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

Abstract

An increase in the popularity of running can be seen over the last decades, with a large number of injuries on it. Most of the running injuries are related to impact accelerations and are due to overuse. In order to reduce the risk of injury or to improve performance and health new treadmill designs have been created, as it can be the curved non-motorized treadmill. The aim of this study was to analyse impact accelerations, spatio-temporal parameters and perceptual differences while running on curved non-motorized treadmill (cNMT) compared to motorized treadmill (MT) at different speeds. Therefore, 27 recreational runners completed two tests consisting of 10 min warm-up and three bouts of 8 min running at 2.77 m/s, 3.33 m/s and self-selected speed on cNMT and MT, previously randomised. Although the surface did not influence spatio-temporal parameters, a reduction in impact accelerations, head acceleration rate (mean effect size [ES] = 0.86), tibia peak (mean ES = 0.45) and tibia magnitude (mean ES = 0.55), was observed while running on cNMT in comparison with running on MT. Moreover, higher heart rate (HR) (mean ES = 0.51) and rating of perceived effort (RPE) (mean ES = 0.34) were found while running on cNMT. These findings demonstrated that higher intensity training and lower impact accelerations are experimented on cNMT, what can be used by trainers and athletes while planning training sessions.

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

“…Eight studies combined controlled and self-selected speeds [ 35 , 62 , 76 , 116 , 118 , 127 , 132 , 135 ]. For example, Giandolini et al examined participants at 10, 12, 14 (female) and 16 km/h (male), maximum aerobic speed and participant’s preferred speed [ 116 ].…”

“…Sixteen studies commented on the running gradient [ 28 , 34 – 36 , 76 , 80 , 90 , 101 , 108 , 109 , 125 , 128 , 131 , 144 , 147 , 149 ]. The majority of studies ( n = 5) used a 0% gradient [ 34 , 101 , 109 , 128 , 144 ] or a 1% gradient ( n = 4) on the treadmill [ 35 , 36 , 76 , 125 ]. Three studies analysed the effects of different gradients [ 28 , 80 , 90 ], and one study investigated the effects of low and high altitudes on running gait [ 82 ].…”

“…Of the applied studies that focused on performance aspects, 12 examined the influence of speed on running biomechanics [ 30 , 31 , 35 , 42 , 47 , 54 , 62 , 77 , 87 , 118 , 132 , 137 ], four investigated the experience of participants [ 30 , 32 , 42 , 118 ], one study examined the effects of altitude [ 82 ] and another study investigated gradient [ 90 ]. Associations of gait metrics with wellness and session perceived exertion was prospectively examined in one study [ 33 ] and specifically running kinematics in triathletes was investigated in another study [ 108 ].…”

“…Three studies investigated running gait in participants with an average age over 50 years, none of which performed a comparison of gait patterns across age groups that included older adults [28][29][30]. Most of the reviewed studies (n = 82) included both male and female participants, with eight examining differences between male and female participants [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] and three of these studies finding significant differences between sexes [32,36,37]. Thirty-nine studies had male participants only, while only three studies solely examined female participants [39][40][41], seven studies did not report the sex of participants [21,[42][43][44][45][46][47] and two studies did not provide a breakdown of the sexes [26,48].…”

Simulated Soccer Game Protocols: A Systematic Review on Validated Protocols That Represent the Demands of the Game

“…Also, these soccer-specific actions are commonly associated with decrements in neuromuscular performance and indicators of muscle damage after match (18). It should be noted that nonmotorized treadmill protocols may reduce the impact of accelerations (peak and magnitude), despite increasing the internal load (HR and perceived exertion) (13,42). On the other hand, structural differences in field-based protocols were observed.…”