Maximal Physiological Parameters during Partial Body-Weight Support Treadmill Testing

1Sports Medicine Unit, University Hospital Center and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, SWITZERLAND
Medicine and science in sports and exercise (Impact Factor: 4.46). 04/2012; 44(10):1935-41. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31825a5d1f
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study investigated maximal cardiometabolic response while running in a lower body positive pressure treadmill (antigravity treadmill (AG)), which reduces body weight (BW) and impact. The AG is used in rehabilitation of injuries but could have potential for high-speed running, if workload is maximally elevated.
Fourteen trained (nine male) runners (age 27 ± 5 yr; 10-km personal best, 38.1 ± 1.1 min) completed a treadmill incremental test (CON) to measure aerobic capacity and heart rate (V˙O2max and HRmax). They completed four identical tests (48 h apart, randomized order) on the AG at BW of 100%, 95%, 90%, and 85% (AG100 to AG85). Stride length and rate were measured at peak velocities (Vpeak).
V˙O2max (mL·kg·min) was similar across all conditions (men: CON = 66.6 (3.0), AG100 = 65.6 (3.8), AG95 = 65.0 (5.4), AG90 = 65.6 (4.5), and AG85 = 65.0 (4.8); women: CON = 63.0 (4.6), AG100 = 61.4 (4.3), AG95 = 60.7 (4.8), AG90 = 61.4 (3.3), and AG85 = 62.8 (3.9)). Similar results were found for HRmax, except for AG85 in men and AG100 and AG90 in women, which were lower than CON. Vpeak (km·h) in men was 19.7 (0.9) in CON, which was lower than every other condition: AG100 = 21.0 (1.9) (P < 0.05), AG95 = 21.4 (1.8) (P < 0.01), AG90 = 22.3 (2.1) (P < 0.01), and AG85 = 22.6 (1.6) (P < 0.001). In women, Vpeak (km·h) was similar between CON (17.8 (1.1) ) and AG100 (19.3 (1.0)) but higher at AG95 = 19.5 (0.4) (P < 0.05), AG90 = 19.5 (0.8) (P < 0.05), and AG85 = 21.2 (0.9) (P < 0.01).
The AG can be used at maximal exercise intensities at BW of 85% to 95%, reaching faster running speeds than normally feasible. The AG could be used for overspeed running programs at the highest metabolic response levels.


Available from: Boris Gojanovic, Jul 25, 2014
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Body weight supported treadmill training has become increasingly popular in professional sports and rehabilitation. To date, little is known about the accuracy of the lower body positive pressure treadmill. The current study evaluated the accuracy of the body weight support reported on the AlterG 'Anti-Gravity' treadmill across the spectrum of unloading, from full body weight (100%) to 20% body weight. Thirty-one adults (15 males, 16 females) with a mean age of 29.3 years old (SD=10.9), and a mean weight of 66.55 kg (SD=12.68) were recruited. Participants were weighed outside the machine and then inside at 100% to 20% body weight (BW) in 10% increments. Predicted body weight, as presented by the AlterG equipment, was compared to measured body weight. Significant differences between predicted and measured body weight were found at all but 90% through 70% of body weight. Differences were small (<5%), except at the extreme ends of the unloading spectrum. At 100% BW, the measured weight was lower than predicted (Mean= 93.15%, SD=1.21, p<.001 vs. predicted). At 30% and 20% BW, the measured weight was higher than predicted at 35.75% (SD=2.89, p<.001), and 27.67% (SD=3.76, p<.001), respectively. These findings suggest that there are significant differences between reported and measured body weight support on the AlterG Anti-Gravity treadmill, with the largest differences (>5%) found at 100% BW and the greatest BW support (30% and 20% body weight). These differences may be associated with changes in metabolic demand and maximum speed during walking or running and should be taken into consideration when using these devices for training and research purposes.
    The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 09/2014; 29(3). DOI:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000678 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated cardiovascular responses at rest and during submaximal exercise on a lower body positive pressure treadmill in older adults with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Twenty-four adults (mean age 64.6 ± 7.9 SD) with unilateral TKA participated (median time since surgery 8.0 weeks). Heart rate and blood pressure responses were measured at rest standing on the positive pressure treadmill with 0, 10, 20, and 30 mmHg applied. Heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen consumption, minute ventilation, knee pain and perceived exertion were measured during submaximal exercise tests (0 and 40 % body weight support) conducted 1 week apart. At rest there were no differences in blood pressure across different treadmill pressures, but heart rate was significantly lower when 30 mmHg was applied compared to ambient pressure conditions (P < 0.05). Participants averaged 5.1 exercise test stages with 0 % body weight support (maximum speed 2.5 mph, 0 % incline) and 6.4 stages with 40 % body weight support (maximum speed 3.0 mph, 10 % incline). During exercise, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, oxygen consumption, and minute ventilation were lower when 40 % body weight support was provided for a given test stage (P < 0.01). Diastolic blood pressure, knee pain and perceived exertion did not differ with body weight support but increased with increasing exercise test stages (P < 0.05). Provision of body weight support allowed TKA patients to walk at faster speeds and/or to tolerate greater incline with relatively lower levels of heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen consumption.
    Arbeitsphysiologie 12/2013; 114(3). DOI:10.1007/s00421-013-2798-1 · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lower body positive pressure (LBPP) treadmills can be used in rehabilitation programs and/or to supplement run mileage in healthy runners by reducing the effective body weight and impact associated with running. The purpose of this study is to determine if body weight support influences the stride length (SL)-velocity as well as leg impact acceleration relationship during running.
    Journal of Sport and Health Science 04/2015; 101. DOI:10.1016/j.jshs.2015.01.003 · 1.23 Impact Factor