Synthetic turf fields have become very popular, but little is known on how playing on artificial grass affects the soccer-specific physical performance. This study aimed to compare a natural vs. a synthetic grass surface concerning the physiological responses to an intermittent running protocol simulating the work rate of competitive soccer, and the effects of performing that protocol on sprinting ability, jumping ability, and muscle soreness. Nine soccer players [21.0  1.3 yrs; 1.82  0.05 m; 76.5  9.1 kg] carried out two 15-min blocks of the Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test (Nicholas et al., 2000), respectively on third generation synthetic turf (SYNT) and on natural grass (NAT). Heart rate (HR) was monitored throughout the test, and a ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) was collected after each block. At the end of the test, the subjects performed a countermovement jump (CMJ) and a 2x20-m maximal sprint. Muscle soreness was evaluated in the two days following the test using a 7-points Likert scale. The Average HR was significantly higher on SYNT than on NAT (1st block: 164  9 bpm vs. 157  8 bpm; 2nd block: 167  9 bpm vs. 161  8 bpm). The RPE showed a similar trend, tending to be higher on SYNT (1st block: 4.0  1.8 vs. 3.6  1.3, p=0.21; 2nd block: 5.1  1.9 vs. 4.7  1.6). The CMJ height was significantly higher after the test on SYNT (45.1  4.6 cm vs. 43.4  3.7), whereas the sprinting performance was similar in the two conditions (SYNT: 7.10  0.12 s; NAT: 7.03  0.14 s). Finally, muscle soreness was significantly higher after the test on NAT (1st day: 1.8  0.9 vs. 1.1  0.3; 2nd day: 1.4  0.9 vs. 0.6  0.7). These results can be interpreted in view of the higher compliance of the synthetic surface, involving a higher energy expenditure during running but a lower impairment of the elastic energy reuse action and a lower stress on the musculoskeletal system. REFERENCES • Nicholas CW et al. (2000), Journal of Sports Sciences, 18:97-104
Di Michele R., Ciacci S., Merni F. (2011). Physiological and muscular responses to soccer-specific intermittent exercise performed on natural grass vs. synthetic turf.
Physiological and muscular responses to soccer-specific intermittent exercise performed on natural grass vs. synthetic turf
DI MICHELE, ROCCO;CIACCI, SIMONE;MERNI, FRANCO
2011
Abstract
Synthetic turf fields have become very popular, but little is known on how playing on artificial grass affects the soccer-specific physical performance. This study aimed to compare a natural vs. a synthetic grass surface concerning the physiological responses to an intermittent running protocol simulating the work rate of competitive soccer, and the effects of performing that protocol on sprinting ability, jumping ability, and muscle soreness. Nine soccer players [21.0 1.3 yrs; 1.82 0.05 m; 76.5 9.1 kg] carried out two 15-min blocks of the Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test (Nicholas et al., 2000), respectively on third generation synthetic turf (SYNT) and on natural grass (NAT). Heart rate (HR) was monitored throughout the test, and a ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) was collected after each block. At the end of the test, the subjects performed a countermovement jump (CMJ) and a 2x20-m maximal sprint. Muscle soreness was evaluated in the two days following the test using a 7-points Likert scale. The Average HR was significantly higher on SYNT than on NAT (1st block: 164 9 bpm vs. 157 8 bpm; 2nd block: 167 9 bpm vs. 161 8 bpm). The RPE showed a similar trend, tending to be higher on SYNT (1st block: 4.0 1.8 vs. 3.6 1.3, p=0.21; 2nd block: 5.1 1.9 vs. 4.7 1.6). The CMJ height was significantly higher after the test on SYNT (45.1 4.6 cm vs. 43.4 3.7), whereas the sprinting performance was similar in the two conditions (SYNT: 7.10 0.12 s; NAT: 7.03 0.14 s). Finally, muscle soreness was significantly higher after the test on NAT (1st day: 1.8 0.9 vs. 1.1 0.3; 2nd day: 1.4 0.9 vs. 0.6 0.7). These results can be interpreted in view of the higher compliance of the synthetic surface, involving a higher energy expenditure during running but a lower impairment of the elastic energy reuse action and a lower stress on the musculoskeletal system. REFERENCES • Nicholas CW et al. (2000), Journal of Sports Sciences, 18:97-104I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
