vf. On the contrary, Wf = aVf2/(1 + bVf), where b is the ratio between the time spent in the air and the forward distance covered while on the ground during each step.

The metabolic energy cost of walking is determined, to a large degree, by body mass, but it is not clear how body composition and mass distribution influence this cost. We tested the hypothesis that walking would be most expensive for obese women compared with obese men and normal-weight women and men. Furthermore, we hypothesized that for all groups, preferred walking speed would correspond to the speed that minimized the gross energy cost per distance. We measured body composition, maximal oxygen consumption, and preferred walking speed of 39 (19 class II obese, 20 normal weight) women and men. We also measured oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production while the subjects walked on a level treadmill at six speeds (0.50-1.75 m/s). Both obesity and sex affected the net metabolic rate (W/kg) of walking. Net metabolic rates of obese subjects were only approximately 10% greater (per kg) than for normal-weight subjects, and net metabolic rates for women were approximately 10% greater than for men. The increase in net metabolic rate at faster walking speeds was greatest in obese women compared with the other groups. Preferred walking speed was not different across groups (1.42 m/s) and was near the speed that minimized gross energy cost per distance. Surprisingly, mass distribution (thigh mass/body mass) was not related to net metabolic rate, but body composition (% fat) was (r2= 0.43). Detailed biomechanical studies of walking are needed to investigate whether obese individuals adopt novel energy saving mechanisms during walking.