Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Apr;50(4):785-813.
doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01237-z.

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

Bas Van Hooren  1   2 , Joel T Fuller  3 , Jonathan D Buckley  4 , Jayme R Miller  4 , Kerry Sewell  5 , Guillaume Rao  6 , Christian Barton  7   8 , Chris Bishop  4   9 , Richard W Willy  10
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

Bas Van Hooren et al. Sports Med. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Treadmills are often used in research, clinical practice, and training. Biomechanical investigations comparing treadmill and overground running report inconsistent findings.

Objective: This study aimed at comparing biomechanical outcomes between motorized treadmill and overground running.

Methods: Four databases were searched until June 2019. Crossover design studies comparing lower limb biomechanics during non-inclined, non-cushioned, quasi-constant-velocity motorized treadmill running with overground running in healthy humans (18-65 years) and written in English were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible.

Results: 33 studies (n = 494 participants) were included. Most outcomes did not differ between running conditions. However, during treadmill running, sagittal foot-ground angle at footstrike (mean difference (MD) - 9.8° [95% confidence interval: - 13.1 to - 6.6]; low GRADE evidence), knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance (MD 6.3° [4.5 to 8.2]; low), vertical displacement center of mass/pelvis (MD - 1.5 cm [- 2.7 to - 0.8]; low), and peak propulsive force (MD - 0.04 body weights [- 0.06 to - 0.02]; very low) were lower, while contact time (MD 5.0 ms [0.5 to 9.5]; low), knee flexion at footstrike (MD - 2.3° [- 3.6 to - 1.1]; low), and ankle sagittal plane internal joint moment (MD - 0.4 Nm/kg [- 0.7 to - 0.2]; low) were longer/higher, when pooled across overground surfaces. Conflicting findings were reported for amplitude of muscle activity.

Conclusions: Spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity, and muscle-tendon outcome measures are largely comparable between motorized treadmill and overground running. Considerations should, however, particularly be given to sagittal plane kinematic differences at footstrike when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running. Protocol registration CRD42018083906 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Joel T. Fuller and Jonathan D. Buckley have been authors on some research projects that have evaluated the effects of different running shoes on running performance, biomechanics and physiology; those projects involved the use of running shoes that were donated by the shoe industry, either from running shoe retail stores or ASICS Oceania. Chris Bishop has received funding from both ASICS Oceania and Brittain Wynyard for professional services related to footwear. Guillaume Rao has received funding from Decathlon for professional services related to footwear to evaluate the effects of different running shoes on running performance, biomechanics and physiology. No companies played any role in the design, conduct or interpretation of the present research. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Literature search flow chart. n number of studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of bias assessment for all included studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Random-effects meta-analysis of ground contact time during MT compared to overground running. Subgroup analysis based on overground surface with subgroups organized from least stiff surface to stiffest surface and studies organized from slowest to fastest speed. CI confidence interval, df degrees of freedom, MD mean difference, N sample size
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Random-effects meta-regression of contact time during MT compared with overground running based on running speed. Larger data points received greater weighting than smaller data points. Solid lines represent the estimated relationship and dashed lines represent the upper and lower 95% confidence limits
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Random-effects meta-analysis of a sagittal foot–ground angle at footstrike, b knee flexion angle at footstrike and c knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance during MT compared to overground running. Subgroup analysis based on overground surface with subgroups organized from least stiff surface to stiffest surface and studies organized from slowest to fastest speed. CI confidence interval, df degrees of freedom, MD mean difference, N sample size
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Random-effects meta-analysis of vertical displacement during MT compared to overground running. Subgroup analysis based on overground surface with subgroups organized from least stiff surface to stiffest surface and studies organized from slowest to fastest speed. CI confidence interval, df degrees of freedom, MD mean difference, N sample size
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Summary of significant differences between treadmill and overground running biomechanics found with meta-analyses. Overall surface effects are indicated in black, subgroup (individual surface) effects in gray. Amplitude of muscle activity represents a qualitative interpretation of the findings as meta-analysis could not be performed for this outcome. ROM range of motion. Treadmill; “down arrow” lower; “up arrow”, greater/longer compared to overground
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Running USA. 2017 National Runner Survey. 2017. https://www.runningusa.org/RUSA/Research/Recent_Surveys/National_Runner_....
    1. Tjelta LI. A longitudinal case study of the training of the 2012 European 1500 m track champion. Int J Appl Sports Sci. 2013;25:11–18. doi: 10.24985/ijass.2013.25.1.11. - DOI
    1. Barton CJ, Bonanno DR, Carr J, Neal BS, Malliaras P, Franklyn-Miller A, et al. Running retraining to treat lower limb injuries: a mixed-methods study of current evidence synthesised with expert opinion. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(9):513–526. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095278. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Souza RB. An Evidence-Based Videotaped Running Biomechanics Analysis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2016;27(1):217–236. doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2015.08.006. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dingenen B, Malliaras P, Janssen T, Ceyssens L, Vanelderen R, Barton CJ. Two-dimensional video analysis can discriminate differences in running kinematics between recreational runners with and without running-related knee injury. Phys Ther Sport. 2019;38:184–191. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.05.008. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources