Arellano Christopher J, Kram Rodger
*Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, Brown University, Box G-W, 80 Waterman Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA; Integrative Physiology Department, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
*Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, Brown University, Box G-W, 80 Waterman Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA; Integrative Physiology Department, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
Integr Comp Biol. 2014 Dec;54(6):1084-98. doi: 10.1093/icb/icu033. Epub 2014 May 16.
Compared with other species, humans can be very tractable and thus an ideal "model system" for investigating the metabolic cost of locomotion. Here, we review the biomechanical basis for the metabolic cost of running. Running has been historically modeled as a simple spring-mass system whereby the leg acts as a linear spring, storing, and returning elastic potential energy during stance. However, if running can be modeled as a simple spring-mass system with the underlying assumption of perfect elastic energy storage and return, why does running incur a metabolic cost at all? In 1980, Taylor et al. proposed the "cost of generating force" hypothesis, which was based on the idea that elastic structures allow the muscles to transform metabolic energy into force, and not necessarily mechanical work. In 1990, Kram and Taylor then provided a more explicit and quantitative explanation by demonstrating that the rate of metabolic energy consumption is proportional to body weight and inversely proportional to the time of foot-ground contact for a variety of animals ranging in size and running speed. With a focus on humans, Kram and his colleagues then adopted a task-by-task approach and initially found that the metabolic cost of running could be "individually" partitioned into body weight support (74%), propulsion (37%), and leg-swing (20%). Summing all these biomechanical tasks leads to a paradoxical overestimation of 131%. To further elucidate the possible interactions between these tasks, later studies quantified the reductions in metabolic cost in response to synergistic combinations of body weight support, aiding horizontal forces, and leg-swing-assist forces. This synergistic approach revealed that the interactive nature of body weight support and forward propulsion comprises ∼80% of the net metabolic cost of running. The task of leg-swing at most comprises ∼7% of the net metabolic cost of running and is independent of body weight support and forward propulsion. In our recent experiments, we have continued to refine this task-by-task approach, demonstrating that maintaining lateral balance comprises only 2% of the net metabolic cost of running. In contrast, arm-swing reduces the cost by ∼3%, indicating a net metabolic benefit. Thus, by considering the synergistic nature of body weight support and forward propulsion, as well as the tasks of leg-swing and lateral balance, we can account for 89% of the net metabolic cost of human running.
与其他物种相比,人类非常容易控制,因此是研究运动代谢成本的理想“模型系统”。在此,我们回顾跑步代谢成本的生物力学基础。从历史上看,跑步被建模为一个简单的弹簧 - 质量系统,在这个系统中,腿部充当线性弹簧,在站立阶段储存并返还弹性势能。然而,如果跑步可以被建模为一个具有完美弹性能量储存和返还这一潜在假设的简单弹簧 - 质量系统,那为什么跑步还会产生代谢成本呢?1980年,泰勒等人提出了“产生力的成本”假说,该假说基于这样一种观点,即弹性结构使肌肉能够将代谢能量转化为力,而不一定是机械功。1990年,克拉姆和泰勒通过证明对于各种大小和跑步速度不同的动物,代谢能量消耗率与体重成正比,与脚与地面接触时间成反比,给出了更明确和定量的解释。以人类为重点,克拉姆和他的同事随后采用逐个任务的方法,最初发现跑步的代谢成本可以“分别”分为体重支撑(74%)、推进(37%)和腿部摆动(20%)。将所有这些生物力学任务相加会导致一个矛盾的结果,即高估了131%。为了进一步阐明这些任务之间可能的相互作用,后来的研究量化了因体重支撑、辅助水平力和腿部摆动辅助力的协同组合而导致的代谢成本降低。这种协同方法表明,体重支撑和向前推进的相互作用性质约占跑步净代谢成本的80%。腿部摆动任务最多约占跑步净代谢成本的7%,并且与体重支撑和向前推进无关。在我们最近的实验中,我们继续完善这种逐个任务的方法,并证明维持横向平衡仅占跑步净代谢成本的2%。相比之下,摆臂可使成本降低约3%,这表明有净代谢益处。因此,通过考虑体重支撑和向前推进的协同性质,以及腿部摆动和横向平衡任务,我们可以解释人类跑步净代谢成本的89%。