Content uploaded by Vitor Tessutti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vitor Tessutti
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [European College of Sport Science ]
On: 08 May 2013, At: 13:46
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sports Sciences
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
Attenuation of foot pressure during running on four
different surfaces: asphalt, concrete, rubber, and
natural grass
Vitor Tessutti a , Ana Paula Ribeiro a , Francis Trombini-Souza a & Isabel C.N. Sacco a
a Physical Therapy, Speech and Occupational Therapy Department, School of Medicine,
University of São Paulo, Brazil
Published online: 17 Aug 2012.
To cite this article: Vitor Tessutti , Ana Paula Ribeiro , Francis Trombini-Souza & Isabel C.N. Sacco (2012): Attenuation of foot
pressure during running on four different surfaces: asphalt, concrete, rubber, and natural grass, Journal of Sports Sciences,
30:14, 1545-1550
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.713975
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Attenuation of foot pressure during running on four different surfaces:
asphalt, concrete, rubber, and natural grass
VITOR TESSUTTI, ANA PAULA RIBEIRO, FRANCIS TROMBINI-SOUZA, &
ISABEL C.N. SACCO
Physical Therapy, Speech and Occupational Therapy Department, School of Medicine, University of Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
(Accepted 17 July 2012)
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
71
. 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 (P50.001) than the other surfaces in the
rearfoot and 4.7% to 12.3% (P50.05) 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.
Keywords: biomechanics, running, compressive forces, floors, floor coverings
Introduction
The popularity of running has consistently increased
(Tillman, Fiolkowski, Bauer, & Reisinger, 2002),
attracting more than 30,000 participants to some
long-distance events (AIMS, 2011). In parallel, the
number of injuries has been proportional to the
number of runners (Gerlach et al., 2005) and has
resulted in an incidence of lower limb injuries
varying from 19.4% to 79.3% in long-distance
runners (van Gent et al., 2007). In addition to other
factors, such as shoes (De Wit, De Clercq, & Aerts,
2000; Willems et al., 2006), inappropriate surfaces
such as hard floors (Derrick, DeReu, & McLean,
2002; Tartaruga et al., 2005) and slopes can be
related to the occurrence of running injuries (Tartar-
uga et al., 2005). The occurrence of injuries is also
dependent on biomechanical adaptations to the
running surface, as well as how well the musculos-
keletal system can adjust muscle and passive
responses to the intensity and frequency of the
mechanical stimuli from running (Batt, 2005;
Hreljac, 2004). Therefore, it is difficult to predict
an injury occurrence, as it is dependent on a critical
interaction between the runner’s biomechanical
predisposition and training conditions (Fredericson,
1996), such as the running surface. One of these
surfaces usually recommended by coaches is natural
grass, because it assumed that the risk of developing
musculoskeletal injuries is lower when practising on
this surface (Bloom, 1997).
Although Feehery (1986) observed that a shorter
time was needed to reach the first vertical force peak
during running on concrete in comparison with
natural grass and asphalt, he also found a higher first
vertical force peak on grass. In relation to rubber
surfaces, Ferris, Liang and Farley (1999) and Ferris,
Louie and Farley (1998) reported a substantially
higher first vertical force peak during running on
hard rubber compared with soft rubber, resulting in a
Correspondence: Isabel C.N. Sacco, Centro de Doceˆncia e Pesquisa do Departamento de Fisioterapia, Fonoaudiologia e Terapia Ocup acional , R. Cipotaˆ nea,
51, Cidade Universita´ria, Sa˜ o Paulo, SP, Brazil. Email: icnsacco@usp.br
Journal of Sports Sciences, October 2012; 30(14): 1545–1550
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.713975
Downloaded by [European College of Sport Science ] at 13:46 08 May 2013
higher load on the musculoskeletal system. Dixon,
Collop and Batt (2000) found higher first peak rates
on asphalt (rigid surface) than on rubber (compliant
surface). Different results were found by Tillman
et al. (2002), who observed similarities in peak forces
and force load rates during running, regardless of the
surface type. Although Tillman et al. (2002) used a
plantar pressure measuring device to investigate four
running surfaces, they focused their discussion on
force variables, which might influence the interpreta-
tion of the mechanical behaviour of these surfaces
compared with the use of pressure data itself.
Pressure data from sensitive insoles provide addi-
tional data regarding the distribution of force over
the contacting running surface, and this data should
be explored more closely than it has been in the past.
This information has the potential to improve the
understanding of the effect of surfaces, providing
more details regarding foot loading than resultant
force measurement.
As the majority of previous studies of surface
properties have focused on resultant force, the use of
pressure-sensitive insoles should provide new data
regarding the loading across different areas of the
foot while running. In addition, for detailing the
force distribution across different areas of the foot
surface, pressure data can be acquired from con-
secutive running steps, reducing data collection time
and allowing the subject to run more naturally,
without having to target a platform. The influence of
different running surfaces in in-shoe pressure dis-
tribution in recreational runners in their natural
environment is not yet clear, and the literature
evidence from other biomechanical variables (Eils
et al., 2004; Feehery, 1986; Ferris et al., 1998; Ford
et al., 2006; Tillman et al., 2002) supports the
proposition of a new study to address the discussion
on how surface–foot interaction functions while
running on different surfaces, by using in-shoe
pressure data.
Thus, the aim of the present study was to
investigate the influence of different running surfaces
commonly used for running practice (asphalt, con-
crete, natural grass, and rubber) on in-shoe pressure
patterns in adult recreational runners. The hypoth-
esis for this study was that lower peak pressure would
be observed on grass and rubber compared with the
pressures experienced when running on more rigid
surfaces, such as asphalt and concrete, particularly in
the rearfoot and forefoot.
Method
Forty-seven recreational runners, 34 males (1.78 +
0.06 m, 73.5 +10.6 kg) and 13 females (1.59 +
0.05 m, 53.2 +4.0 kg), were studied. The age range
of the participants was from 18 to 50 years (the mean
age was 35.1 years for men and 38.9 years for
women). Participants had been running a mean
38 +13 km week
71
; the mean running speed of
their last 10 km competition was 11.7 km h
71
,as
reported by the subjects. For inclusion in this study,
the runners had to: have run at least 20 km weekly
for at least one year; be experienced in long-distance
competitions; be experienced in running on grass,
asphalt, and sidewalks (concrete); have a regular
rearfoot strike pattern; have had no musculoskeletal
injury in the prior six months; and have a maximum
leg length discrepancy of 1 cm. All subjects signed a
term of informed consent approved by the Local
Ethical Committee (Protocol No. 0022/07).
The runners underwent a pre-trial adaptation
phase, practising equally on each surface using the
required footwear and the backpack with the equip-
ment. Subjects ran a distance of 40 m at 12 km
h
71
;+5% km h
71
was tolerated. Speed was mea-
sured within the middle 20 m after excluding the first
and last 10 m by stopwatch to avoid recording
pressure and controlling speed over periods of
acceleration and deceleration throughout the run-
ning. In order to minimize errors, two observers
simultaneously timed every run with a stopwatch,
with a time of 6 seconds (+5%), and the inter-
observer assessment was concordant (ICC ¼96%).
We considered that the subjects were adapted to the
environment (surfaces, backpack, and footwear)
when their mean speed of three consecutive 40 m
runs was 12 km h
71
(+5%). After the pre-trial
adaptation phase, the individuals ran twice on each
surface – asphalt, concrete, natural grass, and
rubber – in a random order; about 30 steps were
acquired for analysis (Eils et al., 2004; Ford et al.,
2006; Tillman et al., 2002; Wong, Chamari, Mao, &
Wisloff, 2006). The runners could rest between
surfaces for 5 min at maximum or when they felt
tired during the data collection. Runners performed
three trials per surface to adapt to the established
speed before data acquisition. Trials in which the
target speed was not achieved (12 km h
71
+5%
km h
71
) were not considered for analysis. There-
fore, running speed was consistent across surfaces for
a given subject and across all subjects (mean speed).
Plantar pressure distribution was measured by the
Pedar X system (Novel, Munich, Germany) at
100 Hz within the middle 20 m. All runners wore a
standard running shoe model (Rainha System,
Alpargatas, Sa˜ o Paulo, Brazil, USA sizes 7–12) that
is commonly used by recreational runners in Brazil.
Its characteristics include an EVA sole composed of
light and highly resilient plastic that disperses the
impact horizontally through the sole in order to
return to the initial state quickly. It is recommended
by the manufacturer as a running shoe with a neutral
strike. The insoles were placed between the sock and
1546 V. Tessutti et al.
Downloaded by [European College of Sport Science ] at 13:46 08 May 2013
the shoe and were connected to equipment inside a
backpack. The backpack and equipment totalled
about 1.5 kg. The insoles were 2.5 mm thick and
contained a matrix of 99 capacitive pressure sensors
with a spatial resolution of 1.6 to 2.2 cm
2
.
The running locations used for data collection
were a natural grass and rubber surface at an outdoor
track and field complex, certified by the IAAF, on
which regional, national, and international competi-
tions take place. The rubber track (Sportflex Super
X, thickness 13 mm, Mondo, Italy), with a life
expectancy of about 20 years, had already been used
for approximately five years for training and compe-
titions. The rubber covering is mounted over a
concrete layer. We used the 100 m lane of the track
for the experiment. The asphalt surface was an
avenue adjacent to this sports complex, and the
concrete was a sidewalk beside this avenue. All
surfaces were in good condition, and they were all
flat and regular for at least 70 m. The grass leaves
(Cynodum dactylum) were green, 3 to 5 cm high, and
in good condition. Because all the evaluations were
carried out in autumn, the grass was mown every 60
days on a regular basis, and it was watered every two
days. The average temperature during the evaluation
periods varied from 15 to 258C. To test the
mechanical characteristics of all surfaces we used a
rubber ball dropped from 1.5 m high and a high
speed video camera, to calculate the kinetic energy
restored after the first kick over each surface. The
asphalt and the concrete produced similar energy
398.6 mJ, the rubber produced 373.5 mJ, and the
grass produced 204.1 mJ. Therefore, one may
conclude that the grass presented a more compliant
behaviour than the rubber, which in turn is more
compliant than the asphalt and concrete.
Peak pressure, pressure–time integral, and contact
time were measured over six plantar regions. The
plantar surface was first divided into three larger
areas: R – rearfoot (30% of foot length); M – midfoot
(30% of foot length); and F – forefoot and toes (40%
of foot length) (Cavanagh & Ulbrecht, 1994). The
rearfoot was subdivided into MR – medial rearfoot
(30% of the rearfoot width); CR – central rearfoot
(40% of the rearfoot width); and LR – lateral rearfoot
(30% of the rearfoot width). The forefoot was
subdivided into MF – medial forefoot (55% of the
forefoot width) and LF – lateral forefoot (45% of the
forefoot width) (Figure 1).
Plantar pressure variables followed a normal
distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test), and variances were
homogeneous (Levene’s test). For statistical pur-
poses, pressure data of only one foot per subject was
analyzed, and the mean pressure of approximately 30
steps per subject was compared among surfaces. The
surfaces were compared by three two-way ANOVAs
for repeated measures (4 66) – the type of surface
(4) and plantar areas (6) were within factor – follo-
wed by Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test (P50.05).
Results
The ANOVAs demonstrated differences in all vari-
ables between surfaces (peak pressure P50.01 –
F
3,56
¼145.96; pressure–time integral P50.01 –
F
3,56
¼97.99; contact time P50.01 – F
3,56
¼
145.40). The post hoc results are presented in
Table 1, using superscript letters.
The grass surface presented the greatest difference
in relation to the other surfaces, producing lower
peak pressure and pressure–time integrals (Table 1),
seen in the medial, central, and lateral rearfoot, and
medial and lateral forefoot regions. The asphalt
surface presented a greater contact time than rubber
and concrete only in the medial rearfoot and lateral
forefoot, and rubber presented a shorter contact than
asphalt and grass for all of the rear and midfoot.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of
running on asphalt, concrete, natural grass, and
rubber on in-shoe pressure patterns in adult recrea-
tional runners. The hypothesis for this study was that
lower peak pressure would be observed on grass and
Figure 1. Regions of plantar surface studied during running:
medial rearfoot (MR), central rearfoot (CR), lateral rearfoot (LR),
midfoot (M), medial forefoot (F), and lateral forefoot (LF).
Running on asphalt, concrete, rubber, and grass 1547
Downloaded by [European College of Sport Science ] at 13:46 08 May 2013
rubber compared with the pressures on rigid surfaces
such as asphalt and concrete. As expected, grass was
found to predominate over the other surfaces for
attenuation of the pressure variables (peak pressure
and pressure–time integral), mainly in three regions
of the foot: central rearfoot, lateral rearfoot, and
lateral forefoot. This predominance reached 10.9 to
13.9% of peak pressure and 5.2 to 8.2% of pressure–
time integral of load attenuation on the central
rearfoot, 16 to16.6% of peak pressure on the lateral
rearfoot, and 11.4 to 12.3% of peak pressure and 5.6
to 11.8% of pressure–time integral on the lateral
forefoot. However, rubber did not behave like the
compliant surface described in the literature (Bre-
chue, Mayhew, & Piper, 2005; Dixon et al., 2000;
Ferris et al., 1999); rather, it behaved like a rigid
surface, presenting greater pressure values, as did the
concrete and asphalt, in comparison to grass. In
addition, when testing on rubber, we observed the
shortest contact time for all rear and midfoot areas
and a tendency towards this behaviour in the
forefoot. We believe that this result was due to the
time and intensity of usage of this track surface (five
years), for practising and international competitions
in the large city of Sa˜ o Paulo (11 millions in
habitants), despite the manufacturer’s guarantees of
a 20-year life expectancy of the material.
Dixon et al. (2000) stated that alterations in the
surface characteristics can affect the movement
pattern and are a potentially disruptive factor for
technical performance of a motor skill. Based on our
results, the grass may have produced an alteration in
the patterns of the foot rollover during running. In
the forefoot, the grass manifested its effects on
reducing peak pressure, prolonging contact time
and, consequently, reducing the pressure–time in-
tegral; in the rearfoot, the grass mostly lowered peak
pressure rather than changing its rollover time. In the
phase in which load attenuation should occur, the
runners might have relied more on the contribution
of the lower extremity structures to absorb loads
while contacting the grass, whereas in the propulsion
phase, they kept the forefoot in contact with the grass
longer and thus were able to better distribute the
loads over this plantar area.
In a comparative study between grass and red clay
while running with kicking, Eils et al. (2004)
reported 3% higher peak pressures in red clay.
Ford et al. (2006) reported around 18 and 19%
higher peak pressure in the central forefoot and toes
Table I. Mean and standard deviation of peak pressure (kPa), pressure-time integral (kPa s) and contact time (ms) for each foot region
during running on natural grass, asphalt, concrete and rubber, and the percentages of difference for each region of the foot on each surface.
Peak Pressure
(kPa) %
1
Pressure-time
integral (kPa s) %
1
Contact
Time (ms) %
1
Medial rearfoot Asphalt 306.4 (78.5) 9.9 20.5 (5.7) 146.2 (21.4)
d
Concrete 304.5 (55.6) 9.3 20.3 (5.9) 140.5 (16.2) 74.1
d
Grass 276.1 (75.3)
a
19.9 (6.3) 143.5 (15.5) 3.7
e
Rubber 308.2 (80.8) 10.4 19.7 (5.3) 138.2 (18.0)
e
75.8
e
Central rearfoot Asphalt 347.7 (86.6) 13.9 22.8 (6.0) 8.2 153.6 (22.1) 4.2
Concrete 348.9 (91.5) 14.1 22.7 (5.9) 7.7 148.4 (16.2)
Grass 299.5 (72.0)
a
20.9 (5.1)
a
150.8 (16.8)
Rubber 336.3 (57.5) 10.9 22.1 (6.0) 5.2 147.1 (18.9)
f
Lateral rearfoot Asphalt 336.8 (95.2) 16.0 18.2 (4.8) 142.2 (18.7) 5.5
Concrete 337.0 (100.2) 16.0 19.2 (6.4) 139.4 (15.7)
Grass 283.0 (74.0)
a
17.9 (6.0) 141.5 (16.5) 5.1
Rubber 339.5 (94.1) 16.6 19.3 (7.0) 134.3 (17.8)
e
Midfoot Asphalt 114.9 (19.8) 14.7 (3.0) 72.6 198.7 (33.1)
Concrete 111.9 (16.4) 14.2 (3.0) 75.5 193.8 (32.0)
Grass 116.1 (24.2) 15.0 (3.2)
c
202.4 (33.4) 4.3
Rubber 116.2 (21.1) 14.7 (3.5) 72.1 190.2 (27.0)
f
Medial forefoot Asphalt 361.9 (97.0) 6.7 46.1 (12.9) 220.3 (26.8)
Concrete 362.7 (104.0) 6.9 45.4 (13.1) 214.5 (25.3) 74.8
Grass 337.7 (80.4)
b
45.2 (11.9) 224.9 (20.9)
a
Rubber 354.5 (94.6) 4.7 44.6 (11.9) 215.6 (25.5) 74.3
Lateral forefoot Asphalt 244.5 (54.1) 12.3 34.6 (9.0) 11.8 229.2 (25.2)
d,e
Concrete 242.3 (52.2) 11.4 32.3 (6.4) 5.6 223.4 (24.2) 73.1
d
/72.6
e
Grass 214.5 (42.6)
a
30.5 (6.6)
c
230.3 (20.1)
b
Rubber 242.6 (54.6) 11.6 33.1 (7.7) 7.7 222.8 (23.2) 73.4
b
/72.9
e
1
Percentages of the differences for those surfaces found to be significantly different from each other. The percentages are listed next to the
surface from which it differed.
The grey percentages in contact time represent the differences between asphalt and other surfaces.
Bold fonts represent statistical differences between grass 6other surfaces, and rubber 6other surfaces.
(a) P50.0005 asp 6grass, conc 6grass, rub 6grass; (b) P50.005 asp 6grass, conc 6grass, rub 6grass; (c) P50.05 asp 6grass,
conc 6grass, rub 6grass; (d) P50.05 conc6asp; (e) P50.05 asp 6rub, grass 6rub; (f) P50.05 asp 6rub.
1548 V. Tessutti et al.
Downloaded by [European College of Sport Science ] at 13:46 08 May 2013
on synthetic grass compared with natural grass. In
the present study, the differences in peak pressure
between grass and the other surfaces were also up to
16%. Using a computer simulation, Fritz and
Peikenkamp (2003) demonstrated that the most
rigid surface (concrete) increased the peak force
rate compared with wood. Dixon and James (2005)
studied tennis surfaces and concluded that the most
rigid surface (concrete) presented greater peak
pressures. The present study obtained the same
pressure results for concrete and asphalt.
Differing from what resultant forces and force rate
measures bring to the discussion of surface–foot
interaction, measuring the distribution of pressure
across the foot surface was important for the
detection of differences between surfaces while
running. The availability of data for different areas
of the foot through the use of pressure insoles has
supported the use of this technology for adding
information about how lower limb mechanics reflect
on the foot–floor interaction behaviour.
The pressure data also allowed us to establish
relationships between the medial and lateral regions
of the rearfoot on each surface. The results suggest
that, on grass, the rearfoot tends to behave in a more
neutral form with regard to pressure distribution,
unlike peak pressure on the other surfaces (see
Table 1). This interpretation is supported by the
peak pressure values in the medial and lateral
rearfoot, which were very similar while running on
grass (283.02 kPa for lateral rearfoot and 276.05 kPa
for medial rearfoot). According to Dixon (2008), the
foot and ankle move in a more efficient manner when
they are in a neutral position; thus, running on grass
may favour an efficient mechanics of the foot and
ankle complex. On the other three surfaces, the
lateral region tended to present values that were 10%
greater than the medial region. Tessutti, Trombini-
Souza, Ribeiro, Nunes and Sacco (2010) reported
that the difference between peak pressures in the
medial and lateral rearfoot was 4.5 times greater in
the lateral region when running on asphalt. Thus,
there may be a better pressure accommodation and
distribution on the lateral and medial rearfoot when
running on grass.
A possible preventive action for musculoskeletal
injuries to consider would be to use grass as a
compliant surface to provide a lower peak pressure in
the medial region of the foot, as well as to provide
better pressure distribution between the medial and
lateral regions of the rearfoot, compared with the
other surfaces tested (Milner, Ferber, Pollard,
Hamill, & Davis, 2006; Pohl, Hamill, & Davis,
2009). In addition, grass is usually more readily
available than track and field facilities with a rubber
surface. However, the non-uniformity of natural
grass, due to such factors as holes and tree roots,
and also the higher energy expenditure by the runner
are disadvantages that should be taken into account
when considering it as a training surface, weighing it
against the advantage of lower peak pressures on the
rear and forefoot. When competitive runners are
considered, the longer contact time observed when
running over grass would produce slower speeds and
may also increase the runner energy expenditure,
which have to be considered as disadvantages of this
surface in competitions.
The results obtained in this study disagree with the
findings of Tillman et al. (2002), who evaluated
different biomechanical variables that are present
when running on asphalt, concrete, rubber, and
grass, but did not explore the potentiality of pressure
distribution across different plantar areas. Although
these authors used an in-shoe pressure device with
24 resistive sensors, they focused their discussion on
peak forces and force load rates, which might
influence the interpretation of the mechanical
behaviour of these surfaces compared with the use
of pressure data. Another factor that could explain
the differences in the results of the two studies was
the sample size and demographic used in the Tillman
et al. (2002) study (11 men) compared with ours (47
recreational runners of both sexes).
Further studies may evaluate the foot kinematics
associated with plantar pressure distribution and
promote an in-depth discussion on how the foot and
ankle complex adjusts to different surface com-
pliancy. Aside from this, using EMG to evaluate
lower limb muscles during running on different
surfaces may also clarify if compliant surfaces, such
as natural grass, lead to greater muscle activity in
order to attenuate loads, and if that compromises the
metabolic efficiency of the run.
Conclusion
There were important differences of in-shoe pressure
between more compliant (natural grass) and more
rigid (asphalt and concrete) surfaces during running.
Natural grass produced peak pressures that were up
to 16% less at the rearfoot and lateral forefoot in
comparison with the other running surfaces. Among
the more rigid surfaces (asphalt and concrete), there
were no differences in the pressure patterns and,
surprisingly, similar behaviour was observed on the
rubber surface. The attenuation of peak pressure on
the rearfoot and forefoot during running on natural
grass may be mainly due to its compliant character-
istics, which is different from what was observed on
the more rigid surfaces (asphalt and concrete). The
rubber track we evaluated did not present the
characteristics of what is normally considered a
compliant surface, probably due to its time of usage
(more than five years).
Running on asphalt, concrete, rubber, and grass 1549
Downloaded by [European College of Sport Science ] at 13:46 08 May 2013
Running on natural grass attenuates in-shoe
plantar pressures in recreational runners, thus
favouring practice on it, particularly for long-
distance training. If a runner controls his/her amount
and intensity of practice, running on grass may
reduce the total stress on the musculoskeletal system
compared with the total musculoskeletal stress that
occurs when running on more rigid surfaces, such as
asphalt and concrete.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the CAPES (Brazilian
Federal Agency for the Improvement of Higher
Education) for the scholarship awarded to Francis
Trombini-Souza and Ana Paula Ribeiro, and
Associac¸a˜ o Paulista de Corredores Reunidos -
CORPORE, Running Clubs Ac¸a˜o Total, P.A.
Club, ME Vilela, Play Team, Run for Life and
Simone Machado; and Alpargatas Company for their
assistance with the study.
References
AIMS, Association of International Marathons and Distances
Races (2011). World’s largest marathons. Retrieved January,
31, 2011, from http://www.aimsworldrunning.org/statistics/
World’s_Largest_Marathons.html#2010.
Batt, M. (2005). Injury and sports surface. Launch Seminar of the
SportSURF Network. Loughborough, UK.
Bloom, M. (1997). Judging a path by its cover: Not all running
surfaces are created equal. So we’ve rated 10 of them, giving
you the pros and cons of each. Runner’s World,32, 54–58.
Brechue, W.F., Mayhew, J.L., & Piper, F.C. (2005). Equipment
and running surface alter sprint performance of college football
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,19, 821–
825.
Cavanagh, P., & Ulbrecht, J. (1994). Biomechanical aspects of
foot problems in diabetes. In: A. Boulton, H. Connor & P.
Cavanagh (Eds.), The foot in diabetes (pp. 25–35). Chichester:
Wiley.
De Witt, B., De Clercq, D., & Aerts, P. (2000). Biomechanical
analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running.
Journal of Biomechanics,33, 269–278.
Derrick, T.R., Dereu, D., & McLean, S.P. (2002). Impacts and
kinematic adjustments during an exhaustive run. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise,34, 998–1002.
Dixon, S., & James, I. (2005). Player surface-interaction. Launch
Seminar of the SportSURF Network. Loughborough, UK.
Dixon, S.J. (2008). Use of pressure insoles to compare in-shoe
loading for modern running shoes. Ergonomics,51, 1503–1514.
Dixon, S.J., Collop, A.C., & Batt, M.E. (2000). Surface effects on
ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics in
running. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,32, 1919–
1926.
Eils, E., Streyl, M., Linnenbecker, S., Thorwesten, L., Volker, K.,
& Rosenbaum, D. (2004). Characteristic plantar pressure dis-
tribution patterns during soccer-specific movements. American
Journal of Sports Medicine,32, 140–145.
Feehery, R.V., Jr. (1986). The biomechanics of running on different
surfaces. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery,3, 649–659.
Ferris, D.P., Liang, K., & Farley, C.T. (1999). Runners adjust leg
stiffness for their first step on a new running surface. Journal of
Biomechanics,32, 787–794.
Ferris, D.P., Louie, M., & Farley, C.T. (1998). Running in the
real world: adjusting leg stiffness for different surfaces.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B - Biological
Sciences,265, 989–994.
Ford, K.R., Manson, N.A., Evans, B.J., Myer, G.D., Gwin, R.C.,
Heidt, R.S., Jr., & Hewett, T.E. (2006). Comparison of in-shoe
foot loading patterns on natural grass and synthetic turf. Journal
of Science and Medicine in Sport,9, 433–440.
Fredericson, M. (1996). Common injuries in runners. Diagnosis,
rehabilitation and prevention. Sports Medicine,21(1), 49–72.
Fritz, M., & Peikenkamp, K. (2003). Simulation of the influence of
sports surfaces on vertical ground reaction forces during landing.
Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing,41(1), 11–17.
Gerlach, K.E., White, S.C., Burton, H.W., Dorn, J.M., Leddy,
J.J., & Horvath, P.J. (2005). Kinetic changes with fatigue and
relationship to injury in female runners. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise,37, 657–663.
Hreljac, A. (2004). Impact and overuse injuries in runners.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,36, 845–849.
Milner, C.E., Ferber, R., Pollard, C.D., Hamill J., & Davis, I.S.
(2006). Biomechanical factors associated with tibial stress
fractures in female runners. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise,38, 323–328.
Pohl, M.B., Hamill, J., & Davis, I.S. (2009). Biomechanical and
anatomic factors associated with a history of plantar fasciitis in
female runners. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine,19, 372–376.
Tartaruga, L., Tartaruga, M., Black, G., Coertjens, M., Ribas, L.,
& Kruel, L. (2005). Comparison of the subtalar joint angle
during submaximal running speeds. Acta Ortopedica Brasileira,
13, 57–60.
Tessutti, V., Trombini-Souza, F., Ribeiro, A.P., Nunes, A.L., &
Sacco I.C. (2010). In-shoe plantar pressure distribution during
running on natural grass and asphalt in recreational runners.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,13(1), 151–155.
Tillman, M.D., Fiolkowski, P., Bauer, J.A., & Reisinger, K.D.
(2002). In-shoe plantar measurements during running on
different surfaces: Changes in temporal and kinetic parameters.
Sports Engineering,5, 121–128.
van Gent, R.N., Siem, D., van Middelkoop, M., van Os, A.G.,
Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M., & Koes, B.W. (2007). Incidence and
determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long
distance runners: a systematic review. British Journal of Sports
Medicine,41, 469–480; discussion 480.
Willems, T.M., De Clercq, D., Delbaere, K., Vanderstraeten, G.,
De Cock, A., & Witvrouw, E. (2006). A prospective study of
gait related risk factors for exercise-related lower leg pain. Gait
& Posture,23(1), 91–98.
Wong, P.L., Chamari, K., Mao, D.W., & Wisloff, U. (2007).
Higher plantar pressure on the medial side in four soccer-
related movements. British Journal of Sports Medicine,41(2), 93–
100.
1550 V. Tessutti et al.
Downloaded by [European College of Sport Science ] at 13:46 08 May 2013
