Mechanical work accounts for most of the energetic cost in human running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metabolic cost of human running is not well explained, in part because the amount of work performed actively by muscles is largely unknown. Series elastic tissues such as tendon can save energy by performing work passively, but there are few direct measurements of the active versus passive contributions to work in running. There are, however, indirect biomechanical measures that can help estimate the relative contributions to overall metabolic cost. We developed a simple cost estimate for muscle work in humans running (N = 8) at moderate speeds (2.2-4.6 m/s) based on measured joint mechanics and passive dissipation from soft tissue deformations. We found that even if 50% of the work observed at the lower extremity joints is performed passively, active muscle work still accounts for 76% of the net energetic cost. Up to 24% of this cost compensates for the energy lost in soft tissue deformations. The estimated cost of active work may be adjusted based on assumptions of multi-articular energy transfer, elasticity, and muscle efficiency, but even conservative assumptions yield active work costs of at least 60%. Passive elasticity can reduce the active work of running, but muscle work still explains most of the overall energetic cost.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".