4.5 Article

Effect of overground vs treadmill running on plantar pressure: Influence of fatigue

期刊

GAIT & POSTURE
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 929-933

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.04.026

关键词

Treadmill; Running; Fatigue; Plantar pressure; Research methodology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The differences produced when running on a treadmill vs overground may call into question the use and validity of the treadmill as a piece of equipment commonly used in research, training, and rehabilitation. The aim of the present study was to analyze under pre/post fatigue conditions the effect of treadmill vs overground on plantar pressures. Twenty-seven recreational runners (17 men and 10 women) ran on a treadmill and overground at two speeds: S-1 = 3.33 m/s and S-2 = 4.00 m/s, before and after a fatigue protocol consisting of a 30-min run at 85% of their individual maximal aerobic speed (MAS). Contact time (CT in seconds), peak pressure (PP in kPa), and relative load (RL in %) were analyzed under nine foot zones of the left foot using an in-shoe plantar pressure device. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed that running on a treadmill increases CT (7.70% S-1 and 9.91% S-2), modifies the pressure distribution and reduces PP (25.98% S-1 and 31.76% S-2), especially under the heel, medial metatarsals, and hallux, compared to running overground. Moreover, on both surfaces, fatigue (S-2) led to a reduced stride frequency (2.78%) and reduced PP on the lateral heel and hallux (15.96% and 16.35%, respectively), and (S-1) increased relative load on the medial arch (9.53%). There was no significant interaction between the two factors analyzed (surface and fatigue). Therefore, the aforementioned surface effect, which occurs independently of the fatigue state, should be taken into account when interpreting the results of studies that use the treadmill in their experimental protocols, and when prescribing physical exercise on a treadmill. (c) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据