Categories
Health & Medicine Plants & Animals Researcher news SMU In The News

MSNBC: Take that, Stretch! Short people burn more calories walking

A Nov. 12 article on MSNBC cites the research of SMU physiologist and biomechanist Peter Weyand in which he and other scientists found that everyone uses about the same amount of energy when they walk, but short people use more energy over a given distance. The reason: people with shorter legs take more steps to cover the same distance as people with longer legs.

Weyand says the study has clinical applications and weight balance applications. In addition, the military is interested too because metabolic rates influence the physiological status of soldiers in the field, he said.

Read the full story.

Also covering the research is UPI, with the story Equation calculates energy cost of walking.

Weyand is an SMU associate professor of applied physiology and biomechanics in the Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education & Human Development. He lead a team of experts in biomechanics and physiology that conducted experiments on Oscar Pistorius, a South African bilateral amputee track athlete. Pistorius has made headlines trying to qualify for races against runners with intact limbs, including the Olympics.

Excerpt:

By Rachel Rettner
MSNBC

Scientists have come up with a new equation to determine how much energy people actually use while walking.

While previous work has conjured many ways to measure the energy cost of walking, the new equation is among the first to account for the impact of body size, taking into account individuals’ height and weight.

The equation has many possible applications. It could be used to design pedometers that, in addition to distance walked, provide an estimate of calories burned, taking into account a person’s body size. The military may also find the equation handy, possibly using it to calculate how much energy soldiers expend — and thus how many calories they will need — while carrying different loads, said study researcher Peter Weyand, of Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

The findings are published today (Nov. 12) in the Journal of Experimental Biology.
Why height and weight matter .

Scientists knew that shorter people, including children, use up more energy per pound of their body mass when walking than taller people, but they didn’t know why.

Read the full story.

Categories
Health & Medicine Plants & Animals

How much energy does it take to walk? New equation is first to calculate cost of walking

Any parent that takes their kid out for a walk knows that children tire more quickly than adults, but why is that? Do kids and small adults walk differently from taller people or do they tire faster for some other reason?

Peter Weyand from Southern Methodist University is fascinated by the effect that body size has on physiological function.

“This goes back to Max Kleiber’s work on resting metabolic rates for different sized animals. He found that the bigger you are the slower each gram of tissue uses energy,” explains Weyand, who adds, “It’s interesting to know how and why metabolism is regulated that way.”

Intrigued by the question of why smaller people use more energy per kilogram body mass than larger individuals when walking, Weyand teamed up with Maurice Puyau and Nancy Butte, from the USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, and undergraduate Bethany Smith.

Together they decided to measure the metabolic rates of children and adults, ranging from 5 to 32 years old, weighing between 15.9 kilograms and 88.7 kilograms and ranging in height from 1.07 meters to 1.83 meters, to try to find out why larger people are more economical walkers than smaller people.

Weyand and his colleagues publish their discovery that walkers of all heights use the same amount of energy per stride, making short people less economical because they take more steps. They also derive a fundamental equation to calculate exactly how much energy walkers use with direct applications in all walks of life. The team published its discovery in the article “The mass-specific energy cost of human walking is set by stature” in the current issue of The Journal of Experimental Biology.

First Weyand and colleagues filmed male and female volunteers as they walked on a treadmill at speeds ranging from a slow 0.4 meters per second up to 1.9 meters per second. Meanwhile, they simultaneously measured the walkers’ oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production rates to obtain their total metabolic rate.

Next the team calculated the amount of energy that each person used for walking by subtracting the basal metabolic rate (energy required to maintain the body’s basic metabolic functions) from the total metabolic rate measured while walking. Finally, the team compared the way each person walked, measuring the walkers’ stride lengths, stride durations and the proportion of each stride they spent in contact with the ground (duty factor) to find out if large and small people walk differently.

Analysing the walkers’ styles, the team found that all of them moved in exactly the same way regardless of their height. Essentially, if you scaled a 5 year old up to 2 meters, the giant child would walk in exactly the same way as a 2 meter tall adult. So large people are not more economical because they walk differently from smaller people.

Next the team calculated the metabolic cost of a stride as each walker moved at their most economical pace and they discovered that walkers use the same amount of energy per stride regardless of their height. So, big people do not become more economical because they walk in a more economical style. Something else must account for their increased economy.

Finally, the four scientists plotted the walkers’ heights against their minimum energy expenditure and they were amazed when they got a straight line with a gradient of almost -1. The walkers’ energy costs were inversely proportional to their heights, with tall people walking more economically than short/smaller people because they have longer strides and have to take fewer steps to cover the same distance. So smaller people tire faster because each step costs the same and they have to take more steps to cover the same distance or travel at the same speed.

Based on this discovery the group derived an equation that can be used to calculate the energetic cost of walking.

“The equation allows you to use your height, weight and distance walked to determine how many calories you burn,” says Weyand.

The equation could also be built into popular pedometers to provide users with a more realistic idea of how many calories they expend walking throughout the day. Finally, the team is keen to extend the equation to calculate metabolic costs at any speed.

“This has clinical applications, weight balance applications and the military is interested too because metabolic rates influence the physiological status of soldiers in the field,” explains Weyand. — Kathryn Knight, The Company of Biologists

Categories
Health & Medicine Plants & Animals Researcher news SMU In The News

Scientific American: Who Will Win: A Squirrel, an Elephant, a Pig or a Safety?

A Nov. 11 article in Scientific American cites the expert analysis of SMU physiologist and biomechanist Peter Weyand as part of an effort to explore the physics of speed and acceleration.

In a special partnership with NBC Learn, the science magazine set up an imaginary 40-yard dash to present additional information for the video series, “The Science of NFL Football.”

Weyand was posed the question: Imagine a 40-yard dash that races a wide receiver, a safety, an ostrich, an elephant and a pig — who would win?

See the excerpt below for Weyand’s answer.

Read the full story and see the video.

Weyand is an SMU associate professor of applied physiology and biomechanics in the Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education & Human Development. He lead a team of experts in biomechanics and physiology that conducted experiments on Oscar Pistorius, a South African bilateral amputee track athlete. Pistorius has made headlines trying to qualify for races against runners with intact limbs, including the Olympics.

Excerpt:

Scientific American
If you want to be a professional football player, you’d better start practicing your 40-yard dash. It’s the gold standard for assessing a player’s speed and ability to accelerate, as NBC Learn’s segment on kinematics, motion, speed and acceleration shows.

Human beings need about 10 yards to reach maximum velocity, so the 40 is really a test of both acceleration and speed — unlike a longer sprint, such as the 100, which is more about a runner’s ability to maintain maximum speed. Acceleration depends on how much force runners can put into the ground (and thus receive back) relative to their mass. For this reason, the smaller you are the easier it is to accelerate rapidly. That’s why gymnasts, for example, are generally small — they must be able to generate a large amount of force relative to mass to accelerate enough to run and perform multiple flips in a row. Imagine an offensive lineman trying to do that! Wide receivers, running backs and defensive backs are not as massive as linemen, and therefore are very good accelerators, which is one reason they can handily outrun the latter in a 40-yard dash.

At present, no standard method or variable exists to quantify a human or animal’s top acceleration. One reason: the variable changes with every step until top speed is reached, making a tangible value a moving target. As a result, comparing the top accelerations of humans and other animals is difficult. Nevertheless, it’s true that smaller animals are better at accelerating — think of how quickly a squirrel can dart up a tree trunk, for example.

Speaking of squirrels, imagine a 40-yard dash that races a wide receiver, a safety, an ostrich, an elephant and a pig — who would win? “The ostrich wins pretty easily,” says Peter Weyand, a professor of applied physiology and biomechanics at Southern Methodist University. “And then would probably come the wide receiver, the safety, squirrel, the pig and, finally, the elephant.”

The ostrich, although bigger than a human, is built for speed. “The easiest way to explain why the ostrich is fast is that it has long legs,” Weyand says. It also runs on its toes, and what looks like a backward knee is actually its ankle. Most of the bird’s leg muscles reside on short thighbones, so the task of accelerating and maintaining speed is left to long, light limbs.

Read the full story and see the video.

Weyand is an expert in the locomotion of humans and other terrestrial animals with broad research interests that focus on the relationships between muscle function, metabolic energy expenditure, whole body mechanics and performance.

An expert in the scientific basis of gait and movement, his global interests in muscles and movement have made energy and performance central themes throughout his research career. Weyand’s research and expertise on the limits of human and animal performance have led to featured appearances on CNN, NHK Television in Japan, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the History Channel, City TV of Toronto, CBS Boston and others.

Categories
Health & Medicine Plants & Animals Researcher news SMU In The News

Popular Mechanics: The Animal Kingdom’s Top Marathoners

An article looking at the abilities of humans and animals to run long distances tapped into the research of SMU physiologist and biomechanist Peter Weyand.

Journalist Brian Resnick in Popular Mechanics cites Weyand’s knowledge to explain the differences at work between humans and animals in “The Animal Kingdom’s Top Marathoners.”

Weyand is an SMU associate professor of applied physiology and biomechanics in the Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education & Human Development. His experience includes leading a team of experts in biomechanics and physiology that conducted experiments on Oscar Pistorius, a South African bilateral amputee track athlete. Pistorius has made world headlines trying to qualify for races against runners with intact limbs, including the Olympics.

Weyand is an expert in the locomotion of humans and other terrestrial animals with broad research interests that focus on the relationships between muscle function, metabolic energy expenditure, whole body mechanics and performance.

An expert in the scientific basis of gait and movement, his global interests in muscles and movement have made energy and performance central themes throughout his research career. Weyand’s research and expertise on the limits of human and animal performance have led to featured appearances on CNN, NHK Television in Japan, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the History Channel, City TV of Toronto, CBS Boston and others.

Read the full story.

Excerpt:

By Brian Resnick
Popular Mechanics
Compared to other land mammals, humans are remarkably good at running long distances. Our upright posture and ability to shed heat — through sweating — are what allow people to run more than 20 miles during a race. Very few other animals can sustain such distances, especially at the speeds that top human athletes perform. But there is plenty of competition out there — nature is full of species adapted for running distance. Here’s a look at six of the best marathoners in the animal kingdom, from slowest to fastest.

Through years of selective breeding, racehorses have gained a built-in biological mechanism for efficient blood — the kind that certain human athletes can only achieve by doping.

“When they start to exercise, their spleen will kick out a whole bunch of red bloods cells into their system, into their cardiovascular system to make the oxygen carrying capacity of their blood go up,” says Peter Weyand, professor of physiology and biomechanics at Southern Methodist University. Human blood dopers transfuse blood before a race to achieve an increased aerobic capacity. However, the horse naturally release blood cells moments after starting to a gallop.

For the last 30 years, the Welsh town of Llanwrtyd Wells has hoted a 22-mile, man-versus-horse race. Humans have only won the race twice, but top runners usually only finish 10 minutes after the animals. Where horses exceed in oxygen efficiency, humans make up for in temperature regulation. In the beginning of the race the horses tend to have a 30 minute lead, but toward the end, that advantaged is cut to a couple of minutes. Over the course of the race, humans are more efficient at expelling heat — not to mention they aren’t running with a rider on their back. On a hot day, humans can win much more easily.

Are humans born to run? Some experts think that humans have, indeed, evolved to be distance runners — the better to track prey, evade predators and migrate. While there is some debate on running and human evolution, there is no question that we are up there in the animal kingdom for speeds at marathon distances. There is no one reason, but the efficiency of our cooling systems — our ability to sweat — and having an upright posture, to minimize our sun exposure and maximize our lung capacity, are some of the primary reasons we are skilled distance runners.

One major difference between humans and animals is that we don’t have in-born endurance; we have to train.

Peter Weyand says that compared to other animals, humans have a high energy cost of running — we spend more energy in each stride relative to our size. But unlike wild animals, we can motivate ourselves to run, and through training we can increase our aerobic scope — the amount of aerobic activity one can achieve. “Even though

[humans] are good at regulating heat, they have more heat to dump because their economy is poor,” he says. Strict training regimens and the ability to sweat can make up for that lack.
Read the full story.

Categories
Culture, Society & Family Economics & Statistics Health & Medicine

Human running speed of 35-40 mph may be biologically possible

2009_Evans_Amber%2Csmall.jpg

Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt‘s record-setting performances have unleashed a wave of interest in the ultimate limits to human running speed. A new study published Jan. 21 in the Journal of Applied Physiology offers intriguing insights into the biology and perhaps even the future of human running speed.

The newly published evidence identifies the critical variable imposing the biological limit to running speed, and offers an enticing view of how the biological limits might be pushed back beyond the nearly 28 miles per hour speeds achieved by Bolt to speeds of perhaps 35 or even 40 miles per hour.

The new paper, “The biological limits to running speed are imposed from the ground up,” was authored by Peter Weyand of Southern Methodist University; Rosalind Sandell and Danille Prime, both formerly of Rice University; and Matthew Bundle of the University of Wyoming.

“The prevailing view that speed is limited by the force with which the limbs can strike the running surface is an eminently reasonable one,” said Weyand, associate professor of applied physiology and biomechanics at SMU in Dallas.

“If one considers that elite sprinters can apply peak forces of 800 to 1,000 pounds with a single limb during each sprinting step, it’s easy to believe that runners are probably operating at or near the force limits of their muscles and limbs,” he said. “However, our new data clearly show that this is not the case. Despite how large the running forces can be, we found that the limbs are capable of applying much greater ground forces than those present during top-speed forward running.”

2009_Cuington_Ebonym%2C%20small.jpg
SMU sprinter Ebony Cuington. Photo: SMU Athletics

In contrast to a force limit, what the researchers found was that the critical biological limit is imposed by time — specifically, the very brief periods of time available to apply force to the ground while sprinting.

In elite sprinters, foot-ground contact times are less than one-tenth of one second, and peak ground forces occur within less than one-twentieth of one second of the first instant of foot-ground contact.

The researchers took advantage of several experimental tools to arrive at the new conclusions. They used a high-speed treadmill capable of attaining speeds greater than 40 miles per hour and of acquiring precise measurements of the forces applied to the surface with each footfall. They also had subjects’ perform at high speeds in different gaits. In addition to completing traditional top-speed forward running tests, subjects hopped on one leg and ran backward to their fastest possible speeds on the treadmill.

The unconventional tests were strategically selected to test the prevailing beliefs about mechanical factors that limit human running speeds — specifically, the idea that the speed limit is imposed by how forcefully a runner’s limbs can strike the ground.

However, the researchers found that the ground forces applied while hopping on one leg at top speed exceeded those applied during top-speed forward running by 30 percent or more, and that the forces generated by the active muscles within the limb were roughly 1.5 to 2 times greater in the one-legged hopping gait.

The time limit conclusion was supported by the agreement of the minimum foot-ground contact times observed during top-speed backward and forward running. Although top backward vs. forward speeds were substantially slower, as expected, the minimum periods of foot-ground contact at top backward and forward speeds were essentially identical.

According to Matthew Bundle, an assistant professor of biomechanics at the University of Wyoming, “The very close agreement in the briefest periods of foot-ground contact at top speed in these two very different gaits points to a biological limit on how quickly the active muscle fibers can generate the forces necessary to get the runner back up off the ground during each step.”

The researchers said the new work shows that running speed limits are set by the contractile speed limits of the muscle fibers themselves, with fiber contractile speeds setting the limit on how quickly the runner’s limb can apply force to the running surface.

The established relationship between ground forces and speed allowed the researchers to calculate how much additional speed the hopping forces would provide if they were utilized during running.

“Our simple projections indicate that muscle contractile speeds that would allow for maximal or near-maximal forces would permit running speeds of 35 to 40 miles per hour and conceivably faster,” Bundle said.