Dataset Information

Running in the wild: Energetics explain ecological running speeds.

ABSTRACT: Human runners have long been thought to have the ability to consume a near-constant amount of energy per distance traveled, regardless of speed, allowing speed to be adapted to particular task demands with minimal energetic consequence.^1-3 However, recent and more precise laboratory measures indicate that humans may in fact have an energy-optimal running speed.^4-6 Here, we characterize runners' speeds in a free-living environment and determine if preferred speed is consistent with task- or energy-dependent objectives. We analyzed a large-scale dataset of free-living runners, which was collected via a commercial fitness tracking device, and found that individual runners preferred a particular speed that did not change across commonly run distances. We compared the data from lab experiments that measured participants' energy-optimal running speeds with the free-living preferred speeds of age- and gender-matched runners in our dataset and found the speeds to be indistinguishable. Human runners prefer a particular running speed that is independent of task distance and is consistent with the objective of minimizing energy expenditure. Our findings offer an insight into the biological objectives that shape human running preferences in the real world-an important consideration when examining human ecology or creating training strategies to improve performance and prevent injury.

SUBMITTER: Selinger JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9169516 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Running in the wild: Energetics explain ecological running speeds.

Selinger Jessica C JC Hicks Jennifer L JL Jackson Rachel W RW Wall-Scheffler Cara M CM Chang Derek D Delp Scott L SL

Current biology : CB 20220428 10

Human runners have long been thought to have the ability to consume a near-constant amount of energy per distance traveled, regardless of speed, allowing speed to be adapted to particular task demands with minimal energetic consequence.<sup>1-3</sup> However, recent and more precise laboratory measures indicate that humans may in fact have an energy-optimal running speed.<sup>4-6</sup> Here, we characterize runners' speeds in a free-living environment and determine if preferred speed is consiste ...[more]

PMID: 35487220

Similar Datasets

Project description:Inertial measurement units (IMU) constitute a light and cost-effective alternative to gold-standard measurement systems in the assessment of running temporal variables. IMU data collected on 20 runners running at different speeds (80, 90, 100, 110 and 120% of preferred running speed) and treadmill inclination (±2, ±5, and ±8%) were used here to predict the following temporal variables: stride frequency, duty factor, and two indices of running variability such as the detrended fluctuation analysis alpha (DFA-α) and the Higuchi's D (HG-D). Three different estimation methodologies were compared: 1) a gold-standard optoelectronic device (which provided the reference values), 2) IMU placed on the runner's feet, 3) a single IMU on the runner's thorax used in conjunction with a machine learning algorithm with a short 2-second or a long 120-second window as input. A two-way ANOVA was used to test the presence of significant (p<0.05) differences due to the running condition or to the estimation methodology. The findings of this study suggest that using both IMU configurations for estimating stride frequency can be effective and comparable to the gold-standard. Additionally, the results indicate that the use of a single IMU on the thorax with a machine learning algorithm can lead to more accurate estimates of duty factor than the strategy of the IMU on the feet. However, caution should be exercised when using these techniques to measure running variability indices. Estimating DFA-α from a short 2-second time window was possible only in level running but not in downhill running and it could not accurately estimate HG-D across all running conditions. By taking a long 120-second window a machine learning algorithm could improve the accuracy in the estimation of DFA-α in all running conditions. By taking these factors into account, researchers and practitioners can make informed decisions about the use of IMU technology in measuring running biomechanics.

Project description:BackgroundStress fractures are injuries caused by repetitive loading during activities such as running. The application of advanced analytical methods such as machine learning to data from multiple wearable sensors has allowed for predictions of biomechanical variables associated with running-related injuries like stress fractures. However, it is unclear if data from a single wearable sensor can accurately estimate variables that characterize external loading during running such as peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), vertical impulse, and ground contact time. Predicting these biomechanical variables with a single wearable sensor could allow researchers, clinicians, and coaches to longitudinally monitor biomechanical running-related injury risk factors without expensive force-measuring equipment.PurposeWe quantified the accuracy of applying quantile regression forest (QRF) and linear regression (LR) models to sacral-mounted accelerometer data to predict peak vGRF, vertical impulse, and ground contact time across a range of running speeds.MethodsThirty-seven collegiate cross country runners (24 females, 13 males) ran on a force-measuring treadmill at 3.8-5.4 m/s while wearing an accelerometer clipped posteriorly to the waistband of their running shorts. We cross-validated QRF and LR models by training them on acceleration data, running speed, step frequency, and body mass as predictor variables. Trained models were then used to predict peak vGRF, vertical impulse, and contact time. We compared predicted values to those calculated from a force-measuring treadmill on a subset of data (n = 9) withheld during model training. We quantified prediction accuracy by calculating the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE).ResultsThe QRF model predicted peak vGRF with a RMSE of 0.150 body weights (BW) and MAPE of 4.27 ± 2.85%, predicted vertical impulse with a RMSE of 0.004 BW*s and MAPE of 0.80 ± 0.91%, and predicted contact time with a RMSE of 0.011 s and MAPE of 4.68 ± 3.00%. The LR model predicted peak vGRF with a RMSE of 0.139 BW and MAPE of 4.04 ± 2.57%, predicted vertical impulse with a RMSE of 0.002 BW*s and MAPE of 0.50 ± 0.42%, and predicted contact time with a RMSE of 0.008 s and MAPE of 3.50 ± 2.27%. There were no statistically significant differences between QRF and LR model prediction MAPE for peak vGRF (p = 0.549) or vertical impulse (p = 0.073), but the LR model's MAPE for contact time was significantly lower than the QRF model's MAPE (p = 0.0497).ConclusionsOur findings indicate that the QRF and LR models can accurately predict peak vGRF, vertical impulse, and contact time (MAPE < 5%) from a single sacral-mounted accelerometer across a range of running speeds. These findings may be beneficial for researchers, clinicians, or coaches seeking to monitor running-related injury risk factors without force-measuring equipment.

Project description:A common approach in the biomechanical analysis of running technique is to average data from several gait cycles to compute a 'representative mean.' However, the impact of the quantity and selection of gait cycles on biomechanical measures is not well understood. We examined the effects of gait cycle selection on kinematic data by: (i) comparing representative means calculated from varying numbers of gait cycles to 'global' means from the entire capture period; and (ii) comparing representative means from varying numbers of gait cycles sampled from different parts of the capture period. We used a public dataset (n = 28) of lower limb kinematics captured during a 30-second period of treadmill running at three speeds (2.5 m s-1, 3.5 m s-1 and 4.5 m s-1). 'Ground truth' values were determined by averaging data across all collected strides and compared to representative means calculated from random samples (1,000 samples) of n (range = 5-30) consecutive gait cycles. We also compared representative means calculated from n (range = 5-15) consecutive gait cycles randomly sampled (1,000 samples) from within the same data capture period. The mean, variance and range of the absolute error of the representative mean compared to the 'ground truth' mean progressively reduced across all speeds as the number of gait cycles used increased. Similar magnitudes of 'error' were observed between the 2.5 m s-1 and 3.5 m s-1 speeds at comparable gait cycle numbers -where the maximum errors were < 1.5 degrees even with a small number of gait cycles (i.e., 5-10). At the 4.5 m s-1 speed, maximum errors typically exceeded 2-4 degrees when a lower number of gait cycles were used. Subsequently, a higher number of gait cycles (i.e., 25-30) was required to achieve low errors (i.e., 1-2 degrees) at the 4.5 m s-1 speed. The mean, variance and range of absolute error of representative means calculated from different parts of the capture period was consistent irrespective of the number of gait cycles used. The error between representative means was low (i.e., < 1.5 degrees) and consistent across the different number of gait cycles at the 2.5 m s-1 and 3.5 m s-1 speeds, and consistent but larger (i.e., up to 2-4 degrees) at the 4.5 m s-1 speed. Our findings suggest that selecting as many gait cycles as possible from a treadmill running bout will minimise potential 'error.' Analysing a small sample (i.e., 5-10 cycles) will typically result in minimal 'error' (i.e., < 2 degrees), particularly at lower speeds (i.e., 2.5 m s-1 and 3.5 m s-1). Researchers and clinicians should consider the balance between practicalities of collecting and analysing a smaller number of gait cycles against the potential 'error' when determining their methodological approach. Irrespective of the number of gait cycles used, we recommend that the potential 'error' introduced by the choice of gait cycle number be considered when interpreting the magnitude of effects in treadmill-based running studies.

Dataset Information

Running in the wild: Energetics explain ecological running speeds.

Publications

Running in the wild: Energetics explain ecological running speeds.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets