Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Point: Artificial limbs do make artificially fast running speeds possible

2009; American Physiological Society; Volume: 108; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1152/japplphysiol.01238.2009

8750-7587

Peter G. Weyand, Matthew W. Bundle,

Sports Dynamics and Biomechanics

POINT:COUNTERPOINTArtificial limbs do/do not make artificially fast running speeds possiblePoint: Artificial limbs do make artificially fast running speeds possiblePeter G. Weyand, and Matthew W. BundlePeter G. WeyandSouthern Methodist University Locomotor Performance Laboratory Department of Applied Physiology and Wellness Dallas, Texas e-mail: , and Matthew W. BundleUniversity of Wyoming Biomechanics Laboratory College of Health Sciences Laramie, WyomingPublished Online:01 Apr 2010https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01238.2009This is the final version - click for previous versionMoreSectionsPDF (157 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailWeChat Overview.Three mechanical variables constrain the speeds of human runners: 1) how quickly the limbs can be repositioned for successive steps, 2) the forward distance the body travels while the foot is in contact with the ground, and 3) how much force the limbs can apply to the ground in relation to the body's weight. Artificially increasing one or more of these variables beyond the limits imposed by human biology would artificially enhance running speeds.Mechanics of running.The classical literature on terrestrial locomotion established that level running is mechanically analogous to a ball bouncing forward along the ground (3, 4). Like a bouncing ball, a runner's mechanical energy and forward momentum are conserved via recurring exchanges of kinetic and potential energy during travel. Runners accomplish this by using their legs in a springlike manner to bounce off the ground with each step (3–7). On landing, strain energy is stored as the body's weight and forward speed compress the stance limb and forcibly lengthen muscles and tendons. The strain energy stored on landing is subsequently released via elastic recoil as the limb extends to lift and accelerate the body back into the air prior to take off. The conservation of mechanical energy and forward momentum minimizes the need for propulsive force and the input of additional mechanical energy once a runner is up to speed (9). Thus, contrary to intuition, the primary mechanical requirement of running is applying ground support forces large enough to provide the aerial time needed to reposition the swing limb for the next step (9–11, 13).Under steady-speed, level running conditions, the average vertical force applied to the ground over the course of the stride must equal the body's weight (Wb; Fig. 1). The instantaneous vertical forces across successive contact (tc) and aerial (taer) periods of a representative sprint running stride are illustrated in Fig. 1. Note that each stride consists of the contact plus swing period (tsw) of the same limb (tstr = tc + tsw) and two consecutive steps (where: tstep = tc + taer).Fig. 1.Vertical ground reaction forces, normalized to body weight vs. time for our amputee sprinter (black) and an intact-limb sprinter (gray) at a treadmill speed of 10.5 m/s; shaded region indicates an average force of 1 body weight. Horizontal bars denote the stride-phase durations, and percent differences, between the amputee subject and intact limb norms (n = 4; Ref. 13). Leg compression inset: at mid-stance when limb compression is at or near maximum, the external moment arms at the knee and hip [distance between the joint centers and the ground reaction force (GRF)] are 40 and 65% less, respectively, for our amputee subject compared with a group (n = 5) of intact-limb sprinters (data from Ref. 1; note: the horizontal scale has been doubled for the purpose of illustration).Download figureDownload PowerPointGait mechanics and speed.Because the height of the body is nearly the same at landing and take off, the average vertical force applied during foot-ground contact (Favg), when expressed as a multiple of the body's weight (Favg/FWb), can be determined from the ratio of the total step time (tstep) to the contact time (Favg = tstep/tc). Thus forward speed can be accurately (11) expressed as: Speed = Freqstep·Lc·Favg (Eq. 1), where forward speed is in m/s, Freqstep (1/tstep) is the number of steps per second in s−1, Lc is the forward distance traveled during the contact period in meters, and Favg is the average vertical force applied during contact expressed as a multiple of the body's weight.Here, we compared the running mechanics of a double amputee sprint runner who runs with bilateral, transtibial, carbon fiber prostheses to: 1) four intact-limb track athletes with the same top speed tested under the same laboratory conditions and 2) two elite male sprinters during overground running.Artificial limbs and performance.The stride frequencies attained by our double amputee sprint subject at his top speed were greater than any previously recorded during human sprint running of which we are aware. They were 15.8% greater than those of the intact-limb athletes (13) tested in the laboratory [2.56 vs. 2.21 (0.08) s−1], and 9.3% greater than those of elite sprinters (8) running at 11.6 m/s overground [2.34 (0.13) s−1]. The extreme stride frequencies of our amputee subject were the direct result of how rapidly he was able to reposition his limbs. His swing times at top speed (0.284 s) were 21% shorter than those of the athletes tested in the laboratory [0.359 (0.019) s] and 17.4% shorter than the first two finishers (0.344 s) in the 100-m dash at the 1987 World Track and Field Championships (8). We consider stride and step frequencies nearly 10% greater than those measured for two of the fastest individuals in recorded human history to be artificial and clearly attributable to a nonbiological factor: the mass of our amputee subject's artificial lower limbs is less than one-half that of fully biological lower limbs (1).Our amputee subject's contact lengths at top speed in relation to his standing leg length (Lo) and height were also advantageous for speed. The contact length-to-leg length ratio of our amputee subject was 9.6% greater [1.14 vs. 1.04 (0.08)] than those of the track athletes (13) tested in the laboratory; his contact length-to-height ratio was 16.2% greater (0.62 vs. 0.53) than those of the elite sprinters measured on the track (8). We attribute our amputee subject's long contact lengths and times (13) to the relatively greater compliance of his artificial limbs.The combined effects of lightweight, compliant artificial limbs, minimum swing times of extreme brevity, and moderately prolonged ground contact lengths, is to substantially reduce the stance-averaged vertical forces required to run at any given speed (Fig. 1). Our amputee subject's stance-averaged vertical force at top speed was 0.46 Wb lower than the values measured for male track athletes (13) at the same top speed [1.87 vs. 2.30 (0.13) Wb]. However, in contrast to his extreme swing times and relatively long contact lengths, the ground forces he applied were typical (11), falling well within the range of values reported (1.65–2.52 Wb) for a heterogeneous group of active subjects with intact limbs (top speed range: 6.8–11.1 m/s) that included two accomplished male sprinters.From top speed to sprinting performance.A quantitative assessment of the performance advantage provided by the artificial limbs of our amputee subject can be made simply by adjusting his swing times and contact lengths to typical values for male track athletes with intact limbs (13) and examining the effect on his top sprinting speed using Eq. 1. Using the swing time of 0.359 s measured for the intact-limb track athletes in the laboratory, a contact length of 1.05 m adjusted to equal the Lc/Lo ratio of the intact-limb track athletes in conjunction with his measured Favg (1.84 Wb) and tc values (0.107 s) decreases his top speed from the 10.8 m/s observed to 8.3 m/s.Because top speeds can be used to predict 200 and 400 m run times to within 3.5% or less (3, 12) for both intact-limb runners (3, 12) and this amputee subject (13), we can also quantify the performance advantage provided by artificial vs. intact limbs in specific track events. The reduction of our amputee subject's top speed from 10.8 to 8.3 m/s, in conjunction with his measured velocity at V̇o2max at the time of his laboratory testing (5.0 m/s), increases his running start 200 m time by nearly 6 s (from 21.6 to 27.3 s) and his running start 400 m time by nearly 12 s (from 49.8 to 61.7 s).Conclusion.Our analysis identifies two modifications of existing lower limb prostheses that would further enhance speed for double transtibial amputees: reduced mass to further decrease minimum swing times and increased length to further increase contact lengths.We conclude that the moment in athletic history when engineered limbs outperform biological limbs has already passed.REFERENCES1. Bruggeman GP , Arampatzis A , Emrich F , Potthast W. Biomechanics of double tanstibial amputee sprinting using dedicated sprint prostheses. Sports Technol 4–5: 220–227, 2009.Crossref | Google Scholar2. Bundle MW , Hoyt RW , Weyand PG. High speed running performance: a new approach to assessment and prediction. J Appl Physiol 95: 1955–1962, 2003.Link | ISI | Google Scholar3. Cavagna GA , Sabiene FP , Margaria R. Mechanical work in running. J Appl Physiol 19: 249–256, 1964.Link | ISI | Google Scholar4. Cavagna GA , Heglund NC , Taylor CR. Mechanical work in terrestrial locomotion: two basic mechanisms for minimizing energy expenditure. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 233: R243–R261, 1977.Link | ISI | Google Scholar5. Farley CT , Glasheen J , McMahon TA. Running springs: speed and animal size. J Exp Biol 185: 71–86, 1993.PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar6. Ferris DP , Louie M , Farley CT. Running in the real world: adjusting leg stiffness for different surfaces. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265: 989–994, 1998.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar7. McMahon TA , Cheng GC. The mechanics of running: how does stiffness couple with speed? J Biomech 23, Suppl 1: 65–78, 1990.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar8. Moravec P , Ruzicka J , Susanka P , Dostal E , Kodejs M , Nosek M. The 1987 International Athletic Foundation/IAAF Scientific Project Report: Time analysis of the 100 metres events at the II World Championships in Athletics. New Studies Athletics 3: 61–96, 1988.Google Scholar9. Taylor CR. Relating mechanics and energetics during exercise. Adv Vet Sci Comp Med 38A: 181–215, 1994.PubMed | Google Scholar10. Taylor CR. Cost of running springs. In: Physiological Adaptations in Vertebrates: Respiration, Circulation, and Metabolism , edited by , Wood SC , Weber RE , Hargens AR , Millard RW. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1992, p. 55–65.Google Scholar11. 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 81: 1991–1999, 2000.Link | ISI | Google Scholar12. Weyand PG , Bundle MW. Energetics of high-speed running: integrating classical theory and contemporary observations. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 288: R956–R965, 2005.Link | ISI | Google Scholar13. Weyand PG , Bundle MW , McGowan CP , Grabowski A , Brown MB , Kram R , Herr H. The fastest runner on artificial limbs: different limbs similar function? J Appl Physiol 107: 903–911, 2009.Link | ISI | Google Scholar Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformationCited ByArtificially long legs directly enhance long sprint running performance17 August 2022 | Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 9, No. 8Sprinting with prosthetic versus biological legs: insight from experimental data5 January 2022 | Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 9, No. 1Using Subject-Specific Models to find Differences in Underlying optimization Criteria of Sprinting with and without ProsthesesHow Can Biomechanics Improve Physical Preparation and Performance in Paralympic Athletes? A Narrative Review24 June 2021 | Sports, Vol. 9, No. 7Asymmetry in Three-Dimensional Sprinting with and without Running-Specific Prostheses1 April 2021 | Symmetry, Vol. 13, No. 4Oxygen Consumption and Speed Performance of a Runner with Amputation Wearing an Elevated Vacuum Running Prosthesis19 June 2020 | JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Vol. 33, No. 1PLOS ONE, Vol. 15, No. 2Comparison of Sprinting With and Without Running-Specific Prostheses Using Optimal Control Techniques2 July 2019 | Robotica, Vol. 37, No. 12Optimality Studies of Human Sprinting Motions with and Without Running-Specific Prostheses22 July 2019 | International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, Vol. 16, No. 03Prosthetic LimbsInverse Optimal Control Based Enhancement of Sprinting Motion Analysis with and without Running-Specific ProsthesesSprint Running Performance and Technique Changes in Athletes During Periodized Training: An Elite Training Group Case StudyInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. 13, No. 6The 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. 3Relationship between body height and spatiotemporal parameters during a 100-m sprint in able-bodied and unilateral transtibial sprintersProsthetics & Orthotics International, Vol. 41, No. 5How do prosthetic stiffness, height and running speed affect the biomechanics of athletes with bilateral transtibial amputations?28 June 2017 | Journal of The Royal Society Interface, Vol. 14, No. 131Reduced 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. 41Sprint Start Kinetics of Amputee and Non-Amputee Sprinters15 November 2016 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 11, No. 11Skin Salvaged: Die Antwoord, Oscar Pistorius, and the Spectacle of the Flesh in the Rainbow Nation6 April 2016 | The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 49, No. 2Maximum-speed curve-running biomechanics of sprinters with and without unilateral leg amputations16 March 2016 | The Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol. 219, No. 6The International Olympic Committee–International Paralympic Committee Relationship5 December 2014 | Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 39, No. 5Exoskeleton boots improve on evolution1 April 2015 | Nature, Vol. 108The Potential Transformation of Our Species by Neural Enhancement9 January 2015 | Journal of Motor Behavior, Vol. 47, No. 1Modeling the Effect of a Prosthetic Limb on 4-km Pursuit PerformanceInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. 10, No. 1Amputee Athletes, Part 2: Biomechanics and Common Running InjuriesInternational Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, Vol. 19, No. 2Running-specific prostheses: The history, mechanics, and controversyJournal of the Society of Biomechanisms, Vol. 38, No. 2Does Specific Footwear Facilitate Energy Storage and Return at the Metatarsophalangeal Joint in Running?Journal of Applied Biomechanics, Vol. 29, No. 5Approximate perturbation stance map of the slip runner and application to locomotion control1 December 2012 | Journal of Bionic Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 4Sport prostheses and prosthetic adaptations for the upper and lower limb amputeesProsthetics & Orthotics International, Vol. 36, No. 3Sprint Exercise PerformanceExercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, Vol. 40, No. 3Predictive musculoskeletal simulation using optimal control: effects of added limb mass on energy cost and kinematics of walking and running26 March 2012 | Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, Vol. 226, No. 2Paralympic sport: an emerging area for research and consultancy in sports biomechanicsSports Biomechanics, Vol. 10, No. 3 More from this issue > Volume 108Issue 4April 2010Pages 1011-1012 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2010 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01238.2009PubMed20368385History Published online 1 April 2010 Published in print 1 April 2010 Metrics