Literature DB >> 28549220

Physiological responses during intermittent running exercise differ between outdoor and treadmill running.

Marco Panascì1, Romuald Lepers2, Antonio La Torre3, Matteo Bonato3, Hervè Assadi2.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the physiological responses during 15 min of intermittent running consisting of 30 s of high-intensity running exercise at maximal aerobic velocity (MAV) interspersed with 30 s of passive recovery (30-30) performed outdoor versus on a motorized treadmill. Fifteen collegiate physically active males (age, 22 ± 1 years old; body mass, 66 ± 7 kg; stature, 176 ± 06 cm; weekly training volume, 5 ± 2 h·week-1), performed the Fitness Intermittent Test 45-15 to determine maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) and MAV and then completed in random order 3 different training sessions consisting of a 30-s run/30-s rest on an outdoor athletic track (30-30 Track) at MAV; a 30-s run/30-s rest on a treadmill (30-30 Treadmill) at MAV; a 30-s run/30-s rest at MAV+15% (30-30 + 15% MAV Treadmill). Oxygen uptake (V̇O2), time above 90%V̇O2max (t90%V̇O2max), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured during each training session. We observed a statistical significant underestimation of V̇O2 (53.1 ± 5.4 mL·kg-1·min-1 vs 49.8 ± 6.7 mL·kg-1·min-1, -6.3%, P = 0.012), t90%V̇O2max (8.6% ± 11.5% vs 38.7% ± 32.5%, -77.8%, P = 0.008), RPE (11.4 ± 1.4 vs 16.5 ± 1.7, -31%, P < 0.0001) during the 30-30 Treadmill compared with the same training session performed on track. No statistical differences between 30-30 +15 % MAV Treadmill and 30-30 Track were observed. The present study demonstrates that a 15% increase in running velocity during a high-intensity intermittent treadmill training session is the optimal solution to reach the same physiological responses than an outdoor training session.

Entities:  

Keywords:  athletic track; consommation maximale d’oxygène; entraînement par intervalles; interval training; motorized treadmill; oxygen uptake; piste d’athlétisme; tapis roulant

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28549220     DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2017-0132

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Physiol Nutr Metab        ISSN: 1715-5312            Impact factor:   2.665


  2 in total

1.  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

2.  Accuracy of training recommendations based on a treadmill multistage incremental exercise test.

Authors:  Hendrik Mugele; Ashley Plummer; Omar Baritello; Maggie Towe; Pia Brecht; Frank Mayer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.