Literature DB >> 25490348

The validity of endurance running performance on the Curve 3(TM) non-motorised treadmill.

Christopher J Stevens1, Jake Hacene, Benjamin Wellham, Dean V Sculley, Robin Callister, Lee Taylor, Ben J Dascombe.   

Abstract

This study aimed to test the validity of a non-motorised treadmill (NMT) for the measurement of self-paced overground endurance running performance. Ten male runners performed randomised 5-km running time trials on a NMT and an outdoor athletics track. A range of physiological and perceptual responses was measured, and foot strike was classified subjectively. Performance time was strongly correlated (r = 0.82, ICC = 0.86) between running modes, despite running time being significantly longer on the NMT (1264 ± 124 s vs. 1536 ± 130 s for overground and NMT, respectively; P < 0.001). End blood lactate concentration and rating of perceived exertion were significantly higher on the NMT compared to overground. Integrated electromyography was significantly lower on the NMT for three muscles (P < 0.05), and mean stride rate was also significantly lower on the NMT (P = 0.04). Cardiorespiratory responses of heart rate, oxygen uptake and expired air volume demonstrated strong correlations (r = 0.68-0.96, ICC = 0.75-0.97) and no statistical differences (P > 0.05). Runners were consistently slower on the NMT, and as such it should not be used to measure performance over a specific distance. However, the strong correlations suggest that superior overground performance was reflected in relative terms on the NMT, and therefore, it is a valid tool for the assessment of endurance running performance in the laboratory.

Entities:  

Keywords:  endurance training; exercise performance; exercise physiology; pacing strategy; performance test

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25490348     DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2014.986502

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci        ISSN: 0264-0414            Impact factor:   3.337


  4 in total

1.  Comparison of physiological responses of running on a nonmotorized and conventional motor-propelled treadmill at similar intensities.

Authors:  Filipe A B Sousa; Fúlvia B Manchado-Gobatto; Natália de A Rodrigues; Gustavo G de Araujo; Claudio A Gobatto
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Crossover Studies Comparing Physiological, Perceptual and Performance Measures Between Treadmill and Overground Running.

Authors:  Jayme R Miller; Bas Van Hooren; Chris Bishop; Jonathan D Buckley; Richard W Willy; Joel T Fuller
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Non-motorized Treadmill Running Is Associated with Higher Cardiometabolic Demands Compared with Overground and Motorized Treadmill Running.

Authors:  Robert B Edwards; Paul J Tofari; Stuart J Cormack; Douglas G Whyte
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 4.566

4.  Treadmill and Running Speed Effects on Acceleration Impacts: Curved Non-Motorized Treadmill vs. Conventional Motorized Treadmill.

Authors:  Alberto Encarnación-Martínez; Ignacio Catalá-Vilaplana; Rafael Berenguer-Vidal; Roberto Sanchis-Sanchis; Borja Ochoa-Puig; Pedro Pérez-Soriano
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.