Equipment and running surface alter sprint performance of college football players.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of football equipment and running surface on sprint performance in NCAA Division II football players (n = 68). Players were timed in the 40-yd sprint on an indoor rubberized track (Day 1) and on an outdoor, natural-grass football field (Day 2) wearing either regulation football equipment or shorts and a T-shirt. Each player was assigned randomly to perform 2 trials under each condition on each surface, and the average of the 2 trials was used for analysis. Offensive backs, defensive backs, and linebackers were significantly faster than were offensive and defensive linemen in all trials, and subjects were collapsed into 2 groups, backs and linemen. Football equipment significantly impaired performance on the track (-2.8% +/- 1.7%) and the field (-2.9% +/- 1.8%). The increase in body mass due to the football equipment was significantly greater for backs (7.2% +/- 0.7%) than for linemen (6.5% +/- 1.0%), but produced a significantly greater impairment in sprint performance in linemen (-3.3% +/- 1.1%) as compared with backs (-2.5% +/- 1.5%). Sprint performance was significantly and equivalently impaired when running on grass (backs: -2.5 +/- 1.1%; linemen: -2.8 +/- 1.4%) as compared with the track. Thus, running a 40-yd sprint in football equipment on a natural grass field impairs performance by an average of 5.5% (+/- 2.3%) compared with running indoors with minimal apparel. Football equipment and running surface significantly impair sprint performance in college football players, the effect being greater in linemen than in backs, and is likely related to differences in muscle strength/power and body fat.
- SourceAvailable from: Vitor Tessutti[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract The practice of running has consistently increased worldwide, and with it, related lower limb injuries. The type of running surface has been associated with running injury etiology, in addition other factors, such as the relationship between the amount and intensity of training. There is still controversy in the literature regarding the biomechanical effects of different types of running surfaces on foot-floor interaction. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of running on asphalt, concrete, natural grass, and rubber on in-shoe pressure patterns in adult recreational runners. Forty-seven adult recreational runners ran twice for 40 m on all four different surfaces at 12 ± 5% km · h(-1). Peak pressure, pressure-time integral, and contact time were recorded by Pedar X insoles. Asphalt and concrete were similar for all plantar variables and pressure zones. Running on grass produced peak pressures 9.3% to 16.6% lower (P < 0.001) than the other surfaces in the rearfoot and 4.7% to 12.3% (P < 0.05) lower in the forefoot. The contact time on rubber was greater than on concrete for the rearfoot and midfoot. The behaviour of rubber was similar to that obtained for the rigid surfaces - concrete and asphalt - possibly because of its time of usage (five years). Running on natural grass attenuates in-shoe plantar pressures in recreational runners. If a runner controls the amount and intensity of practice, running on grass may reduce the total stress on the musculoskeletal system compared with the total musculoskeletal stress when running on more rigid surfaces, such as asphalt and concrete.Journal of Sports Sciences 08/2012; 30(14):1545-50. · 2.08 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the injury risk in pivoting indoor sports between two different surfaces: artificial floors and wooden floors. Female players (n = 331) from 26 top-level Finnish floorball teams were followed for one competitive season (6 months). All traumatic game related time-loss injuries were recorded. Injury incidences were calculated as the number of injuries per 1000 game hours for both surfaces. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were obtained from Poisson regression models. Over the competitive season, 62 traumatic injuries occurred during the games. The injury incidence per 1000 playing hours was 59.9 (95% CI 43.2 to 83.0) on artificial floors and 26.8 (95% CI 18.2 to 39.3) on wooden floors, the adjusted IRR being twofold higher (IRR = 2.1; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.5, p = 0.005) on artificial floors than wooden floors. The risk for non-contact injuries (adjusted IRR = 12.5; 95% CI 2.9 to 54.9, p = 0.001) and severe injuries (adjusted IRR = 3.3; 95% CI 0.9 to 10.9, p = 0.052) was especially high when playing on artificial floors. The study attested that the risk of traumatic injury in pivoting indoor sports is higher when playing on artificial floors than wooden floors. The higher shoe-surface friction on the former surface is likely to explain the higher injury risk.British journal of sports medicine 04/2008; 42(3):194-7. · 3.67 Impact Factor