THE QUICK READ
• The non-motorised curved
treadmill originated in Germany in
the mid-1970s
• This type of treadmill is proposed to
facilitate a more natural running style
• Researchers investigated whether
running on a non-motorised,
curved treadmill required greater
energy expenditure than running
on a traditional motorised treadmill
• Heart rate, RPE and oxygen
consumption were significantly
higher on the non-motorised
curved treadmill than on the
traditional treadmill
• The study lends support to
including non-motorised curved
treadmills in running regimes for
the purpose of variability
• Previous studies have found validity
in the use of the non-motorised
curved treadmill, but have urged
caution on the part of competitive
runners for whom the apparatus
may impact running gait.
health this semester) I turn up to the gym and
someone is on my treadmill! OK, I have to
get through this workout as I have research
to get on with and no time to muck around,
I will do abs, core and stretch first. Twenty
minutes or so later and I want to get onto my
treadmill, and someone is still on it. But I’ve
noticed a new treadmill, very different from
all of the others as it’s not flat, is obviously
curved and has no power on button. How
can this be? No matter, I am a coordinated,
can-do anything athletic beast… aren’t I?
Apparently not. I found the curved, nonmotorised
treadmill to be much harder than
a conventional motorised one (at the same
running speed), however the real wakeup
was when my usual treadmill became
available and I quickly stopped using the
non-motorised curved one and jumped
onto my trusty old friend. OMG, what was
wrong with me? I found myself unable to
function on the motorised treadmill. Time
to hit the weights, get home and read up on
this newfangled motor-less intruder into my
comfortable domain. This leads us to the
subject of this Research Review, the study
by Dr Schoenmakers and his colleagues.
The curved, non-motorised treadmill has
actually been around for quite some time,
with its development originating in mid-
1970s Germany. The premise of this type of
treadmill is that it is proposed to facilitate a
more natural running style in which the user
is required to run on the balls of the feet.
The movement involves a mix of gravity
and friction and, since the foot strike is
not perpendicular to the belt, it forces the
belt to move due to the curved shape of
the treadmill. It supposedly requires more
work (i.e. musculature involvement/effort)
to move the treadmill belt, compared to
running at the same speed on a traditional,
motorised treadmill. This type of treadmill
is also challenging in that it allows the
user to subconsciously change their pace
with every step they take, whereas with
traditional motorised treadmills the speed
is constant. This claim of ‘more work’ is
what Dr Schoenmakers and his colleagues
investigated.
Method: In this study, 10 physically
active and fit males volunteered to run for six
minutes on both a motorised treadmill and a
non-motorised curved treadmill. Participants
ran at 10.0 km/h on the non-motorised
curved treadmill and also at 10.0 km/h at
1%, 4%, 6% and 8% grade on a motorised
treadmill. All testing took place over five
sessions. During each session, heart rate,
Borg’s rating of perceived exertion (RPE,
rated 6 to 20) and oxygen consumption (VO2
ml/kg/min) were measured.
Results: Unlike me, all participants had
no difficulty running on both the motorised
and non-motorised curved treadmill. As
predicted, the heart rate, RPE and oxygen
consumption were significantly higher on
the non-motorised curved treadmill than on
the traditional treadmill, with the following
results recorded:
TABLE: Increases in ‘work’ on curved non-motorised treadmill
compared to different grades on traditional treadmill
Grade on traditional
motorised treadmill
Increase in oxygen
consumption on
curved treadmill
Increase in heart rate
on curved treadmill
Increase in RPE on
curved treadmill
1% +28% +33% +55%
4% +12% +11% +16%
6% +5% +5% +1%
30 | NETWORK SPRING 2020