The construction of common treadmills significantly affects biomechanical and metabolic variables

Gidley, Alexis D.; Lankford, David E.; Bailey, Joshua P.

doi:10.1080/02640414.2020.1776929

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 15 Finally, individuals vary in their responses to surface cushioning. 19 Treadmill construction and compliance levels can affect metabolic and biomechanical responses, 21 and not reflect outdoor running on surfaces that are less compliant. It may be that the combined VP4 shoe cushioning and treadmill damping effect resulted in less favorable responses to VP4.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The surface stiffness of the motorized treadmill (Steelflex PT10 Fitness; Steelflex Fitness, Taipei, Taiwan, China) used for data collection was quantified using methods similar to those described elsewhere, 18 , 19 given that treadmill compliance levels can affect metabolic 20 and biomechanical responses. 21 Weights (approximately 25 kg each, up to 300 kg, measured using a force plate) were sequentially positioned over the center of the treadmill running area. The displacement of the treadmill surface was tracked for each 25-kg increment twice using a 3-dimension motion capture system and 6 retro-reflective markers positioned on the treadmill bed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 ). 21 The highest 30-s mean

O 2 registered in the last minute of each bout was used to determine oxygen consumption (mL/kg·min), energy cost (W/kg) using the Péronnet and Massicotte 26 equation, and energetics cost of transport (J/kg·m) based on the running speed of each individual. RE data at a given intensity were removed from subsequent analyses when respiratory exchange ratio values exceeded 1.0, which would indicate running above anaerobic threshold, with a proportion of energy provided via anaerobic pathways.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metabolic and performance responses of male runners wearing 3 types of footwear: Nike Vaporfly 4%, Saucony Endorphin racing flats, and their own shoes

Hébert‐Losier

Finlayson

Driller

et al. 2022

Journal of Sport and Health Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 ). 21 The highest 30-s mean

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metabolic and performance responses of male runners wearing 3 types of footwear: Nike Vaporfly 4%, Saucony Endorphin racing flats, and their own shoes

Hébert‐Losier

Finlayson

Driller

et al. 2022

Journal of Sport and Health Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These differences could be affecting the percentage benefits of advanced footwear technology in regard to running economy [ 53 ]. Moreover, even with a brief warm-up and familiarization session, some world-class runners were not used to running on a treadmill, which as Colino et al has suggested, changes the mechanics compared with overground running [ 54 , 55 ]. Furthermore, of note, at the point of testing, the world-class population had already been training in a version of the advanced footwear technology and were therefore familiar with the high-stack height and the feel of running with this technology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in Running Economy of Kenyan World-Class and European Amateur Male Runners with Advanced Footwear Running Technology: Experimental and Meta-analysis Results

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Advanced footwear technology improves average running economy compared with racing flats in sub-elite athletes. However, not all athletes benefit as performance changes vary from a 10% drawback to a 14% improvement. The main beneficiaries from such technologies, world-class athletes, have only been analyzed using race times. Objective The aim of this study was to measure running economy on a laboratory treadmill in advanced footwear technology compared to a traditional racing flat in world-class Kenyan (mean half-marathon time: 59:30 min:s) versus European amateur runners. Methods Seven world-class Kenyan and seven amateur European male runners completed a maximal oxygen uptake assessment and submaximal steady-state running economy trials in three different models of advanced footwear technology and a racing flat. To confirm our results and better understand the overall effect of new technology in running shoes, we conducted a systematic search and meta-analysis. Results Laboratory results revealed large variability in both world-class Kenyan road runners, which ranged from a 11.3% drawback to a 11.4% benefit, and amateur Europeans, which ranged from a 9.7% benefit to a 1.1% drawback in running economy of advanced footwear technology compared to a flat. The post-hoc meta-analysis revealed an overall significant medium benefit of advanced footwear technology on running economy compared with traditional flats. Conclusions Variability of advanced footwear technology performance appears in both world-class and amateur runners, suggesting further testing should examine such variability to ensure validity of results and explain the cause as a more personalized approach to shoe selection might be necessary for optimal benefit.

show abstract

“…Similarly, despite the known impact of the gradient on running gait, there were very few reviewed studies that examined this [173][174][175], but some studies did set the treadmill to 1% to compensate for the known differences between treadmill and over-ground running [176]. However, recent research has suggested that there may be more to consider than just the gradient when attempting to replicate overground running on the treadmill [177][178][179].…”

Section: Test Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Running gait assessment has traditionally been performed using subjective observation or expensive laboratory-based objective technologies, such as three-dimensional motion capture or force plates. However, recent developments in wearable devices allow for continuous monitoring and analysis of running mechanics in any environment. Objective measurement of running gait is an important (clinical) tool for injury assessment and provides measures that can be used to enhance performance. Objectives We aimed to systematically review the available literature investigating how wearable technology is being used for running gait analysis in adults. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the type of study, participants, protocol, wearable device(s), main outcomes/measures, analysis and key findings. Results A total of 131 articles were reviewed: 56 investigated the validity of wearable technology, 22 examined the reliability and 77 focused on applied use. Most studies used inertial measurement units (n = 62) [i.e. a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers in a single unit] or solely accelerometers (n = 40), with one using gyroscopes alone and 31 using pressure sensors. On average, studies used one wearable device to examine running gait. Wearable locations were distributed among the shank, shoe and waist. The mean number of participants was 26 (± 27), with an average age of 28.3 (± 7.0) years. Most studies took place indoors (n = 93), using a treadmill (n = 62), with the main aims seeking to identify running gait outcomes or investigate the effects of injury, fatigue, intrinsic factors (e.g. age, sex, morphology) or footwear on running gait outcomes. Generally, wearables were found to be valid and reliable tools for assessing running gait compared to reference standards. Conclusions This comprehensive review highlighted that most studies that have examined running gait using wearable sensors have done so with young adult recreational runners, using one inertial measurement unit sensor, with participants running on a treadmill and reporting outcomes of ground contact time, stride length, stride frequency and tibial acceleration. Future studies are required to obtain consensus regarding terminology, protocols for testing validity and the reliability of devices and suitability of gait outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration CRD42021235527.

show abstract

The construction of common treadmills significantly affects biomechanical and metabolic variables

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Metabolic and performance responses of male runners wearing 3 types of footwear: Nike Vaporfly 4%, Saucony Endorphin racing flats, and their own shoes

Metabolic and performance responses of male runners wearing 3 types of footwear: Nike Vaporfly 4%, Saucony Endorphin racing flats, and their own shoes

Variability in Running Economy of Kenyan World-Class and European Amateur Male Runners with Advanced Footwear Running Technology: Experimental and Meta-analysis Results

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About