Explaining differences in the metabolic cost and efficiency of treadmill locomotion in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metabolic cost of locomotion at any given speed, when expressed per kilogram of body mass, is greater for children than for older individuals. Incomplete explanations for the age-related difference motivated this study, which used a multidisciplinary method to examine metabolic, kinematic and electromyographic data from three maturational groups of children. Thirty children aged 7-8 (n = 10), 10-12 (n = 10) and 15-16 (n = 10) years completed 4 min bouts of submaximal treadmill exercise at six speeds--two walking and four running--assigned in random order. Metabolic (net VO2), kinematic (total body mechanical power, energy transfer rates, stride rate) and electromyographic (co-contraction of agonist and antagonist muscles in thigh and leg segments) data were collected. Multiple regression analysis was performed with net VO2 or efficiency as the dependent variable and mechanical power, thigh and leg co-contraction, stride rate and age as independent variables. It was possible to explain up to 77% of the age-related variance in net VO2 and 62% of the variation in efficiency using combinations of these variables. Age was the best single predictor of both VO2 and efficiency. Co-contraction, possibly used to enhance joint stability, was an important component of the observed age-related differences, although mechanical power was not. Additional variance might be explained as specific growth-related factors affecting the metabolic cost of locomotion are identified, as mechanical work models improve, and as methods are developed to measure the effects of stored elastic energy and the metabolic cost of isometric muscle actions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".