Tsai Ming-Chang, Lin Edward, Thomas Scott
Canadian Sport Institute Pacific, Victoria, BC V9E 2C5, Canada.
Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada.
Life (Basel). 2025 Apr 1;15(4):569. doi: 10.3390/life15040569.
This study examined the differences in physiological, metabolic and running dynamics responses between level and inclined treadmill protocols and their implications for accurately determining training intensities. Twenty-three healthy, active adults (18 male and 5 female) from 25 to 59 years old (age: 42.7 years, height: 1.77 m, body mass: 71.9 kg, VO2max: 54.3 mL·kg-1·min-1) completed both protocols. Physiological markers (gas exchange threshold (GET), respiratory compensation point (RCP), VO2max), metabolic variables (HR, VO2, VCO2, RER, VE, speed) and running dynamic variables (running economy (RE), stride length (SL), ground contact time (GCT), cadence) were measured and matched for the external work rate at each stage. The data were analyzed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc procedure. No significant differences were observed in the physiological markers for the inclined and flat protocols across all the intensities. However, the metabolic variables showed significant differences ( = 0.0333 to <0.0001) between the inclined and flat protocols at higher intensities. The RE was consistently improved in the flat protocol compared with the inclined protocol, with significant differences observed at the high-intensity stages ( = 0.0232 to <0.0001). While the physiological markers remained unaffected, metabolic responses and running kinematics differed significantly between the protocols. These results highlight that training intensity zones derived from inclined protocols may not be appropriate for flat terrain training, underlining the importance of testing specificity in athlete preparation.
本研究考察了水平和倾斜跑步机方案在生理、代谢及跑步动力学反应方面的差异,以及这些差异对准确确定训练强度的影响。23名年龄在25至59岁之间(年龄:42.7岁,身高:1.77米,体重:71.9千克,最大摄氧量:54.3毫升·千克⁻¹·分钟⁻¹)的健康、活跃成年人(18名男性和5名女性)完成了这两种方案。测量了生理指标(气体交换阈值(GET)、呼吸补偿点(RCP)、最大摄氧量)、代谢变量(心率(HR)、摄氧量(VO₂)、二氧化碳排出量(VCO₂)、呼吸交换率(RER)、通气量(VE)、速度)以及跑步动力学变量(跑步经济性(RE)、步长(SL)、地面接触时间(GCT)、步频),并对每个阶段的外部工作率进行了匹配。数据采用单因素重复测量方差分析及Tukey事后检验程序进行分析。在所有强度下,倾斜和水平方案的生理指标均未观察到显著差异。然而,在较高强度下,倾斜和水平方案的代谢变量显示出显著差异(P = 0.0333至P < 0.0001)。与倾斜方案相比,水平方案的跑步经济性持续改善,在高强度阶段观察到显著差异(P = 0.0232至P < 0.0001)。虽然生理指标未受影响,但两种方案的代谢反应和跑步运动学存在显著差异。这些结果表明,从倾斜方案得出的训练强度区域可能不适用于平地训练,强调了在运动员准备过程中测试特异性的重要性。