+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

The cost of running on natural grass and artificial turf surfaces



The cost of running on natural grass and artificial turf surfaces



Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 25(3): 606-611



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.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 056275937

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 20647952

DOI: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181c7baf9


Related references

The potential of the skin as a readout system to test artificial turf systems: clinical and immunohistological effects of a sliding on natural grass and artificial turf. International Journal of Sports Medicine 34(9): 783-788, 2014

Environmental studies with artificial turf and grass surfaces. 1972

Natural grass vs. artificial turf: which costs more to maintain?. Weeds trees and turf: 14 (10) 11-12, 1975

The maintenance of artificial turf and natural grass on soccer pitches. Mondo Macchina 16(5): 24-27, 2007

Comparison of physiological responses to an incremental running test on treadmill, natural grass, and synthetic turf in young soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23(3): 939-945, 2009

A Meta-Analysis of Soccer Injuries on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass. Journal of Sports Medicine 2013: 380523, 2013

The predicted risk of head injury from fall-related impacts on to third-generation artificial turf and grass soccer surfaces: a comparative biomechanical analysis. Sports Biomechanics 9(1): 29-37, 2010

Risk of injury on artificial turf and natural grass in young female football players. British Journal of Sports Medicine 41(Suppl. 1): I33-I37, 2007

Comparison of the playing performance of third generation artificial grass with natural turf used for professional soccer. International Turfgrass Society Research Journal 10: 15-26, 2005

Attenuation of foot pressure during running on four different surfaces: asphalt, concrete, rubber, and natural grass. Journal of Sports Sciences 30(14): 1545-1550, 2012

Risk of injury in elite football played on artificial turf versus natural grass: a prospective two-cohort study. British Journal of Sports Medicine 40(12): 975-980, 2006

The perceptions of professional soccer players on the risk of injury from competition and training on natural grass and 3rd generation artificial turf. Bmc Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation 6(1): 11, 2014

Elite football on artificial turf versus natural grass: movement patterns, technical standards, and player impressions. Journal of Sports Sciences 26(2): 113-122, 2008

Artificial turf versus heated turf; electric soil heating experiments at URI indicate grass is still very much alive. 1969

Physical performance and subjective ratings after a soccer-specific exercise simulation: comparison of natural grass versus artificial turf. Journal of Sports Sciences 31(5): 529-536, 2013