Difference in Mechanical and Energy Cost between Highly, Well, and Nontrained Runners

Slawinski, Jean; Billat, Véronique

doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000135785.68760.96

Cited by 48 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, although HR results (Figure 5) witness the appropriateness of clustering subjects according to the different training status (most skilled runners reported the lowest HR, at the same speed, p<0.01), the almost speed-independent C values seem not to be influenced by the different fitness level, as also found by other investigators [27], [29].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Anatomically Asymmetrical Runners Move More Asymmetrically at the Same Metabolic Cost

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We hypothesized that, as occurring in cars, body structural asymmetries could generate asymmetry in the kinematics/dynamics of locomotion, ending up in a higher metabolic cost of transport, i.e. more ‘fuel’ needed to travel a given distance. Previous studies found the asymmetries in horses’ body negatively correlated with galloping performance. In this investigation, we analyzed anatomical differences between the left and right lower limbs as a whole by performing 3D cross-correlation of Magnetic Resonance Images of 19 male runners, clustered as Untrained Runners, Occasional Runners and Skilled Runners. Running kinematics of their body centre of mass were obtained from the body segments coordinates measured by a 3D motion capture system at incremental running velocities on a treadmill. A recent mathematical procedure quantified the asymmetry of the body centre of mass trajectory between the left and right steps. During the same sessions, runners’ metabolic consumption was measured and the cost of transport was calculated. No correlations were found between anatomical/kinematic variables and the metabolic cost of transport, regardless of the training experience. However, anatomical symmetry significant correlated to the kinematic symmetry, and the most trained subjects showed the highest level of kinematic symmetry during running. Results suggest that despite the significant effects of anatomical asymmetry on kinematics, either those changes are too small to affect economy or some plastic compensation in the locomotor system mitigates the hypothesized change in energy expenditure of running.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Anatomically Asymmetrical Runners Move More Asymmetrically at the Same Metabolic Cost

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have advocated a low vertical oscillation for economical running (Anderson 1996, Saunders et al 2004, predominantly based on reported trends for the most economical runners to have the lowest vertical oscillation and gait manipulation studies showing that increasing a runner's vertical oscillation is detrimental to their RE Cavanagh 1987, Tseh et al 2008). Furthermore, a lower vertical oscillation has been associated with a reduced mechanical cost of centre of mass displacement (Slawinski and Billat 2004), which is likely to be due to performing less work against gravity. Therefore when runners were BFT, minimising their vertical motion enabled them to perform less work against gravity, which could have contributed to the lower metabolic cost (Grabowski et al 2005).…”

Section: Mechanisms Behind Changes In Rementioning

confidence: 99%

The pursuit of improved running performance: Can changes in cushioning and somatosensory feedback influence running economy and injury risk?

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is currently no consensus regarding the effect that barefoot (BFT) running has on running economy (RE). Stride length and shoe mass are confounding variables, with a BFT stride length being shorter than a shod (SH) stride length. Comparison of SH, minimalist shod (MS) and BFT allows controlled variation of cushioning and somatosensory feedback to determine the effect that either and/or both have on RE and running mechanics. Methods: Fifteen female habitually shod, recreational runners visited the laboratory twice. Familiarisation with BFT and SH treadmill running occurred during visit one, in addition to determining SH stride length and BFT stride length. During visit two participants ran BFT, SH and MS with BFT stride length and MS with SH stride length at 10 kmÁh À1 for six minutes with 10-minute rest periods between each condition. Lower limb kinematics, electromyography, impact acceleration and _ V O 2 were recorded during the final two minutes of each run. Results: BFT RE was significantly better than SH and MS with BFT stride length. SH RE was significantly worse than MS with SH stride length, but similar to MS with a BFT stride length. Low vertical oscillation, peak eversion and peak dorsiflexion, less plantarflexion at toe-off, in addition to an earlier occurrence of heel off, higher impact accelerations and greater tibialis anterior activity were observed during the most economical condition. Conclusions: Heightened somatosensory feedback and lack of cushioning (BFT) offered an advantage to economy over less somatosensory feedback (MS) and cushioning (SH). Whilst the low vertical oscillation and low plantarflexion at toe-off appear to contribute to the improved RE, other changes to running mechanics whilst BFT could potentially influence injury risk.

show abstract

“…3 together with the theoretical curves. The measured vertical displacement data are slightly under the measured values in [24]. The mean value and the standard deviation of the cadence c and peak-to-peak vertical displacement h is plotted by solid and dashed thin lines respectively.…”

Section: Experimental Results and Validation Of The Bouncing Ball Modelmentioning

confidence: 73%

Effects of human running cadence and experimental validation of the bouncing ball model

Bencsik

Zelei

2017

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biomechanical analysis of human running is a very complex problem, because of the large number of parameters and degrees of freedom. However, simplified models can be constructed, which are usually characterized by some fundamental parameters, like step length, foot strike pattern and cadence. The bouncing ball model of human running is analysed theoretically and experimentally in this work. It is a minimally complex dynamic model if the aim is to estimate the energy cost of running and the tendency of ground-foot impact intensity as a function of cadence. The model shows that cadence has a direct effect on energy efficiency of running and ground-foot impact intensity, furthermore it shows that higher cadence implies lower risk of injury and better energy efficiency. An experimental data collection of 121 amateur athletes is presented. The experimental results validate the model and provides information about the walk-to-run transition speed and the typical development of cadence and grounded phase ratio in different running speed ranges.

show abstract

Difference in Mechanical and Energy Cost between Highly, Well, and Nontrained Runners

Cited by 48 publications

References 36 publications

Anatomically Asymmetrical Runners Move More Asymmetrically at the Same Metabolic Cost

Anatomically Asymmetrical Runners Move More Asymmetrically at the Same Metabolic Cost

The pursuit of improved running performance: Can changes in cushioning and somatosensory feedback influence running economy and injury risk?

Effects of human running cadence and experimental validation of the bouncing ball model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About