CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Occupational Health and PerformanceCardiovascular and exercise physiologyThermoregulation and physiological responses

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Energy expenditure while standing or walking slowly uphill or downhill with loads

PIMENTAL, NANCY A., PANDOLF, KENT B.·1979·Ergonomics
DOI 10.1080/00140137908924670
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Eight fit male subjects (24 yr, 176 cm, 79 kg) stood, or walked at speeds of 0·5 or 0·9 m s−1 for 20-min periods on grades of − 10 to + 25% with loads of 20 or 40 kg. Energy expenditure (watt) was not significantly different in any of the standing conditions; grade and load increased energy expenditure while standing but not significantly. Although all the standing energy expenditure means were relatively low, high perceived exertion ratings suggest limits to tolerance time in some of these conditions. All the standing means were significantly lower than the walking means. Walking 0·9 m s−1 on a −10% grade was significantly lower than walking 0·5 m s−1 on a + 10% grade, which was significantly lower than walking 0·9 m s−1 on a + 10% grade. In the walking conditions there was a significant difference between loads: means for the 20 kg loads were lower than means for the 40 kg loads. As the condition became more strenuous by increasing load, speed, and/or grade (while walking), energy expenditure became more sensitive to changes in these variables. The current energy expenditure prediction formula (Pandolf et al. 1977) was found to predict slightly high for the standing conditions, low for walking 0·5 m s−1 on a + 10% grade, and accurately for walking 0.9 m s−1 on a + 10% grade. In the standing conditions the deviation between predicted and measured was higher at the 40 kg load than at the 20 kg load. The formula in its present form is not equipped to predict for negative grades. The results of this study suggest that the prediction formula may place too much emphasis on the effects of speed and load while standing and walking slowly.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00140137908924670

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. CATHCART E. P., 1919, The Energy Expenditure of the Infantry Recruit in Training
  2. CATHCART E. P., 1923, Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps, 40, 435

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
PIMENTAL, N. A., & PANDOLF, K. B.
Venue
Ergonomics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1979-08
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
963-973
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
DOI
10.1080/00140137908924670
OpenAlex
W2033362005
Cited by
72
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Thermoregulation and physiological responses
Keywords
energy expenditure, standing, walking, uphill walking, downhill walking, walking speed, load carriage, GRADE, perceived exertion
MeSH terms
Energy Metabolism, Physical Exertion, Humans, Locomotion, Male

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review