2020
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-020-01305-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Authors’ Reply to Dewolf et al.: “Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies”

Abstract: We would like to thank Dewolf et al. [1] for their interest in our review [2] and for providing additional insights into the effects of belt-speed fluctuations on treadmill running biomechanics. We believe that their commentary offers an interesting explanation for some of the biomechanical differences observed between treadmill and overground running. As also stated in our conclusion, we, therefore, agree with Dewolf et al.[1] that researchers, clinicians and athletes should assess belt-speed fluctuations and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 2 publications
(2 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, the test was performed on an instrumented treadmill. Although there is some evidence that there are no clinically relevant differences in spatiotemporal and kinetic variables on treadmill compared with overground running, 31 future research should investigate if levels of asymmetry are comparable, as speed fluctuations are very limited on a treadmill. Second, asymmetry in kinematics was not investigated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the test was performed on an instrumented treadmill. Although there is some evidence that there are no clinically relevant differences in spatiotemporal and kinetic variables on treadmill compared with overground running, 31 future research should investigate if levels of asymmetry are comparable, as speed fluctuations are very limited on a treadmill. Second, asymmetry in kinematics was not investigated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%