Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 94, Issue 3, pp 242–253 | Cite as

Kinematic and electromyography analysis of submaximal differences running on a firm surface compared with soft, dry sand.

  • Hugh C. PinningtonEmail author
  • David G. Lloyd
  • Thor F. Besier
  • Brian Dawson
Original Article

Abstract

Kinematic and electromyography (EMG) aspects of running on a firm surface and on soft, dry sand were studied to elucidate mechanisms contributing to the higher energy cost (EC) of sand running. Eight well-trained males (mean \(\dot V{\text{O}}_{2\max } \) 64.3±8.6 ml·kg−1·min−1) performed barefoot running trials on a firm surface (wooden floor) and on a soft, dry sand surface (track dimensions 8.8 m×60 cm; depth 13 cm) at 8 and 11 km·h−1. Kinematic and EMG data were collected simultaneously using an integrated six-camera 50 Hz VICON motion analysis system, an AMTI force-plate and a 10-channel EMG system. Running at 8 km·h−1 on sand resulted in a greater (P<0.05) stance time (ts) compared with the firm surface. At 11 km·h−1, sand running resulted in a greater stance-to-stride ratio (P<0.005), a shorter stride length (SL) (P<0.05), and a greater cadence (P<0.001) compared with the firm surface values. Hip and knee flexion at initial foot contact (IFC), mid-support (MS) and flexion maximum were greater (P<0.001) running on sand compared with firm surface values at 8 and 11 km·h−1. Over duration of stride, Hamstring (semimembranosus and biceps femoris) EMG was greater running on sand compared with the firm surface at 8 (P<0.001) and 11 (P<0.05) km·h−1. During the stance phase in the 8-km·h−1 trials, EMG in the Hamstrings (P<0.001), Vastii (Vastus lateralis and Vastus Medialis) (P<0.02), Rectus femoris (Rec Fem) (P<0.01) and Tensor Fascia Latae (Tfl) (P<0.0001) were greater than the firm surface measures. During stance in the 11-km·h−1 trials, Tfl EMG was greater (P<0.02) running on sand compared with the firm surface. At IFC and MS, Hamstrings’ EMG was greater on sand at both running speeds (P<0.001). For the Vastii (P<0.02), Rec Fem (P<0.0001) and Tfl (P<0.0001) muscles, the EMG at MS running on sand at both speeds was greater than the firm surface values. The increased EC of running on sand can be attributed in part to the increased EMG activation associated with greater hip and knee range of motion compared with firm surface running.

Keywords

Running on sand Kinematics EMG 

References

  1. Berger D (1980) Early season sand training. Harrier 7(1):6Google Scholar
  2. Besier TF, Lloyd DG, Cochrane JL, Ackland TR (2001) External loading of the knee joint during running and cutting maneuvers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33(7):1168–1175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buczek FL, Cavanagh PR (1990) Stance phase knee and ankle kinematics and kinetics during level and downhill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22(5):669–677PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cappozzo A, Catani F, Della Croce, U. and Leardini, A. (1995). Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech 10(4):171–178Google Scholar
  5. Cavanagh PR, Kram R (1990) Stride length in distance running: velocity, body dimensions and added mass effects. In: Peter R. Cavanagh (ed) Biomechanics of distance running. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, pp 35–63Google Scholar
  6. Clegg B (1978) An impact soil test for low cost roads. In: Proceedings of 2nd conference of the road engineering association of Asia and Australia, Manila, pp 58–65Google Scholar
  7. Clegg B (1980) An impact soil test as an alternative to California bearing ratio. In: Third ANZ geomechanics conference, vol 1. Wellington, New Zealand, pp 225–230Google Scholar
  8. De Wit B, De Clercq D (2000) Timing of lower extremity motions during barefoot and shod running at three velocities. J Appl Biomech 16:169–179Google Scholar
  9. De Wit B, De Clercq D, Aerts P (2000) Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J Biomech 33:269–278Google Scholar
  10. Delagi EF, Perotta A (1980) Anatomical guide for the electromyographer: the limbs, 2nd edn. Charles C. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillman CJ (1975) Kinematic analysis of running. Exerc Sports Sci Rev 3:193–218Google Scholar
  12. Elliott BC, Blanksby BA (1976) A cinematographic analysis of overground and treadmill running by males and females. Med Sci Sports 8(2):84–87Google Scholar
  13. Fukunaga T, Kubo K, Kawakami Y, Fukashiro S, Kanehisa H, Maganaris CN (2001) In vivo behaviour of human muscle tendon during walking. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:229–233Google Scholar
  14. Grillner S, Halbertsma J, Nilsson J, Thorstensson A. (1979) The adaptation to speed in human locomotion. Brain Res 165:177–182Google Scholar
  15. Jammes Y, Caquelard F, Badier M. (1998). Correlation between surface electromyogram, oxygen uptake and blood lactate concentration during dynamic leg exercise. Respir Physiol 112:167–174Google Scholar
  16. Kinoshita H., Fujii N, Fukuda H (1988) Response of the lower extremity muscles to varied cushioning properties of the foot/ground interface during running. In: de Groot G, Hollander AP, Huijing PA, van Ingen Schenau GJ (eds) Biomechanics X1-B. Free University Press, Amsterdam, pp 660–667Google Scholar
  17. Kleissen RFM, Buurke JH, Harlaar J, Zilvold G (1998) Electromyography in the biomechanical analysis of human movement and its clinical application. Gait and Posture 8:143–158Google Scholar
  18. Kram R, Taylor CR (1990) Energetics of running: a new perspective. Nature 346:265–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kubo K, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T (1999) Influence of elastic properties of tendon structures on jump performance in humans. J Appl Physiol 87(6):2090–2096Google Scholar
  20. Kyrolainen H, Belli A, Komi P (2001) Biomechanical factors affecting running economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33(8):1330–1337Google Scholar
  21. Leardini A, Cappozzo A, Catani F, Toksvig-Larsen S, Petitto A, Sforza V, Cassanelli G, Giannini S (1999) Validation of a functional method for the estimation of hip joint centre location. J Biomech 32:99–103Google Scholar
  22. Lejeune TM, Willems PA, Heglund NC (1998) Mechanics and energetics of human locomotion on sand. J Exp Biol 201:2071–2080Google Scholar
  23. Lloyd DG, Buchanan TS (2001) Strategies of the muscular support of static varus and valgus loads at the human knee. J Biomech 34(10):1257–1267Google Scholar
  24. Mann RA, Hagy J (1980a) Biomechanics of walking, running and sprinting. Am J Sports Med 8(5):345–350Google Scholar
  25. Mann RA, Hagy J (1980b) Running, jogging, and walking: a comparative electromyographic and biomechanical study. In: Bateman JE, Trott AW (eds) The foot and ankle, American Orthopaedic Foot Society. Thieme-Stratton, New York, pp 167–175Google Scholar
  26. Mann RA, Moran GT, Dougherty SE (1986) Comparative electromyography of the lower extremity in jogging, running, and sprinting. Am J Sports Med 14(6):501–510Google Scholar
  27. McClay IS, Lake MJ, Cavanagh PR (1990) Muscle activity in running. In: Peter R Cavanagh (ed) Biomechanics of distance running. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, pp 165–186Google Scholar
  28. McMahon TA, Greene PR (1979) The influence of track compliance on running. J Biomech 12:893–904Google Scholar
  29. McMahon TA, Valiant G, Frederick EC (1987) Groucho running. J Appl Physiol 62(6):2326–2337Google Scholar
  30. McNair PJ, Marshall RN (1994) Kinematic and kinetic parameters associated with running in different shoes. Br J Sports Med 28(4):256–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Milliron MJ, Cavanagh PR (1990) Sagittal plane kinematics of the lower extremity during distance running. In: Peter R. Cavanagh (ed) Biomechanics of distance running. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, pp 65–99Google Scholar
  32. Munro CF, Miller DI, Fuglevand AJ (1987) Ground reaction forces in running: a reexamination. J Biomech 20(2):147–155Google Scholar
  33. Nilsson J, Thorstensson A, Halbertsma J (1985). Changes in leg movements and muscle activity with speed of locomotion and mode of progression in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 123:457–475Google Scholar
  34. Novacheck TF (1998) The biomechanics of running. Gait Posture 7:77–95Google Scholar
  35. Oviatt R, Hemba G (1991) Oregon state: sandblasting through the PAC. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal 13(4):40–46Google Scholar
  36. Pare EB, Stern Jr JT, Schwartz JM (1981) Functional differentiation within the Tensor Fasciae Latae. J Bone Joint Surg 63-A(9):1457–1471Google Scholar
  37. Piazza SJ, Okita N, Cavanagh PR (2001). Accuracy of the functional method of hip joint centre location: effects of limited motion and varied implementation. J Biomech 34:967–973Google Scholar
  38. Pinnington HC, Dawson B (2001a) The energy cost of running on grass compared to soft dry beach sand. J Sci Med Sport 4(4):416–43Google Scholar
  39. Pinnington HC, Dawson B (2001b) Running economy of elite surf iron men and male runners, on soft dry beach sand and grass. Eur J Appl Physiol 86(1):62–70Google Scholar
  40. Roberts TJ, Kram R, Weyland PG, Taylor CR (1998) Energetics of bipedal running: 1. Metabolic cost of generating force. J Exp Biol 201:2745–2751Google Scholar
  41. Shorten MR (1987) Muscle elasticity and human performance. Med Sport Sci 25:1–18Google Scholar
  42. The International Society of Biomechanics (1995) Standardization and terminology in biomechanics, vol 1.Google Scholar
  43. Wank V, Frick U, Schmidtbleicher D (1998) Kinematics and electromyography of lower limb muscles in overground and treadmill running. Int J Sports Med 19:455–461Google Scholar
  44. Williams KR (1985) Biomechanics of running. Exerc Sports Sci Rev 13:389–441Google Scholar
  45. Williams KR, Cavanagh PR (1987) Relationship between distance running mechanics, running economy, and performance. J Appl Physiol 63(3):1236–1245Google Scholar
  46. Wilson GJ, Elliott BC, Wood GA. (1991) The effect on performance of imposing a delay during a stretch-shorten cycle movement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 23(3):364–370Google Scholar
  47. Wischnia B (1982) Beach running. Runner’s World 17(7):48–49, 76Google Scholar
  48. Woltring HJ (1986) A Fortran package for generalized, cross-validatory, spline smoothing and differentiation. Adv Eng Softw 8:104–113Google Scholar
  49. Zamparo P, Perini R, Orizio C, Sacher M, Ferretti G (1992) The energy cost of walking or running on sand. Eur J Appl Physiol 65:183–187Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh C. Pinnington
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David G. Lloyd
    • 1
  • Thor F. Besier
    • 1
  • Brian Dawson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Human Movement and Exercise ScienceThe University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  2. 2.College of Health, School of Health and Physical EducationUniversity of Notre Dame AustraliaFremantleWestern Australia

Personalised recommendations