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 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

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 nonsurfers. 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 (A-P) and mediallateral (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 (pvalue) 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 nonsurfers 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 pvalue 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 nonsurfers 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 pvalue 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 non-surfers,
57.2 30.5 %, indicated by the p-value of 0.905.
The times were also similar, surfers finished in 26.2
5 seconds and non-surfers 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, nonsurfers 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 nonsurfers, 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 nonsurfers. 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 nonsurfers. 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 non-surfers, 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 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

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

Postural Sway

Limits of Stability

Weight Shift

Time with NoFoam

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