{"id":5261,"date":"2026-10-30T16:30:22","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T08:30:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/?p=5261"},"modified":"2026-10-30T16:30:22","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T08:30:22","slug":"laufbandtraining-mit-korpergewichtsunterstutzung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/blog\/body-weight-support-treadmill-training\/","title":{"rendered":"Laufbandtraining mit K\u00f6rpergewichtsunterst\u00fctzung mit dem Power Strider XC2: Von der Reha-Klinik bis zur R\u00fcckkehr zum Sport"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Why Lower-Limb Recovery Needs a Way to Walk Before the Body Can Carry Itself<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Every physical therapist knows the paradox at the center of lower-extremity rehabilitation. The tissues that have been injured, operated on or worn by age heal faster and remodel better when they are loaded early and moved often \u2014 yet the same patient cannot tolerate the full weight of their own body on those tissues without pain, compensation or risk of falling. A knee replaced last week, a hip with advanced osteoarthritis, an ankle three days out of a boot, a leg that no longer answers the brain reliably after a stroke: each needs gait, and each is, for a period, unable to afford it. Clinics have historically bridged that gap with parallel bars, pool therapy, crutches and patience, and each of those tools carries a cost in therapist time, in altered movement patterns, or in the weeks that simply pass while the patient waits to be strong enough to practice the thing they most need to practice. Partial body-weight support treadmill training exists to collapse that waiting period. By suspending a controllable fraction of the patient’s weight in a harness while they walk or run on a moving belt, it lets loading start at the dose the tissue can accept \u2014 ten, twenty, fifty percent less than gravity demands \u2014 and climb back toward full weight on a schedule set by healing rather than by fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is written for the two audiences who buy and use that equipment: physical therapy clinics, rehabilitation centers and hospitals on one side, and the schools, sports centers and competitive teams whose athletes need to return to play without returning to the treatment room on the other. It is also written by the manufacturer of the Power Strider XC2<\/a>, a body-weight support treadmill we build in Taiwan, so our commercial interest is stated here and flagged again wherever it bears on a recommendation. What follows sizes the problem first \u2014 the real prevalence of lower-extremity disorders in Taiwanese physical therapy practice, in Europe, in the United Kingdom and worldwide, with the sources listed \u2014 then explains the clinical mechanics of partial weight-bearing, reviews what the published evidence does and does not support, moves to the athletic setting with recovery timelines and dosing tables, and closes with the equipment, safety and compliance checks a facility should run and an honest account of the method’s limits and alternatives. The tables are built to be lifted directly into a purchasing proposal or a clinical protocol, and every external claim is referenced so a clinical director or athletic director can check the work before committing a line of budget to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Scale of the Problem: Lower-Extremity Disorders in Taiwan, Europe and Worldwide<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Equipment decisions in rehabilitation should start from epidemiology, not from catalogs, because the case for any gait-training device rests on how many of a facility’s patients actually arrive with the conditions it treats. For lower-limb and spinal disorders the answer, in every market we serve, is “most of them.” The three subsections below assemble the figures by region. Taiwan comes first because our clinical brief was built on Taiwanese practice data; Europe and the United Kingdom follow because they represent the largest rehabilitation markets with public, auditable statistics; and the global and multi-country picture closes the section, because the same demographic engine \u2014 aging populations and rising osteoarthritis \u2014 is running everywhere at once. One methodological note before the numbers: prevalence statistics in this field come from different instruments \u2014 clinic caseload audits, workforce surveys, national health intelligence and global burden modeling \u2014 and they measure different things, so the table that closes the section labels each figure’s source and its meaning for gait rehabilitation rather than pretending the numbers are directly comparable. What they share is direction: in every dataset we could find, the lower back and the lower limbs are where the burden concentrates, which is the single fact a body weight support treadmill purchase ultimately rests on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taiwan: What Walks Through the Door of a PT Clinic<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In Taiwan’s physical therapy sector, musculoskeletal disorders account for the overwhelming majority of outpatient visits, and within that majority the lower back and the lower extremities \u2014 hips, knees and ankles \u2014 dominate. The clinical brief behind this article, drawing on Taiwanese practice data reported in the literature (Chen et al., 2022; Hsu & Hsieh, 2022), summarizes the pattern in two figures: 59.1 percent of musculoskeletal patients in Taiwanese PT practice present with some form of spinal disorder involving the lower back and\/or the lower extremities, and patients whose cases involve the knee or other joint disorders make up 24.15 percent of overall caseload. Knee osteoarthritis is singled out as exceptionally prevalent, and the reason is demographic rather than clinical: Taiwan is one of the fastest-aging societies in the world, and knee osteoarthritis prevalence rises steeply with age. The second source, Hsu and Hsieh’s 2022 logistic-regression study of people with knee osteoarthritis in southern Taiwan, adds the detail that matters most for gait training \u2014 physical activity in this population is constrained by pain, fear and functional limitation, which are precisely the barriers that partial weight-bearing is designed to lower. Two honest caveats belong beside these figures. First, Chen and colleagues’ paper is a study of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among physical therapists themselves, cited in the brief for its characterization of Taiwanese PT caseload; readers who want a pure patient-prevalence denominator should treat the percentages as practice-pattern estimates rather than national registry data. Second, caseload share is not the same as treatment share \u2014 but for a device whose indications span post-operative knees and hips, osteoarthritis, sprains, stroke and balance disorders, a caseload in which roughly six in ten patients carry lower-back or lower-limb involvement is a large addressable population by any reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Europe and the United Kingdom: The Largest Audited Rehabilitation Markets<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

European data describe the same burden from the workforce side. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work’s 2019 report on work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the EU<\/a>, built on the European Working Conditions Survey, found that roughly three out of every five workers in the EU-28 report musculoskeletal complaints, making MSDs the most common work-related health problem in the European Union; backache and upper-limb pain are reported most often, with lower-limb pain reported less frequently but still across every sector and occupation. The clinical implication for rehabilitation providers is that a very large share of the working-age population arrives at physiotherapy with back or limb involvement, and that the economic case \u2014 lost working days, early exit from the labor market \u2014 is made by the same report in terms that employer-funded and insurer-funded rehabilitation programs understand. The United Kingdom offers the most granular national picture: Arthritis UK’s State of Musculoskeletal Health<\/a> intelligence reports that more than ten million adults, young people and children in the UK \u2014 roughly one in six people \u2014 live with arthritis, with hip and knee osteoarthritis in England tracked down to the level of local deprivation. For a clinic director in Manchester or a hospital rehabilitation lead in Munich, these are not abstract numbers: they describe the osteoarthritic knee and the post-replacement hip that fill the afternoon schedule, and they explain why European rehabilitation budgets have steadily shifted toward active, gait-based interventions that get patients walking earlier and discharge them sooner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Global Picture: Osteoarthritis as a Demographic Certainty<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Zoom out and the regional numbers resolve into one global trend. The World Health Organization’s musculoskeletal health fact sheet<\/a> estimates that approximately 1.71 billion people worldwide live with musculoskeletal conditions, that low back pain alone affects some 570 million people and is the single leading cause of disability in 160 countries, and that osteoarthritis affects about 528 million. The WHO’s dedicated osteoarthritis fact sheet<\/a> sharpens that last figure in the direction that matters for gait equipment: the knee is the most affected joint, with roughly 365 million cases, about 73 percent of people with osteoarthritis are over 55, prevalence has risen 113 percent since 1990, and an estimated 344 million people have moderate or severe symptoms that could benefit from rehabilitation. The Global Burden of Disease 2021 analysis published in The Lancet Rheumatology (GBD 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, 2023<\/a>) projects the trajectory forward, counting about 595 million people with osteoarthritis in 2020 and forecasting close to one billion by 2050 as populations age and obesity rises. Set those projections beside the sports side of the ledger \u2014 where a 2014 meta-analysis of 7,556 patients found that only 65 percent of athletes returned to their pre-injury level of sport after ACL reconstruction and 55 percent to competitive sport (Ardern et al., 2014<\/a>) \u2014 and the shape of the market is clear: a rising tide of degenerative lower-limb disease in aging populations, and a persistent shortfall in how well younger, injured athletes get back to what they did before. Both problems share a bottleneck, which is the inability to load the limb enough, early enough, to rebuild it. The table below condenses the figures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Infographic<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Region \/ Population<\/strong><\/td>Key Figure<\/strong><\/td>What It Means for Gait Rehabilitation<\/strong><\/td>Source<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Taiwan \u2014 PT clinic caseload<\/td>59.1% of musculoskeletal cases involve lower back and\/or lower extremities; 24.15% involve knee or other joint disorders; knee OA exceptionally prevalent<\/td>Roughly six in ten patients are candidates for load-controlled gait work<\/td>Chen et al., 2022; Hsu & Hsieh, 2022 (clinical brief)<\/td><\/tr>
European Union \u2014 workforce<\/td>About three in five workers report MSD complaints; MSDs the most common work-related health problem<\/td>Large working-age rehabilitation demand; employer\/insurer-funded programs<\/td>EU-OSHA, 2019 (EWCS 2015)<\/td><\/tr>
United Kingdom<\/td>Over 10 million people (about 1 in 6) live with arthritis; hip and knee OA tracked by locality<\/td>Osteoarthritic knee and hip dominate outpatient schedules<\/td>Arthritis UK, State of MSK Health 2026<\/td><\/tr>
Global \u2014 all MSK<\/td>1.71 billion with MSK conditions; 570 million with low back pain; 528 million with OA<\/td>MSK is the leading contributor to global disability<\/td>WHO, 2022<\/td><\/tr>
Global \u2014 osteoarthritis<\/td>Knee OA ~365 million; 344 million with moderate\u2013severe symptoms who could benefit from rehabilitation; +113% since 1990<\/td>Knee is the target joint for unweighted gait training<\/td>WHO, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Global \u2014 projection<\/td>~595 million with OA in 2020; approaching 1 billion by 2050<\/td>Demand for load-managed rehabilitation will rise for decades<\/td>GBD 2021 Collaborators, Lancet Rheumatology 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Athletes \u2014 ACL reconstruction<\/td>81% return to any sport, 65% to pre-injury level, 55% to competitive sport<\/td>Return-to-performance, not return-to-walking, is the unmet need<\/td>Ardern et al., BJSM 2014<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

How a Body Weight Support Treadmill Works: Clinical Mechanics of the Power Strider XC2<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The principle is simple to state and surprisingly rich in practice. A harness connected to an overhead pneumatic suspension system lifts a chosen portion of the patient’s body weight \u2014 on the XC2, anywhere from zero to 35 kilograms of unweighting, which for most adults spans roughly ten to fifty percent of body mass \u2014 while the patient walks or runs on a treadmill belt that can start at 0.1 kilometers per hour and climb to 20. Because the support is applied vertically through the trunk rather than through the arms, the patient’s posture stays upright and the legs do the walking; because the belt moves at a fixed, therapist-set speed, every step is a repetition of the same task under the same conditions, which is the definition of motor practice. Four mechanisms follow from that arrangement, and the clinical brief behind this article organizes the device’s indications around them. They are described in the three subsections below and mapped to specific conditions in the table that ends the section. The common thread is that a body weight support treadmill does not add anything exotic to rehabilitation \u2014 walking is the oldest therapeutic exercise there is \u2014 but it changes who can do it, how early, and for how long, which in a field governed by repetition and dose is the whole game.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partial Weight-Bearing: Loading the Joint at the Dose It Can Accept<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The first and most important mechanism is partial weight-bearing. Unweighting a patient by ten to fifty percent reduces the joint reaction forces at the hip, knee and ankle during stance in roughly the same proportion, which permits early weight-bearing activity without overloading tissue that is still healing \u2014 the surgical knee after total knee replacement or ACL reconstruction, the hip after arthroplasty, the osteoarthritic joint that hurts under full load, the sprained ankle or strained calf that needs movement but not impact. The clinical logic is a dose-response one: tissue adapts to load it can tolerate and breaks down under load it cannot, and the unweighting dial lets the therapist sit precisely on the tolerable side of that line and move it week by week. Three practical consequences matter. First, gait quality: a patient who cannot bear full weight invariably compensates \u2014 shortened stance on the painful side, hip hiking, a stiff knee, a shuffling cadence \u2014 and those compensations, once learned, outlast the injury that caused them; unweighting restores a normal heel-to-toe pattern before full weight-bearing capacity returns, so the pattern the nervous system rehearses is the right one. Second, dosing of volume: at a tolerable load, the patient can walk for twenty minutes rather than two, so the total number of correct steps per session rises by an order of magnitude. Third, pain: because peak articular ground reaction forces during stance fall with unweighting, patients with osteoarthritis report less pain per session and tolerate longer sessions, which is the only route to the aerobic and strength benefits that reduce symptoms long term. For the post-operative patient, the same dial means walking on day three instead of waiting for week three.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Diagram<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Proprioceptive and Neuromuscular Re-education<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The second mechanism belongs to neurological rehabilitation. Walking on a moving belt supplies continuous, rhythmic sensory feedback \u2014 the belt pulls the stance leg back, stretching the hip flexors and triggering the swing phase in a cycle that repeats hundreds of times per session \u2014 and that repetition is precisely what drives neuroplasticity after stroke, cerebrovascular accident and spinal cord injury. The harness contributes something the parallel bars cannot: it holds the trunk upright and stable without the patient gripping with their hands, so postural alignment is maintained while the legs practice stepping, and hemiparetic asymmetry can be worked on directly rather than hidden behind arm support. The evidence base here is the most mature of any body-weight support treadmill application, and it is also the most instructive about limits, which the evidence section below addresses in detail. For spinal cord injury the mechanism is trunk stability plus weight relief: the harness provides the postural support the patient’s own musculature cannot, converting an impossible task into a practicable one and giving the damaged spinal circuitry the repetitive, task-specific stepping input associated with neuroplastic adaptation. In both populations the device’s value is less that it produces a unique stimulus than that it produces a normal one \u2014 upright, rhythmic, reciprocal stepping \u2014 in patients who otherwise could not generate it at all, and the therapist’s skill lies in setting unweighting and speed so that the patient works at the edge of their capacity rather than being carried through the motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eliminating Fall Risk and Starting Aerobic Work Earlier<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The third and fourth mechanisms are the ones facilities most often underestimate at purchase and most often cite at renewal. Fall risk first: for patients with Parkinson’s disease, vestibular or balance disorders, and for frail older adults generally, the single greatest obstacle to balance, agility and gait retraining is the possibility of falling during the training itself \u2014 a fall sets recovery back by weeks and, more insidiously, installs a fear of movement that no amount of reassurance removes. A harnessed treadmill eliminates the fall as an outcome. The patient can be pushed to the edge of their balance \u2014 forced-rate treadmill walking for the Parkinsonian shuffle, high-repetition balance tasks for the vestibular patient, longer strides for the cautious wide-based gait of the elderly \u2014 with the safety of the harness and the belt’s emergency stop beneath them, and confidence rebuilds because the nervous system learns that loss of balance no longer ends on the floor. Fourth, and connected: aerobic conditioning can begin far earlier in recovery. Deconditioning after injury or surgery is itself a secondary pathology \u2014 reduced cardiovascular fitness, muscle loss, impaired circulation to healing tissue \u2014 and most patients lose weeks of aerobic capacity while waiting to tolerate full weight-bearing walking. Unweighted treadmill walking at a continuous, submaximal pace restores an aerobic stimulus and promotes blood circulation during the window in which full-weight exercise is contraindicated, which the clinical brief credits with a quicker healing process and the prevention of secondary deconditioning. The table below maps these mechanisms onto the conditions the XC2 is indicated for, with the presentation, function and expected outcome for each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Condition<\/strong><\/td>Clinical Presentation<\/strong><\/td>Power Strider XC2 Function<\/strong><\/td>Expected Outcome<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Post-operative lower extremity (ACL reconstruction, TKR, THR)<\/td>Reduced weight-bearing tolerance and gait compensations<\/td>Allows early normal heel-to-toe gait patterning before full weight-bearing capacity is restored<\/td>Reduces compensatory gait mechanics and restores joint biomechanics<\/td><\/tr>
Osteoarthritis, joint degeneration, other strains and sprains<\/td>Pain during stance phase, decreased walking speed, early fatigue<\/td>Offloads peak articular ground reaction forces during stance<\/td>Reduces pain, increases total walking duration, protects cartilage<\/td><\/tr>
Stroke and cerebrovascular accidents<\/td>Hemiparetic gait, asymmetry, stance-phase instability, foot drop<\/td>Partial weight relief while maintaining upright postural alignment, allowing task-specific repetitive stepping<\/td>Improves gait symmetry and enhances walking velocity<\/td><\/tr>
Spinal cord injury<\/td>Severe motor deficit, loss of trunk stability, fear of falling<\/td>Provides trunk stability and weight relief<\/td>Promotes neuroplasticity<\/td><\/tr>
Parkinson’s disease<\/td>Shuffling gait, bradykinesia, freezing of gait, postural instability<\/td>Forced-rate treadmill training with safety harness<\/td>Lengthens stride, improves dynamic balance, reduces fall risk<\/td><\/tr>
Vestibular and balance disorders<\/td>Dizziness, cautious gait, wide base of support, fear of falling<\/td>High-repetition balance tasks under harness protection<\/td>Improves dynamic gait index scores, reduces fear of falling<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What the Research Says About Body Weight Support Treadmill Training<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A clinic buying rehabilitation equipment deserves the evidence as it actually stands, not as a brochure would prefer it, and the body-weight support treadmill literature is mature enough to be specific. The strongest and most sobering body of work concerns stroke. The Cochrane systematic review by Mehrholz, Thomas and Elsner (2017)<\/a>, pooling 56 trials and 3,105 participants, concluded that treadmill training with or without body-weight support may modestly improve walking speed and walking endurance compared with not receiving it, with moderate-quality evidence for treadmill training overall; that the people who benefited most were those already able to walk at the start of training; that treadmill training did not increase the chance of walking independently in those who could not; and that the speed and endurance gains did not clearly persist after treatment ended. Read carefully, that review is both an endorsement and a boundary. It supports using the device to improve gait speed and endurance in ambulatory stroke patients \u2014 the population the conditions table above describes as hemiparetic walkers with asymmetry and instability \u2014 and it warns against expecting the device alone to convert non-walkers into walkers or to produce permanent gains without an ongoing program. A facility that frames its stroke protocol accordingly, as a high-repetition, task-specific component within a broader rehabilitation plan rather than as a standalone cure, is using the evidence correctly, and a manufacturer who tells you otherwise is not reading it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Parkinson’s disease the picture is more straightforwardly positive. The Cochrane review of treadmill training for patients with Parkinson’s disease<\/a> (Mehrholz et al., 2015) found that treadmill training improved gait speed and stride length \u2014 the two parameters most eroded by the shuffling, bradykinetic Parkinsonian gait \u2014 with the harness functioning as the safety enabler that lets forced-rate walking be prescribed at all. For orthopaedic and degenerative conditions, the evidence is less often built around the treadmill itself and more around the principles the treadmill operationalizes: early controlled loading after joint surgery, progressive resistance for muscle and tendon tolerance, and aerobic activity for osteoarthritis symptom control \u2014 principles that mainstream guidance, from the WHO’s call<\/a> for regular muscle-strengthening and balance activity in older adults to the clinical consensus on movement over rest for osteoarthritis, now treats as settled. What the unweighting treadmill adds to those principles is a dose control the floor cannot offer: a way to deliver walking, the most functional exercise there is, at a load a painful or healing joint can accept. We would put the honest summary this way: for neurological gait, the device’s benefits are real, modest in magnitude, and dependent on patient selection and program design; for orthopaedic and degenerative conditions, the device is a delivery mechanism for well-established loading principles rather than a treatment with an independent evidence base of its own; and for both, the clinician’s judgment about unweighting percentage, speed, duration and progression determines whether the equipment produces outcomes or merely motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The athletic literature, which the next section draws on, carries its own cautions. The return-to-sport figures after ACL reconstruction are well documented \u2014 81 percent return to some sport, 65 percent to pre-injury level, 55 percent to competitive level in the Ardern meta-analysis cited above \u2014 and the secondary-injury risk is equally well documented: Wiggins and colleagues’ 2016 meta-analysis in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (Wiggins et al., 2016<\/a>) found that young athletes under 25 who return to high-risk sport after ACL reconstruction face a secondary ACL injury rate of about 23 percent, roughly one in four. Those numbers establish the problem that early, well-dosed rehabilitation is meant to address; they do not by themselves prove that any particular device reduces recurrence, and we have not found a trial that isolates unweighted treadmill running as the decisive variable in return-to-play outcomes. What the literature does support is the chain of reasoning the clinical brief follows: delayed or incomplete rehabilitation compromises return to performance and raises recurrence risk (Algahtani et al., 2025), fear of re-injury is a measurable barrier with physiological consequences (Pinto & Thomas, 2026), and the ability to restore normal gait and running kinematics under reduced load earlier in recovery removes the specific obstacle \u2014 the weeks of non-weight-bearing \u2014 that drives atrophy, inhibition and fear. The device is a plausible, mechanism-backed tool for that chain. Facilities should describe it to athletes and parents in exactly those terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the Clinic to the Field: Athletes, Recovery Timelines and Return to Play<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The second market for a body weight support treadmill looks nothing like the first on the surface \u2014 teenagers and professionals instead of post-operative seniors, a sports center or school training room instead of a hospital gym \u2014 but the underlying problem is the same bottleneck viewed from the other end of the age range. The injured athlete’s limb, like the arthritic patient’s, cannot be loaded fully for a period, and everything that goes wrong in sports rehabilitation \u2014 the slow timeline, the failure to regain the pre-injury level, the re-injury on return \u2014 grows in that unloaded interval. The three subsections below follow the structure of the clinical brief: the three problems athletes face, the four advantages partial weight-bearing offers them, and the dosing table that turns both into a protocol. Two framing points apply throughout. The athletic protocols assume medical clearance for partial weight-bearing and are run by clinicians or qualified sports-medicine staff, not by coaches alone; and the objective in sport is narrower than in the clinic \u2014 not merely to walk again, but to restore the exact movement pattern, speed and conditioning the sport demands, which raises the bar for what the equipment must preserve while it protects, and for the records a program must keep to prove it did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three Problems Every Injured Athlete Faces<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The first problem is time. Recovery timelines for common sports injuries are long and, more importantly, wide: a minor sprain or strain can take two to eight weeks, tendinopathy and overuse injuries four to twelve, bone fractures six to twelve, and major ligament tears six to twelve months, with concussion averaging around three weeks before clinical recovery in collegiate athletes (Bretzin et al., 2021) and recovery durations that differ measurably between the school year and summer in adolescents (Rose et al., 2025). The width of those ranges is the point: within each injury type, the difference between the fast and the slow end of the timeline is largely determined by how early and how well rehabilitation begins. The second problem is performance. A delayed start to rehabilitation significantly compromises an athlete’s ability to return to their pre-injury level, and a cross-sectional study of ACL reconstruction patients found that early physical therapy improved functional recovery, proprioception and return to sport compared with delayed therapy (Algahtani et al., 2025). The mechanism is unloading: the inability to perform full weight-bearing activity for weeks produces advanced muscle atrophy with strength deficits, neuromuscular inhibition, compensatory biomechanics and joint stiffness, and eventually psychological hurdles \u2014 fear of movement and fear of re-injury \u2014 that the sports rehabilitation literature now treats as outcomes in their own right (Pinto & Thomas, 2026). The third problem is recurrence. The risk of re-injury after return to play rises sharply when an athlete resumes sport after a delayed or incomplete program, and the secondary ACL injury rate of roughly 23 percent in young athletes returning to high-risk sport (Wiggins et al., 2016) is the clearest single number in the field. Preventing recurrence requires retraining movement patterns while implementing progressive, sport-specific conditioning \u2014 which requires being able to load the pattern. The timeline table that follows is the one the clinical brief uses with coaches and parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Athlete<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Type of Injury<\/strong><\/td>Average Recovery Timeline (Depending on Severity)<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Concussions<\/td>About 3 weeks<\/td><\/tr>
Minor sprains and strains<\/td>2\u20138 weeks<\/td><\/tr>
Tendonitis and overuse injuries<\/td>4\u201312 weeks<\/td><\/tr>
Bone fractures<\/td>6\u201312 weeks<\/td><\/tr>
Burnout or overtraining<\/td>4\u201312 weeks<\/td><\/tr>
Major ligament tears<\/td>6\u201312 months<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

(Chart 1: Average recovery timelines; Bretzin et al., 2021; Rose et al., 2025)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four Advantages of Partial Body-Weight Support for Athletes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Partial body-weight support treadmill training addresses all three problems through four mechanisms, and understanding each is what separates a coach who uses the device well from one who uses it as an expensive treadmill. The first advantage is reduced ground reaction force: unweighting cuts the impact load on cartilage, tendons, joints and micro-fracture sites in proportion to the support applied, which allows running \u2014 not merely walking \u2014 to resume while the injured structure is still remodeling. The second is neuromuscular overspeed conditioning. With part of the body’s weight removed, athletes can reach or exceed their maximal sprinting velocity with higher and wider stride frequencies than gravity would otherwise permit, recruiting the specific fast-twitch fibers and firing patterns that sprint performance depends on, during a period when ground-based sprinting would be contraindicated. The third is cardiovascular and metabolic maintenance: a high heart-rate stimulus and maximal oxygen consumption training can be sustained through the recovery phases in which full weight-bearing is clinically off limits, so the athlete returns with an aerobic engine that did not spend three months idling. The fourth, and the one most often overlooked in comparison with pool-based alternatives, is kinematic consistency. Unweighted running on a belt preserves natural sprinting kinematics \u2014 hip extension, knee flexion, ankle stability \u2014 whereas pool or hydrotherapy running introduces fluid resistance that alters muscle activation and movement timing, so the pattern rehearsed in water is not quite the pattern the athlete will use on the field. For an athlete whose return-to-play problem is precisely the retraining of movement patterns, rehearsing the correct pattern at reduced load is the whole objective, and it is the reason body-weight support treadmill work has become a standard component of elite sports rehabilitation rather than a luxury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dosing: Unweighting Percentages by Training Objective<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Dosing is where the device’s clinical and athletic uses diverge most clearly, because the athlete is often being asked to run faster, not just to walk, and the unweighting percentage encodes the objective. The clinical brief’s dosing matrix, reproduced in the table below, organizes applications by training domain. For overspeed work with higher stride frequency, unweighting is light \u2014 ten to twenty percent, or five to ten kilograms on the XC2’s scale \u2014 and speed is increased by five to ten percent beyond ground-based maximum as tolerated, recruiting specific fiber types and conditioning faster leg turnover. For active recovery, twenty to twenty-five percent unweighting (ten to fifteen kilograms) promotes blood flow through the muscles without adding mechanical joint strain or tissue breakdown on the day after competition. Anaerobic conditioning and high-velocity sprints for heavy athletes \u2014 the 110-kilogram lineman or thrower whose body mass makes every impact a cumulative-load problem \u2014 use twenty-five to thirty percent (fifteen to twenty kilograms) to reduce joint degeneration and chronic overuse injury during impact loading. Stress fractures and tendinopathy call for thirty to thirty-five percent (twenty to twenty-five kilograms), a dose chosen to keep tendon strain within the mechanical remodeling zone during gait retraining without further tissue damage. And early return-to-play training across conditions uses a progressive reload: begin unweighted by forty to fifty percent (twenty-five to thirty-five kilograms), maintaining natural heel-to-toe gait kinetics while protecting joints and injured soft tissue, and reduce support by five to ten percent \u2014 three to five kilograms \u2014 each week as tolerance returns. Two cautions attach to every row. The figures are starting protocols to be individualized by a qualified clinician against pain, swelling and movement quality, not prescriptions to be applied from a chart; and progression is governed by the tissue’s response between sessions, so a week with increased symptoms is a week to hold the dose, not to advance it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purpose \/ Training Domain<\/strong><\/td>Recommended Dosage<\/strong><\/td>Application of the XC2<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Overspeed with higher stride frequency<\/td>Unweight by 10\u201320% (5\u201310 kg); increase speed by 5\u201310% as required<\/td>Recruiting specific muscle fibers and conditioning faster leg stride frequency<\/td><\/tr>
Active recovery<\/td>Unweight by 20\u201325% (10\u201315 kg)<\/td>Promoting muscle blood flow without adding mechanical joint strain or tissue breakdown<\/td><\/tr>
Anaerobic conditioning \/ high-velocity sprints for heavy athletes<\/td>Unweight by 25\u201330% (15\u201320 kg)<\/td>Reducing joint degeneration and chronic overuse injury during impact loading<\/td><\/tr>
Stress fractures and tendinopathy<\/td>Unweight by 30\u201335% (20\u201325 kg)<\/td>Keeping tendon strain within the mechanical remodeling zone during gait retraining without further tissue damage<\/td><\/tr>
Early return-to-play training (various conditions)<\/td>Progressive reload: start unweighted 40\u201350% (25\u201335 kg); reduce 5\u201310% (3\u20135 kg) weekly<\/td>Maintaining natural heel-to-toe gait kinetics while protecting joints and injured soft tissues<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Choosing and Running the Equipment: Specifications, Safety and Compliance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Because this is a device that suspends injured people above a moving belt, equipment selection is a safety decision before it is a budget decision, and the specifications that matter are not the ones that photograph well. Start with the unweighting system. The XC2 uses a pneumatic suspension harness with a zero-to-35-kilogram support range, which covers ten to fifty percent of body weight for the majority of adult patients and athletes; buyers should confirm that any system they consider provides support through the trunk rather than the arms, holds the set unweighting consistently through the gait cycle rather than bouncing, and adjusts in small increments so that weekly reloading steps of three to five kilograms are actually achievable. Next, belt speed and start behavior: a clinical treadmill must start slowly enough for a neurological patient \u2014 the XC2’s 0.1 kilometer-per-hour minimum exists for the stroke and Parkinson’s populations \u2014 and run fast enough for overspeed sprinting, which its 20 kilometer-per-hour ceiling, 0.1 to 2.5 kilometer-per-hour backward range for eccentric work, and 0 to 6-degree incline address; the PUSH mode that simulates a sled push extends the device into strength-oriented conditioning that a plain treadmill cannot offer. Then safety architecture: a dual-layer system combining an emergency stop with a detachable safety clip that halts the belt if the user loses balance is the minimum a facility should accept, and the extended handrails and open-side frame on the XC2 exist so that a therapist can stand beside the patient and assist stepping, which is a daily workflow requirement in neurological rehabilitation rather than a convenience. A 150-kilogram maximum user weight, a 56-by-156-centimeter belt and contact heart-rate sensors on the front grips round out the specification; the heart-rate monitoring is not decorative, because the aerobic-maintenance protocols in the dosing table depend on holding a target heart-rate zone rather than a target speed. Facility buyers comparing options, including ours, should read the longer treatments of commercial equipment decisions in our guides to leasing versus buying commercial equipment<\/a> and to what a gym equipment warranty should cover<\/a>, both of which apply with extra force to a medical-adjacent device.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compliance and operations follow. The international reference for stationary training equipment is the ISO 20957-1<\/a> family of general safety requirements, and a treadmill intended for clinical populations should be designed and documented against it, with the harness system’s load rating, attachment points and inspection intervals specified in writing; facilities in regulated markets should additionally confirm whether local rules classify a body-weight support treadmill used in a hospital as a medical device, because that classification changes procurement, maintenance and incident-reporting obligations. Operationally, four practices keep the device safe across years of use. Fit the harness properly and inspect it before every session \u2014 webbing, buckles and suspension connections are the components that fail silently. Keep a per-patient record of unweighting, speed, duration and symptom response, because the progression logic described throughout this article is impossible without it and because that record is what a clinical director will ask for when outcomes are reviewed. Maintain the machine on a schedule \u2014 belt tension and lubrication, deck wear, pneumatic system pressure, emergency-stop function \u2014 which our equipment maintenance guide<\/a> lays out for commercial treadmills generally. And train every operator: the device’s value is entirely in the clinical judgment applied to its dials, and a facility that lets untrained staff set unweighting percentages has bought an expensive way to produce the wrong gait pattern safely. A disclosure to close the section, as throughout: we manufacture the device this section describes, so verify every specification against the product page and ask any competing supplier for the equivalent figures rather than taking either of us on faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Honest Limits, Risks and Alternatives<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A guide that aims to be trustworthy owes you the case against its own product, and there are three parts to it. The first is the evidence boundary already described: for stroke, the best available systematic review supports modest gains in speed and endurance in patients who can already walk, finds no advantage for achieving independent walking in those who cannot, and notes that gains did not clearly persist after training ended. A facility that expects a body-weight support treadmill to produce independent walkers from non-walkers, or permanent results from a six-week block, will be disappointed by the device and should blame the expectation. The second is the risk profile. The harness removes the fall, but it does not remove every hazard: skin and groin irritation from poorly fitted harnesses, over-reliance on support that masks rather than corrects asymmetry, inappropriate early loading of structures whose surgeon has specified a non-weight-bearing period, and cardiovascular events in deconditioned patients pushed too hard too soon are all documented in clinical practice and are managed by screening, fitting, recording and supervision rather than by the equipment. Contraindications \u2014 unstable fractures, acute deep-vein thrombosis, uncontrolled cardiac conditions, surgical restrictions on weight-bearing \u2014 are the clinician’s to apply, and no dosing table in this article overrides a surgeon’s written protocol. The third is the commercial reality for a smaller facility: this is a capital purchase with a footprint, a maintenance schedule and a training requirement, and a clinic whose caseload does not include a steady stream of post-operative, neurological, osteoarthritic or athletic patients may not use it enough to justify it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The alternatives deserve equal candor, because each solves part of the same problem. Aquatic therapy and pool running offer excellent unweighting with the warmth and resistance of water, at the cost of altered movement kinematics, the facilities burden of a pool, and infection-control constraints for post-surgical wounds; for athletes whose objective is sprint-pattern fidelity, that kinematic alteration is the decisive drawback, but for an osteoarthritic older adult it may be the gentler and more enjoyable option. Lower-body positive-pressure treadmills \u2014 the pneumatic-chamber “anti-gravity” systems \u2014 unweight through air pressure around the lower body rather than a trunk harness; they offer very fine unweighting control and are widely used in elite sport, at substantially higher capital cost and with a sealed-shorts interface that makes therapist access to the legs during gait harder. Overground harness track systems trade the treadmill’s controlled repetition for real-world walking over varied surfaces and are preferable for some late-stage neurological patients. And the oldest alternative \u2014 parallel bars, assistive devices and graded overground walking with a skilled therapist \u2014 remains entirely legitimate for low-volume settings, at the cost of therapist time per correct step. Our honest position is that a harness-suspension treadmill such as the XC2 sits at the practical middle of this spectrum: more controllable and more running-capable than the pool, more accessible and affordable than positive-pressure chambers, and far more repetition-dense than overground work. Where a facility’s needs fall at either extreme, we would rather point it toward the right tool than sell it the wrong one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What is a body weight support treadmill used for?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A body weight support treadmill is used to let patients and athletes walk or run while a harness carries part of their body weight, so joints and healing tissues are loaded at a tolerable level. Clinically it supports early gait training after knee, hip and ACL surgery, pain-managed walking in osteoarthritis, repetitive stepping practice after stroke or spinal cord injury, and fall-free balance retraining in Parkinson’s disease and vestibular disorders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How much weight can the Power Strider XC2 unweight?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Power Strider XC2 unweights between zero and 35 kilograms through its pneumatic suspension harness, which corresponds to roughly ten to fifty percent of body weight for most adults. Support is adjustable in small steps so clinicians can reload three to five kilograms per week. The treadmill runs 0.1 to 20 km\/h forward, 0.1 to 2.5 km\/h backward, inclines to 6 degrees, and accepts users up to 150 kilograms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does unweighted treadmill training work after a stroke?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The evidence is positive but modest. A 2017 Cochrane review of 56 trials found that treadmill training, with or without body-weight support, may improve walking speed and endurance in people who could already walk after stroke, but did not increase the likelihood of independent walking in those who could not, and gains did not clearly persist once training stopped. It works best as a high-repetition component of a broader rehabilitation program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When can an athlete start running after an injury on a body-weight support treadmill?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Often weeks earlier than on the ground, but only when the treating clinician or surgeon clears partial weight-bearing. Typical early return-to-play protocols start at 40\u201350 percent unweighting to preserve natural heel-to-toe mechanics while protecting the injured tissue, then reduce support by 5\u201310 percent per week. The timing depends on the injury, surgical restrictions, pain and swelling, and is individualized rather than fixed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is a body-weight support treadmill better than pool running for athletes?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For movement-pattern fidelity, yes. Unweighted treadmill running preserves natural sprinting kinematics \u2014 hip extension, knee flexion and ankle stability \u2014 whereas water adds fluid resistance that alters muscle activation and timing. Pool running remains valuable for gentle, enjoyable unweighted exercise, particularly for older adults with osteoarthritis, but athletes retraining sport-specific movement patterns generally benefit more from rehearsing the exact pattern they will use on the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion: Load Early, Load Precisely, Reload on Schedule<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Strip the subject to its essentials and the case for partial body-weight support treadmill training is a case about dose. Lower-limb and spinal disorders dominate rehabilitation caseloads in Taiwan, across Europe and worldwide, and the demographic engine behind them \u2014 aging populations and a knee osteoarthritis burden that the World Health Organization already counts in the hundreds of millions and the Global Burden of Disease study projects toward a billion \u2014 is not slowing. Every one of those patients, and every injured athlete at the other end of the age range, shares the same bottleneck: tissue that heals under load but cannot yet carry the body’s full weight. A harness and a belt resolve that contradiction by making load a dial instead of a binary, so gait training can begin when healing starts rather than when strength returns, and can climb back toward full weight three to five kilograms at a time. The evidence supports that logic without flattering it: real but modest gains in neurological gait, a sound mechanism-based rationale in orthopaedic and athletic recovery, and outcomes that depend far more on clinical judgment, patient selection and program design than on the equipment. The dosing tables in this article are starting points for that judgment, not substitutes for it. Choose equipment on its safety architecture, its unweighting precision and its clinical workflow; run it with harness inspection, per-patient records and trained operators; respect the contraindications and the surgeon’s protocol; and consider the pool, the positive-pressure chamber and the parallel bars honestly where they fit better. We build the Power Strider XC2 and profit from its sale, which is exactly why we have written this guide to be checked rather than believed \u2014 the references below are the place to start.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

[1] Alex Athletics. (n.d.). Power Strider XC2 (H02BB002) product specifications. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/power-strider-xc2\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2] Chen, C. Y., Lu, S. R., et al. (2022). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among physical therapists in Taiwan. Medicine (Baltimore), 101(7), e28885.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3] Hsu, M. F., & Hsieh, C. M. (2022). Factors affecting physical activity of people with knee osteoarthritis in southern Taiwan: A multiple logistic regression analysis. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 2022, 4736231.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4] European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2019). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: Prevalence, costs and demographics in the EU. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https:\/\/osha.europa.eu\/en\/publications\/msds-facts-and-figures-overview-prevalence-costs-and-demographics-msds-europe<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5] Arthritis UK. (2026). The state of musculoskeletal health. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https:\/\/www.arthritis-uk.org\/policy-and-data\/health-intelligence\/the-state-of-musculoskeletal-health<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6] World Health Organization. (2022, July 14). Musculoskeletal health [Fact sheet]. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https:\/\/www.who.int\/news-room\/fact-sheets\/detail\/musculoskeletal-conditions<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7] World Health Organization. (2023, July 14). Osteoarthritis [Fact sheet]. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https:\/\/www.who.int\/news-room\/fact-sheets\/detail\/osteoarthritis<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8] GBD 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators. (2023). Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis, 1990\u20132020 and projections to 2050: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet Rheumatology. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S2665-9913(23)00163-7<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9] Ardern, C. L., Taylor, N. F., Feller, J. A., & Webster, K. E. (2014). Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48(21), 1543\u20131552. https:\/\/bjsm.bmj.com\/content\/48\/21\/1543<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10] Mehrholz, J., Thomas, S., & Elsner, B. (2017). Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(8), CD002840. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https:\/\/www.cochrane.org\/CD002840\/STROKE_treadmill-training-and-body-weight-support-walking-after-stroke<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11] Mehrholz, J., Kugler, J., Storch, A., Pohl, M., Hirsch, K., & Elsner, B. (2015). Treadmill training for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD007830. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/14651858.CD007830.pub4<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12] World Health Organization. (2024, June 26). Physical activity [Fact sheet]. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https:\/\/www.who.int\/news-room\/fact-sheets\/detail\/physical-activity<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13] Wiggins, A. J., Grandhi, R. K., Schneider, D. K., Stanfield, D., Webster, K. E., & Myer, G. D. (2016). Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(7), 1861\u20131876. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0363546515621554<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14] Algahtani, T. A., Kardm, S. M., et al. (2025). Impact of early vs. delayed physical therapy on functional recovery, proprioception, and return to sport after ACL reconstruction: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 20, 644. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13018-025-06054-x<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15] Pinto, A., & Thomas, J. (2026). The role of fear of reinjury in sports rehabilitation: Psychological and physiological implications. Journal of Sports and Rehabilitation Sciences, 3(1), 46\u201348.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16] Bretzin, A. C., Esopenko, C., et al. (2021). Clinical recovery timelines after sport-related concussion in men’s and women’s collegiate sports. Journal of Athletic Training, 57(7), 678\u2013687. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4085\/601-20<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17] Rose, S. C., Benedict, J., et al. (2025). Recovery from adolescent sports concussion during the school year compared with summer. Pediatric Neurology, 167, 110\u2013116.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18] International Organization for Standardization. (2024). Stationary training equipment \u2014 Part 1: General safety requirements and test methods (ISO 20957-1:2024). Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https:\/\/www.iso.org\/standard\/81908.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Why Lower-Limb Recovery Needs a Way to Walk Before the Body Can Carry Itself Every physical therapist knows the paradox at the center of lower-extremity rehabilitation. The tissues that have been injured, operated on or worn by age heal faster and remodel better when they are loaded early and moved often \u2014 yet the same […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":5264,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-training-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5261","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5261"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5261\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5268,"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5261\/revisions\/5268"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5264"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexathletics1982.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}