| Abstract: | All discussions of muscle energetics concern themselves with the Hill force-velocity relation, which is also the general output relation of a class of self-regulated energy converters and as such contains only a single adjustable parameter —the degree of coupling. It is therefore important to see whether in principle muscle can be included in this class. One requirement is that the muscle should possess a working element characterized by a dissipation function of two terms: mechanical output and chemical input. This has been established by considering the initial steady phase of isotonic and isometric tetanic contraction to represent a stationary state of the fibrils (a considerable body of evidence supports this). Further requirements, which can be justified for the working element, are linearity and incomplete coupling. Thus the chemical input of the muscle may be expected to follow the inverse Hill equation (see Part I). The relatively large changes in activities of reactants which the equation demands could only be controlled by local operation of the regulator, and a scheme is outlined to show how such control may be achieved. Objections to this view recently raised by Wilkie and Woledge rest on at least two important assumptions, the validity of which is questioned: (a) that heat production by processes other than the immediate driving reaction is negligible, which disregards the regulatory mechanism (possibly this involves the calcium pump), and (b) that the affinity of the immediate driving reaction is determined by over-all concentrations. The division of heat production into “shortening heat” and “maintenance heat” or “activation heat” is found to be arbitrary. |
