These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The validity of endurance running performance on the Curve 3(TM) non-motorised treadmill.
    Author: Stevens CJ, Hacene J, Wellham B, Sculley DV, Callister R, Taylor L, Dascombe BJ.
    Journal: J Sports Sci; 2015; 33(11):1141-8. PubMed ID: 25490348.
    Abstract:
    This study aimed to test the validity of a non-motorised treadmill (NMT) for the measurement of self-paced overground endurance running performance. Ten male runners performed randomised 5-km running time trials on a NMT and an outdoor athletics track. A range of physiological and perceptual responses was measured, and foot strike was classified subjectively. Performance time was strongly correlated (r = 0.82, ICC = 0.86) between running modes, despite running time being significantly longer on the NMT (1264 ± 124 s vs. 1536 ± 130 s for overground and NMT, respectively; P < 0.001). End blood lactate concentration and rating of perceived exertion were significantly higher on the NMT compared to overground. Integrated electromyography was significantly lower on the NMT for three muscles (P < 0.05), and mean stride rate was also significantly lower on the NMT (P = 0.04). Cardiorespiratory responses of heart rate, oxygen uptake and expired air volume demonstrated strong correlations (r = 0.68-0.96, ICC = 0.75-0.97) and no statistical differences (P > 0.05). Runners were consistently slower on the NMT, and as such it should not be used to measure performance over a specific distance. However, the strong correlations suggest that superior overground performance was reflected in relative terms on the NMT, and therefore, it is a valid tool for the assessment of endurance running performance in the laboratory.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]