English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Accurate prediction of the metabolic energy that walking requires can inform numerous health, bodily status, and fitness outcomes. We adopted a two-step approach to identifying a concise, generalized equation for predicting level human walking metabolism. Using literature-aggregated values we compared 1) the predictive accuracy of three literature equations: American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), Pandolf et al., and Height-Weight-Speed (HWS); and 2) the goodness-of-fit possible from one- vs. two-component descriptions of walking metabolism. Literature metabolic rate values (n = 127; speed range = 0.4 to 1.9 m/s) were aggregated from 25 subject populations (n = 5-42) whose means spanned a 1.8-fold range of heights and a 4.2-fold range of weights. Population-specific resting metabolic rates (V̇o2 rest) were determined using standardized equations. Our first finding was that the ACSM and Pandolf et al. equations underpredicted nearly all 127 literature-aggregated values. Consequently, their standard errors of estimate (SEE) were nearly four times greater than those of the HWS equation (4.51 and 4.39 vs. 1.13 ml O2·kg(-1)·min(-1), respectively). For our second comparison, empirical best-fit relationships for walking metabolism were derived from the data set in one- and two-component forms for three V̇o2-speed model types: linear (∝V(1.0)), exponential (∝V(2.0)), and exponential/height (∝V(2.0)/Ht). We found that the proportion of variance (R(2)) accounted for, when averaged across the three model types, was substantially lower for one- vs. two-component versions (0.63 ± 0.1 vs. 0.90 ± 0.03) and the predictive errors were nearly twice as great (SEE = 2.22 vs. 1.21 ml O2·kg(-1)·min(-1)). Our final analysis identified the following concise, generalized equation for predicting level human walking metabolism: V̇o2 total = V̇o2 rest + 3.85 + 5.97·V(2)/Ht (where V is measured in m/s, Ht in meters, and V̇o2 in ml O2·kg(-1)·min(-1)).

Energy expenditure during level human walking: seeking a simple and accurate predictive solution