Supertraining

In a message dated 5/20/08 3:04:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> A more massive leg should increase metabolic
> cost, but it doesn't. The cost is identical. Taylor found this to be true
> despite vast differences in the amount of work necessary for a gazelle to 
> swing
> its slighter limbs compared to a cheetah, who has much sturdier limbs. If 
> the
> work of swinging the limb demanded metabolic energy, we would expect that 
> the
> cheetah would incur a higher metabolic cost. Again, this is not the case.
> 
> 

There can be no doubt about: "vast differences in the amount of work 
necessary for a gazelle to swing its slighter limbs compared to a cheetah, who 
has 
much sturdier limbs."

So if the energy, that also must be vastly different to accomplish these 
differing amounts of work, does not arise from metabolism during the run; pray 
tell from whence it comes?

Is it merely recycled through the "stretch-reflex" system between strides 
once it has been generated during acceleration in the sprint up to speed; if 
so, then are the gazelle's and the cheetah's systems equally efficient at 
potential energy storage and return as kinetic?   Are man's systems 
equivalently 
efficient?    If the the answers are "yes!"; how is it that highly elastic 
prothesis material isn't better than nature at conserving energy through the 
cycle?  
 Or is there some (coincidently) equally offsetting inefficiency in the 
utilization of the prothesis?   

Still very curious,

Paul Boardman
Chicago, USA