spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online January 25, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 439-445 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01408
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Doke, J.
Right arrow Articles by Kuo, A. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Doke, J.
Right arrow Articles by Kuo, A. D.

Mechanics and energetics of swinging the human leg

Jiro Doke1,*, J. Maxwell Donelan2 and Arthur D. Kuo1

1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125 USA
2 Department of Physiology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H7 Canada



View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Isolated leg swinging was modeled as a simple pendulum. Leg angle {Theta} was defined relative to vertical, and torque T due to muscle force was defined as positive in the same direction as {theta}. We assumed a relatively constant moment arm for muscle force. Torque and rate of work requirements increase with the square and cube, respectively, of swing frequency f (Hz) or {omega} (rad s-1) above the natural frequency, fn or {omega}n respectively.

 


View larger version (37K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Experimental apparatus. Subjects performed leg swinging while attached to a rigid frame, with weight supported by both arms and one leg. Subjects were strapped to the metal frame, with leg angle {theta} measured by optical encoder. Force plate underneath the frame measured ground reaction forces, used to compute leg torque produced at hip (representative data shown).

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Mechanics of leg swinging as a function of frequency f, in terms of torque, work, and force/time, were modeled reasonably well by a forced pendulum (Equations 9, 10, 11). (a.) Hip torque amplitude, T0, increased approximately with f2 above natural frequency fn (R2=0.96). (b.) Rate of mechanical work, (+), increased approximately with f3 (R2=0.93). (c.) Rate of force/time, {tau}, increased approximately with f 4 (R2=0.95). Metabolic cost is hypothesized to increase with both rate of work and force/time, for frequencies above the natural frequency fn=0.64 Hz. Data fits were performed using dimensionless variables (right-hand axis) with body mass, gravitational constant, and leg length serving as base units; conventional units are shown (left-hand axis) for convenience. Data shown are mean ± S.D.

 


View larger version (24K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Metabolic rate increased over fourfold with frequency of isolated leg swinging, for motion faster than the leg's natural frequency. (A) E vs frequency of leg swinging f, showing metabolic rate increasing approximately with f 4 as predicted by force/time hypothesis (Equation 12). Data shown are for all frequencies applied, but the curve fit was only performed on data for fast leg swinging. (B) E vs {tau}, showing metabolic rate increasing approximately linearly with the hypothesized force/time cost (Equation 13). Rate of mechanical work is also likely to contribute, but cannot accurately be distinguished from force/time in overall metabolic cost.

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Work loops of hip torque vs angle for a typical subject: (A) as a function of frequency; and (B) compared with normal walking. (A) Work loops varied mostly in terms of torque rather than amplitude or contained area. (B) Compared with normal walking at 1.3 m s-1 (data from Whittle, 1996Go), isolated leg swinging occurred at a comparable range of torques and angles, although walking occurs at a lower stride frequency of 0.9 Hz and with more work at the hip.

 





© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2005