Abstract This study aimed to test the validity of a non-motorised treadmill (NMT) for the measurement of self-paced overground endurance running performance. Ten male runners performed randomised 5-km running time trials on a NMT and an outdoor athletics track. A range of physiological and perceptual responses was measured, and foot strike was classified subjectively. Performance time was strongly correlated (r = 0.82, ICC = 0.86) between running modes, despite running time being significantly longer on the NMT (1264 ± 124 s vs. 1536 ± 130 s for overground and NMT, respectively; P < 0.001). End blood lactate concentration and rating of perceived exertion were significantly higher on the NMT compared to overground. Integrated electromyography was significantly lower on the NMT for three muscles (P < 0.05), and mean stride rate was also significantly lower on the NMT (P = 0.04). Cardiorespiratory responses of heart rate, oxygen uptake and expired air volume demonstrated strong correlations (r = 0.68-0.96, ICC = 0.75-0.97) and no statistical differences (P > 0.05). Runners were consistently slower on the NMT, and as such it should not be used to measure performance over a specific distance. However, the strong correlations suggest that superior overground performance was reflected in relative terms on the NMT, and therefore, it is a valid tool for the assessment of endurance running performance in the laboratory.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,891,750
of 26,855,601 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Sports Sciences
#1,483
of 4,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,234
of 373,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Sports Sciences
#51
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,855,601 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
