Purpose: This study was to investigate the combined effects of grade, resistance, and step frequency on users' physiological indicators among three different types of elliptical trainers. Methods: The participants were 18 healthy male students (21.6 ± 2.6 yrs, 173.4 ± 5.0 cm, and 70.8 ± 10.6 kg). Each participant had to take a combination test of 3 motion parameters in different elliptical trainer (Types: WT100, C7.5e, C8.5e) with a counterbalanced order. Each test includes 9 combinations and the order was based on Taguchi orthogonal array. Each combination lasted for 4 minutes and followed by a 5-minute break. There must be a 24-hour break between each different elliptical trainer test. The RPE, average VO2 and average HR were recorded at the end of the 4th minute in each combination. Data was processed by repeated measures of one-way ANOVA and a significant level was set at p < .05. Results: In the same motion parameter, the RPE, VO2 and HR in WT100 were significantly higher than in C8.5e and C7.5e, and the all three indicators in C7.5e were significantly higher than in C8.5e. Resistance was the most effective motion parameter for RPE, VO2, and HR, the second was step frequency, and the last was gradient. Conclusions: Using RPE, VO2 and HR as physiological indicators to compare combined effects of 3 different types of elliptical trainers, the finding concludes that resistance may be the most effective factor, followed by step frequency and then gradient.
Purpose: This study was to investigate the combined effects of grade, resistance, and step frequency on users' physiological indicators among three different types of elliptical trainers. Methods: The participants were 18 healthy male students (21.6 ± 2.6 yrs, 173.4 ± 5.0 cm, and 70.8 ± 10.6 kg). Each participant had to take a combination test of 3 motion parameters in different elliptical trainer (Types: WT100, C7.5e, C8.5e) with a counterbalanced order. Each test includes 9 combinations and the order was based on Taguchi orthogonal array. Each combination lasted for 4 minutes and followed by a 5-minute break. There must be a 24-hour break between each different elliptical trainer test. The RPE, average VO2 and average HR were recorded at the end of the 4th minute in each combination. Data was processed by repeated measures of one-way ANOVA and a significant level was set at p < .05. Results: In the same motion parameter, the RPE, VO2 and HR in WT100 were significantly higher than in C8.5e and C7.5e, and the all three indicators in C7.5e were significantly higher than in C8.5e. Resistance was the most effective motion parameter for RPE, VO2, and HR, the second was step frequency, and the last was gradient. Conclusions: Using RPE, VO2 and HR as physiological indicators to compare combined effects of 3 different types of elliptical trainers, the finding concludes that resistance may be the most effective factor, followed by step frequency and then gradient.