The purpose of this study was to assess metabolic and kinematic parameters (contact and flight time, step length and frequency) while walking at the preferred speed (1.44 ± 0.22 m · s−1) and while performing an incremental running test (up to exhaustion) on a motorised treadmill (MT) and on a curved non-motorised treadmill (CNMT). Twenty-five volunteers (24.1 ± 3.4 years; 64.7 ± 11.2 kg) participated in the study. Maximal running speed on MT was significantly larger (P < 0.001) than on CNMT (4.31 ± 0.50 vs. 3.75 ± 0.39 m · s−1) but no differences in heart rate or oxygen uptake VO2 were observed at this speed. The energy cost of walking (Cw) and running (Cr) were significantly greater (P < 0.001) on CNMT than on MT (37 and 17%, respectively). No major differences in kinematic parameters were observed at paired, submaximal, running speeds (2.22–3.89 m · s−1) but VO2 was systematically larger in CNMT (of about 340 ml · min−1 · kg−1). This systematic difference can be expressed in terms of a larger “equivalent speed” on CNMT (of about 0.42 m · s−1) and should be attributed to factors other than the kinematic ones, such as the belt characteristics (e.g. friction, type of surface and curvature).
Metabolic and kinematic responses while walking and running on a motorised and a curved non-motorised treadmill / P. Bruseghini, E. Tam, A. Monte, C. Capelli, P. Zamparo. - In: JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES. - ISSN 0264-0414. - 37:4(2019 Feb), pp. 396-403. [10.1080/02640414.2018.1504605]
Metabolic and kinematic responses while walking and running on a motorised and a curved non-motorised treadmill
C. CapelliCo-ultimo
;
2019
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess metabolic and kinematic parameters (contact and flight time, step length and frequency) while walking at the preferred speed (1.44 ± 0.22 m · s−1) and while performing an incremental running test (up to exhaustion) on a motorised treadmill (MT) and on a curved non-motorised treadmill (CNMT). Twenty-five volunteers (24.1 ± 3.4 years; 64.7 ± 11.2 kg) participated in the study. Maximal running speed on MT was significantly larger (P < 0.001) than on CNMT (4.31 ± 0.50 vs. 3.75 ± 0.39 m · s−1) but no differences in heart rate or oxygen uptake VO2 were observed at this speed. The energy cost of walking (Cw) and running (Cr) were significantly greater (P < 0.001) on CNMT than on MT (37 and 17%, respectively). No major differences in kinematic parameters were observed at paired, submaximal, running speeds (2.22–3.89 m · s−1) but VO2 was systematically larger in CNMT (of about 340 ml · min−1 · kg−1). This systematic difference can be expressed in terms of a larger “equivalent speed” on CNMT (of about 0.42 m · s−1) and should be attributed to factors other than the kinematic ones, such as the belt characteristics (e.g. friction, type of surface and curvature).| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Bruseghini_et_al_2018.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione
1.22 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.22 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.




