The Effect of Specific Treadmill Protocol on Aerobic Performance Parameters in Flat-Terrain-Trained Athletes

TL;DR

This study shows that treadmill incline affects metabolic and running dynamics responses, suggesting that training intensity zones from inclined protocols may not apply to flat terrain.

Contribution

The study demonstrates that inclined treadmill protocols produce different metabolic and running economy outcomes compared to flat protocols, impacting training intensity accuracy.

Findings

No significant differences were found in physiological markers between inclined and flat protocols.

Metabolic variables showed significant differences at higher intensities between the two protocols.

Running economy was consistently better in the flat protocol at high-intensity stages.

Abstract

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 (p = 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 (p = 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.

Figures