Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 763–782 | Cite as

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Crossover Studies Comparing Physiological, Perceptual and Performance Measures Between Treadmill and Overground Running

  • Jayme R. Miller
  • Bas Van Hooren
  • Chris Bishop
  • Jonathan D. Buckley
  • Richard W. Willy
  • Joel T. FullerEmail author
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Treadmills are routinely used to assess running performance and training parameters related to physiological or perceived effort. These measurements are presumed to replicate overground running but there has been no systematic review comparing performance, physiology and perceived effort between treadmill and overground running.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review was to compare physiological, perceptual and performance measures between treadmill and overground running in healthy adults.

Methods

AMED (Allied and Contemporary Medicine), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until May 2018. Included studies used a crossover study design to compare physiological (oxygen uptake [\(\dot{V}\)O2], heart rate [HR], blood lactate concentration [La]), perceptual (rating of perceived exertion [RPE] and preferred speed) or running endurance and sprint performance (i.e. time trial duration or sprint speed) outcomes between treadmill (motorised or non-motorised) and overground running. Physiological outcomes were considered across submaximal, near-maximal and maximal running intensity subgroups. Meta-analyses were used to determine mean difference (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) ± 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Thirty-four studies were included. Twelve studies used a 1% grade for the treadmill condition and three used grades > 1%. Similar \(\dot{V}\)O2 but lower La occurred during submaximal motorised treadmill running at 0% (\(\dot{V}\)O2 MD: – 0.55 ± 0.93 mL/kg/min; La MD: − 1.26 ± 0.71 mmol/L) and 1% (\(\dot{V}\)O2 MD: 0.37 ± 1.12 mL/kg/min; La MD: − 0.52 ± 0.50 mmol/L) grade than during overground running. HR and RPE during motorised treadmill running were higher at faster submaximal speeds and lower at slower submaximal speeds than during overground running. \(\dot{V}\)O2 (MD: − 1.25 ± 2.09 mL/kg/min) and La (MD: − 0.54 ± 0.63 mmol/L) tended to be lower, but HR (MD: 0 ± 1 bpm), and RPE (MD: – 0.4 ± 2.0 units [6–20 scale]) were similar during near-maximal motorised treadmill running to during overground running. Maximal motorised treadmill running caused similar \(\dot{V}\)O2 (MD: 0.78 ± 1.55 mL/kg/min) and HR (MD: − 1 ± 2 bpm) to overground running. Endurance performance was poorer (SMD: − 0.50 ± 0.36) on a motorised treadmill than overground but sprint performance varied considerably and was not significantly different (MD: − 1.4 ± 5.8 km/h).

Conclusions

Some, but not all, variables differ between treadmill and overground running, and may be dependent on the running speed at which they are assessed.

Protocol registration

CRD42017074640 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

Bas Van Hooren was funded by the Kootstra Talent Fellowship awarded by the Centre for Research Innovation, Support and Policy (CRISP) of Maastricht University Medical Center+. This research received no other specific grant from any funding agency.

Conflict of Interest

Joel T. Fuller and Jonathan D. Buckley have been authors on some research projects that have evaluated the effects of different running shoes on running performance, biomechanics and physiology; those projects involved the use of running shoes that were donated by the shoe industry, either from running shoe retail stores or ASICS Oceania. Chris Bishop has received funding from both ASICS Oceania and Brittain Wynyard for professional services related to footwear. No companies played any role in the design, conduct or interpretation of the present research. Jayme R. Miller, Bas Van Hooren and Richard W. Willy declare no conflicts of interest.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the review and completion of the search strategy. Joel T. Fuller was responsible for the meta-analysis and meta-regression. Jayme R. Miller drafted the manuscript. All authors edited and revised the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current systematic review are available in Appendix S2 of the Electronic Supplementary Material.

Supplementary material

40279_2019_1087_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (446 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 446 kb)
40279_2019_1087_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 27 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cappa DF, García GC, Secchi JD, Maddigan ME. The relationship between an athlete’s maximal aerobic speed determined in a laboratory and their final speed reached during a field test. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2014;54(4):424–31.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones AM, Doust JH. A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the energetic cost of outdoor running. J Sports Sci. 1996;14(4):321–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bishop C, Hillier S, Thewlis D. The reliability of the Adelaide in-shoe foot model. Gait Posture. 2017;56:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sirotic A, Coutts AJ. The reliability of physiological and performance measures during simulated team-sport running on a non-motorised treadmill. J Sci Med Sport. 2008;11(5):500–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards RB, Tofari PJ, Cormack SJ, Whyte DG. Non-motorized treadmill running is associated with higher cardiometabolic demands compared with overground and motorized treadmill running. Front Physiol. 2017;8:914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morin JB, Sève P. Sprint running performance: comparison between treadmill and field conditions. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(8):1695–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pugh LG. Oxygen intake in track and treadmill running with observations on the effect of air resistance. J Physiol. 1970;207(3):823–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maksud MG, Coutts KD, Hamilton LH. Time course of heart rate, ventilation, and \(\dot{V}\)O2 during laboratory and field exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1971;30(4):536–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McMiken DF, Daniels JT. Aerobic requirements and maximum aerobic power in treadmill and track running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1976;8(1):14–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McMurray RG, Berry MJ, Vann RT, Hardy CJ, Sheps DS. The effect of running in an outdoor environment on plasma beta endorphins. Ann Sports Med. 1988;3(4):230–3.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yngve A, Nilsson A, Sjöström M, Ekelund U. Effect of monitor placement and of activity setting on the MTI accelerometer output. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(2):320–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mooses M, Tippi B, Mooses K, Durussel J, Mäestu J. Better economy in field running than on the treadmill: evidence from high-level distance runners. Biol Sport. 2015;32(2):155–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanson NJ, Berg K, Meendering JR, Ryan C. Oxygen cost of running barefoot vs. running shod. Int J Sports Med. 2011;32(6):401–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wee VM, Heimburg E, Tillaar R. Comparison of perceptual and physiological variables of running on a track, motorized treadmill, and non-motorized curved treadmill at increasing velocity. Acta Kinesiol Univ Tartu. 2016;22:20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turner TL, Stevinson C. Affective outcomes during and after high-intensity exercise in outdoor green and indoor gym settings. Int J Environ Health Res. 2017;27(2):106–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peserico SC, Machado AF. Comparison between running performance in time trials on track and treadmill. Braz J Kineanthrop Hum Perform. 2014;16(4):456–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aubry RI, Power GA, Burr JF. An assessment of running power as a training metric for elite and recreational runners. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(8):2258–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heck H, Mader A, Hess G, Mucke S, Muller R, Hoflmann W. Justification of the 4-mmol/l lactate threshold. Int J Sports Med. 1985;6:117–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frishberg BA. An analysis of overground and treadmill sprinting. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1983;15(6):478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ramsbottom R, Williams C, Kerwin DG, Nute ML. Physiological and metabolic responses of men and women to a 5-km treadmill time trial. J Sports Sci. 1992;10(2):119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ceci R, Hassmén P. Self-monitored exercise at three different RPE intensities in treadmill vs field running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991;23(6):732–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fuller JT, Bellenger CR, Thewlis D, Tsiros MD, Buckley JD. The effect of footwear on running performance and running economy in distance runners. Sports Med. 2015;45(3):411–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JP, et al. Meta-analysis involving cross-over trials: methodological issues. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):140–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hopkins WG. A new view of statistics. http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/. Accessed 7 Sept 2018.
  27. 27.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stevens CJ, Hacene J, Wellham B, Sculley DV, Callister R, Taylor L, Dascombe BJ. The validity of endurance running performance on the curve 3TM non-motorised treadmill. J Sports Sci. 2015;33:1141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bassett DR Jr, Giese MD, Nagle FJ. Aerobic requirements of overground versus treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1985;17(4):477–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bidder OR, Goulding C, van Walsum TA, Siebert U, Halsey LG. Does the treadmill support valid energetics estimates of field locomotion? Integr Comp Biol. 2017;57(2):301–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bonen A, Gass GC, Kachadorian WA, Johnson RE. Energy cost of walking and running on different surfaces. Aust J Sci Med Sport. 1974;6(1):7.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bowtell MV, Tan HL, Wilson AM. The consistency of maximum running speed measurements in humans using a feedback-controlled treadmill, and a comparison with maximum attainable speed during overground locomotion. J Biomech. 2009;42(15):2569–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brookes FB, Knibbs AA, Pantlin CM, Wilson JK. An investigation into the biomechanical and physiological differences between road and treadmill running. Res Pap Phys Educ. 1971;2(2):28–35.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chu CY, Lu SY, Lin KF. Influences of exercise experience and exercise settings on heart rate responses during self-selected intensity exercises. J Exerc Sci Fit. 2010;8(2):73–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dal Monte A, Fucci S, Manoni A. The treadmill as a training and simulator instrument in middle and long distance running. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 1974;14(2):67–72.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Harte JL, Eifert GH. The effects of running, environment, and attentional focus on athletes catecholamine and cortisol-levels and mood. Psychophysiology. 1995;32(1):49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Heesch MW, Slivka DR. Running performance, pace strategy, and thermoregulation differ between a treadmill and indoor track. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(2):330–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    LaCaille RA, Masters KS, Heath EM. Effects of cognitive strategy and exercise setting on running performance, perceived exertion, affect, and satisfaction. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2004;5(4):461–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Meyer T, Welter JP, Scharhag J, Kindermann W. Maximal oxygen uptake during field running does not exceed that measured during treadmill exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003;88:387–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Olivier S, Scott PA. Physiological, perceptual and attitudinal responses to identically matched workloads in field and laboratory testing conditions. S Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Recreat. 1993;16(1):63–72.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Panascì M, Lepers R, La Torre A, Bonato M, Assadi H. Physiological responses during intermittent running exercise differ between outdoor and treadmill running. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2017;42(9):973–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ramsbottom R, Colquhoun D, Williams C, Nute ML. Physiological and metabolic responses of trained runners to a 5 km treadmill time trial. Aust J Sci Med Sport. 1992;24(1):8–11.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    White JA, Pomfret DK, Rennie S, Wong J, Ford M. Fluid replacement needs of well-trained male and female athletes during indoor and outdoor steady state running. J Sci Med Sport. 1998;1(3):131–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Taunton JE, Ryan MB, Clement DB, McKenzie DC, Lloyd-Smith DR, Zumbo BD. A prospective study of running injuries: the Vancouver Sun Run “in training” clinics. Br J Sports Med. 2003;37(3):239–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Davies CT. Effects of wind assistance and resistance on the forward motion of a runner. J Appl Physiol Respir Exerc Physiol. 1980;48(4):702–9.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD, Hawley JA. Reliability and variability of running economy in elite distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(11):1972–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kong PW, Koh TM, Tan WC, Wang YS. Unmatched perception of speed when running overground and on a treadmill. Gait Posture. 2012;36(1):46–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schucker L, Parrington L. Thinking about your running movement makes you less efficient: attentional focus effects on running economy and kinematics. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(6):638–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smith JAH, McKerrow AD, Kohn TA. Metabolic cost of running is greater on a treadmill with a stiffer running platform. J Sports Sci. 2017;35:1592–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Miller J, Van Hooren B, Bishop C, Buckley J, Willy R, Fuller J. A systematic review comparing physiological, perceptual and performance measures between treadmill and overground running. OSF. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R7BK6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), School of Health SciencesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in MetabolismMaastricht University Medical Centre+MaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute of Sport StudiesFontys University of Applied SciencesEindhovenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.The Biomechanics LabAdelaideAustralia
  5. 5.School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation SciencesUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  6. 6.Department of Health Professions, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesMacquarie UniversityMacquarie ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations