Effects of playing surface on physiological responses and performance variables in a controlled football simulation
Hughes MG, Birdsey L, Meyers R, Newcombe D, Oliver JL, Smith PM, Stembridge M, Stone K, Kerwin DG
Journal of sports sciences · 23 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Randomized controlled trial (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2013-01-15 · J Sports Sci · vol. 31 · issue 8 · pp. 878–886
- Publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- Cited
- 53 citations · more than 93% of similar papers · 3.7× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 49 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Sports Performance and Training · Sports injuries and prevention · Sports Dynamics and Biomechanics
- Keywords
- Football, Psychology, Simulation, Computer science, Geography
- MeSH
- humans, fatigue, lactic acid, competitive behavior, heart rate, physical endurance, movement, running, surface properties, football, soccer, adult, athletic performance, young adult
9 authors
From GB
- Michael G. Hughes · correspondingCardiff Metropolitan University
- Laurence P. BirdseyCardiff Metropolitan University
- R. MeyersCardiff Metropolitan University
- Daniel J. NewcombeOxford Brookes University
- Jon L. OliverCardiff Metropolitan University
- Paul M. SmithCardiff Metropolitan University
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.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.