The Role of the Gluteus Maximus on Trunk Stability in Human Endurance Running
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Role of the Gluteus Maximus on Trunk Stability in Human Endurance Running A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Anthropology of the College of Arts and Sciences by Lauren Heitkamp B.S. University of Cincinnati, 2012 Committee Chair: Heather L. Norton, Ph.D. Committee Members: Katherine K. Whitcome, Ph.D. Brooke E. Crowley, Ph.D. Abstract The human gluteus maximus is uniquely robust among primates (Stern, 1972; Lieberman et al., 2006). The large muscle’s evolutionary role has long been debated and most recently explained in the Endurance Running (ER) Hypothesis as an adaptation for trunk balance in ER among early Homo (Bramble and Lieberman, 2004; Lieberman et al., 2006). Few studies have addressed trunk biomechanics in relation to barefoot running, the most likely foot condition of the hominin evolutionary past (Lieberman et al., 2010). Thus, this thesis further tests the ER Hypothesis by investigating the foot condition effect, barefoot and shod, on trunk kinematics and gluteus activity relative to trunk pitch. Kinematic and electromyographic data were collected from twenty-four adults: twelve males and twelve females. Subjects walked and ran on a treadmill at four speeds and three speeds, respectively, while shod and while barefoot. Sagittal plane trunk, thigh, and foot kinematics were calculated at heel strike and following. Gluteus maximus electromyographic data were calculated by average amplitude around foot contact. Joint angles of the trunk, thigh, and foot significantly differed between gaits within a single speed, between foot conditions within a single speed, and across speeds within a single gait. In contrast, muscle amplitude significantly differed across speeds within a single gait but not between gaits or between foot conditions at a single speed. Trunk forward pitch rate at foot strike increased with running speed, as did gluteus maximus activity. Although differences in magnitude of gluteus maximus contraction did not differ between shod and barefoot running, increased gait speed independent of foot condition was associated with increased pitching of the trunk and greater gluteus maximus magnitude. i © Copyright 2016 by Lauren Heitkamp All Rights Reserved ii Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the support of many other individuals. Firstly, I wish to thank my advisor Dr. Katherine Whitcome for your guidance and constant support through this process. I appreciate the long hours, constant rigor, and valuable feedback you offered while still providing an inspirational and energetic atmosphere. A special thanks to your adaptability and perseverance in spending a portion of this collaboration from a distance but still always being available for my calls and emails. I wish to thank my thesis committee members; Dr. Heather Norton for your patience, unyielding encouragement and advice through this process and other related endeavors; and Dr. Brooke Crowley for your flexibility, support, and insightful feedback. Thanks to Dr. Bruce Jayne for the support and willingness to lend EMG equipment for this project. I cannot thank my subjects enough for their donated time and willingness to contribute to this research. I owe a great deal to everyone who helped teach me the invaluable skill of coding and spent their time helping me troubleshoot, especially Nicole Wallenhorst. Without your expertise and willingness to be a resource of mine I never would have been able to complete this project; my sincerest thanks. To all my fellow Anthropology Graduate Students, especially Dayna Reale and Kristen Tomko, for our coffee shop sessions, lively discussions, and your constant counsel, thank you for saving my sanity. To my friends and family for dealing with my continual existential crises, thesis babble, and requests for practice labs subjects, I appreciate everything. Thanks to my parents and sisters for being a constant and sometimes annoying source of motivation; I am eternally grateful for all you did. Funding was provided by the Charles Phelps Taft Research Center’s Graduate Enrichment Award at the University of Cincinnati. iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………...……………….1 1.1. Overview……………...………………………..………………………………….….1 1.2. Research Goals……………………...………………..……………………………….2 2. Background……………………………………………………………………………………3 2.1. Evolution of Human Endurance Running…………………………………………….3 2.2. Walking and Running………………………………………………………………...4 2.3 Foot Kinematics in Shod and Barefoot Running……………………………………...8 2.4 Shod versus Barefoot Kinetics in Running……………………….…………………...9 2.5 Shod versus Barefoot Trunk Kinematics in Running……………………………......11 2.6 Gluteus Maximus Anatomy and Function…………………………………………...12 2.7 Evolution of the Human Gluteus Maximus………………………………………….14 2.8 Summary………………………………………………………………………….….17 3. Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………………18 3.1. Trunk Kinematics Differ in Shod versus Barefoot Running…………………...…...18 3.2. GMAX Force Production Differs in Walking versus Running at 2.0 ms-1…......…...19 3.3. GMAX Force Production Differs in Shod versus Barefoot Running……………….19 4. Methods……………………………………………………………………………………….20 4.1. Subjects……………………………………………………………………………...20 4.2. Equipment…………………………………………………………………………...21 4.3. Kinematic Data Collection…………………………………………………………..21 4.4. EMG Data Collection……………………………………………………………….22 4.4.1. EMG Electrode Placement Validation: Human Cadaver Dissection……...23 iv 4.5. Gait Speeds………………………………………………………………………….26 4.6. Kinematic Processing…………………………………………………………...…...27 4.7. EMG Processing…………………………………………………………………….29 4.8. Analyses……………………………………………………………………………..30 5. Results………………………………………………………………………………………...31 5.1. Foot Kinematics in Barefoot and Shod Conditions…………………………………31 5.2. Kinematics in Shod and Barefoot Gaits……………………………………………..33 5.2.1. Trunk Kinematics Differ in Shod versus Barefoot Conditions…….……...33 5.2.2. Thigh Kinematics in Shod and Barefoot Conditions……………………...35 5.3. GMAX Force Production Differs in Walking and Running at 2.0 ms-1…………….39 5.4. GMAX Force Production Differs in Shod versus Barefoot Running……………….41 6. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………….42 6.1. Foot Strike Patterns………………………………………………………………….42 6.2. Kinematics in Shod versus Barefoot Gaits………………………………………….43 6.2.1. Trunk Kinematics Differ in Shod versus Barefoot Conditions……………43 6.2.2. Thigh Kinematics in Shod and Barefoot Conditions……………………...44 6.3. GMAX Force Production Differs in Walking and Running at 2.0 ms-1…………….45 6.4. GMAX Force Production Differs in Shod versus Barefoot Running……………….48 6.5. Gait Patterns…………………………………………………………………………49 6.6. Implications for Homo Evolution…………………………………………………...53 6.7. Limitations and Future Research……………………………………………………54 7. Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………………………….56 Glossary of Commonly Used Abbreviations………………………………………………….57 v References Cited ……………………………………………………………………………….58 Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………………...64 Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………...66 Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………………...92 vi List of Tables Table 4.1. Subject demographics………………………………………………………...20 Table 4.2. List of variables………………………………………………………………28 Table 5.1. Variable means and standard deviations……………………………………...32 Table 5.2. Signed Rank Test between foot conditions…………………………………...33 Table 5.3. Signed Rank Test between gaits at 2.0 ms-1 ………………………………….33 Table 5.4. Friedman’s speed test…………………………………………………………37 Table 5.5. Friedman’s walking speeds test………………………………………………38 Table 5.6. Friedman’s running speeds test……………………………………………….38 Table 5.7. Kendall’s tau_b correlations for 4.0 ms-1…….……………………………….40 vii List of Figures Figure 2.1. Ground reaction force duty factor differences……………………….…….….5 Figure 2.2. Ground reaction force speed differences……………………………..……….6 Figure 2.3. Walk versus run trunk depiction…………………………………….….……..8 Figure 2.4. Foot strike ground reaction force differences………………….………….…10 Figure 2.5. Foot condition ground reaction force differences…………………………...10 Figure 2.6. Gluteus maximus differences human versus chimpanzee………………..….12 Figure 2.7. Foot switches………………………………………………………………...16 Figure 4.1. Electrode placement and setup………………………………………………22 Figure 4.2. Gluteus maximus dissection fascicle orientation……………………………24 Figure 4.3. Gluteus maximus dissection craniocaudal length……………………………24 Figure 4.4. Gluteus maximus dissection medial length.…………………………………25 Figure 4.5. Gluteus maximus dissection lateral depth...…………………………………25 Figure 4.6. Gluteus maximus dissection medial depth..…………………………………26 Figure 4.7. Angle calculations…………………………………………………………...27 Figure 4.8. Foot strike identification……………………………………………………..29 Figure 5.1. Foot angle at foot contact…………………………………….……………...32 Figure 5.2. Trunk angle at foot contact…………………………………………………..34 Figure 5.3. Overall trunk angular excursion……………………………………………..34 Figure 5.4. Trunk angular velocity at foot contact……………………………………….35 Figure 5.5. Maximum stride trunk angular velocity……………………………………..35 viii Figure 5.6. Thigh angle at foot contact…………………………………………………..36 Figure 5.7. Thigh angular excursion from foot contact to maximum……………………36 Figure 5.8. Thigh angular velocity excursion from foot contact to maximum…………..36 Figure 5.9. Superior gluteus maximus around foot contact……………………………...39 Figure 5.10. Inferior gluteus maximus around foot contact…………………..……….....39 Figure 6 a-h. Gait patterns for select