The Cost of Running on Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Surfaces

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.

Comparação da potência anaeróbia mensurada pelo teste de RAST em diferentes condições de calçado e superfícies

“…However, Kunduracioglu et al 13 determined that field soccer players may present lower anaerobic threshold values, determined on field with cleats compared with the one determined on treadmill and wearing sneakers. Brechue et al 16 when wearing cleats on grass and sneakers on firmer surface have also observed significantly higher times on grass (5-6%) for 40 m maximal run, assessing American football players. Therefore, the use of cleats may have increased the time of contact with the ground, a factor observed in the 20 m velocity after induced fatigue 18,19 and associated with lower efficiency in the stretching/shortening cycle 20 .…”

“…Nevertheless, many studies have demonstrated the influence of different surfaces on the energy expenditure [10][11][12] and on the determination of physiological variables 13,14 as well as of exercise performed barefoot or with footwear 15 . Moreover, Brechue et al 16 observed significant differences in the 40 m maximal performance on grass and on firmer surfaces, demonstrating hence the influence of different surfaces also on efforts with anaerobic predominance. However, few studies have evidenced the influence of different kinds of surface in efforts of short duration with short recovery intervals as the RAST.…”

Quantification of in-season training load relative to match load in professional Dutch Eredivisie football players

“…Integrated metabolic power calculation, based on the equation of Di Prampero et al (2005), which was extended by Osgnach et al (2010) for use in team sports, was employed to estimate metabolic power and therewith energy expenditure. Adjustable terrain factor (KT) and energy cost of constant running on flat terrain (in J • kg −1 • m −1 ) were set at 1.05 and 4.0, respectively (Sassi et al 2011;Stevens et al 2015).…”

Validity and reliability of 6-a-side small-sided game locomotor performance in assessing physical fitness in football players

“…The Yo-Yo IR2 is often used in football to evaluate the player's ability to perform intense intermittent exercise with high rates of aerobic and anaerobic energy turnover (Krustrup et al, 2006) set at 1.1 and 4.0 respectively (Sassi et al, 2011;Stevens et al, 2015). Total distance (m), average estimated metabolic power (W·kg -1 ) and distance (m) above 14.4 km·h -1 (high speed), 2 m·s -2 (high acceleration), 20 W·kg -1 (high power) and 35 W·kg -1 (very high power) were calculated.…”