4.5 Article

An analysis of the rebound of the body in backward human running

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 215, Issue 1, Pages 75-84

Publisher

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.057562

Keywords

locomotion; running; backward running; step frequency; catapult

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Step frequency and energy expenditure are greater in backward running than in forward running. The differences in the motion of the centre of mass of the body associated with these findings are not known. These differences were measured here on nine trained subjects during backward and forward running steps on a force platform at 3-17 km h(-1). In contrast to previous reports, we found that the maximal upward acceleration of the centre of mass and the aerial phase, averaged over the whole speed range, are greater in backward running than in forward running (15.7 versus 13.2 m s(-2), P = 1.9 x 10(-6) and 0.098 versus 0.072 s, P = 2.4 x 10(-5), respectively). Opposite to forward running, the impulse on the ground is directed more vertically during the push at the end of stance than during the brake at the beginning of stance. The higher step frequency in backward running is explained by a greater mass-specific vertical stiffness of the bouncing system (499 versus 352 s(-2), P = 2.3 x 10(-11)) resulting in a shorter duration of the lower part of the vertical oscillation of the centre of mass when the force is greater than body weight, with a similar duration of the upper part when the force is lower than body weight. As in a catapult, muscle-tendon units are stretched more slowly during the brake at the beginning of stance and shorten more rapidly during the push at the end of stance. We suggest that the catapult-like mechanism of backward running, although requiring greater energy expenditure and not providing a smoother ride, may allow a safer stretch-shorten cycle of muscle-tendon units.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available