↓ Skip to main content

Running Economy from a Muscle Energetics Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
225 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
318 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Running Economy from a Muscle Energetics Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00433
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jared R. Fletcher, Brian R. MacIntosh

Abstract

The economy of running has traditionally been quantified from the mass-specific oxygen uptake; however, because fuel substrate usage varies with exercise intensity, it is more accurate to express running economy in units of metabolic energy. Fundamentally, the understanding of the major factors that influence the energy cost of running (Erun) can be obtained with this approach. Erun is determined by the energy needed for skeletal muscle contraction. Here, we approach the study of Erun from that perspective. The amount of energy needed for skeletal muscle contraction is dependent on the force, duration, shortening, shortening velocity, and length of the muscle. These factors therefore dictate the energy cost of running. It is understood that some determinants of the energy cost of running are not trainable: environmental factors, surface characteristics, and certain anthropometric features. Other factors affecting Erun are altered by training: other anthropometric features, muscle and tendon properties, and running mechanics. Here, the key features that dictate the energy cost during distance running are reviewed in the context of skeletal muscle energetics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 225 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 318 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 318 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 14%
Student > Bachelor 43 14%
Researcher 23 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 7%
Other 51 16%
Unknown 72 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 122 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 6%
Engineering 18 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Other 35 11%
Unknown 90 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 142. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2023.
All research outputs
#292,525
of 25,507,011 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#158
of 15,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,242
of 330,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#13
of 285 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,507,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 285 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.