Steep (30°) uphill walking vs. running: COM movements, stride kinematics, and leg muscle excitations.

PURPOSE: We sought to biomechanically distinguish steep uphill running from steep uphill walking and explore why athletes alternate between walking and running on steep inclines. METHODS: We quantified vertical center of mass (COM) accelerations and basic stride parameters for both walking and running at a treadmill speed of 1.0 m/s on the level and up a 30° incline. We also investigated how electromyography (EMG) of the gluteus maximus (GMAX), vastus medialis (VM), medial gastrocnemius (MG), and soleus (SOL) muscles differ between gaits when ascending steep hills. RESULTS: The vertical COM accelerations for steep uphill walking exhibited two peaks per step of magnitude 1.47 ± 0.23 g and 0.79 ± 0.10 g. In contrast, steep running exhibited a single peak per step pattern with a magnitude of 1.81 ± 0.15 g. Steep uphill running exhibited no aerial phase, 40% faster stride frequency, and 40% shorter foot-ground contact time compared to steep uphill walking but similar leg swing times. SOL showed 36% less iEMG per stride during steep uphill running versus steep uphill walking, but all other EMG comparisons between steep running and walking were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple biomechanical variables clearly indicate that steep uphill running is a distinctly different gait from steep uphill walking and is more similar to level running. The competing desires to minimize the energetic cost of locomotion and to avoid exhaustion of the SOL may be a possible explanation for gait alternation on steep inclines.

Metabolic cost of level, uphill, and downhill running in highly cushioned shoes with carbon-fiber plates.

BACKGROUND: Compared to conventional racing shoes, Nike Vaporfly 4% running shoes reduce the metabolic cost of level treadmill running by 4%. The reduction is attributed to their lightweight, highly compliant, and resilient midsole foam and a midsole-embedded curved carbon-fiber plate. We investigated whether these shoes also could reduce the metabolic cost of moderate uphill (+3°) and downhill (-3°) grades. We tested the null hypothesis that, compared to conventional racing shoes, highly cushioned shoes with carbon-fiber plates would impart the same ∼4% metabolic power (W/kg) savings during uphill and downhill running as they do during level running. METHODS: After familiarization, 16 competitive male runners performed six 5-min trials (2 shoes × 3 grades) in 2 Nike marathon racing-shoe models (Streak 6 and Vaporfly 4%) on a level, uphill (+3°), and downhill (-3°) treadmill at 13 km/h (3.61 m/s). We measured submaximal oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide production during Minutes 4-5 and calculated metabolic power (W/kg) for each shoe model and grade combination. RESULTS: Compared to the conventional shoes (Streak 6), the metabolic power in the Vaporfly 4% shoes was 3.83% (level), 2.82% (uphill), and 2.70% (downhill) less (all p < 0.001). The percent of change in metabolic power for uphill running was less compared to level running (p = 0.04; effect size (ES) = 0.561) but was not statistically different between downhill and level running (p = 0.17; ES = 0.356). CONCLUSION: On a running course with uphill and downhill sections, the metabolic savings and hence performance enhancement provided by Vaporfly 4% shoes would likely be slightly less overall, compared to the savings on a perfectly level race course.