DIFFERENCES IN DISTANCE COVERED BETWEEN TREADMILL AND OUTDOOR TRACK RUNNING AND WALKING.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to establish the differences in distance covered between treadmill and outdoor track walking and running in 30 participants (18 Male, 12 Females, aged 30.3 ± 9.9 years, weight 68 ± 16.33 kg and height 166.5 ±8.64 cm) which were divided into two groups (walking and running). Every subject was apparently healthy and filled up a PAR-Q and consent form. Each participant performed their walk or run both on treadmill and Outdoor track. A treadmill, distance measuring device and data analysis were used in this study. Data was collected and compared between the two modes of running and walking. Results shows there are significant difference (p>.05) between treadmill and outdoor track running. Walking on the treadmill has a mean distance covered of 923±32 meters per km walk and average difference of 77 meters per km walk, running on the treadmill have a mean distance covered of 987±22 meters per km run and average difference of 12 meters per km run.



INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Treadmills are widely used in sports institutes, health & fitness facilities and even in homes as a way to replicate running outdoors. Treadmill running is a convenient and effective method of training when outdoor weather is in appropriate to train in (e.g. too hot or cold, raining, snowing). This machine is also used for health & fitness evaluation (e.g. VO2 max, stress test) as speed and gradient ran by the subject can be controlled and maintained.
However, for an elite athlete, it is important to maximize training intensities and volume per training session in order to optimize performance gains. Effectiveness of treadmill running is questionable relative to outdoor running. Intensities may differ widely within these two modes of running at a given speed, gradient and duration. Elemental factors such as wind resistance, running surface (e.g. sandy), temperature and humidity may also play a significant role in the variance of intensities between treadmill and outdoor running. A study by (Pugh, L., 1970) showed that wind resistance influences energy cost when running. He estimated that wind resistance increases energy cost during running by 8% at 21.5 km/h (5km race pace) and 16% at 36km/h (100 meters in 10 seconds).
Thus the age old question of whether treadmill running fully replicates outdoor running in terms of intensity and distance covered remains. While it has been established that there is a difference in the former, with research being done between treadmill and outdoor running in relation to VO2Max by Meyer et al., (2003) and RPE (rate of perceived exertion) by Ceci et al., (1991) where the results show significantly different levels of RPE, heart rate (HR), blood lactate, and velocity. However, up to date there were no literature found on the latter.

1.2 Objective

The purpose of the paper is to clarify 1) difference in distance between treadmill and outdoor running is present and 2) study the difference in recorded distances between low and high speeds of treadmill running. This is from biomechanical understanding of running gait, focusing on the double swing phase during running. As the swing phase of running is approximately 70% of the whole gait cycle, it is reasonable to assume that the treadmill belt may be moving faster than that of the runner. To confirm this both walking and running on treadmill procedures are done as approximately 60% is spent on the stance phase during walking. Results will then be discussed and recommendations are made for people and athletes who utilize treadmills as a training tool.

1.3 Hypothesis

The hypothesis for this study is 1) There is a difference in distance between treadmill and outdoor track running and 2) The difference in distance is smaller at treadmill speed of 5km/h which is walking compared to 11km/h which is running.

1.4 Operational Definitions

A portable measuring device (RS400SD, Polar Finland) is used to measure distance ran both on the track and treadmill. The reliability and validity is reported to be 0.97-0.99 (Polar)


LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature Review

There have been numerous studies done between the differences of treadmill and track activities whether it is sprinting, running, jogging or walking. There have also been research done in specific areas of treadmill and track running which includes biomechanical (stride length, stride frequency and shock attenuation) and to biochemical factors (energy expenditure, blood lactate and Vo2max). (Hall et al., 2004) studied the differences between energy expenditure of walking vs. running 1600m by using 12 male and 12 female subjects while walking (4.8 km/hr) and running (9.6 km/hr) 1600m on the treadmill and subgroup of 7 males and 10 females also performed the 1600m run/walk on the track where calorimetry was measured on all subjects. Their findings showed that running utilized significantly more energy for 1600m than walking in both genders (treadmill: running 481 ± 20, walking 340 ± 19 kJ; track: running 480 ± 23, walking 430 ± 14 kJ, P<0.01), r =" 0.99)"> 0.99). They concluded that at 1% grade for 15 and 16.5 km/h, the VO2 during road running was not significantly different from that at 1% or 2% grade but was significantly greater than 0% grade and significantly less than 3% grade. At 18km/h, the VO2 for road running fell between the VO2 value for 1% and 2% grade treadmill running but was not significantly different from any of the treadmill grade conditions. Thus equality of the energetic cost of treadmill and outdoor running with the use of a 1% treadmill grade over duration of 5 min at velocities between 10.5 and 18 km/h most closely reflects the outdoor running.
One study (Crouter et al., 2001) compared physiological responses using a open-circuit spirometer during incremental treadmill exercise and free range running where the result showed that the observed peak values for blood lactate (14.4 6 3.3 vs. 11.7 6 3.0 mmol•L-1) were significantly (P, 0.05) different. It was concluded that there is a fundamental lack of free range exercise effect or whether it is related to mode specificity still needs to be determined. The authors also suggested that higher VO2 values may be achieved by free range/outdoor running.
Apart from this, when concerning treadmill test, study from Bundle et. al, (2003) regarding high speed running performance, provides a new approach to assessment and prediction. These authors recruited seven competitive runners of different event specialties and tested them on treadmill rung and on ground level surfaces where the maximum speed supported by anaerobic power was determined from the fastest speed that subjects could attain for a burst of eight steps and the maximum speed supported by aerobic power, velocity at maximal oxygen uptake. This was determined from a progressive, discontinuous treadmill test to failure. Results showed that measured values of the maximum speeds supported by anaerobic and aerobic power, in conjunction with an exponential constant, enable to predict the speeds of all-out treadmill trials to within an average of 2.5% and track trials to within 3.4%. An algorithm using this exponent and only two of the all-out treadmill runs to predict the remaining treadmill trials was nearly as accurate (average 3.7%). It is concluded that both techniques provide accurate predictions of high-speed running performance in trained runners and offers a performance assessment alternative to existing tests of anaerobic power and capacity (e.g. Wingate test).
Findings by Nummela et. al, (2005) on developing a track version of the maximal anaerobic running test (usually done on treadmills) by determining the blood lactate versus running velocity curve for both the treadmill and track protocols where maximal running velocity (Vmax) where the velocities associated with blood lactate concentrations and the peak blood lactate concentrations were determined. The result showed that the maximal running velocity was significantly higher on the track (27 ±2.8 km/h) than on the treadmill (25.6 ± 2.7 km/h), and sprint runners had significantly higher Vmax and peak blood lactate concentrations than distance runners.

In sprint runners, the velocity of the seasonal best 400-m run correlated positively with Vmax in the treadmill and track protocols. In distance runners, a positive correlation was observed between the velocity of the 1000-m time-trial and Vmax in the treadmill and track protocols. It is concluded that the track version of the maximal anaerobic running test is a valid means of measuring different determinants of sprint running performance.

In conclusion, many studies have been conducted but there is a lack of data. Hence, in order further to maximize running performance (Kubukeli et al., 2002; Laursen et al., 2002; Riley et al., 2008) on the treadmill and to fully replicate outdoor running, coaches and athletes must be able to maximize training intensities and volume performed per training session. Along with other factors such as running economy and biomechanics of gait (White et al., 1998; Mercer et al., 2003) being maximized and utilized fully in order to gain physiological adaptation and benefits due to optimize training session thus increase in performance in treadmill running.


METHODOLOGY

3.1 Methodology

Participants were instructed to perform two modes of running/walking on a treadmill and over ground (track). A distance and speed tracking device (Polar RS400SD, Polar Finland) was utilized on both protocols to establish distance. This validity and reliability of this device is reported to be 0.97 to 0.99 (Polar) . Distances was recorded and compared between actual (track and treadmill) and device.

3.2 Subjects

30 subjects from a health and fitness facility (18 male and 12 female, age 30.3 ± 9.9 years, height 166.5 ±8.64 cm and weight 68 ± 16.33 kg) volunteered to participate in this study. They were individuals who have experience running both outdoors and on a treadmill. These individuals are perceived to be appropriate in order to save time (do not require familiarization to treadmill running). The participants were all apparently healthy individuals and have completed a PAR-Q and consent form to terminate any health risks that this testing may pose.

3.3 Apparatus

A Polar running computer was used in this study as a distance tracking device (Polar RS400SD). Participants were allowed to wear their regular exercise gear with the exception of compulsory running shoes. The treadmill by TechnoGym (RUN 700) was utilized for the treadmill run test. The treadmills used were calibrated by the gym facility technician. A personal computer (PC) was also used to run the Software (Polar Pro-Trainer) provided along with the running computer to obtain the most accurate distance as it provides the distance by 3 decimal points (e.g. 4.xxx KM). A PAR-Q (pre exercise questionnaire) and a consent form was also utilized.

3.4 Procedure

The device is first calibrated on a 400m rubberized track with a 1200m (3 laps) run as the minimum recommended calibration distance is 1000m. The group of 30 participants were divided into two for the walking (5.0 km/h) and running (11.0 km/h) procedures (outdoor and treadmill). As for the walk/runs by this experiment’s participants, they were instructed to run 1100m on the treadmill procedure and track procedure. Data recorded was for 1KM after the first 100m to initiate the device. Participants were ordered to make a complete stop at the end of each 1000m run as to ensure no further distance recording took place before ending the trial run recording on the RS400. The actual distance walked and ran outdoors and on the treadmill is then recorded with the running computer. A comparison between actual distance on the track and distance recorded is compared. The same is done on the treadmill procedure with the distance shown as the ‘actual’ distance on the console. Data is then interpreted with the T-Test to identify significance of the result.


RESULTS


4.1 Descriptive statistics

30 subjects (18 males and 12 females) participated in this study where the mean age 30.3 ± 9.9 years, height 166.5 ±8.64 cm, and weight 68 ± 16.33 kg.
4.2 Results comparison between distances covered in Treadmill and Track groups.
Results shows the distance of combination of both Treadmill and Track groups (Table 4.2.1) shows that per km run/walk, the average distance covered on the treadmill is 955±43 meters in distance covered per 1000 meters (1km). Conversely, the track groups show exact amount of distance covered which is 1km. Shortest distance covered per km is by treadmill group is 854 meters and the highest distance covered per km run/walk is 1025 meters which has a range of 171.

Results of the independent sample T-test shows that there is a significant difference in distance covered between treadmill and outdoor track (t= 5.74, df=58, p<0.05). t=" 2.19," df=" 28," p="0.037)" t="9.224," df="28," t=" 5.74," df =" 58,">


DISCUSSION


5.1 Discussion

In this present study, the question can be answered whether there is difference in distance between treadmill and outdoor running and the difference in distances between low and high speeds of treadmill running are possible. By using the portable measuring device (RS400SD, Polar Finland) to measure distance ran both on the track and treadmill were (r = .99) of the device is reported (Polar International) using 30 subjects (15 subjects in running group and 15 subjects in walking group) for both treadmill and outdoor track distance measurement for 1km. Based on the results obtained, the mean difference in distance between treadmill and outdoor track is for per km run/walk is 45±43 meters (p<.05). Thus for practical implication, a trained athlete would exercise on the treadmill might consider to increase the distance run/walk on the treadmill by 45±43meters per km. This is because the difference is significant enough to effect performance (Gormley et.al 2008), (Kubukeli et. al, 2002), (Laursen et. al, 2002), (Mujika et. al 2000) as which is important to maximize training intensities and volume per training session in order to optimize performance increase in which relates to one of the aspect which is the distance ran. For an example, if an athlete would run for 10km on the treadmill then the difference would be greater as such (45±43meters per km x 10km) would be an astounding 450±430 meters in difference. Nevertheless due to lack of evidence, other factors are involved in reason to the difference in distance covered such as stride length which is based on limb length and stride frequency which is based on cadence (Hunter et.al 2002), (Mercer et. al, 2003), ( Esteve et.al 2008). This can be seen based on the results obtained where running and walking on the treadmill at different speeds of 11km/h and 5km/h respectively have a significant difference of 65 meters (p<0.05) t=" 5.740," df="58,">

REFERENCES


Bundle, M., Hoyt, R., & Weyand, P. (2003). High-speed running performance: a new approach to assessment and prediction Journal of Applied Physiology, 95, 1955-1962.

Ceci, R., & Hassmen, P. (1991). Self-monitored exercise at three different RPE intensities in treadmill vs field running. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 23(6), 732-738.

Crouter, S., Esten, P., & Brice, G. (2001). Comparison of incremental treadmill exercise and free range running. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(4), 644-647.

Hall, C., Figueroa-Galvez, A., & Kanaley, J. A. (2004). The energy expenditure of walking and running on a treadmill and track: Comparison to prediction equations. American College of Sports Medicine, 36(5).

Jones, A. M. (1996). A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects energetic cost of outdoor running. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14(4), 321-327.

Kubukeli, Z. N., Noakes, T. D., & Dennis, S. C. (2002). Training Techniques to Improve
Endurance Exercise Performances. Sports Med, 32(8), 489-509.

Laursen, P. B., & Jenkins, D. G. (2002). The Scientific Basis for High-Intensity Interval Training: Optimising Training Programmes and Maximising Performance in Highly Trained Endurance Athletes. Sports Med, 32(1), 53-73.

Mercer, J. A., Devita, P., Derrick, T. R., & Bates, B. T. (2003). Individual Effects of Stride Length and Frequency on Shock Attenuation during Running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 35(2), 307–313.

Meyer, T., & Welter, J. (2003). Maximal oxygen upake during feild running does not exceed that measured during treadmill exercise European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88, 387-389.

Nummela, A., Hamalainen, I., & Rusko, H. (2005). Comparison of maximal anaerobic running tests on treadmill and track. Journal of Sport Sciences, 25(1), 87-96.

Polar. S1 foot pod™ Product support: Polar International

Pugh, L. (1970). Oxygen intake in track & treadmill running with observation on the effect of air resistance. Journal of Physiology, 207(3), 823-835.

Riley, P. O., Dicharry, J., Franz, J., Croce, U. D., Wilder, R. P., & Kerrigan, D. C. (2008). A Kinematics and Kinetic Comparison of Overground and Treadmill Running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 40(6), 1093–1100.

White, S. C., Yack, H. J., Tucker, A, C., & Lin, H.-Y. (1998). Comparison of vertical ground reaction forces during overground and treadmill walking. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 30(10), 1537-1542.

0 comments:

Post a Comment