Muscular Activation Patterns During Exercise on the Treadmill, Stepper, and Elliptical Trainer.

ABSTRACT: Eken, MM, Withers, A, Flanagan, K, Burger, J, Bosch, A, and Lamberts, RP. Muscular activation patterns during exercise on the treadmill, stepper, and elliptical trainer. J Strength Cond Res 36(7): 1847-1852, 2022-Because of the low-impact, the stepper and elliptical trainer are popular alternatives to running when runners sustain running-related injuries. Muscular effort is expected to be lower during exercise on the stepper and elliptical trainer compared with running. The aim of this study was to quantify this by comparing muscular effort when exercising at similar moderate-to-high exercise intensities on a treadmill, stepper, and elliptical trainer. Seventeen well-trained runners (V̇o2max: 53.3 ml·min-1·kg-1 [male: n = 9], 44.8 ml·min-1·kg-1 [female: n = 8]; average peak treadmill running speed: 18.7 km·h-1 [male], 16.3 km·h-1 [female]) performed exercise at submaximal levels (60%-70%-80% of peak workload) on the treadmill, stepper, and elliptical trainer. Peak workload was determined during peak exercise tests on separate days. Surface electromyography was recorded from lower extremity muscles. Root-mean-squared (RMS) values were calculated and compared between exercise modalities and submaximal levels. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Root-mean-squared levels of lower extremity muscles were significantly reduced during exercise on the stepper and elliptical trainer compared with treadmill running (p < 0.05, except for quadriceps (p > 0.05). Overall, similar RMS levels were found on stepper and elliptical trainer (p > 0.05), whereas in several cases higher RMS levels were found on the stepper compared with elliptical trainer (p < 0.05). These findings support clinical expectations that exercise on the stepper and elliptical trainer reduces muscular effort up to 60% compared with (treadmill) running, and therefore can be effective training modalities during rehabilitation from running-related injuries by restricting impact on lower extremities.

Physiological and Metabolic Responses to Exercise on Treadmill, Elliptical Trainer, and Stepper: Practical Implications for Training.

Elliptical trainers and steppers are proposed as useful exercise modalities in the rehabilitation of injured runners due to the reduced stress on muscles and joints when compared to running. This study compared the physiological responses to submaximal running (treadmill) with exercise on the elliptical trainer and stepper devices at three submaximal but identical workloads. Authors had 18 trained runners (male/female: N = 9/9, age: mean ± SD = 23 ± 3 years) complete randomized maximal oxygen consumption tests on all three modalities. Submaximal tests of 3 min were performed at 60%, 70%, and 80% of peak workload individually established for each modality. Breath-by-breath oxygen consumption, heart rate, fuel utilization, and energy expenditure were determined. The value of maximal oxygen consumption was not different between treadmill, elliptical, and stepper (49.3 ± 5.3, 48.0 ± 6.6, and 46.7 ± 6.2 ml·min-1·kg-1, respectively). Both physiological measures (oxygen consumption and heart rate) as well as carbohydrate and fat oxidation differed significantly between the different exercise intensities (60%, 70%, and 80%) but did not differ between the treadmill, elliptical trainer, and stepper. Therefore, the elliptical trainer and stepper are suitable substitutes for running during periods when a reduced running load is required, such as during rehabilitation from running-induced injury.

Illness and infection in elite full-contact football-code sports: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Full-contact football-code team sports offer a unique environment for illness risk. During training and match-play, players are exposed to high-intensity collisions which may result in skin-on-skin abrasions and transfer of bodily fluids. Understanding the incidence of all illnesses and infections and what impact they cause to time-loss from training and competition is important to improve athlete care within these sports. This review aimed to systematically report, quantify and compare the type, incidence, prevalence and count of illnesses across full-contact football-code team sports. DESIGN/METHODS: A systematic search of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO and CINAHL electronic databases was performed from inception to October 2019; keywords relating to illness, athletes and epidemiology were used. Studies were excluded if they did not quantify illness or infection, involve elite athletes, investigate full-contact football-code sports or were review articles. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria. Five different football-codes were reported: American football (n=10), Australian rules football (n=3), rugby league (n=2), rugby sevens (n=3) and rugby union (n=9). One multi-sport study included both American football and rugby union. Full-contact football-code athletes are most commonly affected by respiratory system illnesses. There is a distinct lack of consensus of illness monitoring methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Full-contact football-code team sport athletes are most commonly affected by respiratory system illnesses. Due to various monitoring methodologies, illness incidence could only be compared between studies that used matching incidence exposure measures. High-quality illness surveillance data collection is an essential component to undertake effective and targeted illness prevention in athletes.