Mechanical Properties of Treadmill Surfaces and Their Effects on Endurance Running

An Investigation of Running Kinematics with Recovered Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction on a Treadmill and In-Field Using Inertial Measurement Units: A Preliminary Study

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) may affect movement even years after surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine possible interlimb asymmetries due to ACLR when running on a treadmill and in field conditions, with the aim of contributing to the establishment of objective movement assessment in real-world settings; moreover, we aimed to gain knowledge on recovered ACLR as a biomechanical risk factor. Eight subjects with a history of unilateral ACLR 5.4 ± 2.8 years after surgery and eight healthy subjects ran 1 km on a treadmill and 1 km on a concrete track. The ground contact time and triaxial peak tibial accelerations were recorded using inertial measurement units. Interlimb differences within subjects were tested and compared between conditions. There were no significant differences between limbs in the ACLR subjects or in healthy runners for any of the chosen parameters on both running surfaces. However, peak tibial accelerations were higher during field running (p-values < 0.01; Cohen's d effect sizes > 0.8), independent of health status. To minimize limb loading due to higher impacts during field running, this should be considered when choosing a running surface, especially in rehabilitation or when running with a minor injury or health issues.

A physiological comparison of the new-over 70 years of age-marathon record holder and his predecessor: A case report

Purpose: This study assessed the body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, fiber type and mitochondrial function, and training characteristics of a 71-year-old runner who broke the world record marathon of the men's 70-74 age category and held several other world records. The values were compared to those of the previous world-record holder. Methods: Body fat percentage was assessed using air-displacement plethysmography. V ˙ O 2 max , running economy, and maximum heart rate were measured during treadmill running. Muscle fiber typology and mitochondrial function were evaluated using a muscle biopsy. Results: Body fat percentage was 13.5%, V ˙ O 2 max was 46.6 ml kg^-1 min^-1, and maximum heartrate was 160 beats∙min^-1. At the marathon pace (14.5 km h^-1), his running economy was 170.5 ml kg^-1 km^-1. The gas exchange threshold and respiratory compensation point occurred at 75.7% and 93.9% of the V ˙ O 2 max , i.e., 13 km h^-1 and 15 km h^-1, respectively. The oxygen uptake at the marathon pace corresponded to 88.5% of V ˙ O 2 max . Vastus lateralis fiber content was 90.3% type I and 9.7% type II. Average distance was 139 km∙w^-1 in the year prior to the record. Conclusion: The 71-year-old world-record holder marathon showed a relatively similar V ˙ O 2 max , lower percentage of V ˙ O 2 max at marathon pace, but a substantially better running economy than his predecessor. The better running economy may result from an almost double weekly training volume compared to the predecessor and a high type I fiber content. He trained every day in the last ∼1.5 years and achieved international performance in his age group category with a small (<5% per decade) age-related decline in marathon performance.

Are impact accelerations during treadmill running representative of those produced overground?

BACKGROUND

Although many runners train overground, measuring impact accelerations on a treadmill may be advantageous for researchers and clinicians. Previous investigations of peak and rate of acceleration (peak_accel, rate_accel) during treadmill running compared to overground running have not examined both the relative consistency and absolute agreement of these measures, or the effect of treadmill stiffness.

RESEARCH QUESTION

(1) Are peak_accel and rate_accel produced during running on a stiff and less stiff treadmill 'representative' of those produced during overground running? (2) Are peak_accel and rate_accel measured on treadmills of different stiffness 'representative' of each other?

METHODS

Eighteen participants ran at a self-selected pace on three surfaces: Treadmill 1 (reduced stiffness), Treadmill 2 (increased stiffness) and overground on asphalt, whilst peak_accel and rate_accel were recorded at the shank and lower back. Relative consistency (ICC (3,1)), absolute agreement (Bland-Altman analysis) and systematic differences (ANOVA/Friedman's Tests) were assessed.

RESULTS

ICCs revealed moderate to excellent relative consistency in peak_accel and rate_accel between surfaces, with higher consistency for measures at the lower back. Absolute agreement was low, with the Bland Altman limits of agreement exceeding the clinical acceptable range for all comparisons. For systematic differences in means, peak_accel and rate_accel at the shank were significantly higher overground than on either treadmill; with no difference evident at the lower back. No differences were found for surface with respect to shank or lower back peak_accel and rate_accel between treadmills.

SIGNIFICANCE

Moderate to excellent relative consistency of peak_accel and rate_accel between the surfaces suggests that using different surfaces in research involving rank ordering of participants by acceleration magnitude may be acceptable (e.g. prospective studies examining if impact accelerations are related to injury). However, low absolute agreement indicates that data collected on treadmills of different stiffness and overground should not be used interchangeably (e.g. running-retraining studies).

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

PURPOSE

We compared running economy (RE) and 3-km time-trial (TT) variables of runners wearing Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP4), Saucony Endorphin lightweight racing flats (FLAT), and their habitual running (OWN) footwear.

METHODS

Eighteen male recreational runners (age = 33.5 ± 11.9 year (mean ± SD), peak oxygen uptake (VO_2peak) = 55.8 ± 4.4 mL/kg·min) attended 4 sessions approximately 7 days apart. The first session consisted of a VO_2peak test to inform subsequent RE speeds set at 60%, 70%, and 80% of the speed eliciting VO_2peak. In subsequent sessions, treadmill RE and 3-km TTs were assessed in the 3 footwear conditions in a randomized, counterbalanced crossover design.

RESULTS

Oxygen consumption (mL/kg·min) was less in VP4 (from 4.3% to 4.4%, p ≤ 0.002) and FLAT (from 2.7% to 3.4%, p ≤ 0.092) vs. OWN across intensities, with a non-significant difference between VP4 and FLAT (1.0%-1.7%, p ≥ 0.292). Findings related to energy cost (W/kg) and energetics cost of transport (J/kg·m) were comparable. VP4 3-km TT performance (11:07.6 ± 0:56.6 mm:ss) was enhanced vs. OWN by 16.6 s (2.4%, p = 0.005) and vs. FLAT by 13.0 s (1.8%, p = 0.032). The 3-km times between OWN and FLAT (0.5%, p = 0.747) were similar. Most runners (n = 11, 61%) ran their fastest TT in VP4.

CONCLUSION

Overall, VP4 improved laboratory-based RE measures in male recreational runners at relative speeds compared to OWN, but the RE improvements in VP4 were not significant vs. FLAT. More runners exhibited better treadmill TT performances in VP4 (61%) vs. FLAT (22%) and OWN (17%). The variability in RE (-10.3% to 13.3%) and TT (-4.7% to 9.3%) improvements suggests that responses to different types of shoes are individualized and warrant further investigation.

Surface EMG variability while running on grass, concrete and treadmill

This study aimed to investigate whether inter-trial variability in muscle activity (electromyography, EMG) during running is influenced by the number of acquired steps and running surface. Nine healthy participants ran at preferred speed on treadmill, concrete, and grass. Tibial acceleration and surface EMG from 12 lower limb muscles were recorded. The coefficient of variation (CV) from the average EMG and peak EMG were computed from 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 steps in each running surface. Data average stability was computed using sequential estimation technique (SET) from 100 steps. The CV for average and peak EMG was lower during treadmill running compared to running on grass (-11 ± 2.88%) or concrete (-9 ± 2.94%) (p < 0.05), without differences across the different number of steps. Moreover, the peak EMG CV from peroneus longus was lower on concrete (p < 0.05), whereas gluteus maximus presented greater variability on grass compared to concrete (p < 0.05). The SET analysis revealed that average stability is reached with up to 10 steps across all running conditions. Therefore, treadmill running induced greater variability compared to overground, without influence of the number of steps on EMG variability. Moreover, average stability for EMG recordings may be reached with up to 10 steps.

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

BACKGROUND

Treadmills are often used in research, clinical practice, and training. Biomechanical investigations comparing treadmill and overground running report inconsistent findings.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at comparing biomechanical outcomes between motorized treadmill and overground running.

METHODS

Four databases were searched until June 2019. Crossover design studies comparing lower limb biomechanics during non-inclined, non-cushioned, quasi-constant-velocity motorized treadmill running with overground running in healthy humans (18-65 years) and written in English were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible.

RESULTS

33 studies (n = 494 participants) were included. Most outcomes did not differ between running conditions. However, during treadmill running, sagittal foot-ground angle at footstrike (mean difference (MD) - 9.8° [95% confidence interval: - 13.1 to - 6.6]; low GRADE evidence), knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance (MD 6.3° [4.5 to 8.2]; low), vertical displacement center of mass/pelvis (MD - 1.5 cm [- 2.7 to - 0.8]; low), and peak propulsive force (MD - 0.04 body weights [- 0.06 to - 0.02]; very low) were lower, while contact time (MD 5.0 ms [0.5 to 9.5]; low), knee flexion at footstrike (MD - 2.3° [- 3.6 to - 1.1]; low), and ankle sagittal plane internal joint moment (MD - 0.4 Nm/kg [- 0.7 to - 0.2]; low) were longer/higher, when pooled across overground surfaces. Conflicting findings were reported for amplitude of muscle activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity, and muscle-tendon outcome measures are largely comparable between motorized treadmill and overground running. Considerations should, however, particularly be given to sagittal plane kinematic differences at footstrike when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running. Protocol registration CRD42018083906 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

Mechanical Properties of Treadmill Surfaces Compared to Other Overground Sport Surfaces

The mechanical properties of the surfaces used for exercising can affect sports performance and injury risk. However, the mechanical properties of treadmill surfaces remain largely unknown. The aim of this study was, therefore, to assess the shock absorption (SA), vertical deformation (VD) and energy restitution (ER) of different treadmill models and to compare them with those of other sport surfaces. A total of 77 treadmills, 30 artificial turf pitches and 30 athletics tracks were assessed using an advanced artificial athlete device. Differences in the mechanical properties between the surfaces and treadmill models were evaluated using a repeated-measures ANOVA. The treadmills were found to exhibit the highest SA of all the surfaces (64.2 ± 2; p < 0.01; effect size (ES) = 0.96), while their VD (7.6 ± 1.3; p < 0.01; ES = 0.87) and ER (45 ± 11; p < 0.01; ES = 0.51) were between the VDs of the artificial turf and track. The SA (p < 0.01; ES = 0.69), VD (p < 0.01; ES = 0.90) and ER (p < 0.01; ES = 0.89) were also shown to differ between treadmill models. The differences between the treadmills commonly used in fitness centers were much lower than differences between the treadmills and track surfaces, but they were sometimes larger than the differences with artificial turf. The treadmills used in clinical practice and research were shown to exhibit widely varying mechanical properties. The results of this study demonstrate that the mechanical properties (SA, VD and ER) of treadmill surfaces differ significantly from those of overground sport surfaces such as artificial turf and athletics track surfaces but also asphalt or concrete. These different mechanical properties of treadmills may affect treadmill running performance, injury risk and the generalizability of research performed on treadmills to overground locomotion.

A Proposed Method to Assess the Mechanical Properties of Treadmill Surfaces

The aim of this study was to define a reliable and sensitive test method for assessing Shock Absorption (SA), Vertical Deformation (VD), and Energy Restitution (ER) in treadmill surfaces. A total of 42 treadmills belonging to four different models were included in the study: (a) Technogym Jog700 Excite (n = 10), (b) Technogym Artis Run (n = 12), (c) LifeFitness Integrity Series 97T (n = 11), and (d) LifeFitness Integrity Series DX (n = 9). An advanced artificial athlete (AAA) device was used to assess SA, VD, and ER at three different locations along the longitudinal axis of each treadmill and in the support area of the athletes’ feet. For each location, our results show that the error assumed when performing one impact with the AAA instead of three (SA ≤ |0.1|%, VD ≤ |0.0| mm, and ER ≤ |0.2|%) is lower than the smallest changes that can be detected by the measuring device (SA = 0.4%, VD = 0.2 mm, and ER = 0.9%). Also, our results show the ability of the test method to detect meaningful differences between locations once the one-impact criterium is adopted, since absolute minimum differences between zones (SA: |0.6|%, VD: |0.3| mm, and ER: |1.2|%) were above the uncertainty of the measuring device. Therefore, performing a single impact with the AAA in each of the three locations described in this study can be considered a representative and reliable method for assessing SA, VD, and ER in treadmill surfaces.