4.4 Article

Biomechanical analysis of running in weightlessness on a treadmill equipped with a subject loading system

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 110, 期 4, 页码 709-728

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-010-1549-9

关键词

Mechanics of locomotion; Exercise in microgravity; Long-duration space flights

资金

  1. ESA/PRODEX/BELSPO [C15379]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One countermeasure used during long-duration spaceflight to maintain bone and muscle mass is a treadmill equipped with a subject loading system (SLS) that simulates gravity. To date, little is known about the biomechanics of running in weightlessness on such a treadmill-SLS system. We have designed an instrumented treadmill/force plate to compare the biomechanics of running in weightlessness to running on Earth. Gravity was simulated by two pneumatic pistons pulling downward on a subject's harness, with a force approximately equal to body weight on Earth. Four transducers, mounted under the treadmill, measured the three components of the reaction force exerted by the tread belt under the foot. A high-speed video camera recorded the movements of limb segments while the electromyography of the four lower limb muscles was registered. Experiments in weightlessness were conducted during the European Space Agency parabolic flight campaigns. Control experiments were performed on the same subjects on Earth. When running on the treadmill with an SLS, the bouncing mechanism of running is preserved. Depending on the speed of progression, the ground reaction forces, contact and aerial times, muscular work and bone stress differed by a maximum of +/- 5-15% during running on the treadmill with an SLS, as compared to that on Earth. The movements of the lower limb segments and the EMG patterns of the lower limb muscles were also comparable. Thus, the biomechanics of running on Earth can reasonably be duplicated in weightlessness using a treadmill with an SLS that generates a pull-down force close to body weight on Earth.

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

4.4
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