Comparison of treadmill and over‐ground Nordic walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the physiological responses of Nordic walking on a specially designed treadmill and Nordic walking on a level over‐ground surface. Thirteen participants completed three 1‐h Nordic walking training sessions. Following the training sessions, each participant performed two 1600‐m over‐ground Nordic walking trials at a self‐selected pace. Each participant then completed two 1600‐m Nordic walking treadmill trials on a Hammer Nordic Walking XTR Treadmill®, at the mean walking speed of their two over‐ground Nordic walking trials. Breath‐by‐breath analysis of oxygen uptake ( [Vdot] O 2 ) and heart rate was performed during each trial. Caloric expenditure was calculated using the [Vdot] O 2 . Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was assessed at the end of each trial. We found no significant differences in physiological variables collected during the two over‐ground Nordic walking trials or the two treadmill Nordic walking trials. Mean walking speed was 106.96±11.49 m · min −1 . Mean heart rate during treadmill walking (99±13 beats · min −1 ) was 22% lower than that during the over‐ground condition (126±17 beats · min −1 ). Mean [Vdot] O 2 and mean caloric expenditure were also lower during treadmill walking (15.18±3.81 ml · min −1 · kg −1 , 0.08±0.02 kcal · min −1 · kg −1 ) than over‐ground walking (24.16±4.89 ml · min −1 · kg −1 , 0.12±0.02 kcal · min −1 · kg −1 ). Analysis of variance demonstrated that all variables were significantly higher during over‐ground Nordic walking ( P <0.001). A Mann‐Whitney U ‐test demonstrated that the RPE for over‐ground Nordic walking was greater than that for treadmill Nordic walking ( P =0.02). Thus over‐ground Nordic walking created a greater physiological stress than treadmill Nordic walking performed at the same speed and distance. The reason for this difference may have been the relatively narrow walking and poling decks on the treadmill, which made it difficult for the participants to place their poles correctly and maintain a consistent walking pattern. This would decrease the contribution of the arm muscles to overall oxygen consumption. In conclusion, the Hammer Nordic Walking XTR Treadmill® does not replicate the physiological stress of over‐ground Nordic walking. Increasing the width of the decks could eliminate the discrepancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".