Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Biomechanics Research Paper Final
Biomechanics Research Paper Final
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the study is to evaluate and compare balance and postural
sway between adult male recreational surfers and non-surfers to better understand
the adaptations of proprioceptive training caused by surfing. Methods: 20
subjects participated in this study (9 surfers and 11 non-surfers). Each subject
performed a limits of stability test and weight shift under two conditions (with
foam and without). Overall scores and times were recorded for all tests. Postural
sway measurement of anterior posterior and medial lateral movement while
standing were measured by a Computer Sports Medicine Inc. (Stoughton, MA)
(CSMi) Balance Board and Force platform (Bertec) with data collection software
written in MATLAB was used to measure postural sway and recorded. Results:
Postural sway between surfers and non-surfers was not significantly different in
both the medial-lateral (M-L) (p = 0.911) and anterior-posterior (A-P) (p = 0.397)
orientations. Limits of stability did not show significant differences in overall
score without foam (p = .218). There were also no differences in time to
completion without foam (p = 0.121). Data demonstrated a significant overall
score difference in the limits of stability test with foam (p = 0.027). Moreover,
there was no difference in time to completion on foam (p = 0.173). Adding an
unstable surface by using a foam pad did not have an effect on differentiating the
surfers from non-surfers ability to balance (p = 0.905) and the times also showed
similar results (p = 0.378). Conclusion: There are no significant differences
between postural sway or postural control between recreational surfers and nonsurfers.
Limits of Stability, Weight Shift and Postural Sway between Surfers and Non Surfers
Amanda Braitsch (brait003@cougars.csusm.edu), Angelina Mata (matav002@cougars.csusm.edu) , Daniel
Leyva (leyva030@cougars.csusm.edu) , Elena Garcia (garci342@cougars.csusm.edu) , Jose Ochoa
(ochoa044@cougars.csusm.edu) , Linda Nieto (nieto014@cougars.csusm.edu) , Ramon Contreras
(contr065@cougars.csusm.edu), Ryan Martinez (marti443@cougars.csusm.edu)
California State University, San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, 92096
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The aim of the study is to evaluate and
compare balance and postural sway between adult
male recreational surfers and non-surfers to
determine whether repeated practice while surfing
can lead to differences in postural control.
Methods: 20 subjects participated in this study (9
surfers and 11 non-surfers). Each subject performed
a limits of stability test and weight shift under two
conditions (with foam and without). Overall scores
and times were recorded for all tests. Postural sway
measurement of anterior posterior and medial lateral
movement while standing quietly were measured by
a Computer Sports Medicine Inc. (Stoughton, MA)
(CSMi) Balance Board and Force platform (Bertec)
with data collection software written in MATLAB
was used to measure postural sway and recorded.
Results: Postural sway between surfers and nonsurfers was not significantly different in both the
medial-lateral (M-L) (p = 0.911) and anteriorposterior (A-P) (p = 0.397) orientations. Limits of
stability did not show significant differences in
overall score without foam (p = .218). There were
also no differences in time to completion without
foam (p = 0.121). Data demonstrated no significant
overall score difference in the limits of stability test
with foam (p = 0.027). Moreover, there was no
difference in time to completion on foam (p =
0.173). Adding an unstable surface by using a foam
pad did not have an effect on differentiating the
surfers from non-surfers ability to balance (p =
0.905) and the times also showed similar results (p
= 0.378). Conclusion: There are no significant
differences between postural sway or balance
between recreational surfers and non-surfers, with
METHODS
Subjects and Equipment. 20 healthy male subjects
(9 surfers, 11 non-surfers) 30 to 60 years of age
with no injuries or previous cardiac issues were
chosen for our study. Data was successfully
collected from 8 surfers and 11 non-surf subjects.
One surfer subjects data was excluded from data
analysis. Recreational surfers (primary source of
exercise for at least the past 2 years) were chosen
for and were recruited from San Diego County
Beaches. Non-surfers are designated as our control
group and have not used surfing as their primary
form of exercise. Non-surfing subjects were
recruited on the California State University San
Marcos campus from the faculty and students.
Subjects were not allowed to participate in the study
if they had participated in heavy exercise or any
recent lower extremity injuries.
RESULTS
Postural sway between surfers and non-surfers was
not significantly different in both the M-L and A-P
orientations indicated by the p value of 0.911 and
0.397 respectively (Figure 1). The surfers average
DISCUSSION
Table 1: Postural Sway, Limits of Stability and Weight shift comparisons between surfers and non-surfers
Surfer
Non-Surfer
Average
SD
Average
SD
P Value
Medial-Lateral
23.5
6.2
23.1
9.9
0.911
Anterior-Posterior
33.7
9.8
30.2
8.5
0.397
28.1
3.5
34.4
7.1
0.027
35.1
5.6
39.4
8.6
0.218
34.6
7.0
39.5
8.2
0.173
31.9
4.9
37.4
9.0
0.121
55.6
28.8
57.2
30.5
0.905
75.0
22.6
70.0
24.5
0.644
26.2
5.0
30.0
11.6
0.378
Postural Sway
Limits of Stability
Weight Shift
23.2
6.6
24.5
10.7
0.750
Figure 1: Average Center of Pressure Excursion for Surfers and Non-Surfers. No Significant difference between
media-lateral and anterior-posterior sway for both; surfers and non-surfers.
Figure 2: Average score for limits of stability between surfers and non-surfers. No significant difference in
balance when testing with no foam. There is a significant difference at p<0.05 for balance on foam and nonsurfers demonstrating larger scores than surfers.
Figure 3 : Average time to completion for limits of stability between surfers and non-surfers on foam and
without foam showed no significant differences.
Figure 4: Average score for weight shift between surfers and non-surfers was not significantly different on foam
and without foam.
Figure 5: Average time for weight shift between surfers and non-surfers was not significantly difference on
foam and without foam.
REFERENCES
1. Allison, G.T., Chapman, D.W., Edwards, D.J.,
Lay, B., & Needham, K.J. (2007). Effects of
experience in a dynamic environment on
postural control. Br J Sports Med 2008; 42(1),
16-21. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.033688.
2. Barlow, M., Gresty, K., Findlay, M., Cooke, C.,
& Davidson, M. (2014). The effect of wave
conditions and surfer ability performance and
the physiological response of recreational
surfers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning,
01-25. Retrieved from DOI:
10.1519/JSC.0000000000000491
3. Farley, O., Harris, N., & Kilding, A. (2012.).
Anaerobic and aerobic fitness profiling of
competitive surfers. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2243-2248.
4. Kihun, C., Lee, K., & Lee, W. (2014).
Relationship between postural sway and
dynamic balance in stroke patients. Journal Of
physical Therapy, 01-27.
doi:10.1589/jpts.26.1989
5. Paillard, T., Margnes, E., Portet, M., & Breucq,
A. (2011). Postural ability reflects the athletic
skill level of surfers. European Journal of
Applied Physiology. doi:10.1007/s00421-0101782-2
6. Blanche, E., Bodison, S., Chang, M. C., &
Reinoso, G. (2012). Development of the
comprehensive observations of proprioception
(COP): validity, reliability, and factor analysis.
American Occupational Therapy Association,
Inc, 691-698. doi:10.5014/ajot.2012.003608
7. Namazizadeh, M., Branch, K., Salavati, M.,
Meshkati, L., & Meshkati, Z. (2010). The
comparison of the role of vision on static
postural stability in athletes and non-athletes.
Iranian Rehabilitation Journal, 8(11), 50-53.
Retrieved from
http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/files/site1/user_files_05569
0/zmeshkati-A-10-62-2-d0091a4.pdf
8. Hansson, E. E., Beckman, A., & Hkansson, A.
(2010). Effect of vision, proprioception, and
the position of the vestibular organ on postural
sway. Acta Oto-laryngologica.
doi:10.3109/00016489.2010.498024