PDA

View Full Version : Running/Walking: Model opens up research into efficiency of motion.


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Rich Travs
Tue, Jan-30-07, 17:18
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070115/full/070115-9.html

How much energy does it take to move around? You might think
it obvious that animals with long legs would use up less
energy covering a given distance than would those with short
legs. But how much leg length determines the energetic costs
of walking or running is hotly debated by scientists.

A mathematical model developed by Herman Pontzer of
Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, sheds light on
the question, and may even provide an answer to why our
ancestors evolved longer legs than their predecessors some
two million years ago.

The main cost of running or walking comes from the force
needed to support the animal's stance. Scientists know that
bodyweight plays a big role in determining this force. But
what about other physical factors?

Pontzer used basic physics principles to predict how running
speed and leg length would affect the forces exerted by an
animal. Longer legs, for example, reduce the amount of
up-and-down movement in a stride, and so also reduce the
force needed to push down with each step. From the total
force predicted for a given animal, he could calculate an
expected energy use.

To see how well this model works, he put some people, goats
and dogs on a treadmill in his lab, and worked out their
energy usage by measuring how much oxygen remained in their
exhaled air after a stint of exercise. The reality matched up
very nicely with his model, he reports in The Journal of
Experimental Biology. ... The model could also offer
anthropologists a new way to study energy use in our ancient
ancestors. "The fossil record shows that two million years
ago, there was a big increase in leg length in early humans,"
says Pontzer. He suggests that a reason for this increase
could have been the energy saved by having longer legs.

Paul Crowl
Tue, Jan-30-07, 17:18
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BFA590.85310E6B@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070115/full/070115-9.html

> He suggests that a reason for this increase could have been
> the energy saved by having longer legs.

Crap.

Does anyone ever think of applying this kind of 'reasoning' to
other species?

Species X evolved feature X1 to save itself energy.

How many can you name?

It's the sheer mindlessness that gets me . . . and the endless
repetition . . . and the absence of ANY other possible reason.
It's the endless taste of vanilla. This is the ONE 'safe'
explanation to which no one will object.

Can't they come up with something a little bit more
imaginative?

Sorry, silly question.

Paul.

Rmacfarl
Thu, Feb-01-07, 17:18
On Feb 2, 9:01 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "MClark" <m...@work.com> wrote in
> messagenews:d76dnYpo5ZdRSlzYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > At what point, Pauly, in your long history of being
> > shot down
>
> Mikey, can you tell me the last time I was 'shot down'?
>
> Or even any time?
>
> Paul.

Paul, no one can tell you *anything*. But if it's any
consolation, you're not as stupid as Jim...

Ross Macfarlane

Paul Crowl
Thu, Feb-01-07, 17:18
"MClark" <men@work.com> wrote in message
news:d76dnYpo5ZdRSlzYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com...

> At what point, Pauly, in your long history of being
> shot down

Mikey, can you tell me the last time I was 'shot down'?

Or even any time?

Paul.

claudiusde
Sat, Feb-03-07, 17:16
On Jan 30, 12:07 pm, Rich Travsky
<traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070115/full/070115-9.html
>
> How much energy does it take to move around? You might
> think it obvious that animals with long legs would use up
> less energy covering a given distance than would those with
> short legs.

Uh . . . it is obvious.

> But how much leg length determines the energetic costs of
> walking or running is hotly debated by scientists.

Hotly debated? By who? I mean who's dumb enough to take the
position that shorter legs are use up less energy covering a
given distance than longer legs?

> A mathematical model developed by Herman Pontzer of
> Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, sheds light on
> the question, and may even provide an answer to why our
> ancestors evolved longer legs than their predecessors some
> two million years ago.
>
> The main cost of running or walking comes from the force
> needed to support the animal's stance. Scientists know that
> bodyweight plays a big role in determining this force. But
> what about other physical factors?
>
> Pontzer used basic physics principles to predict how
> running speed and leg length would affect the forces
> exerted by an animal. Longer legs, for example, reduce the
> amount of up-and-down movement in a stride, and so also
> reduce the force needed to push down with each step. From
> the total force predicted for a given animal, he could
> calculate an expected energy use.
>
> To see how well this model works, he put some people, goats
> and dogs on a treadmill in his lab, and worked out their
> energy usage by measuring how much oxygen remained in their
> exhaled air after a stint of exercise. The reality matched
> up very nicely with his model, he reports in The Journal of
> Experimental Biology. ... The model could also offer
> anthropologists a new way to study energy use in our
> ancient ancestors. "The fossil record shows that two
> million years ago, there was a big increase in leg length
> in early humans," says Pontzer. He suggests that a reason
> for this increase could have been the energy saved by
> having longer legs.

Pontzer is arguing the obvious and being careful to steer
clear of what is significant about these observations.
Obviously these observations indicate a shift in lifestyle
from one that is relatrvely stationary to one that is
moderately mobile. Such a shift in mobility is inconsistent
with hunting/gathering/scavenging notions of early hominid
evolution. In fact if hunting/gathering/scavenging notions
were accurate we'd expect to see exactly the opposite. We'd
expect to see a shift from longer legs to shorter legs. In
contrast these observations are perfectly consistent with the
communal aspects of my scenario along the lines that these
observations indicate communal hominids becoming more
ecologically dominant.