Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Counterpoint: Artificial legs do not make artificially fast running speeds possible

2010; American Physiological Society; Volume: 108; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1152/japplphysiol.01238.2009a

8750-7587

Rodger Kram, Alena M. Grabowski, Craig P. McGowan, Mary Beth Brown, Hugh Herr,

Advanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials

POINT:COUNTERPOINTArtificial limbs do/do not make artificially fast running speeds possibleCounterpoint: Artificial legs do not make artificially fast running speeds possibleRodger Kram, Alena M. Grabowski, Craig P. McGowan, Mary Beth Brown, and Hugh M. HerrRodger KramIntegrative Physiology Department Locomotion Laboratory University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado; , Alena M. GrabowskiBiomechatronics Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts , Craig P. McGowanNeuromuscular Biomechanics Laboratory University of Texas Austin, Texas; , Mary Beth BrownSchool of Applied Physiology Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia, and Hugh M. HerrBiomechatronics Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts Published Online:01 Apr 2010https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01238.2009aMoreSectionsPDF (52 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."—Carl SaganThere is insufficient evidence to conclude that modern running specific prostheses (RSP) provide physiological or biomechanical advantages over biological legs. A grand total of n = 7 metabolic running economy values for amputees using RSP have been published (1, 13). Even worse, ground reaction force (GRF) and leg swing time data at sprint speeds exist for only one amputee, Oscar Pistorius (2, 13). Until recently it would have been preposterous to consider prosthetic limbs to be advantageous, thus, the burden of proof is on those who claim that RSP are advantageous. Here, we conservatively presume neither advantage nor disadvantage as we weigh and discuss recently published scientific data. Furthermore, we propose a series of experiments that are needed to resolve the topic of this debate.RSP do not provide a distinct advantage or disadvantage in terms of the rates of oxygen consumption at submaximal running speeds [running economy (RE)]. Brown et al. (1) compared the RE of six transtibial amputee runners (5 unilateral and 1 bilateral) to six age- and fitness-matched nonamputee runners. The mean RE was numerically worse for the amputees using RSP across all speeds (219.5 vs. 202.2 ml O2·kg−1·km−1), but the difference did not reach the criterion of significance (P < 0.05). The bilateral transtibial amputee from Brown et al. had a mean RE of 216.5 ml O2·kg−1·km−1. The only other reported RE value for a bilateral amputee is that for Oscar Pistorius, 174.9 ml O2·kg−1·km−1 (13). For good recreational runners (n = 16), Morgan et al. (9) reported a mean (SD) RE value of 190.5 (13.6) ml O2·kg−1·km−1. Thus the Brown et al. bilateral amputee's RE was 1.92 SD above that mean and Pistorius' RE was 1.15 SD below that mean. Both athletes use the same type of prostheses. From this scant evidence, it would be foolhardy to conclude that RSP provide a metabolic advantage or disadvantage.Since vertical GRF is the primary determinant of maximal running speed (11, 12), GRF data for amputee runners are critical to this debate. Although previous studies have characterized some aspects of the biomechanics of amputee running and sprinting (3, 4, 6–8, 15), there are no published GRF data for unilateral amputees at their top running speeds. GRF data for top speed running have been published for only one bilateral amputee, Oscar Pistorius. To claim that prosthetic legs provide a mechanical advantage over biological legs based on n = 1 is inherently unscientific and we are surprised that any scientists would make such a claim.Both Brüggemann et al. (2) and Weyand et al. (13) found that Pistorius exerts lower vertical GRFs than performance matched nonamputees. Brüggemann et al. contorted this force deficiency into a supposed advantage, claiming that the smaller vertical forces and impulse allow Pistorius to perform less mechanical work than his peers. That reasoning fails to recognize that sprinting requires maximizing force and mechanical power output, not minimizing them. In their seminal work, Weyand et al. (12) concluded that "human runners reach faster top speeds . . . by applying greater support forces to the ground". Thus it is enigmatic that Weyand and Bundle (14) in this debate can convolute the smaller GRF exerted by Pistorius into a purported advantage.Two factors may be responsible for the GRF deficit that Pistorius exhibits: 1) his passive, elastic prostheses (and/or their interface with the residual limb) prevent him from generating high forces and/or 2) his legs are not able to generate high ground force due to relative weakness. Factor 1 is certainly plausible. Compliant prostheses are necessary for running because the forces on the residual limb-prosthesis socket interface would otherwise be intolerable. Despite the compliance of RSP, amputees uniformly report significant pain at the interface during running. Factor 2 is also possible, although Pistorius has been active and engaged in various sports for 20+ years (10). He may have learned to compensate for his force impairment by training his body to use other mechanical means to achieve fast speeds.Although Weyand et al. (12) stated "more rapid repositioning of limbs contributes little to the faster top speeds of swifter runners," Weyand and Bundle (14) argue that Pistorius is able to run fast because his lightweight prostheses allow him to rapidly reposition his legs during the swing phase. Brief leg swing times increase the fraction of a stride that a leg is in contact with the ground and thus reduce the vertical impulse requirement for the contact phase. But, the notion that lightweight prostheses are the only reason for Pistorius' rapid swing times ignores that he has had many years to train and adapt his neuromuscular system to using prostheses. Weyand and Bundle (14) argue that lightweight prostheses allow Pistorius to run faster than he should for his innate strength/ability to exert vertical GRFs. An equally plausible hypothesis is that he has adopted rapid leg swing times to compensate for the force limitations imposed by his prostheses.Pistorius' leg swing times are not unreasonably or unnaturally fast. Nonelite runners have mean (SD) minimum leg swing times of 0.373 (0.03) s (12). Pistorius' leg swing time of 0.284 s at 10.8 m/s is nearly 3 SD faster than that mean. However, leg swing times as low as 0.31 s for Olympic 100-m medalists at top speed have been reported (12). If elite sprinters have similar variation in leg swing times, then a leg swing time of 0.284 s is not aberrant. Furthermore, recreational athletes sprinting along small radius (1 m) circular paths exhibited mean leg swing times of just 0.234 s (5). It appears that when faced with stringent force constraints, runners with biological legs choose very short leg swing times. A thorough study of leg swing times for elite Olympic and Paralympic sprinters could provide further perspective.Fortunately, there are simple experiments with testable hypotheses that can resolve many of the issues presented here. We propose a comprehensive biomechanical study of high-speed running by elite, unilateral amputee athletes. Studying unilateral amputees would allow direct comparisons between their affected and unaffected legs. First, we hypothesize that unilateral amputee sprinters exert greater vertical GRFs with their unaffected leg than with their affected leg. If that hypothesis is supported by data, it would indicate that RSP impose a force limitation and are thus disadvantageous. Second, we hypothesize that unilateral amputee sprinters run with equally rapid leg swing times for their affected and unaffected legs. If that hypothesis is supported, it would dispel the idea that lightweight prostheses provide a leg swing time advantage. Third, we hypothesize that adding mass to the lightweight RSP of unilateral and bilateral amputees will not increase their leg swing times or decrease their maximum running speeds. If that hypothesis is supported, then the assertion that the low inertia of RSPs provide an unnatural advantage would be discredited. Given that some Paralympic sprinters choose to add mass to their prostheses, we anticipate that added mass will not significantly slow leg swing times. Future experiments should also quantify how RSPs affect accelerations and curve running. Both require greater force and power outputs than straight-ahead steady speed running. We hope that the data needed to test these hypotheses will be forthcoming so that this debate can be elevated from a discussion of what might be to a discussion of what is known.REFERENCES1. Brown MB , Millard-Stafford ML , Allison AR. Running-specific prostheses permit energy costs similar to non-amputees. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 1080–1087, 2009.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar2. Brüggeman GP , Arampatzis A , Emrich F , Potthast W. Biomechanics of double transtibial amputee sprinting using dedicated sprint prostheses. Sports Technol 4–5: 220–227, 2009.Crossref | Google Scholar3. Buckley JG. Sprint kinematics of athletes with lower-limb amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80: 501–508, 1999.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar4. Buckley JG. Biomechanical adaptations of transtibial amputee sprinting in athletes using dedicated prostheses. Clin Biomech 15: 352–358, 2000.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar5. Chang YH , Kram R. Limitations to maximum running speed on flat curves. J Exp Biol 210: 971–982, 2007.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar6. Czerniecki JM , Gitter AJ , Beck JC. Energy transfer mechanisms as a compensatory strategy in below knee amputee runners. J Biomech 29: 717–722, 1996.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar7. Czerniecki JM , Gitter A , Munro C. Joint moment and muscle power output characteristics of below knee amputees during running: the influence of energy storing prosthetic feet. J Biomech 24: 63–75, 1991.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar8. Engsberg JR , Lee AG , Tedford KG , Harder JA. Normative ground reaction force data for able-bodied and trans-tibial amputee children during running. Prosthet Orthot Int 17: 83–89, 1993.ISI | Google Scholar9. Morgan DW , Bransford DR , Costill DL , Daniels JT , Howley ET , Krahenbuhl GS. Variation in the aerobic demand of running among trained and untrained subjects. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27: 404–409, 1995.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar10. Pistorius O. Blade Runner. London: Virgin Books, 2009.Google Scholar11. Usherwood JR , Wilson AM. Accounting for elite indoor 200 m sprint results. Biol Lett 2: 47–50, 2006.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar12. Weyand PG , Sternlight DB , Bellizzi MJ , Wright S. Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol 89: 1991–1999, 2000.Link | ISI | Google Scholar13. Weyand PG , Bundle MW , McGowan CP , Grabowski AM , Brown MB , Kram R , Herr H. The fastest runner on artificial legs: different limbs, similar function? J Appl Physiol 107: 903–911, 2009.Link | ISI | Google Scholar14. Weyand PG , Bundle MW. Point: Artificial legs make artificially fast running speeds possible. J Appl Physiol; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01238.2009.Google Scholar15. Wilson JR , Asfour S , Abdelrahman Z , Gailey R. A new methodology to measure the running biomechanics of amputees. Pros Orth Int 33: 218–229, 2009.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformationCited BySprinting with prosthetic versus biological legs: insight from experimental data5 January 2022 | Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 9, No. 1How Can Biomechanics Improve Physical Preparation and Performance in Paralympic Athletes? A Narrative Review24 June 2021 | Sports, Vol. 9, No. 7Werte und Regeln: Fair Play5 October 2021PLOS ONE, Vol. 15, No. 2Comparison of Sprinting With and Without Running-Specific Prostheses Using Optimal Control Techniques2 July 2019 | Robotica, Vol. 37, No. 12Werte und Regeln: Fair Play15 February 2019Athletes With Versus Without Leg Amputations: Different Biomechanics, Similar Running EconomyExercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, Vol. 47, No. 1The biomechanics of the fastest sprinter with a unilateral transtibial amputationOwen N. Beck and Alena M. Grabowski13 March 2018 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 124, No. 3Werte und Regeln: Fair Play25 September 2018Reduced prosthetic stiffness lowers the metabolic cost of running for athletes with bilateral transtibial amputationsOwen N. Beck, Paolo Taboga, and Alena M. Grabowski11 April 2017 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 122, No. 4Mechanical characterization and comparison of energy storage and return prosthesesMedical Engineering & Physics, Vol. 41Maximum-speed curve-running biomechanics of sprinters with and without unilateral leg amputations16 March 2016 | The Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol. 219, No. 6The influence of push-off timing in a robotic ankle-foot prosthesis on the energetics and mechanics of walking22 February 2015 | Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, Vol. 12, No. 1Exoskeleton boots improve on evolution1 April 2015 | Nature, Vol. 108Modeling the Effect of a Prosthetic Limb on 4-km Pursuit PerformanceInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. 10, No. 1Athletic Assistive Technology for Persons with Physical Conditions Affecting MobilityJPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Vol. 26, No. 3A Mathematical Study of Sprinting on Artificial Legs26 August 2014Running-specific prostheses: The history, mechanics, and controversyJournal of the Society of Biomechanisms, Vol. 38, No. 2Sport prostheses and prosthetic adaptations for the upper and lower limb amputeesProsthetics & Orthotics International, Vol. 36, No. 3Recent trends in assistive technology for mobilityJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, Vol. 9, No. 1Textual Analysis on the Issues Related to Oscar Pistorius' Eligibility of Participation in an Able-bodied Sporting EventJournal of adapted physical activity and exercise, Vol. 19, No. 4Paralympic sport: an emerging area for research and consultancy in sports biomechanicsSports Biomechanics, Vol. 10, No. 3 More from this issue > Volume 108Issue 4April 2010Pages 1012-1014 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2010 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01238.2009aPubMed20368386History Published online 1 April 2010 Published in print 1 April 2010 PDF download Metrics Downloaded 2,430 times