When you step down into a hole and then back up, most of your energy goes into climbing back out—like lifting yourself up a ladder—while stepping over spreads the effort between two steps.
Scientific Claim
The mechanical energy cost of negotiating a hole obstacle is dominated by the upward step in the 'step-down-and-up' strategy, accounting for over 60% of total mechanical work, while the 'step-over' strategy distributes energy cost more evenly between two steps.
Original Statement
“The CoTtot of the IN strategy was dominated by the cost of the step back up onto the trackway (62 ± 11% of traversal CoTtot averaged across all obstacle depth–length combinations, up to 74 ± 3% at the greatest obstacle depths).”
Evidence Quality Assessment
Claim Status
appropriately stated
Study Design Support
Design supports claim
Appropriate Language Strength
definitive
Can make definitive causal claims
Assessment Explanation
This is a direct biomechanical measurement from motion capture data with validated modeling, not an inference. The percentage values are empirically derived and reported with standard deviations.
Gold Standard Evidence Needed
According to GRADE and EBM methodology, here is what ideal scientific evidence would look like to definitively prove or disprove this specific claim, ordered from strongest to weakest evidence.
Randomized Controlled TrialLevel 1aThat altering the height of the upward step directly and proportionally changes total mechanical energy cost during obstacle negotiation.
That altering the height of the upward step directly and proportionally changes total mechanical energy cost during obstacle negotiation.
What This Would Prove
That altering the height of the upward step directly and proportionally changes total mechanical energy cost during obstacle negotiation.
Ideal Study Design
A within-subject RCT with 30 healthy adults performing IN strategy traversals across 5 precisely controlled step-up heights (0.1–0.5 leg length), with mechanical work measured via motion capture and force plates; primary outcome is linear relationship between step-up height and % contribution to total CoTtot.
Limitation: Cannot generalize to natural terrain with variable surface compliance.
Cross-Sectional StudyLevel 3That the proportion of energy spent on the upward step correlates with individual muscle strength or joint mechanics.
That the proportion of energy spent on the upward step correlates with individual muscle strength or joint mechanics.
What This Would Prove
That the proportion of energy spent on the upward step correlates with individual muscle strength or joint mechanics.
Ideal Study Design
A cross-sectional study of 60 adults (20–50 years) with varying lower-limb strength (measured via isokinetic dynamometry) performing IN strategy traversals, correlating % upward step energy contribution with quadriceps/gluteal strength and hip extension torque.
Limitation: Cannot determine if strength differences cause or result from strategy adaptation.
Evidence from Studies
No evidence studies found yet.