HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (21) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Grabowski, A. Articles by Kram, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Grabowski, A. Articles by Kram, R.

Independent metabolic costs of supporting body weight and accelerating body mass during walking

Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

Submitted 14 July 2004 ; accepted in final form 22 September 2004

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
The metabolic cost of walking is determined by many mechanical tasks, but the individual contribution of each task remains unclear. We hypothesized that the force generated to support body weight and the work performed to redirect and accelerate body mass each individually incur a significant metabolic cost during normal walking. To test our hypothesis, we measured changes in metabolic rate in response to combinations of simulated reduced gravity and added loading. We found that reducing body weight by simulating reduced gravity modestly decreased net metabolic rate. By calculating the metabolic cost per Newton of reduced body weight, we deduced that generating force to support body weight comprises 28% of the metabolic cost of normal walking. Similar to previous loading studies, we found that adding both weight and mass increased net metabolic rate in more than direct proportion to load. However, when we added mass alone by using a combination of simulated reduced gravity and added load, net metabolic rate increased about one-half as much as when we added both weight and mass. By calculating the cost per kilogram of added mass, we deduced that the work performed on the center of mass comprises 45% of the metabolic cost of normal walking. Our findings support the hypothesis that force and work each incur a significant metabolic cost. Specifically, the cost of performing work to redirect and accelerate the center of mass is almost twice as great as the cost of generating force to support body weight.

locomotion; biomechanics; reduced gravity; load carriage

Cost of generating force.   The inverted pendulum model provides a basis for understanding how force generation to support body weight contributes to the cost of walking. This model portrays center of mass motion during human walking when only one foot is in contact with the ground. During this single-stance phase, the body's center of mass follows an arclike trajectory, whereas the stance leg acts as a rigid support (3). This model suggests that little mechanical work must be performed on the center of mass during the single-stance phase of human walking because kinetic and gravitational potential energy fluctuations are nearly equal in magnitude and 180° out of phase (4). However, a nearly isometric muscular force must be generated to prevent the leg from collapsing and to support the weight of the body. This muscular force generation presumably incurs a significant metabolic cost.

Simulated reduced gravity acutely reduces body weight and has therefore been utilized to determine the metabolic cost of generating muscular force to support the weight of the body during walking (11, 15). When humans walk in simulated reduced gravity, their net metabolic cost does not decrease in direct proportion to body weight. For example, when Farley and McMahon (11) reduced body weight by 75%, the net metabolic cost of walking decreased by only 33%. This relatively small decrease in metabolic cost cannot be explained by a mismatch of kinetic and gravitational potential energy that would compromise inverted pendulum energy exchange (15). These findings suggest that generating force to support body weight does contribute to the metabolic cost of walking but that there are additional mechanical tasks that incur more substantial metabolic costs.

Cost of performing work.   Changes of the center of mass energy during step-to-step transitions can be estimated by using a simple collision-based model of walking (8). This model describes the amount of energy lost to each collision between the foot and the ground at heel-strike. Thus the model describes the work performed on the center of mass to redirect it upward and forward between steps. Donelan et al. (8) combined results from this collision-based model along with experimental evidence and found that the mechanical work needed for step-to-step transitions exacts a significant metabolic cost that comprises almost one-half of the cost of normal walking.

Previous studies that simultaneously changed both weight and mass by loading subjects have been unable to separate the metabolic costs of generating force to support body weight and of performing work to redirect and accelerate body mass. When humans walk while carrying moderate to heavy loads, their net metabolic rate increases in more than direct proportion with added load (13, 16, 22). Griffin et al. (13) calculated that the magnitude and rate of muscle force generation during loaded walking can account for >85% of the increase in net metabolic rate in response to added loads. Yet the cost of performing work on the center of mass could also account for much of the metabolic cost of carrying loads (13).

The purpose of the present study was to quantify the individual contributions of generating force to support body weight and of performing work to redirect and accelerate the center of mass on the metabolic cost of walking. We independently changed body weight and mass by using combinations of simulated reduced gravity and loading while measuring metabolic rate. We hypothesized that the force generated to support body weight and the work needed to redirect and accelerate body mass each incur a significant independent metabolic cost during normal walking.

	METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Ten healthy adults volunteered to participate in the study [5 male, 5 female, mean body mass 68.65 kg (SD 8.1), mean body weight 673.5 N (SD 79.3)]. All subjects gave informed consent, according to the University of Colorado Human Research Committee approved protocol.

Experimental design.   Our experimental design allowed us to determine the separate and combined metabolic costs attributable to supporting body weight and performing work on the center of mass. First, we kept body mass constant while varying body weight by simulating reduced gravity. To simulate reduced gravity, we applied an upward force on the body. This procedure reduced the amount of force that was supported by the legs. Subsequently, we varied both weight and mass by loading the subjects. Finally, we kept weight constant while varying total mass using combinations of simulated reduced gravity and loading.

Each subject performed an unloaded standing trial and then eight different walking trials on a motorized treadmill at 1.25 m/s. Subjects walked normally [1.0 body weight (BW) and 1.0 mass (M)] at three levels of simulated reduced gravity (0.75BW, 0.50BW, and 0.25BW at 1.0M) and with two added loads (1.25BW and 1.25M, 1.50BW and 1.50M). Then, by combining simulated reduced gravity and loading (1.0BW and 1.25M, 1.0BW and 1.50M), subjects walked at normal body weight with added mass.

We implemented a specific trial order to minimize harness and simulated reduced gravity apparatus adjustments, thus reducing the total duration of the experiment. Trial order was as follows: normal, 0.75BW and 1.0M, 0.50BW and 1.0M, 0.25BW and 1.0M, 1.25BW and 1.25M, 1.0BW and 1.25M, 1.50BW and 1.50M, and 1.0BW and 1.50M. We chose 25% increments of weight and mass so that our results could be compared with previous studies. Each trial was 7 min long with at least a 5-min rest between walking trials.

Subjects demonstrate almost immediate habituation to normal treadmill walking and habituate to simulated reduced gravity walking within 1 min of treadmill walking (7). Therefore, it was not necessary to accommodate subjects to treadmill walking before testing. The rest period and the low-to-moderate intensity of activity during trials were adequate to prevent the effects of fatigue.

Reduced gravity.   We reduced body weight by applying a nearly constant upward force near the whole body center of mass (Fig. 1), as previously described by Griffin et al. (15). Each subject wore a modified climbing harness around the waist and pelvis that was attached to the reduced gravity apparatus. A force transducer (Omegadyne, Sunbury, OH) measured the upward force applied to the subject via long segments of rubber tubing. We stretched the rubber tubing with a hand-cranked winch and thereby regulated the force applied to the subject. At each reduced gravity setting, a near-constant force was exerted on the subject (varied less than ±0.06 g; g = 9.81 m/s²) due to the low stiffness and large stretch of the rubber tubing. The reduced-gravity apparatus applied negligible forward or backward force on subjects because a low-friction rolling trolley moved with subjects as they walked.

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Reduced gravity apparatus applied a nearly constant upward force on the body via a modified climbing harness held in suspension by an H-shaped bar. We adjusted the upward force by stretching long sections of rubber tubing over low-friction pulleys with a hand-cranked winch. A low-friction rolling trolley ensured that only vertical forces were applied to the subject. We measured the magnitude of reduced gravity with a force transducer that was in line with the rubber tubing.

Added load.   We added loads by securing strips of lead symmetrically to a wide, well-padded belt that wrapped tightly around the subject's hips near the whole body center of mass. This placement minimized load movement relative to the center of mass, allowed an upright posture, did not load the shoulders or back, and did not interfere with arm swing.

Metabolic energy.   To determine the metabolic cost of walking, we measured the rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production using an open-circuit respirometry system (Physio-Dyne Instrument, Quogue, NY). We averaged oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production for minutes 4–6 of each trial and calculated metabolic rates using the Brockway equation (2). Previous studies have determined that standing metabolic rate is not influenced by reduced gravity (11) or added load (14), so we subtracted the unloaded standing metabolic rate from each walking metabolic rate to determine the net metabolic rate for each trial. We confirmed that subjects consumed metabolic energy supplied primarily by oxidative metabolism, as indicated by respiratory exchange ratios that were <1.0 during all trials.

Statistical measurements.   We performed three single-factor repeated-measures ANOVA statistical analyses using SuperANOVA (Abacus Concepts, 1989): one test for reduced body weight, one for added load, and one for added mass. When the ANOVA test, with condition as the factor, indicated significant differences among means, we used a posteriori contrasts (comparison of means) to test differences between specific means using a sequential Bonferroni correction to account for multiple comparisons (P < 0.007). Statistical comparisons were made on the raw data. After statistical analysis, the metabolic rate data were normalized to unloaded body mass and expressed as a ratio of the metabolic rate during unloaded walking.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Normal.   The average gross metabolic rate during unloaded standing was 1.55 W/kg (SE 0.06). During normal walking at 1.25 m/s, subjects' average gross metabolic rate was 4.19 W/kg (SE 0.11), and thus their net metabolic rate was 2.64 W/kg (SE 0.10).

Reduced gravity.   Net metabolic rate decreased moderately, but in less than direct proportion to body weight as we simulated reduced gravity (Fig. 2). When subjects walked with a 25% reduction in body weight, the decrease in net metabolic rate was not significant. However, when we reduced body weight by 50 and 75%, net metabolic rate decreased significantly by 11.0 (SE 4.9) and 21.0% (SE 4.9), respectively.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Net metabolic power for walking normally (open square) and walking in simulated reduced gravity (half-solid squares). The reduction of body weight resulted in a modest linear decrease in net metabolic power that was less than proportional. Net metabolic power decreased by only 21% when we reduced body weight by 75%. Line is a linear least squares regression: W/kg = 0.744·BW + 1.94; BW equals the fraction of normal body weight, R2 = 0.26. Error bars are SE (W/kg). *Net metabolic power was significantly lower at 0.25BW and 0.50BW than at 1.0BW (F = 19.67; P = 0.0009).

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Net metabolic power (W/kg unloaded body mass) for walking normally (open square), with added mass at normal body weight (half-solid squares), and with added weight and mass (solid squares). Net metabolic power increased by 48% when we added 50% of mass alone via loading and simulated reduced gravity. Net metabolic power nearly doubled when we added 50% of both weight and mass via loading. Lines are second-order least squares regressions. Added mass, W/kg = 2.77·M2 – 4.40·M + 4.27; M equals the fraction of normal body mass, R2 = 0.58. Added body weight and mass, W/kg = 4.60·(BW and M)2 – 6.23·(BW and M) + 4.28; BW and M equals the fraction of normal body weight and mass, R2 = 0.72. Error bars are SE (W/kg). *Significant differences from normal (added weight and mass F = 79.30, P = 0.0001; added mass alone F = 65.788, P = 0.0006).

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
We determined the individual contributions of generating force to support body weight and of performing work to redirect and accelerate the center of mass to the metabolic cost of walking by comparing the results from each of our experimental protocols.

Cost of generating force.   We accept our hypothesis that body weight support incurs a significant metabolic cost during walking. As we reduced body weight by 75%, the net metabolic cost of walking at 1.25 m/s decreased by an average of 21% (Fig. 2). By calculating the slope (0.076 W/N) of the linear regression equation from Fig. 2 (W/kg = 0.744·BW + 1.94; BW equals the fraction of normal body weight, R² = 0.26), we estimate that body weight support comprises 28% of the net metabolic cost of normal walking. We chose a linear fit for our data rather than a curvilinear fit, based on the precedence of Farley and McMahon (11). The R² value for a curvilinear fit (0.27) was essentially the same as the R² value for a linear fit (0.26).

Our results indicate a smaller metabolic contribution of force generation to support body weight than a previous reduced gravity study (11). Farley and McMahon (11) found that a 75% decrease in body weight reduced the net metabolic cost of walking at 1 m/s by 33%, whereas our results indicate a 21% reduction in cost. This disparity may be a consequence of the different apparatus used to simulate reduced gravity. The apparatus used by Farley and McMahon applied vertical force from a pulley that was fixed to the ceiling. This setup may have inadvertently provided aiding horizontal forces to subjects and thus may have led to an overestimate of the metabolic cost of body weight support. Pulling forward on subjects with a force of 10% body weight can reduce the metabolic cost of walking by 50% (12). Our simulated reduced gravity apparatus applied vertical force from a low-friction rolling trolley that moved forward and backward with each subject as he or she walked (Fig. 1), thereby preventing the application of horizontal aiding or impeding forces.

Combined cost of generating force and performing work.   Our results from the loading trials suggest that force generation and work production both contribute significantly to the net metabolic cost of walking (Fig. 4). Load carrying increases the demands on muscles to support a greater weight during stance and to redirect and accelerate a greater mass during step-to-step transitions. Our results are similar to those of previous loading studies, which have shown that metabolic energy consumption increases in more than direct proportion when subjects carry moderate-to-heavy symmetrical loads while walking (13, 16, 22).

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Changes in net metabolic power for walking in simulated reduced gravity (open bars), with added mass at normal body weight (shaded bars), and with added mass and weight (solid bars).

To determine the cost of performing work on the center of mass during normal walking, we calculated the initial slope of the added mass-only curve. We used the average body mass of 68.85 kg and the regression equation to determine that adding 1 kg of body mass increases net metabolic rate by 1.18 W (Figs. 3 and 4). From this calculation, we estimate that the work done to redirect and accelerate normal body mass comprises 45% of the net metabolic cost of normal walking.

Two other independent lines of evidence concur with our estimate that about one-half of the net metabolic cost of normal walking is due to performing work on the center of mass. First, Donelan et al. (10) measured that 0.3 W/kg of mechanical power are needed to replace the energy lost during step-to-step transitions during walking at 1.25 m/s. Assuming 25% efficiency (18), the metabolic cost of step-to-step transitions is 1.2 W/kg. Our net cost of normal walking was 2.64 W/kg, and thus 45% of the cost of walking may be attributed to step-to-step transitions. Second, Gottschall and Kram (12) provided an external aiding horizontal force at the waist of human walkers and measured the reduction in metabolic cost. When an optimal force was applied, subjects generated close to zero propulsive force on the ground, and their net metabolic cost of walking decreased by 47% (12). This result suggests that the work performed to propel the center of mass forward constitutes nearly one-half of the net metabolic cost of normal walking.

Three aspects of our experimental design deserve further consideration. First, we simulated reduced gravity on the center of mass but not on the swinging limbs. This design was advantageous because we did not alter the weight, mass, or moment of inertia of the swinging legs. Second, we did not control stride frequency while simulating reduced gravity or loading, and stride frequency changes may influence net metabolic rate. However, in a previous study on the kinematics of walking in simulated reduced gravity, Donelan and Kram (7) found that subjects walked with only 8% higher stride frequencies in 75% reduced gravity than in normal gravity. Such small changes in stride frequency result in a negligible change in net metabolic cost (20). We allowed our subjects to choose their own stride frequency as they walked under different conditions because humans naturally choose stride characteristics that minimize metabolic cost (5, 6, 20). We, therefore, avoided potential increases in the cost of swinging the legs that may have occurred if we had enforced a specific stride frequency. Third, although we could reduce weight to estimate its cost, we could not increase weight without increasing mass, because we could not simulate increased gravity. It is not known whether the changes in metabolic cost due to reduced weight are equal in magnitude to the changes in metabolic cost due to increased weight.

To gain more insight into the mechanical determinants and metabolic cost of walking, some specific future studies are needed. First, simulated hypergravity studies could test whether independently increasing body weight results in equal but opposite changes in metabolic cost compared with simulated reduced gravity. Second, we need to measure the external step-to-step transition work on the center of mass during various loading and unloading experiments. We were not able to measure external step-to-step work with our existing force treadmill, but we could measure this work with a dual-belt force treadmill (1). Third, future studies should address how the percentage of the metabolic cost attributable to each mechanical factor changes with speed and incline.

In summary, we found that the force generated to support body weight and the work performed to redirect and accelerate the center of mass each incur a significant metabolic cost during normal walking. We also found that the cost of performing work is almost twice the cost of generating force.

	GRANTS

TOP ABSTRACT METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
This work was supported by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Grant AR-44688.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

TOP ABSTRACT METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
We thank the members of the University of Colorado Locomotion Laboratory for insightful comments and suggestions.

	FOOTNOTES

 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: A. Grabowski, Dept. of Integrative Physiology, Univ. of Colorado, 354 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0354 (E-mail: alena.grabowski{at}colorado.edu)

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 

1. Belli A, Bui P, Berger A, Geyssant A, and Lacour J. A treadmill ergometer for three-dimensional ground reaction forces measurement during walking. J Biomech 34: 105–112, 2001.
2. Brockway JM. Derivation of formulae used to calculate energy expenditure in man. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr 41: 463–471, 1987.
3. Cavagna GA, Heglund NC, and Taylor CR. Mechanical work in terrestrial locomotion: two basic mechanisms for minimizing energy expenditure. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 233: R243–R261, 1977.
4. Cavagna GA, Thys H, and Zamboni A. The sources of external work in level walking and running. J Physiol (Lond) 262: 639–657, 1976.
5. Cavanagh PR and Kram R. Mechanical and muscular factors affecting the efficiency of human movement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 17: 326–331, 1985.
6. Cavanagh PR and Williams KR. The effect of stride length variation on oxygen uptake during distance running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14: 30–35, 1982.
7. Donelan JM and Kram R. The effect of reduced gravity on the kinematics of human walking: a test of the dynamic similarity hypothesis for locomotion. J Exp Biol 200: 3193–3201, 1997.
8. Donelan JM, Kram R, and Kuo AD. Mechanical work for step-to-step transitions is a major determinant of the metabolic cost of human walking. J Exp Biol 205: 3717–3727, 2002.
9. Donelan JM, Kram R, and Kuo AD. Simultaneous positive and negative external mechanical work in human walking. J Biomech 35: 117–124, 2002.
10. Donelan JM, Shipman DW, Kram R, and Kuo AD. Mechanical and metabolic requirements for active lateral stabilization in human walking. J Biomech 37: 827–835, 2004.
11. Farley CT and McMahon TA. Energetics of walking and running: insights from simulated reduced-gravity experiments. J Appl Physiol 73: 2709–2712, 1992.
12. Gottschall JS and Kram R. Energy cost and muscular activity required for propulsion during walking. J Appl Physiol 94: 1766–1772, 2003.
13. Griffin TM, Roberts TJ, and Kram R. Metabolic cost of generating muscular force in human walking: insights from load-carrying and speed experiments. J Appl Physiol 95: 172–183, 2003.
14. Griffin TM, Stern J, Frankovic S, and Kram R. Mechanics and energetics of walking: insights from load carrying experiments. In: Proceedings of the Third North American Congress on Biomechanics NACOB98, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 14–18 August 1998.
15. Griffin TM, Tolani NA, and Kram R. Walking in simulated reduced gravity: mechanical energy fluctuations and exchange. J Appl Physiol 86: 383–390, 1999.
16. Knapik JJ, Reynolds KL, and Harman E. Soldier load carriage: historical, physiological, biomechanical, and medical aspects. Mil Med 169: 45–56, 2004.
17. Maloiy GM, Heglund NC, Prager LM, Cavagna GA, and Taylor CR. Energetic cost of carrying loads: have African women discovered an economic way? Nature 319: 668–669, 1986.
18. Margaria R. Biomechanics and Energetics of Muscular Exercise: Oxford, UK: Claredon, 1976.
19. Marsh R, Ellerby D, Carr J, Henry H, and Buchanan C. Partitioning the energetics of walking and running: swinging the limbs is expensive. Science 303: 80–83, 2004.
20. Minetti AE, Capelli C, Zamparo P, Diprampero PE, and Saibene F. Effects of stride frequency on mechanical power and energy-expenditure of walking. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27: 1194–1202, 1995.
21. Newman DJ, Alexander HL, and Webbon BW. Energetics and mechanics for partial gravity locomotion. Aviat Space Environ Med 65: 815–823, 1994.
22. Pandolf KB, Givoni B, and Goldman RF. Predicting energy expenditure with loads while standing or walking very slowly. J Appl Physiol 43: 577–581, 1977.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. S. Sawicki and D. P. Ferris Mechanics and energetics of level walking with powered ankle exoskeletons J. Exp. Biol., May 1, 2008; 211(9): 1402 - 1413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. K. De Witt, R. D. Hagan, and R. L. Cromwell The effect of increasing inertia upon vertical ground reaction forces and temporal kinematics during locomotion J. Exp. Biol., April 1, 2008; 211(7): 1087 - 1092. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. P. J. Teunissen, A. Grabowski, and R. Kram Effects of independently altering body weight and body mass on the metabolic cost of running J. Exp. Biol., December 15, 2007; 210(24): 4418 - 4427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. R. Umberger and P. E. Martin Mechanical power and efficiency of level walking with different stride rates J. Exp. Biol., September 15, 2007; 210(18): 3255 - 3265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. Ortega and C. T. Farley Individual limb work does not explain the greater metabolic cost of walking in elderly adults J Appl Physiol, June 1, 2007; 102(6): 2266 - 2273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. M. Griffin Powering locomotion? It's a loaded question J Appl Physiol, November 1, 2006; 101(5): 1273 - 1274. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. F Israel, D. D Campbell, J. H Kahn, and T G. Hornby Metabolic Costs and Muscle Activity Patterns During Robotic- and Therapist-Assisted Treadmill Walking in Individuals With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury Physical Therapy, November 1, 2006; 86(11): 1466 - 1478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. P. McGowan, H. A. Duarte, J. B. Main, and A. A. Biewener Effects of load carrying on metabolic cost and hindlimb muscle dynamics in guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) J Appl Physiol, October 1, 2006; 101(4): 1060 - 1069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Marsh, D. J. Ellerby, H. T. Henry, and J. Rubenson The energetic costs of trunk and distal-limb loading during walking and running in guinea fowl Numida meleagris: I. Organismal metabolism and biomechanics J. Exp. Biol., June 1, 2006; 209(11): 2050 - 2063. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. C. Browning, E. A. Baker, J. A. Herron, and R. Kram Effects of obesity and sex on the energetic cost and preferred speed of walking J Appl Physiol, February 1, 2006; 100(2): 390 - 398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. C. Rome, L. Flynn, E. M. Goldman, and T. D. Yoo Generating Electricity While Walking with Loads Science, September 9, 2005; 309(5741): 1725 - 1728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. Gottschall and R. Kram Energy cost and muscular activity required for leg swing during walking J Appl Physiol, July 1, 2005; 99(1): 23 - 30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Zani, J. S. Gottschall, and R. Kram Giant Galapagos tortoises walk without inverted pendulum mechanical-energy exchange J. Exp. Biol., April 15, 2005; 208(8): 1489 - 1494. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (21) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Grabowski, A. Articles by Kram, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Grabowski, A. Articles by Kram, R.