During running, muscles and tendons must absorb and release mechanical work to maintain the cyclic movements of the body and limbs, while also providing enough force to support the weight of the body. Direct measurements of force and fiber length in the lateral gastrocnemius muscle of running turkeys revealed that the stretch and recoil of tendon and muscle springs supply mechanical work while active muscle fibers produce high forces. During level running, the active muscle shortens little and performs little work but provides the force necessary to support body weight economically. Running economy is improved by muscles that act as active struts rather than working machines.

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 degrees ) and inclined (+9 degrees ) 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.

. Energetics and mechanics of human running on surfaces of different stiffnesses. J Appl Physiol 92: 469-478, 2002; 10.1152/ japplphysiol.01164.2000.-Mammals use the elastic components in their legs (principally tendons, ligaments, and muscles) to run economically, while maintaining consistent support mechanics across various surfaces. To examine how leg stiffness and metabolic cost are affected by changes in substrate stiffness, we built experimental platforms with adjustable stiffness to fit on a force-plate-fitted treadmill. Eight male subjects [mean body mass: 74.4 Ϯ 7.1 (SD) kg; leg length: 0.96 Ϯ 0.05 m] ran at 3.7 m/s over five different surface stiffnesses (75.4, 97.5, 216.8, 454.2, and 945.7 kN/m). Metabolic, ground-reaction force, and kinematic data were collected. The 12.5-fold decrease in surface stiffness resulted in a 12% decrease in the runner's metabolic rate and a 29% increase in their leg stiffness. The runner's support mechanics remained essentially unchanged. These results indicate that surface stiffness affects running economy without affecting running support mechanics. We postulate that an increased energy rebound from the compliant surfaces studied contributes to the enhanced running economy. biomechanics; locomotion; leg stiffness; metabolic rate IN THEIR GROUNDBREAKING work, McMahon and Greene (29) investigated the effects of surface stiffness (k surf ) on running mechanics. Their study sought to determine whether it was possible to build a track surface that would enhance performance and decrease injury. Their work showed that a range of k surf values existed over which a runner's performance was enhanced by decreasing foot-ground contact time (t c ), decreasing the initial spike in peak vertical ground reaction force (f peak ), and increasing stride length. Tracks built within this enhanced performance range at Harvard University, Yale University, and Madison Square Garden have been shown to increase running speeds by 2-3% and to decrease running injuries by 50% (29). Despite the success of these "tuned tracks," the mechanisms underlying the performance enhancement are not clearly understood.A major assumption of McMahon and Greene's (29) was that the running leg and surface could be represented as a simple spring and mass (Fig.

Running speed is limited by a mechanical interaction between the stance and swing phases of the stride. Here, we tested whether stance phase limitations are imposed by ground force maximums or foot-ground contact time minimums. We selected one-legged hopping and backward running as experimental contrasts to forward running and had seven athletic subjects complete progressive discontinuous treadmill tests to failure to determine their top speeds in each of the three gaits. Vertical ground reaction forces [in body weights (W(b))] and periods of ground force application (T(c); s) were measured using a custom, high-speed force treadmill. At top speed, we found that both the stance-averaged (F(avg)) and peak (F(peak)) vertical forces applied to the treadmill surface during one-legged hopping exceeded those applied during forward running by more than one-half of the body's weight (F(avg) = 2.71 +/- 0.15 vs. 2.08 +/- 0.07 W(b); F(peak) = 4.20 +/- 0.24 vs. 3.62 +/- 0.24 W(b); means +/- SE) and that hopping periods of force application were significantly longer (T(c) = 0.160 +/- 0.006 vs. 0.108 +/- 0.004 s). Next, we found that the periods of ground force application at top backward and forward running speeds were nearly identical, agreeing to within an average of 0.006 s (T(c) = 0.116 +/- 0.004 vs. 0.110 +/- 0.005 s). We conclude that the stance phase limit to running speed is imposed not by the maximum forces that the limbs can apply to the ground but rather by the minimum time needed to apply the large, mass-specific forces necessary.

The recent competitive successes of a bilateral, transtibial amputee sprint runner who races with modern running prostheses has triggered an international controversy regarding the relative function provided by his artificial limbs. Here, we conducted three tests of functional similarity between this amputee sprinter and competitive male runners with intact limbs: the metabolic cost of running, sprinting endurance, and running mechanics. Metabolic and mechanical data, respectively, were acquired via indirect calorimetry and ground reaction force measurements during constant-speed, level treadmill running. First, we found that the mean gross metabolic cost of transport of our amputee sprint subject (174.9 ml O(2)*kg(-1)*km(-1); speeds: 2.5-4.1 m/s) was only 3.8% lower than mean values for intact-limb elite distance runners and 6.7% lower than for subelite distance runners but 17% lower than for intact-limb 400-m specialists [210.6 (SD 13.2) ml O(2)*kg(-1)*km(-1)]. Second, the speeds that our amputee sprinter maintained for six all-out, constant-speed trials to failure (speeds: 6.6-10.8 m/s; durations: 2-90 s) were within 2.2 (SD 0.6)% of those predicted for intact-limb sprinters. Third, at sprinting speeds of 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0 m/s, our amputee subject had longer foot-ground contact times [+14.7 (SD 4.2)%], shorter aerial [-26.4 (SD 9.9)%] and swing times [-15.2 (SD 6.9)%], and lower stance-averaged vertical forces [-19.3 (SD 3.1)%] than intact-limb sprinters [top speeds = 10.8 vs. 10.8 (SD 0.6) m/s]. We conclude that running on modern, lower-limb sprinting prostheses appears to be physiologically similar but mechanically different from running with intact limbs.

We hypothesized that all-out running speeds for efforts lasting from a few seconds to several minutes could be accurately predicted from two measurements: the maximum respective speeds supported by the anaerobic and aerobic powers of the runner. To evaluate our hypothesis, we recruited seven competitive runners of different event specialties and tested them during treadmill and overground running on level surfaces. The maximum speed supported by anaerobic power was determined from the fastest speed that subjects could attain for a burst of eight steps (approximately 3 s or less). The maximum speed supported by aerobic power, or the velocity at maximal oxygen uptake, was determined from a progressive, discontinuous treadmill test to failure. All-out running speeds for trials of 3-240 s were measured during 10-13 constant-speed treadmill runs to failure and 4 track runs at specified distances. Measured values of the maximum speeds supported by anaerobic and aerobic power, in conjunction with an exponential constant, allowed us to predict the speeds of all-out treadmill trials to within an average of 2.5% (R2 = 0.94; n = 84) and track trials to within 3.4% (R2 = 0.86; n = 28). An algorithm using this exponent and only two of the all-out treadmill runs to predict the remaining treadmill trials was nearly as accurate (average = 3.7%; R2 = 0.93; n = 77). We conclude that our technique 1) provides accurate predictions of high-speed running performance in trained runners and 2) offers a performance assessment alternative to existing tests of anaerobic power and capacity.

SUMMARYThe metabolic and mechanical requirements of walking are considered to be of fundamental importance to the health, physiological function and even the evolution of modern humans. Although walking energy expenditure and gait mechanics are clearly linked, a direct quantitative relationship has not emerged in more than a century of formal investigation. Here, on the basis of previous observations that children and smaller adult walkers expend more energy on a per kilogram basis than larger ones do, and the theory of dynamic similarity, we hypothesized that body length (or stature, L b ) explains the apparent body-size dependency of human walking economy. We measured metabolic rates and gait mechanics at six speeds from 0.4 to 1.9ms -1 in 48 human subjects who varied by a factor of 1.5 in stature and approximately six in both age and body mass. In accordance with theoretical expectation, we found the most economical walking speeds measured (Jkg ). We conclude that humans spanning a broad range of ages, statures and masses incur the same mass-specific metabolic cost to walk a horizontal distance equal to their stature. Supplementary material available online at

Are the fastest running speeds achieved using the simple-spring stance mechanics predicted by the classic spring-mass model? We hypothesized that a passive, linear-spring model would not account for the running mechanics that maximize ground force application and speed. We tested this hypothesis by comparing patterns of ground force application across athletic specialization (competitive sprinters vs. athlete nonsprinters, n = 7 each) and running speed (top speeds vs. slower ones). Vertical ground reaction forces at 5.0 and 7.0 m/s, and individual top speeds (n = 797 total footfalls) were acquired while subjects ran on a custom, high-speed force treadmill. The goodness of fit between measured vertical force vs. time waveform patterns and the patterns predicted by the spring-mass model were assessed using the R(2) statistic (where an R(2) of 1.00 = perfect fit). As hypothesized, the force application patterns of the competitive sprinters deviated significantly more from the simple-spring pattern than those of the athlete, nonsprinters across the three test speeds (R(2) <0.85 vs. R(2) ≥ 0.91, respectively), and deviated most at top speed (R(2) = 0.78 ± 0.02). Sprinters attained faster top speeds than nonsprinters (10.4 ± 0.3 vs. 8.7 ± 0.3 m/s) by applying greater vertical forces during the first half (2.65 ± 0.05 vs. 2.21 ± 0.05 body wt), but not the second half (1.71 ± 0.04 vs. 1.73 ± 0.04 body wt) of the stance phase. We conclude that a passive, simple-spring model has limited application to sprint running performance because the swiftest runners use an asymmetrical pattern of force application to maximize ground reaction forces and attain faster speeds.