Vol 7 No 4 (2018): Volume 7, Issue 4, Year 2018
Invited Article

A Comparison of Physiological Demand between Self-Propelled and Motorized Treadmill Exercise

Todd Backes
Exercise Science Program Coordinator, Department of Biology, State University of New York at Fredonia.
Charlene Takacs
Department of Biology, State University of New York at Fredonia
Published December 17, 2018
Keywords
  • Treadmills,
  • Metabolic,
  • Motorized Treadmills
How to Cite
Backes, T., & Takacs, C. (2018). A Comparison of Physiological Demand between Self-Propelled and Motorized Treadmill Exercise. International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports, 7(4), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.26524/ijpefs1842

Plum Analytics

Abstract

There are a wide range of options for individuals to choose from in order to engage in aerobic exercise; from outdoor running to computer controlled and self-propelled treadmills. Recently, self-propelled treadmills have increased in popularity and provide an alternative to a motorized treadmill. Twenty subjects (10 men, 10 women) ranging in age from 19-23 with a mean of 20.4 ± 0.8 SD were participants in this study. The subjects visited the laboratory on three occasions. The purpose of the first visit was to familiarize the subject with the self-propelled treadmill (Woodway Curve 3.0). The second visit, subjects were instructed to run on the self-propelled treadmill for 3km at a self-determined pace. Speed data were collected directly from the self-propelled treadmill. The third visit used speed data collected during the self-propelled treadmill run to create an identically paced 3km run for the subjects to perform on a motorized treadmill (COSMED T150). During both the second and third visit, oxygen consumption (VO2) and respiratory exchange ratio (R) data were collected with COSMED’s Quark cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) metabolic mixing chamber system. The VO2 mean value for the self-propelled treadmill (44.90 ± 1.65 SE ml/kg/min) was significantly greater than the motorized treadmill (34.38 ± 1.39 SE ml/kg/min). The mean R value for the self-propelled treadmill (0.91 ± 0.01 SE) was significantly greater than the motorized treadmill (0.86 ± 0.01 SE). Our study demonstrated that a 3km run on a self-propelled treadmill does elicit a greater physiological response than a 3km run at on a standard motorized treadmill. Self-propelled treadmills provide a mode of exercise that offers increased training loads and should be considered as an alternative to motorized treadmills.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. S. Seiler, What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes?, International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 5 (2010) 276-291.
  2. A.C. Sirotic, A. J. Coutts, The reliability of physiological and performance measures during simulated team-sport running on a non-motorized treadmill, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11 (2007) 500-509.
  3. R. Ceci, P. Hassmén, Self-monitored exercise at three different RPE intensities in treadmill vs field running, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23 (1991) 732-738.
  4. K.H. Cooper, A means of assessing maximal oxygen intake: correlation between field and treadmill testing, JAMA, 203 (1968) 201-204.
  5. D.B. Dill, Oxygen used in horizontal and grade walking and running on the treadmill, Journal of Applied Physiology, 20 (1965)19-22.
  6. R.D. Hagan, T. Strathman, L. Strathman, and L.R. Gettman, Oxygen uptake and energy expenditure during horizontal treadmill running, Journal of Applied Physiology: Respiratory, Environmental and Exercise, 49 (1980) 571-575.
  7. D.R. Bassett Jr, M.D. Giese, F.J. Nagle, A. Ward, D.M. Raab, and B. Balke, Aerobic requirements of over ground versus treadmill running, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 17 (1985) 477-481.
  8. D.F. McMiken, J.T. Daniels, Aerobic requirements and maximum aerobic power in treadmill and track running, Medicine and Science in Sports, 8 (1976)14-17.
  9. L.G. Pugh, Oxygen intake in track and treadmill running with observations on the effect of air resistance, The Journal of Physiology, 207 (1970) 823-835.
  10. A.M. Jones, J.H. Doust, A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the energetic cost of outdoor running, Journal of Sports Sciences, 14 (1996) 321-327.
  11. S.C. Swanson, G.E. Caldwell, An integrated biomechanical analysis of high speed incline and level treadmill running, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32 (2000) 1146-1155.
  12. A.C. Snyder, C. Myatt, N. Weiland, J. Bednarek, Energy Expenditure While Walking on a Non-Motorized Treadmill, The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25 (2011) P S108-S109.
  13. J.M. Smoliga, , E.J. Hegedus, K.R. Ford, Increased physiologic intensity during walking and running on a non-motorized curved treadmill, Physical therapy in Sport, 16 (2015) 262-267.
  14. C.J. Stevens, J. Hacene, B. Wellham, D.V. Sculley, R. Callister, L. Taylor, B.J. Dascombe, The validity of endurance running performance on the Curve 3TM non-motorised treadmill, Journal of Sports Sciences, 33 (2015) 1141-1148.
  15. Lippincott Williams, Wilkins, ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, American College of Sports Medicine, 2010, Philadelphia.
  16. R.B. Edwards, P.J. Tofari, S.J. Cormack, and D.G. Whyte, Non-motorized Treadmill Running Is Associated with Higher Cardio metabolic Demands Compared with Overground and Motorized Treadmill Running, Frontiers in Physiology, 8 (2017) 914.
  17. H. Carter, A.M. Jones, T.J. Barstow, M. Burnley, C.A. Williams, J.H. Doust, Oxygen uptake kinetics in treadmill running and cycle ergometry: a comparison, Journal of Applied Physiology, 89 (2000) 899-907.
  18. H. Carter, J.S. Pringle, A.M. Jones, J.H. Doust, Oxygen uptake kinetics during treadmill running across exercise intensity domains, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 86 (2002) 347-354.
  19. J. Helgerud, L.C. Engen, U. Wisløff, J. Hoff, Aerobic endurance training improves soccer performance, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33 (2001) 1925-1931.
  20. R.J. Shephard, C. Allen, A.J.S. Benade, C.T. Davies, P.E. Di Prampero, R. Hedman, J.E. Merriman, K. Myhre, R. Simmons, The maximum oxygen intake: An international reference standard of cardio-respiratory fitness, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 38 (1968) 757-764.
  21. R.L. Hughson, M.E Tschakovsky, M.E. Houston, Regulation of oxygen consumption at the onset of exercise, Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 29(3) (2001) 129-133.
  22. J.S. Pringle, H. Carter, J.H. Doust, A.M. Jones, Oxygen uptake kinetics during horizontal and uphill treadmill running in humans, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88 (2002) 163-169.
  23. K. Yamaji, M. Greenley, D.R. Northey, R.L. Hughson, Oxygen uptake and heart rate responses to treadmill and water running, Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences,15 (1990) 96-98.
  24. H.L. Taylor, E. Buskirk, A. Henschel, Maximal oxygen intake as an objective measure of cardio-respiratory performance, Journal of Applied Physiology, 8 (1955) 73-80.
  25. J.H. Goedecke, A.S.C. Gibson, L. Grobler, M. Collins, T.D. Noakes, E.V. Lambert, Determinants of the variability in respiratory exchange ratio at rest and during exercise in trained athletes, American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, 279 (2000) E1325-E1334.
  26. B.C. Bergman, G.A. Brooks, Respiratory gas-exchange ratios during graded exercise in fed and fasted trained and untrained men, Journal of Applied Physiology, 86 (1999) 479-487.
  27. P.J. Tofari, B.D. McLean, J. Kemp, S. Cormack, A self-paced intermittent protocol on a non-motorised treadmill: A reliable alternative to assessing team-sport running performance, Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 14 (2015) 62-68.