Metabolic and kinematic responses while walking and running on a motorised and a curved non-motorised treadmill

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 $(\dot{V}{O}_2)$ were observed at this speed. The energy cost of walking (C_w) and running (C_r) 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 $\dot{V}{O}_2$ 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).

KEYWORDS:

• Curved non-motorised treadmill
• energy cost of running
• energy cost of walking
• kinematics
• belt friction

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Joint Project Program 2015, University of Verona, Italy. The authors would like to acknowledge Marco Gorini (Veneto Innovazione SpA, Mestre, Italy) and Alessandro Cozzani (TRiROOM Innovation AB, Malmo, Sweden) for their support and Filippo Zerbinato for his help in data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.