Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2025
Comparative Analysis of Lower Limb Kinematics between the Initial and Terminal Phase of 5km Treadmill Running
Published on: July 17, 2020
Biomechanical differences and variability during sustained motorized treadmill running versus outdoor overground
Alexandra F DeJong Lempke1, Adam P Audet2, Marni G Wasserman3
1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, 1223 E Marshall St, Richmond, VA, 23298, United States; Institute of Women's Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, 730 East Broad Street, Suite 4200, Richmond, VA, 23219, United States.
None:
This study aimed to compare running biomechanics and biomechanical variability across 3 run segments and between conditions for 5-km outdoor overground and indoor treadmill running. Seventy-one recreationally-active adults (31F, 40 M; age: 37 ± 11 years; body mass index: 22.9 ± 2.5 kg/m2) completed aerobic fitness assessments at baseline (VO2max), outdoor overground 5 km runs on a standardized route, and indoor treadmill 5 km runs on a motorized system (12.6 ± 4.9 days apart). Wearable sensors recorded step-by-step spatiotemporal, kinetic, and kinematic biomechanics. Repeated measures analyses of covariance were used to compare mean and coefficient of variation (CV) of sensor-derived metrics across run segments, conditions, and limbs (covariates: pace, VO2max). Tukey's post-hoc tests with mean differences and Cohen's d effect sizes were used to determine the difference magnitudes across comparisons. Most biomechanical measures significantly differed between running conditions (p < 0.001); contact time (mean difference and standard error: 8 ± 3 ms; d = 0.20), stride length (0.20 ± 0.12 m; d: 0.31), kinetics (shock, impact, braking; 0.17-1.30 g; d-range: 0.36-0.57), and pronation velocity (138 ± 16°/s; d: 0.61) were all higher during indoor treadmill running. Indoor treadmill running biomechanics CV were significantly higher for most measures compared to outdoor overground running (p < 0.001; d-range: 0.18-0.52). Only spatiotemporal measures and CV significantly differed across run segments (d-range: 0.16-0.68). Clinicians should expect that indoor treadmill biomechanics, particularly kinetic and pronation, will be significantly higher than patients' outdoor overground running biomechanics and tailor subsequent recommendations accordingly. Furthermore, clinicians should expect that indoor treadmill running analyses may result in more variable biomechanics, potentially attributed to consistent speed and surface, and tailor assessments to preferred run environments.
