Energetics and physiological aspects of Tango dance walking in the role of leader


Abstract

Background. Tango is a dance that holds potential as a therapeutic intervention to improve gait, balance, and quality of life, particularly in populations with locomotor impairments. Despite growing clinical interest, quantitative evidence integrating biomechanical and metabolic aspects of tango walking remains scarce. Tango walking, especially in the leader role, involves aesthetic and technical modifications of normal gait, including altered posture, which may affect locomotor economy. This study aimed to quantify the metabolic cost, mechanical work, and center-of-mass (CoM) dynamics of tango walking, and to compare these variables with those of self-selected walking performed at similar speeds. We hypothesized that (i) tango walking would increase the cost of transport (CoT) and reduce locomotor efficiency, and (ii) these changes would be associated with modifications in CoM mechanics, joint kinematics, and spatio-temporal gait parameters.
Methods. Seventeen tango dancers participated in the study, performing two 5-minute trials: self-selected walking and tango walking in the leader role to a Milonga music. Oxygen consumption was measured using a portable metabolic system to compute net metabolic power and CoT. Whole-body kinematics were recorded using a 3D motion capture system to reconstruct CoM trajectories and compute spatio-temporal parameters, mechanical work, energy recovery, and related metrics. Statistical comparisons between conditions were performed using paired tests for discrete variables and Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) for time-series data.
Results. Walking speed and basic spatio-temporal parameters did not differ significantly between conditions. However, tango walking elicited a significantly higher metabolic power and CoT (≈ +50%) and a lower locomotor efficiency compared with self-selected walking. Mechanical work variables did not differ significantly between conditions, although tango walking exhibited substantially higher variability, particularly in the internal work, energy recovery indices, and temporal gait parameters. SPM analyses revealed significant differences in CoM trajectories, with reduced lateral CoM oscillations during tango walking, especially during mid-stance. Knee joint kinematics showed significantly greater flexion throughout the stance phase in tango walking.
Conclusions. The aesthetic variations within Tango, particularly at milonga rhythm, significantly increase metabolic demands without a proportional increase in mechanical work. Notable changes in the lower limb kinematics and CoM trajectory align with this increased metabolic demand. The increased variability suggests that the Tango gait requires more balance control than walking, potentially leading to greater muscle activity, primarily due to co-contractions. Our findings support Tango's use in rehabilitation; however, further research is needed to fully understand the underlying reasons for these changes.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].