School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia.
J R Soc Interface. 2011 May 6;8(58):740-55. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0466. Epub 2010 Oct 28.
The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanical adaptations linked to economical locomotion in cursorial bipeds. We addressed this question by comparing mass-matched humans and avian bipeds (ostriches), which exhibit marked differences in limb structure and running economy. We hypothesized that the nearly 50 per cent lower energy cost of running in ostriches is a result of: (i) lower limb-swing mechanical power, (ii) greater stance-phase storage and release of elastic energy, and (iii) lower total muscle power output. To test these hypotheses, we used three-dimensional joint mechanical measurements and a simple model to estimate the elastic and muscle contributions to joint work and power. Contradictory to our first hypothesis, we found that ostriches and humans generate the same amounts of mechanical power to swing the limbs at a similar self-selected running speed, indicating that limb swing probably does not contribute to the difference in energy cost of running between these species. In contrast, we estimated that ostriches generate 120 per cent more stance-phase mechanical joint power via release of elastic energy compared with humans. This elastic mechanical power occurs nearly exclusively at the tarsometatarso-phalangeal joint, demonstrating a shift of mechanical power generation to distal joints compared with humans. We also estimated that positive muscle fibre power is 35 per cent lower in ostriches compared with humans, and is accounted for primarily by higher capacity for storage and release of elastic energy. Furthermore, our analysis revealed much larger frontal and internal/external rotation joint loads during ostrich running than in humans. Together, these findings support the hypothesis that a primary limb structure specialization linked to economical running in cursorial species is an elevated storage and release of elastic energy in tendon. In the ostrich, energy-saving specializations may also include passive frontal and internal/external rotation load-bearing mechanisms.
本研究旨在探讨与奔跑两足动物经济运动相关的机械适应性。我们通过比较肢体结构和跑步经济性差异显著的质量匹配的人类和鸟类两足动物(鸵鸟)来解决这个问题。我们假设鸵鸟跑步时能量消耗降低近 50%,是由于:(i)较低的肢体摆动机械功率,(ii)较大的支撑阶段弹性储能和释放,以及(iii)较低的总肌肉功率输出。为了验证这些假设,我们使用三维关节力学测量和一个简单的模型来估计弹性和肌肉对关节功和功率的贡献。与我们的第一个假设相反,我们发现鸵鸟和人类在相似的自我选择跑步速度下摆动四肢产生相同数量的机械功率,这表明肢体摆动可能不是这些物种跑步能量消耗差异的原因。相比之下,我们估计鸵鸟在支撑阶段通过释放弹性储能产生比人类多 120%的机械关节功率。这种弹性机械能几乎仅发生在跗跖-跖骨-趾骨关节,表明与人类相比,机械功率生成向远端关节转移。我们还估计鸵鸟的正肌纤维功率比人类低 35%,这主要是由于弹性储能和释放能力较高所致。此外,我们的分析表明鸵鸟跑步时的前向和内/外旋转关节负荷比人类大得多。这些发现共同支持了这样的假设,即与奔跑两足动物经济运动相关的主要肢体结构特化是肌腱中弹性储能和释放能力的提高。在鸵鸟中,节能特化可能还包括被动的前向和内/外旋转承重机制。