Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Image of running with ankle (A) and torso (B) postural lean strategy. Solid line represents total postural lean angle and hatched (—-) line represents the torso flexion angle. Images shown here are similar to the sagittal view video feedback used for the prescribed moderate and maximal lean trials. Participants were asked to maintain the prescribed postural lean angle throughout the trial using the prescribed lean strategy (ankle or torso).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Metabolic and kinematics data for each postural lean condition (N = 16).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Mean (± SE) net metabolic power (Watt·kg-1) plotted as a function of postural lean angle for runners using no lean (⬖), ankle strategy (●), and torso strategy (▽).

Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences from both no lean and moderate lean running (p < .05). Net metabolic cost increased with lean angle yet there was no significant difference in metabolic power between postural lean strategies (p = .700).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Mean (±SE) peak hip flexion angle (°) during the stance phase plotted as a function of postural lean angle for runners using no lean (⬖), ankle strategy (●) and torso strategy (▽).

Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences from both no lean and moderate lean angles (p < .05). Peak hip flexion angle increased with lean angle yet there was no significant difference in peak hip flexion angle between postural lean strategies (p = .570).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Average normalized EMGRMS signals of the (A) gluteus maximus, (B) biceps femoris, (C) rectus femoris, and (D) vastus medialis muscles for the no lean (0 deg, ⬖), moderate lean (4.3 deg, ⬜), and large lean (8.3 deg, ⬤) conditions over a complete stride (0–100% of gait cycle). Each data point represents the average of ankle and torso lean strategies. Tibialis Anterior, Soleus, and Medial gastrocnemius activity exhibited no significant effects of lean angle or lean strategy, and thus are not shown. Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences from the large postural lean condition (p < .05).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 2.

Normalized stance phase EMGRMS for each postural lean condition expressed as a percentage of the respective muscle’s peak activation while running upright (no lean) (N = 16).

More »

Table 2 Expand