Sway between Surfers and Non-Surfers

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)

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 nonsurfers). 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 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 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 the exception of the limits of stability test
utilizing foam among the non surfers.
INTRODUCTION
Surfing is a dynamic sport that requires athletes
to have proprioceptive and fine postural control
due to the changing and unstable nature of
riding a board on water (3). Proprioception is
defined as an individual's sense of body
segments in space derived from neural inputs
throughout the body (6). Balance can be
defined as the capability of sustaining center of
mass (COM) with the least amount of postural
sway with the use of sensory systems, cognitive
processing, and movement tactics essential
during motion and static position (4). Postural
sway can be defined as the COM in a standing
position and any movement of the COM
position (4). Feedback information from vision
is the major component of balance control for
any given task (7). Therefore, surfers could
possibly rely more on their vision to maintain
their postural balance and sway. Additionally,
balance and postural sway have been shown to
be enhanced by the training of motor and
cognitive skills (5). Athletes who have a higher
level of training in motor control can develop
an enhanced balance and postural sway because
of training (5).Therefore, individuals who surf
on a consistent basis practice more, which may
lead to an enhanced balance and postural sway.
Analysis of the postural control in expert male
surfers compared with recreational surfers and
non-surfing aquatic athletes using a balance

platform found that all groups had increased

area of 95th percentile ellipse and sway path
length, but expert surfers had a significantly
increased sway path length than controls (1).
The aim of the study is to evaluate and compare
postural control between adult male
recreational surfers and non-surfers to
determine whether repeated practice while
surfing can lead to differences in postural
control. It is hypothesized that there will be no
significant differences on postural sway and
balance between the recreational surfers and
non-surfers because the amount of time surfing
would not increase balance training adaptations
enough to gain an advantage over non-surfers.
Additionally, other factors to consider would
include the amount of time the surfers spend
standing on the surfboard (2). A majority of the
time, surfers are paddling out, and floating as
they anticipate a favorable wave to surf (2).
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.
Postural Tests. Equipment included a Computer
Sports Medicine Inc. (Stoughton, MA) (CSMi)
Balance Board in order to measure balance. In

addition, a Force platform (Bertec) with data

collection software written in MATLAB was
used to measure postural sway on a force
platform. Subjects were given directions on
how to use the CSMi balance board. Subjects
performed a practice test on the CSMi balance
board before the actual test was administered.
Subjects were instructed to stand on the CSMi
Balance board with no shoes, knees straight and
arms at their side in a neutral position. Subjects
were also instructed not to lift their heels from
the board while performing the tests. Subjects
feet were lined up on the top of the CSMi
balance board with line #7. The medial
malleolus was lined up with top of the CSMi
balance board line D.
The subjects
performed two tests including the limits of
stability, and the weight shift test which were
displayed on a Sharp television screen.
Subjects performed two conditions of each test
one standing directly on the balance board, and
one test standing on a foam pad used to try and
imitate the instability that is present while
surfing. Including the practice test (where no
data was collected) the subjects each performed
a total of 4 tests using the balance board. The
overall score and time of each subject
completed for each test was recorded.
Following the tests performed on the balance
board, subjects were directed to the force
platform to measure their anterior-posterior (AP) and medial-lateral (M-L) postural sway. The
subjects were instructed to stand in the front
portion of the force platform quietly in a
relaxed neutral position, with no shoes on and
hands at their sides. Subjects were instructed to
fixate their eyes on a white spot that was taped
to the wall directly in front of them. Subjects
performed this test for a duration of 120
seconds. The force platform recorded data for
A-P and M-L sway measured in millimeters.
The sampling rate of the force platform was
500 Hz.

Statistical Analysis. Data was analyzed using

Microsoft excel for t-tests, and Pearson value
(p-value) for level of significance was
determined at p < 0.05.
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 M-L displacement was 23.5
6.2 mm, and the average A-P displacement was
33.7 9.8 mm. Similarly, the average M-L
postural sway of non-surfers was 23.1 9.9
mm and the average A-P was 30.2 8.5 mm
(Table 1).
Limits of stability did not show significant
differences in overall score without foam with a
p- value of .218 (Figure 2). The surfers had an
average score of 35.1 5.6 % compared to the
non-surfers score of 39.4 8.6 %. There were
also no differences in time to completion
without foam with a p-value of 0.121; surfers
averaging 31.9 4.9 seconds and non-surfers
37.4 9 seconds. Data demonstrated a
significant overall score difference in the limits
of stability test with foam by a p-value of 0.027
with a larger overall score for non-surfers of
34.4 7.1 % compared to the surfers overall
score of 28.1 3.5 % (Figure 2). Moreover,
there was no difference in time to completion
on foam demonstrated by the p-value of 0.173
(Figure 3) and average time for surfers of 34.6
7 seconds vs 39.5 8.2 seconds (Table 1).
The weight shift test did not show any
significant differences in overall score or time
to completion with and without foam between
surfers and non-surfers subjects (Figure 4). The
average surfer score with no foam was 75
22.6 % and time of 23.2 6.6 seconds.
Similarly, non-surfers scored 70 24.5 % and
completed the test with a time of 24.5 10.7
seconds which displayed no difference by a

score p-value of 0.644 and time p-value of

0.750 (Figure 5). In addition, adding an
unstable surface by using a foam pad did not
have an effect on differentiating the surfers
from non-surfers ability to balance. The
average score with foam for surfers was 55.6
28.8 % which was not different from the nonsurfers, 57.2 30.5 %, indicated by the pvalue of 0.905. The times were also similar,
surfers finished in 26.2 5 seconds and nonsurfers 30 11.6 seconds with the p value of
0.378 (Table 1).
DISCUSSION
We hypothesized that there would be no
significant differences of postural sway and
balance between the recreational surfers and
non-surfers. Overall our data supported our
hypothesis that there are no significant
differences of postural sway and balance
between surfers and non-surfers. However, for
the limits of stability test using a foam surface,
non-surfers exhibited a p-value of < 0.05,
demonstrating an increased ability to perform
this test more effectively than surfers. We can
assume that the tests were static rather than
dynamic and did not take into account the
preferred stance of the surfers which could have
made postural control more difficult. It could be
considered that surfers would not have an
enhanced postural sway and balance advantage
over non-surfers due to the possible amount of
time that is spent surfing. For example, factors
we considered included the average amount of
time surfers spend actually standing and riding
on their boards. Overall, surfers spend
approximately 47% of their time paddling out,
42% waiting for a wave, and only 8% riding the
wave (2). This indicates that of the skills used
during the surfing, balance and postural sway,
are used the least.
However, several studies have associated
balance and postural sway to sensory pathways,
such as vision. A study done by Chapman,
Needham, Allison, Lay, and Edwards (2008),

tested the postural control of groups of elite and

intermediate levels for surfing, along with a
group of controls, who were swimmers.
Subjects postural sway was measured using
sway path length (SPL) and a 95th percentile
ellipse (AoE) for six conditions of
combinations of either eyes open (neutral head)
eyes closed (head back), and cognitive tasks
(1). The authors concluded that all groups had
an increased area of 95th percentile ellipse and
sway path length, but expert surfers had a
significantly increased sway path length in
mental tasks in comparison to the control
group, which may suggest that expert surfers
could use certain tactics to adapt their posture
(1). This would lead us to assume that the
surfers felt no need to activate any balance
techniques since there were no challenging
uneven Conversely, Chapman et al., 2008
states, surfers use their vision for spotting their
desired target, and therefore the authors
regarded focal vision as a probable primary
component for surfing.
Additionally,
Namazizadeh, Branch, Salavati, and Meshkati,
(2010), state that balance control is depended
on vision to execute certain motor tasks.
Our study resulted in no significant difference
in postural sway and balance between surfers
and non-surfers, with the exception of the limits
of stability test with foam among non-surfers.
Additionally, all the conditions were identical.
For example, all subjects postural sway was
static with eyes open focused on a certain area.
A similar study done by Hansson and
Hakansson (2010) examined the effects of
postural sway among conditions on a flat
surface and with foam per eyes open and eyes
closed and the head in different positions. This
study found that there was minimal postural
sway with the eyes open on a firm surface, and
eyes closed with the head extended on a foam
surface resulted in the most medio lateral
postural sway than any other conditions (8).
Additionally, there were significant differences

for anterior posterior and sway area (SA) when

subjects rotated their heads to the right. The
authors of that study cited that when
proprioception is decreased, vision is more
critical for postural control (8). Our study did
not have varied conditions such as eyes closed
on different surfaces. Future studies will have
to incorporate conditions of varying surfaces
with the eyes open and closed among surfers
and non-surfers. Also, tests should be done
with subjects eyes closed on the force
platform rather than eyes open. One study
found that while using this method, skilled
surfers were able to incorporate their
proprioception
more
effectively
while
balancing with their eyes closed compared to
less skilled surfers (1). Having the subjects
eyes opened for the force platform portion of
the study required all subjects to use their
sensory motor skills. Anticipating others
attempts to further investigate surfers and their
balance, would be ideal to focus the attention
on the subjects proprioceptive skills.
Additionally, using an upside-down Bosu ball
would be better to mimic the less the unstable
environment of surfing and incorporate
dynamic movement (1).
The subjects recruited were all male, and they
were over the age of 30. It may have been more
effective to use both male and female surfers
for this study to widen the observed population.
In addition, using subjects of a younger age
may have provided alternative results as the
younger population would presumably have
faster reflexes and balance control. The small
sample that we acquired for this study may be
insufficient to provide evidence of significant
differences between surfers and non-surfers.
Using a larger sample size may give greater
significance between the groups. In conclusion,
there are no significant differences on postural
sway and balance between surfers and nonsurfers, with the exception of limits of stability
with foam among non-surfers.

Table 1: Postural Sway, Limits of Stability and Weight shift comparisons between surfers and nonsurfers
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

Score with Foam

28.1

3.5

34.4

7.1

0.027

Score with NoFoam

35.1

5.6

39.4

8.6

0.218

Time with Foam

34.6

7.0

39.5

8.2

0.173

Time with NoFoam

31.9

4.9

37.4

9.0

0.121

Score with Foam

55.6

28.8

57.2

30.5

0.905

Score with NoFoam

75.0

22.6

70.0

24.5

0.644

Time with Foam

26.2

5.0

30.0

11.6

0.378

Time with No-

23.2

6.6

24.5

10.7

0.750

Postural Sway

Limits of Stability

Weight Shift

Foam

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 non-surfers 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/s00421-010-1782-2
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 nonathletes. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal,
8(11), 50-53. Retrieved from
http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/files/site1/user_files_05
5690/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