QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online August 17, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3345-3357 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02340

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Arampatzis, A. Articles by Brüggemann, G.-P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Arampatzis, A. Articles by Brüggemann, G.-P.

Influence of the muscle-tendon unit's mechanical and morphological properties on running economy

Adamantios Arampatzis^*, Gianpiero De Monte, Kiros Karamanidis, Gaspar Morey-Klapsing, Savvas Stafilidis and Gert-Peter Brüggemann

Adamantios Arampatzis, German Sport University of Cologne, Institute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedics, Carl-Diem-Weg 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Oxygen consumption () of a runner at all three velocities. The two vertical lines delimit the period during which oxygen consumption was determined.

View larger version (66K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Muscle ultrasound images at rest. Left, gastrocnemius medialis (GM); right, vastus lateralis (VL). L, fascicle length; d, muscle thickness; , pennation angle; digitalised cross-point, insertion of the fascicle into the deeper aponeurosis.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Average values of the ankle (AA) knee (KA) and hip (HA) angles during running for all velocities and groups. The x-axis is normalised to the stride cycle (from heel strike to the next heel strike of the same foot). The vertical lines separate the contact and swing phases (mean ± 1 s.d.). Group 1, high running economy (N=10). Group 2, moderate running economy (N=12). Group 3, low running economy (N=6). (A) Velocity 1 (3.0 m s-1), (B) velocity 2 (3.5 m s-1), (C) velocity 3 (4.0 m s-1).

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Force-strain relationship of the quadriceps femoris tendon and aponeurosis during maximal knee extension effort for the three groups (mean ± 1 s.d.). Group 1, high running economy; Group 2, moderate running economy; Group 3, low running economy. *Statistically significant differences in maximal tendon strain between group 1 and the other two groups (P<0.05).

View larger version (55K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Normalised RMS values of the EMG signal (A) for the triceps surae muscle (gastrocnemius medialis, gastrocnemius lateralis and soleus) and ankle joint moment (B) during isometric maximal voluntary ankle plantarflexion contraction at 11 different joint angle configurations for the examined groups (means ±1 s.d.). RMS values from each subject were normalised to the highest RMS value measured over all joint angle configurations. Group 1, high running economy; Group 2, moderate running economy; Group 3, low running economy. *Statistically significant differences between group 1 and the other two groups (P<0.05).

View larger version (57K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Normalised RMS values of the EMG signal (A) for the quadriceps femoris muscles (vastus lateralis, vastus medialis and rectus femoris) and knee joint moment (B) during isometric maximal voluntary knee extension contraction at 11 different joint angle configurations for the examined groups (means ± 1 s.d.). RMS values from each subject were normalised to the highest RMS value measured over all joint angle configurations. Group 1, high running economy; Group 2, moderate running economy; Group 3, low running economy. *Statistically significant differences between group 1 and the other two groups (P<0.05).

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Energy storage capacity of the tendon and aponeurosis as function of the tendon force between the runners of group 1 (high running economy) and the runners of groups 2 and 3 (moderate and low running economies), and percentage differences relative to group 1 in the quadriceps femoris muscle-tendon unit (as statistically significant differences in the force-strain relationship were found only between group 1 and both other groups, groups 2 and 3 have been considered together).