4.3 Article

During walking elders increase efforts at proximal joints and keep low kinetics at the ankle

期刊

CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 493-498

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.04.004

关键词

Gait; Ageing; Controlled speeds; Treadmill; Biomechanical model

资金

  1. Government of Tuscany
  2. Municipality of Peccioli (Pisa, Italy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Both ageing and speed definitely affect gait patterns. Since most of the comparisons between young and elderly people while walking have been carried out at different self-selected speeds, results might be biased by a lack of control of the effects of both the concomitant issues. Therefore, further investigations aimed at separating the influence of both the sources of variability are required. Methods: Nine young and eight elderly healthy subjects walked on a treadmill at five normalised speeds according to the Froude Number, from 0.5 to 1.3 m/s. Step parameters and peaks belonging to kinematic and kinetic patterns have been compared between the groups and over the five speeds by the two-factor (Group and Speed) ANOVA. Findings: After making walking speed comparable between the groups, in elders, hip and knee concentric powers during the stance phase were higher than in young subjects despite their decreased ankle plantar-flexor kinetics. Kinematic differences occurred in conjunction with the modifications of the kinetic patterns. Interpretation: Since proximal and distal extensor muscles contribute to the same functional tasks during walking (e.g., stabilisation, forward acceleration of the trunk, body support against gravity), ageing would involve a different sharing of muscle efforts among leg joints, increasing the work load of the proximal extensor muscles. Moreover, gait analysis, when carried out at controlled and comparable speeds, can better pinpoint features of each group of subjects than the comparison at self-selected speed. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据