Comparison of perceptual and physiological variables of running on a track, motorized treadmill, and non-motorized curved treadmill at increasing velocity

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare perceptual and physiological variables between running on three different modalities -an indoor athletics track, a motorized treadmill, and a non-motorized curved treadmill -for 1000 m at three different velocities. Ten male athletes (age 24±3 years, body mass 69.8±6.91 kg, height 1.80±0.06 m, VO2peak 69.0±6.70 ml/kg/ min) conducted three 1000 m laps at increasing velocity on three different running modalities. The athletes had a 3-minute recovery between each lap, where the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) was registered and the blood lactate concentration and heart rate were measured. Oxygen uptake was measured using a portable metabolic analyser. The physiological (oxygen uptake, heart rate, and blood lactate concentration) and perceptual (RPE) variables were higher when running on a non-motorized curved treadmill compared with running on the track or a motorized treadmill. No differences were found between running on a motorized treadmill and the track except for the RPE, which was lower when running on the track compared with the motorized treadmill. Running on a non-motorized curved treadmill at three different velocities results in a higher oxygen uptake (37%) and heart rate (22%) and is subjectively much harder than running on a track or a motorized treadmill at the same velocities. The difference is around 4 km/h when comparing the physiological and perceptual responses. Thus, when performing training sessions on a non-motorized curved treadmill, subjects should subtract 4 km/h from their regular pace on a track or motorized treadmill to get

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

“…slower 5 km and 1-h time trials) on a motorised treadmill compared with overground running [16,20]. Consistent with findings of poorer endurance running performance, some studies have reported that motorised treadmill running is perceived as requiring greater effort than overground running [14] and runners select slower running speeds on a motorised treadmill than overground when instructed to run at a fixed level of perceived effort [21].…”

“…Thirty-four studies were included in this review and are summarised in Table 2. Non-motorised treadmill running was considered in only three of the 34 included studies [5,14,29]. This small number of studies was considered insufficient for undertaking a systematic review.…”

“…Notably, Jones and Doust [2] found that V O 2 could be matched between overground and motorised treadmill conditions by adjusting the treadmill grade to 1%. As a result, many researchers adjust the treadmill grade to 1% [12][13][14][15][16], despite not all studies supporting this practice [5,12]. Using a treadmill grade such as 1% might be particularly important at faster running speeds, which tend to demonstrate greater air resistance during overground running larger systematic review project comparing overground and treadmill running across a broader range of outcome measures (Registration number CRD42017074640).…”

“…The remaining studies either stated that no treadmill grade was set or did not mention treadmill grade. Nine studies [5,8,11,13,14,33,[38][39][40] included overground running trials indoors on synthetic, wooden or unspecified surfaces (…”

“…No studies referred to publicly available study protocols, so it was unclear whether results were affected by selective reporting. Only three studies [8,14,38] conducted all trials in the same testing area indoors and were at low risk of environmental bias. Twenty-six studies conducted their overground trials outdoors and were classified as having high risk of bias due to difficulties controlling wind speed, relative humidity and ambient temperature.…”