Comparative energetics of mammalian locomotion: Humans are not different

Halsey, Lewis G.; White, Craig R.

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.07.008

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 75 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, for several species investigated so far, NCOT min does vary substantially with speed of locomotion. This variation presents either as a curvilinear relationship between rate of oxygen consumption and locomotion speed as seen for humans walking (Halsey and White, 2012) or, more subtly, when running (SteudelNumbers and Wall-Scheffler, 2009), or as a shift in slope angle coinciding with a gait change (ground squirrels, Hoyt and Kenagy, 1988;mink, Williams, 1983). Where gait change is not the explanation, the fact that some species exhibit a more clearly curvilinear relationship than others may be due simply to the range of speeds over which those species have been measured.…”

Section: The Implications Of Speed-independent Ncot Minmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terrestrial movement energetics: current knowledge and its application to the optimising animal

Halsey

2016

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The energetic cost of locomotion can be a substantial proportion of an animal's daily energy budget and thus key to its ecology. Studies on myriad species have added to our knowledge about the general cost of animal movement, including the effects of variations in the environment such as terrain angle. However, further such studies might provide diminishing returns on the development of a deeper understanding of how animals trade-off the cost of movement with other energy costs, and other ecological currencies such as time. Here, I propose the 'individual energy landscape' as an approach to conceptualising the choices facing the optimising animal. In this Commentary, first I outline previous broad findings about animal walking and running locomotion, focusing in particular on the use of net cost of transport as a metric of comparison between species, and then considering the effects of environmental perturbations and other extrinsic factors on movement costs. I then introduce and explore the idea that these factors combine with the behaviour of the animal in seeking short-term optimality to create that animal's individual energy landscape -the result of the geographical landscape and environmental factors combined with the animal's selected tradeoffs. Considering an animal's locomotion energy expenditure within this context enables hard-won empirical data on transport costs to be applied to questions about how an animal can and does move through its environment to maximise its fitness, and the relative importance, or otherwise, of locomotion energy economy.

show abstract

Section: The Implications Of Speed-independent Ncot Minmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terrestrial movement energetics: current knowledge and its application to the optimising animal

Halsey

2016

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Horizontal jumps of 1.2 m consumed on average around 194 mL of oxygen (3.8 kJ, 0.9 kcal). In comparison, the cost for a person to walk 1 m on the flat is about 0.17 kJ (0.04 kcal) and to run 1 m is about 0.25 kJ (0.06 kcal) (Halsey and White, 2012), while walking 1 m on an incline of 12° expends around 0.62 kJ (0.15 kcal) (Halsey et al, 2008). Although measures of energy expenditure during pedestrian locomotion involve relatively consistent forward motion maintaining momentum, in contrast to the intermittent horizontal jumping in the experimental design of the present study, nonetheless, and as would be expected, these values indicate that for humans, horizontal jumping is a very energy expensive form of locomotion; per unit distance around 18-fold the cost to walk and around 12-fold the cost to run.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy expended during horizontal jumping: investigating the effects of surface compliance

Coward

Halsey

2014

Biology Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the first data on the metabolic costs of horizontal jumping in humans, using this tractable model to explore variations in energy expenditure with substrate properties, and consider these findings in light of kinematic data. Twenty-four participants jumped consistently at the rate of 1 jump per 5 s between opposing springboards separated by either a short (1.2 m) or long (1.8 m) gap. Springboards were either ‘firm’ or ‘compliant’. Respiratory gas exchange was measured using a back-mounted portable respiratory gas analyser to represent rate of energy expenditure, which was converted to energy expenditure per metre jumped. Video data were recorded to interpret kinematic information. Horizontal jumping was found to be between around 10 and 20 times the energy cost of cursorial locomotion per unit distance moved. There is considerable evidence from the data that jumping 1.8 m from a compliant springboard (134.9 mL O2 m−1) is less costly energetically than jumping that distance from a firm springboard (141.6 mL O2 m−1), albeit the effect size is quite small within the range of compliances tested in this study. However, there was no evidence of an effect of springboard type for jumps of 1.2 m. The kinematic analyses indicate possible explanations for these findings. Firstly, the calf muscle is likely used more, and the thigh muscles less, to take-off from a firm springboard during 1.8 m jumps, which may result in the power required to take-off being produced less efficiently. Secondly, the angle of take-off from the compliant surface during 1.8 m jumps is closer to the optimal for energetic efficiency (45°), possible due to the impulse provided by the surface as it returns stored energy during the final stages of the take-off. The theoretical effect on energy costs due to a different take-off angle for jumps of only 1.2 m is close to negligible.

show abstract

“…These relative values were extracted from figures 1 and 4 of the manuscript using Plot Digitizer (v. 2.6.3). They were converted into estimates of absolute values by benchmarking them against values for walking on land at the same speeds estimated from Halsey and White (Halsey and White, 2012), which provides mean data from a large range of experimental studies on the cost of human pedestrian locomotion, where mean mass is similar to that reported in Kuliukas et al (76.5 kg) (Kuliukas et al, 2009). Ghesquiere and Bunkens reported absolute values (Ghesquiere and Bunkens, 1991), in figure plots, and thus these were extracted as above.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date there has been a plethora of research examining the costs of walking in humans in entirely terrestrial environments, particularly treadmill-based studies (Halsey and White, 2012). Only a few such studies have been undertaken on more natural terrains (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Low speeds and also frequent changes in direction associated with foraging will likely serve to increase transport costs (Halsey and White, 2012; Wilson et al, 2013). In the present study we obtained data on the rate of energy expenditure of people wading with short steps and with turns, in water that reached either the knee or the mid-thigh, to validly represent locomotion during typical aquatic foraging, and compared this to the energy costs of the same walking behaviour on land.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The energy costs of wading in water

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies measuring the energy costs of wading in water have been limited to higher walking speeds in straight lines, in deep water. However, much foraging in water, by both humans and other primates, is conducted in the shallows and at low speeds of locomotion that include elements of turning, as befits searching for cryptic or hidden foods within a patch. The present study brings together data on the rate of oxygen consumption during wading by humans from previous studies, and augments these with new data for wading in shallower depths, with slower and more tortuous walking, to obtain a better understanding both of the absolute costs of wading in typical scenarios of aquatic foraging and of how the cost of wading varies as a function of water depth and speed of locomotion. Previous and present data indicate that, at low speeds, wading has a similar energetic cost to walking on land, particularly at lower water depths, and only at higher speeds is the cost of wading noticeably more expensive than when water is absent. This is probably explained by the relatively small volume of water that must be displaced during locomotion in shallow waters coupled with the compensating support to the limbs that the water affords. The support to the limbs/body provided by water is discussed further, in the context of bipedal locomotion by non-human primates during wading.

show abstract

Comparative energetics of mammalian locomotion: Humans are not different

Cited by 21 publications

References 75 publications

Terrestrial movement energetics: current knowledge and its application to the optimising animal

Terrestrial movement energetics: current knowledge and its application to the optimising animal

Energy expended during horizontal jumping: investigating the effects of surface compliance

The energy costs of wading in water

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About