## 4 Discussion  
The results obtained in our study unequivocally indicate that the pattern of muscle activity during running with unloading varies depending on running speed and the degree of unloading. However, these differences are not typically linear, and their dynamics depend on running speed. An increase in speed and degree of unloading results in much faster declines in muscle activity. At low speeds (6-10 km/h), the differences in muscle activity with increasing unloading were small enough to maintain an appropriate muscle activity pattern during running. At higher speeds (14-18 km/h), progressive unloading caused significantly greater decreases in muscle activity. This relationship clearly indicates that the use of an anti-gravity treadmill in training or post-injury rehabilitation is most beneficial at low running speeds. It allows for the application of high levels of unloading while maintaining a relatively standard muscle activity pattern. This can be particularly important for the recovery of individuals with lower limb injuries in the early stages of rehabilitation. There are other studies which show that anti-gravity treadmills, like the AlterG\({}^{\circledR}\), have significant applications in sports, particularly for rehabilitation and recovery from injuries. They help maintain fitness while minimizing the adverse effects of unloading, which is especially important for endurance athletes. Reducing body weight load enables safe training with higher intensity, while decreasing the impact on bones and soft tissues. At higher running speeds, they can produce metabolic demands comparable to running at full body weight [29]. Such outcomes have been reported by other researchers [30]. Anti-gravity treadmills cause reductions in cadence, ground reaction forces (GRFs), GRF impulses, knee \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Muscle**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Speed**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Body Weight Relief**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **100\%** & **75\%** & **50\%** & **25\%** \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\  & & **(95\%) CI** & **(95\%) CI** & **(95\%) CI** & **(95\%) CI** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Gluteus maximus} & \multirow{2}{*}{6 km} & 7.97 \(\pm\) 1.77 & 8.05 \(\pm\) 1.54 & 7.59 \(\pm\) 1.56 & 6.89 \(\pm\) 1.69 \\  & & (7.14-8.79) & (7.32–8.77) & (6.86–8.32) & (6.11–7.68) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{10 km} & 18.9 \(\pm\) 4.88 & 15.5 \(\pm\) 4.46 & 13.3 \(\pm\) 3.46 & 11.3 \(\pm\) 3.28 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & (16.6–21.2) & (13.4–17.6) & (11.7–14.9) & (9.76–12.8) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{14 km} & 25.4 \(\pm\) 6.22 & 20.2 \(\pm\) 5.32 & 17.7 \(\pm\) 4.16 & 14.8 \(\pm\) 3.93 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & (22.5–28.3) & (17.7–22.6) & (15.7–19.6) & (13.0–16.7) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{18 km} & 31.1 \(\pm\) 7.78 & 25.5 \(\pm\) 6.56 & 23.2 \(\pm\) 6.03 & 19.5 \(\pm\) 5.90 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & (27.5–34.7) & (22.4–28.5) & (20.4–26.0) & (16.7–22.2) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Descriptive statistics for the gluteus maximus muscle. and ankle range of motion, and vertical stiffness, with elevations in stride length, flight time, ground contact time, and plantar flexion. It has also been noted that body weight support alters biomechanical variables such as cadence, stride length, and muscle activity, which should be monitored to avoid permanent changes in running form. Despite this, the anti-gravity treadmill significantly reduces ground reaction forces while maintaining running form, making it easier to return to full activity [31]. [PERSON] [32] investigated the physiological and biomechanical responses of highly trained distance runners to lower body positive pressure treadmill running, often referred to as anti-gravity treadmill training. The research focused on differences in body load and gait characteristics, concluding that such training can modify running biomechanics.