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 [Formula: see text] 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 [Formula: see text] 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
Bruseghini, Paolo
;Tam, Enrico;Monte, Andrea;Capelli, Carlo;Zamparo, Paola
2019-01-01
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 [Formula: see text] 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 [Formula: see text] 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).I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.