The safety of AstroTurf

AstroTurf is the playing surface of choice at many schools and sports clubs in England. The surface's popularity can be put down to two main factors, AstroTurf requires less maintenance than natural turf, and is therefore cheaper. AstroTurf is also much more weatherproof than natural turf, making it available for use more of the time.

AstroTurf was first used in a major stadium in 1965, at the Housten Aerodome (Home of the Housten Texans NFL team). This playing surface was the only viable option, as natural turf would receive no sunlight in an indoor stadium. The use of Astroturf in NFL arenas became much more common, following the example of the Housten Aerodome.

There are however, a number of problems associated with the use of this playing surface. The rate of major injuries on AstroTurf is much higher than that of natural turf. The number of minor injuries such as "turf toe" and "turf burn", which are virtually non-existent on natural turf, are very common on this artificial surface.

There are two physical characteristics of AstroTurf which can be used to explain this high injury rate. The coefficient of friction is much higher on this surface than on natural turf. This means that a greater force must be exerted in order to move, explaining the high occurence of turf toe and turf burn.

AstroTurf also has a higher coefficient of restitution. This measurement displays a surfaces ability to absorb force. As a result of AstroTurf being less absorbent than natural turf, the occurance of broken bones and concussions is far more regular when athletes collide with the surface.

According to Dr. Mark Drakes, the first significant study into the effects of AstroTurf on injury showed that more series injuries were experienced by NFL teams on this surface compared to natural turf. The study also showed that (within natural turfs) the injury rate is also significantly higher on poorly maintained surfaces, and that the injuries on these surfaces showed a similar pattern to those found on AstroTurf, especially in cold weather areas.

With AstroTurf gaining popularity with schools, it is important to consider the injuries which may result from playing on this surface. The other options available to schools are to use natural turf, or to use a more technologically advanced artificial surface. However, both of these options come at a higher cost, one which schools and sports clubs in England appear to be unwilling, or unable to pay.

Ben Brown

Missing the point?

In 2005, as Lord Coe presented London's bid for the 2012 Olympic Games it became clear that providing a legacy of facilities, along with boosting participation rates were at the heart of the campaign.

Since 2005 however, England has suffered a deep recession. As a result of this recession, severe budget cuts were made in June of this year. One of the areas to suffer badly as a result of these cuts has been sport. Lord Coe's promises have been left looking particularly hollow as a result of the cuts.

Conservative sport minister Hugh Robertson admitted that the new budget has caused community sport to take "a major hit".

So how exactly has sport been affected?

-The building of new sports facilities for schools, that would have costed £6.05bn was cancelled partway through.
-Huge cuts to the £1bn local authorities spend on sport and recreation anually, all of which is discretionary.
-A £2bn cut to the total budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by 2015.
-£65 million cut by scrapping the plan to provide free swimming for under 16s and over 60s, as well as cancelling the refurbishment of swimming pools.

The London 2012 Olympics are a great opportunity for Britain to catch up with the rest of the world and become more competitive for future World Championships and Olympic games. The Manchester Aquatics centre and Velodrome, left as a legacy from the 2002 Commonwealth Games have already shown how valuable facilities can be in providing community sport, as well as developing world class athletes.

It's a shame then, that the government appears unable to look at the importance of these Olympics in long term development.





Ben Brown

Injury prevention in design

When Nike Bauer launched the ONE95 skate in 2008, they claimed to have developed a new material, which they refer to as "ALIVE".

The designers' of the ONE95 spoke at length about superior thermoforming abilities of this material, allowing the outer shell of the skate to mould to the foot, as opposed to just the interior components as is the case with other skates.

The "ALIVE" material makes it possible for the outer shell to mould to the athlete's foot as it is not Epoxy based, as conventional skate shell materials are. This means that the material will become more malleable when the skates are baked.

A better fit to the athlete's foot is beneficial as it prevents power loss from slipping inside the boot, as well as making the skate more comfortable for the athlete.

However, the video shows another interesting quality of the "ALIVE" material. Both of these side impacts are from a standard puck travelling at 80mph. The Easton S15 is deformed to a much larger extent than the ONE5 skate. This suggests that a player is much less likely to suffer an ankle injury if they were to receive a side impact when wearing the ONE95 skate.

It would be unfair to assume that this reduced deformation is exclusively due to the ALIVE material, as the construction of the skate is just as important. I do feel however, that with ankle injuries being commonplace in Ice Hockey, that the design and material technology put into the ONE95 skate should be taken notice of by other manufacturers.

Ben Brown

All in the mind?

During long distance events, glycogen is the primary source of energy to the body. These stores of glycogen are of course, limited. This means that, as the stores of glycogen become depleted, a loss of performance is experienced.

I have recently been reading about the "Central Governed" theory. This theory suggests that fatigue is "Centrally" controlled by the brain, rather than the traditional view of being controlled "Peripherally" by the muscles.

This raises the question, is it a lack of glycogen in the muscles which causes an athlete's work rate to drop? Or is it the brain monitoring glycogen levels, and as they decrease, using nerve signals to reduce the work rate to make it more sustainable?

A recent study carried out at Ghent University claimed to test this "Central Governed" theory.

"Riders completed two separate time trials, riding for 1 hour in each. In the first time trail, riders rinsed out their mouths at regular intervals with a sports drink containing carbohydrates and electrolytes. They did not swallow the sports drink, the simply rinsed for 5 seconds before spitting the drink out. in the second time trial, the riders repeated this but used a "Placebo" which was sweetened drink with no actual carbohydrate content. The drinks were taste tested beforehand to ensure that riders could not tell the difference between either drink."

The results gained from this test showed "swilling with the carbohydrate drink increased power output by 3.7%, which equated to a 2.37 minute improvement compared to swilling with the placebo drink. In addition to power output being higher, lactate levels and heart rate were also higher."

It is also noted that the rider's perceived level of exertion did not change between the two time trials.

The researches of this experiment suggested that the differences between the time trials could be put down to the fact that carbohydrates were detected in the mouth, "which fooled the brain into thinking the rider had taken fuel on board". This would allow the brain to remove limitations on the muscles.

There is however, one problem with this conclusion. It is stated that the detection of carbohydrate in the mouth was the cause of improved performance, and that this must be the case as no carbohydrate was ingested. However, this conclusion makes no consideration for the fact that glucose is able to pass through membranes, and can therefore be absorbed into the bloodstream from the mouth. This would mean that in the 5 second period the athlete is swilling the sports drink, glucose is being absorbed which will provide energy to the working muscles. It is not possible though, to say how much glucose would be provided to the muscles as a result of this.

With this taken into consideration, it is clear that the experiment is not completely valid. However, as a concept it may have some validity. If we refer back to the piece i wrote about Caffeine as a supplement, it showed that it was the ability to change an athlete's perception of fatigue , rather than have a physiological effect is key to the way it works.

Rather than this experiment proving the "Central Governed" theory to be true or false, i feel it can provide a base to further experiments concerning this theory. I also believe it could be used as an opportunity to look further into this use of sports drinks, as some athletes suffer from bloating when drinking during exercise.




Ben Brown