James M Smoliga1, Eric J Hegedus2, Kevin R Ford2. 1. Human Biomechanics and Physiology Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, High Point University, High Point, NC 27268, USA. Electronic address: jsmoliga@highpoint.edu. 2. Human Biomechanics and Physiology Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, High Point University, High Point, NC 27268, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether exercise performed on a non-motorized, curved treadmill (NMCT) provides greater physiologic stimulus compared to a standard motorized treadmill (SMT). STUDY DESIGN: Crossover. SETTING: Clinical research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 10 healthy athletic adults. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants walked (1.34 m s(-1)) for 3 min and ran (2.24 m s(-1)) for 4 min on NMCT and SMT (randomized order) while metabolic data and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were collected. Participants then identified preferred easy and moderate intensity training paces on each treadmill while blinded to speed. Repeated-measures ANOVA and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests were used to compare responses between treadmills. RESULTS:Intensity was significantly greater (P < 0.001) for NMCT than SMT [mean (95% confidence interval): Walking = 5.9(5.3,6.4) vs. 3.4(3.0,3.7) METs; Running = 10.7(9,6,11.7) vs. 7.3(6.8,7.8) METs]. Overall RPE was significantly greater (P < 0.01) on NMCT than SMT for walking [median (inter-quartile range): 7(1) vs. 6(0.8)] and running [11.5(3) vs. 8(2.5)]. Preferred speed was significantly slower on NMCT than SMT for easy [2.5(2.3,2.7) vs. 2.8(2.5,3.1) m s(-1)] and moderate [3.2(3.0,3.4) vs. 3.5(3.1,3.9) m s(-1)] intensities. CONCLUSIONS:NMCT elicits greater physiological stimulus than SMT with small, though statistically significant, changes in RPE at matched speeds. Clinicians must be aware of differences in intensity and RPE when prescribing exercise on NMCT.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether exercise performed on a non-motorized, curved treadmill (NMCT) provides greater physiologic stimulus compared to a standard motorized treadmill (SMT). STUDY DESIGN: Crossover. SETTING: Clinical research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 10 healthy athletic adults. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants walked (1.34 m s(-1)) for 3 min and ran (2.24 m s(-1)) for 4 min on NMCT and SMT (randomized order) while metabolic data and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were collected. Participants then identified preferred easy and moderate intensity training paces on each treadmill while blinded to speed. Repeated-measures ANOVA and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests were used to compare responses between treadmills. RESULTS: Intensity was significantly greater (P < 0.001) for NMCT than SMT [mean (95% confidence interval): Walking = 5.9(5.3,6.4) vs. 3.4(3.0,3.7) METs; Running = 10.7(9,6,11.7) vs. 7.3(6.8,7.8) METs]. Overall RPE was significantly greater (P < 0.01) on NMCT than SMT for walking [median (inter-quartile range): 7(1) vs. 6(0.8)] and running [11.5(3) vs. 8(2.5)]. Preferred speed was significantly slower on NMCT than SMT for easy [2.5(2.3,2.7) vs. 2.8(2.5,3.1) m s(-1)] and moderate [3.2(3.0,3.4) vs. 3.5(3.1,3.9) m s(-1)] intensities. CONCLUSIONS: NMCT elicits greater physiological stimulus than SMT with small, though statistically significant, changes in RPE at matched speeds. Clinicians must be aware of differences in intensity and RPE when prescribing exercise on NMCT.
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
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