Kinematic and electromyography analysis of submaximal differences running on a firm surface compared with soft, dry sand
MetadataShow full item record
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 welltrained males (mean V_ O2 max 64.3Ḯ6 mlƫg 1ƭin 1) performed barefoot running trials on a firm surface (wooden floor) and on a soft, dry sand surface (track dimensions 8.8 m綰 cm; depth 13 cm) at 8 and 11 kmƨ 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 kmƨ 1 on sand resulted in a greater (P<0.05) stance time (ts) compared with the firm surface. At 11 kmƨ 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 kmƨ 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) kmƨ 1. During the stance phase in the 8-kmƨ 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-kmƨ 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.
European Journal of Applied Physiology