Article

The Cost of Running on Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Surfaces

Human Performance Laboratory, MAPEI Sport Research Center, Castellanza, Varese, Italy.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Impact Factor: 2.08). 03/2011; 25(3):606-11. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c7baf9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the metabolic cost of running (Cr) on natural grass (NG) and artificial turf (AT), compared with a hard surface (HS), that is, asphalted track. Eight amateur soccer players (mean ± SD: age 22.9 ± 2.3 years, body mass 69.0 ± 4.7 kg, and height 178 ± 5 cm) completed 9 runs (3 surfaces × 3 speeds, i.e., 2.22, 2.78, 3.33 m·s) of 6 minutes, in a random order on the different surfaces. Characteristics of the running surfaces were assessed at 3 points of each running track by measuring shock absorption and standard vertical deformation, via an 'artificial athlete' device according to FIFA protocol. No significant interactions (2-way ANOVA analysis; p = 0.38) were found between running surfaces and running speeds. A significant main effect for surface was found. The average Cr values were 4.02 ± 0.25 J·kg·L·m on HS, 4.22 ± 0.35 J·kg·L·m on NG, and 4.21 ± 0.31 J·kg·L·m on AT. The Cr was also higher at 3.33 m·s compared with the Cr measured at the other 2 running speeds. In conclusion, we found a Cr of ∼ 4.20 J·kg·L·m on both natural and artificial grass football pitches, in accordance with similar percentage shock absorption characteristics of these 2 tested surfaces. Our finding allows a better computation of the Cr on NG and AT, and supports the exclusion of the Cr as a potential factor for the higher physical effort in matches played on artificial turf, as reported by soccer players.

12 Followers
 · 
92 Reads
  • Source
    • "Given that the male players in the study by Andersson et al. (2008) reported that play on football turf was harder, while the playing surface did not affect their activity profile, it is important to consider whether surface can influence physiological responses to football activity. Physiological responses to constant-speed running on artificial and natural turfs are either similar (Sassi et al., 2011) or greater (DiMichele, DiRenzo, Ammazzalorso, & Merni, 2009) than those on the artificial surface, with speculation that the contrasting cushioning properties of the surfaces influence players' responses (DiMichele et al., 2009). However , measurements in these studies were made during steady-state running so their findings could have limited application to football where there are frequent accelerations and directional changes (Bloomfield, Polman, & O'Donoghue, 2007a; Carling , Bloomfield, Nelsen, & Reilly, 2008) that are known to increase the demands of football play (Dellal et al., 2010; Reilly, 1997). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of playing surface on physiological and performance responses during and in the 48 h after simulated soccer match play. Blood lactate, single-sprint, repeated-sprint and agility of eight amateur soccer players were assessed throughout a 90-min soccer-simulation protocol (SSP) completed on natural turf (NT) and artificial turf. Counter-movement jump, multiple-rebound jump, sprint (10 m, 60 m), L-agility run (L-AR), creatine kinase (CK) and perception of muscle soreness (PMS) were measured before, immediately after, 24 h and 48 h after exercise. Analyses revealed significant changes in blood lactate and single-sprint performance (both P < 0.05) during the SSP but with no significant differences between surfaces. Conversely, repeated-sprint performance demonstrated an interaction effect, with reductions in performance evident on NT only (P < 0.05). Whilst L-AR and 10-m sprint performance remained unchanged, 60-m sprint and multiple-rebound jump performance were impaired, and PMS and CK were elevated immediately following the SSP (all P < 0.05) but with no surface effects. Although performance, CK and PMS were negatively affected to some degree in the 48 h after the SSP, there was no surface effect. For the artificial and natural surfaces used in the present study, physiological and performance responses to simulated soccer match play appear to be similar. Whilst a potential for small differences in performance response exists during activity, surface type does not affect the pattern of recovery following simulated match play.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2014 · European Journal of Sport Science
  • Source
    • "Given that the male players in the study by Andersson et al. (2008) reported that play on football turf was harder, while the playing surface did not affect their activity profile, it is important to consider whether surface can influence physiological responses to football activity. Physiological responses to constant-speed running on artificial and natural turfs are either similar (Sassi et al., 2011) or greater (DiMichele, DiRenzo, Ammazzalorso, & Merni, 2009) than those on the artificial surface, with speculation that the contrasting cushioning properties of the surfaces influence players' responses (DiMichele et al., 2009). However , measurements in these studies were made during steady-state running so their findings could have limited application to football where there are frequent accelerations and directional changes (Bloomfield, Polman, & O'Donoghue, 2007a; Carling , Bloomfield, Nelsen, & Reilly, 2008) that are known to increase the demands of football play (Dellal et al., 2010; Reilly, 1997). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract In spite of the increased acceptance of artificial turf in football, few studies have investigated if matches are altered by the type of surface used and no research has compared physiological responses to football activity on artificial and natural surfaces. In the present study, participants performed a football match simulation on high-quality artificial and natural surfaces. Neither mean heart rate (171 ± 9 beats · min(-1) vs. 171 ± 9 beats · min(-1); P > 0.05) nor blood lactate (4.8 ± 1.6 mM vs. 5.3 ± 1.8 mM; P > 0.05) differed between the artificial and natural surface, respectively. Measures of sprint, jumping and agility performance declined through the match simulation but surface type did not affect the decrease in performance. For example, the fatigue index of repeated sprints did not differ (P > 0.05) between the artificial, (6.9 ± 2.1%) and natural surface (7.4 ± 2.4%). The ability to turn after sprinting was affected by surface type but this difference was dependent on the type of turn. Although there were small differences in the ability to perform certain movements between artificial and natural surfaces, the results suggest that fatigue and physiological responses to football activity do not differ markedly between surface-type using the high-quality pitches of the present study.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2013 · Journal of Sports Sciences
  • Source
    • "standing tackles, headers) (Andersson, Ekblom, & Krustrup, 2008a). Sassi et al. (2011) found a similar metabolic cost of running for both natural grass and artificial turf suggesting that such negative perceptions are not because of a higher cost of running, but due to other mechanical characteristics. In addition, Gains, Swedenhjelm , Mayhew, Bird, and Houser (2010) reported that change-in-direction speed during a one-off sprint is faster on artificial turf than on natural grass. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the formerly published part I of this two-part review, we examined fatigue after soccer matchplay and recovery kinetics of physical performance, and cognitive, subjective and biological markers. To reduce the magnitude of fatigue and to accelerate the time to fully recover after completion, several recovery strategies are now used in professional soccer teams. During congested fixture schedules, recovery strategies are highly required to alleviate post-match fatigue, and then to regain performance faster and reduce the risk of injury. Fatigue following competition is multifactorial and mainly related to dehydration, glycogen depletion, muscle damage and mental fatigue. Recovery strategies should consequently be targeted against the major causes of fatigue. Strategies reviewed in part II of this article were nutritional intake, cold water immersion, sleeping, active recovery, stretching, compression garments, massage and electrical stimulation. Some strategies such as hydration, diet and sleep are effective in their ability to counteract the fatigue mechanisms. Providing milk drinks to players at the end of competition and a meal containing high-glycaemic index carbohydrate and protein within the hour following the match are effective in replenishing substrate stores and optimizing muscle-damage repair. Sleep is an essential part of recovery management. Sleep disturbance after a match is common and can negatively impact on the recovery process. Cold water immersion is effective during acute periods of match congestion in order to regain performance levels faster and repress the acute inflammatory process. Scientific evidence for other strategies reviewed in their ability to accelerate the return to the initial level of performance is still lacking. These include active recovery, stretching, compression garments, massage and electrical stimulation. While this does not mean that these strategies do not aid the recovery process, the protocols implemented up until now do not significantly accelerate the return to initial levels of performance in comparison with a control condition. In conclusion, scientific evidence to support the use of strategies commonly used during recovery is lacking. Additional research is required in this area in order to help practitioners establish an efficient recovery protocol immediately after matchplay, but also for the following days. Future studies could focus on the chronic effects of recovery strategies, on combinations of recovery protocols and on the effects of recovery strategies inducing an anti-inflammatory or a pro-inflammatory response.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2013 · Sports Medicine
Show more