Supertraining

In a message dated 6/19/09 12:48:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> We conclude that running on modern, lower-limb sprinting prostheses 
> appears to
> be physiologically similar, but mechanically different than running with 
> intact
> limbs.
> 

 If that is as much as you can conclude, what do you surmise?

I ask because lower vertical thrust with comensurate less aerial time would 
seemingly require greater horizontal speed to cover the same distance 
(range) both each stride and summative displacement.
This in turn implies that greater horizontal thrust must be delivered by 
the prothesis relative to each stride or at least a longer impulse to effet 
the accelleration from the thrust and this might be deduced from the longer 
ground contact time.

So then,   less metabolic cost with greater efficiency of motive force in 
the horizontal plane requiring less aerial time and less swing frequency 
would seem (at firt blush to me without actually doing the exact figures on a 
first approximation) to argue for a clear advantage to the disadvantaged 
runner.   And the 17% lower metabolic cost seems to indicate the advantage is 
best   evidenced over the race of choice, the 400 meters!

I surmise the "mechanical difference" is a mechanical enhancement making 
the racing effort overall more efficient.

What do the researchers think is suggested by these painstaking 
measurements of the components of the disadvantaged runner?

Best regards,
Paul Boardman
Chicago, USA