Exercise devices – User manipulated force resisting apparatus – component... – Utilizing resilient force resistance
Reexamination Certificate
2001-08-16
2004-02-03
Donnelly, Jerome W. (Department: 3764)
Exercise devices
User manipulated force resisting apparatus, component...
Utilizing resilient force resistance
C482S904000, C482S122000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06685602
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
This invention describes a novel gravity-independent exercise unit designed for use in microgravity, or on the ground, as a means by which to counter muscle atrophy and bone degradation due to disuse or underuse.
2. Description of the Relevant Art
Exposing humans to weightlessness during space flight induces significant structural and functional changes in the musculoskeletal system. These changes are manifested as muscle atrophy and bone degradation accompanied by neuromuscular changes including muscle fatigue and weakness, abnormal reflex behavior, and diminished neuromuscular efficiency, as noted by Nicogossian in “Countermeasures to space deconditioning,”
Space Physiology and Medicine, Third Ed.,
eds. Nicogossian et al., Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore (1994), pp. 447-469. Support-unloading and structural changes of the muscle and bone seem to be the main causes of these functional abnormalities. See Booth & Criswell, “Molecular events underlying skeletal muscle atrophy and the development of effective countermeasures,”
Int. J. Sports Med.
18[4], s265-s269 (1997); Convertino, “Exercise as a countermeasure for physiological adaptation to prolonged spaceflight,”
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
28[8], 999-1014 (1996); and Leblanc et al., “Muscle atrophy during long duraction bed rest,”
Int. J. Sports Med.
18, s283-s285 (1997).
Reduced force development of skeletal muscle has been associated with six to eight percent decrements in volume of the lower limbs following flights longer than 3 months, according to Convertino, supra. Furthermore, because of the seven to twelve percent mineral loss in trabecular bone and throughout the spine after six to eight months of spaceflight, increased risk of bone fracture must be a concern for flight duration beyond 1 year. Id. As the future of long-term space habitation is inevitable, practical and effective measures to counter the debilitating effects of bone and muscle loss must be developed to allow astronauts to function normally in an environment without a 1-G gravity vector presence. This invention will further the objectives of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to develop successful exercise countermeasures for muscle atrophy and bone degradation during long-term microgravity habitation.
Recommendations to remedy the negative effects of microgravity on muscles and bones suggest that astronauts perform strengthening exercises while in space. See Booth, supra; Hoppeler et al., “Recommendations for muscle research in space,”,
Int. J. Sports Med.,
18: s280-s282 (1997); Hickson, et al., “Skeletal muscle fiber type, resistance training, and strength-related performance,”
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.,
26[5]: 593-598 (1994); and Leblanc, supra. Such resistive exercises provide a load that is otherwise absent in space, presumably preserving musculoskeletal function. Many principles must be considered while designing an exercise device as a countermeasure for muscle atrophy due to disuse. Most importantly, load capabilities, constant force resistive output, and eccentric and concentric exercise capabilities should be the primary design goals of any resistive exercise device. (Eccentric exercise refers to the muscles' lengthening during a contraction, while concentric exercise refers to the muscles' shortening during a contraction. Both are essential during resistance training.) See Arnheim & Prentice, Principles of athletic training,
Ninth Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York (1997); Baechle, T. R.,
Essentials of strength training and conditioning,
National Strength and Conditioning Assn. (1994); Colliander & Tesch, “Effects of eccentric and concentric muscle actions in resistance training,”
Acta Physiol. Scand.
140:31-39 (1990); and Harmen, “Resistance training modes: A biomechanical perspective,”
J. Strength and cond. Res.
4:59-65 (1994).
An extensive literature review has been performed on resistive exercise machines that have been designed for use in microgravity throughout the history of the space program. Numerous countermeasures for the negative physiological effects of microgravity on the muscluoskeletal system have been designed in the past, including exercise bikes, treadmills, and rubber band devices. See Convertine, supra; DiPramperno & Antonutto, “Cycling in space to simulate gravity,”
Int. J. Sports Med.,
18(?): s324-326 (1997); Essfeld, “The strategic role of exercise devices in manned spaceflight,”
Micrograv. Sci. Tech,
3:180-183 (1990); Kreitenberg, et al., “The ‘Space Cycle’ self powered human centrifuge: A proposed countermeasure for prolonged human spaceflight,”
Aviat. Space Environ. Med.
69:66-72 (1998); and McArdle, supra. However, while these exercise devices provide essential aerobic activity, they lack the ability to provide the necessary resistive forces on muscles and bones to replace the gravity vector of Earth. The latest space countermeasures also use pneumatics or hydraulics for resistive exercise; however, these means of resistance often result in stammered movement patterns during exercise, as noted by Essfeld, supra. (Due to the nature of these devices, range of motion movements during exercise are not smooth.)
Furthermore, most hydraulic machines provide concentric muscle contractions, but lack the essential eccentric contractions during exercise. Id. Both muscle lengthening and shortening during contractions are desirable. Although rubber band devices do provide anaerobic concentric and eccentric resistive forces, they do not provide the measurable constant quantitative forces on the muscles that are necessary for optimal muscle maintenance. Additional exercise devices, such as the exercise ergometers, use dampers or friction to produce resistance concentrically, but require power to operate; however, power availability is limited on space flights. With a reported energy budget for the entire space station in the range of 70 kW and only 10 to 15 kW available for scientific experiments, the use of such powered motors is infeasible. See, e.g., Hoppeler, supra.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,208,049 discloses a “multi-functional exercising device” employing a number of constant load springs, which can be chosen individually or in combined groups to provide a selected constant load force on a foot or hand grip, movable bar or other mechanism. The force can be exerted in both directions of travel. The unit is large and bulky.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,226,867 discloses a user-manipulated modular exercise machine with two reel assemblies, each including a spirally-wound spring which applies to the reel a reactive torque of changing magnitude as the reel rotates in response to pulling input forces applied to a pull-cord by the user. A cam-operated spring compensating mechanism provides for essentially constant force during operations in various exercise modes.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,733,231 discloses an exercise apparatus including a number of inelastic, retractable cords, each having a handgrip. Retracting mechanisms are provided for retracting the cords, and separate resistance mechanisms are provided for each cord. Removable disk resistance units can be added to increase the resistance force, which can be made essentially constant. The units can be attached to a belt worn by the user, or in various other exercise devices.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,944,511 discloses a small “adjustable resilient reel exerciser” which includes right and left reels with their own foot pads, cords and hand grips. Outward pulling on the cords is resisted by spring packs containing clock-type coil springs, which can be adjusted to the same initial tension. The spring packs can be “stacked” on one another to vary the resistive force applied to the reels. The units can be used in exercise devices such as rowing machines. There is no suggestion of a constant force device.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,123,649 discloses a bulky treadmill having a resistance device attached to the frame and connectible to, e.g., the user's legs, to provide a constant force resistance
Colosky, Jr. Paul E.
Ruttley Tara M.
Donnelly Jerome W.
Poole, Esq. James K.
LandOfFree
Gravity-independent constant force resistive exercise unit does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Gravity-independent constant force resistive exercise unit, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Gravity-independent constant force resistive exercise unit will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3278317