Changes in Kinematics of the Surfing Paddle Motion During Fatigue

in Surfers versus Non-Surfers

California State University San Marcos
KINE 300
Carla Bejjani, Erin Terregrossa, Colin Gilson, Monica Pino, Michelle Bravo

Changes in Kinematics of the Surfing Paddle Motion during

Fatigue in Surfers versus Non-Surfers
Carla Bejjani, Erin Terregrossa, Colin Gilson, Monica Pino, Michelle Bravo
California State University, San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, 92096
Abstract
Background: Surfboard riding (surfing) has become a popular, competitive sport which demands anaerobic,
aerobic, and resting periods of exercise. Optimum joint kinematics is a significant element that could improve
performance, but limited research is available to strengthen this assumption. Purpose: The purpose of this study
is to examine the changes in joint kinematics of the surfing paddle motion during fatigue in surfers vs. nonsurfers and determine what differences in joint kinematics may contribute to fatigue. Methods: Participants
included 12 healthy, young males with mean age, height and weight equal to 26.08 6.50 yrs, 1.71 0.05 m, and
69.44 6.40 kg, respectively. Reflective markers were placed on the spine (sacrum, lower thoracic, upper
thoracic), scapular spine, elbow, and lateral wrist joints. All subjects performed a surfing paddle motion using
the swim bench ergometer and paddled until volitional fatigue. Wattage increased by 10W every minute.
Results: Surfers reached a higher maximal power output (W) and sustained their wattage for a longer duration.
Data indicates that there was a significant difference between surfers and non-surfers during both initial and
final wrist stroke height (p<.05 for both). Additionally, there was a significant difference between surfers and
non-surfers during initial elbow stroke length (p<.05). Conclusion: The main finding of the present study
demonstrated that surfers yielded a more proficient stroke paddling technique than non-surfers.
Introduction
Surfboard riding (surfing) is a popular
competitive sport which demands short bursts of
intense anaerobic exercise, intermittent resting
periods and enhanced aerobic paddling activities.
Up to 54 + 6.3% of physical activity associated with
surfing involves arm paddling and can require up to
10 minutes of strenuous work during a 1 hour bout
of surfing (Farley et. al, 2012). Surfing is
considered an interval training exercise which has
been demonstrated by competitive surfers yielding
heart rates above 120 bpm for 5-20 second intervals
during 80% of surfing bout (Farley et. al, 2012).
Fatigue occurs when an individual fails to
maintain the required power output during a given
task. Furthermore, fatigue primarily occurs within
the actual muscle fiber itself without involving
central nervous system activity (Fitts, 1994);
therefore focusing on the utilization of specific
muscle fiber types while surfing is important in
evaluating fatigue. Type I fibers naturally have the
greatest amount of mitochondrial content, therefore

having the highest resistance to fatigue (Fitts,

1994). Conversely, Type IIb muscle fibers have a
higher power output but lower mitochondrial
content which leads to lower resistance to fatigue.
Because of the demand for both high
intensity bursts as well as aerobic components as
stated above, surfers are expected to have increased
efficiency in both Type I and Type II muscle fibers
which would prolong the onset of fatigue.
There has been some research that looked at
the effects of muscle power and its relationship
with performance (Hawley et al., 1992). Hawley et
al. conducted a study that observed the relationship
between muscle power and swimming performance
in sprint (50m) and middle-distance (400m). For
this specific study, they looked at both arm and leg
muscle power, and concluded that there exists
significant relationships between muscle power and
enhanced performance. With that information, we
are curious to observe whether or not the same
conclusions can be applied to surfing. However, we

will only observe muscle power output (Watts) from

the upper body and the changes of this wattage
across time as the onset of fatigue approaches. Our
definition for the fatigue in the study we are
conducting is when the participant is no longer able
to keep the surf ergometer for 40 or above watts, for
more than 30 seconds during the exercise bout, the
participant has then reached fatigue.
Thus far, there is limited research on joint
kinematics in surfing. There has been some research
pertaining to competitive surfers anaerobic/aerobic
performance however, none which truly evaluates
actual joint kinematics during fatigue. Baudouin et
al. (2002) conducted a study which discussed
biomechanical factors in rowing. When analyzed,
biomechanics can be modified to maximize power
of the stroke. This can be applied to our own study,
which will observe power output and its
relationship with changes in joint kinematics.
Paddling is different from rowing, but both require
upper arm strength and aerobic endurance.
Competitive surfing demands the
practitioners to use optimum joint kinematics during
arm paddling in order to catch waves and paddle
beyond the wave breaking point. Further
knowledge of what happens to the arm paddling
motion during fatigue may yield valuable
information for coaches and competitors.
The purpose of this study is to examine the
changes in joint kinematics of the surfing paddle
motion during fatigue in surfers vs. non-surfers and
determine what differences in joint kinematics may
contribute to fatigue. We hypothesize that a)
subjects with surfing experience will sustain
maximal power output for a longer duration and
will reach fatigue later in comparison to subjects
without surfing experience. Furthermore, we
hypothesize that b) there will be a difference in arm
kinematics between surfers and non-surfers, and c)
there will be specific changes in kinematics related
to fatigue.
Methods
Participants
12 healthy male subjects with average age, height
and weight equal to 26.08 6.50 yrs, 1.71 0.05m,

and 69.44 6.40kg, respectively. participated in this

study. Subjects reported 5 hours/week of physical
activity. They were split into 2 groups. Group 1 had
6 subjects with >1 year of experience in surfing,
while Group 2 had 6 subjects with no previous
surfing experience (0 years of surfing experience).
All subjects completed consent forms prior to
testing. Subjects were chosen according to the
information provided in their Health and History
Questionnaire; specifically taking into account the
number of hours/week of physical activity.
Protocol
Reflective markers were placed on each subject:
three on the spine (upper thoracic, mid thoracic and
around the sacrum), one on the lateral portion of the
scapular spine, one around the lateral epicondyle of
the elbow and one around the wrist joint on both
arms.These markers allowed us to observe shoulder,
elbow and wrist joint kinematics on both arms
through the Vicon motion capture system.
Testing
All subjects performed a surfing paddle motion
using the swim bench ergometer and paddled until
volitional fatigue. The recording of the Vicon began
when subject paddling achieved a power output of
40Watts. The subjects then were instructed to keep
the wattage at or above 40W. The paddling
instructions were very specific. One investigator
stood behind the subject and read the power output
(Watts) every 10 seconds. The investigator
specifically read this line every 10 seconds You are
at _____ Watts; you need to be at ____ Watts.
Every minute, wattage increased by 10 Watts. Once
a subject fell under the required wattage for a period
of 30 seconds, or if the subject stopped
immediately, testing ended and the subject was free
to stop paddling. The subject was then considered to
have reached fatigue according to our definition.
Outside stimulation was not allowed during testing.
No verbal motivation, cheering or listening to music
was allowed in order to make sure that all subjects
were not influenced by any outside stimuli.
Data Analysis

All data are presented as means standard

deviation (SD). Data was analyzed using Microsoft
Excel (Microsoft Excel 2010; Windows Vista, 7,
XP) where statistical comparisons between surfers
and non-surfers are performed using an independent
t-test. We compared the average kinematics of the
strokes of fresh and fatigued surfers and non
surfers. The averages of both fresh and fatigues
moments of the wrist stroke (length, height and
area), the elbow (length, height and area), average
peak shoulder angle and average range of motion
angle were calculated as well. The level of
significance is set as p < 0.05.
Results
Major results of this study focused on peak power
output and duration and joint kinematics (wrist and
elbow stroke lengths, heights and areas; shoulder
range of motion; and shoulder angle); each of which
is presented below.
Figure 1 presents power output (in Watts) over time
for both surfers and non-surfers. Surfers
demonstrated higher initial power output (average
of 56.25W) during the first minute of testing while
non-surfers initial power output was averaged to be
40.81W. Surfers in general achieved a much higher
average maximal power output than non-surfers
throughout the entire testing (69.875W compared to
40.81W). Also, surfers sustained maximal power
output for a longer duration and reached fatigue
later in comparison to non-surfers
Figure 1. This figure displays the transition in
power output (Watts) over time for both the surfer
and non-surfer groups.
The averages of the surfers and non-surfers wrist,
elbow, and shoulder placement when the subjects
were rested are shown in Table 1. Wrist stroke
length, elbow stroke area, elbow stroke length, and
elbow stroke height were all larger for surfers when
compared to non-surfers (955.03+123.41mm >
849.07+81.45mm, 93,891.89+42,835.95mm2 >
75,007.24+43,395.63mm2, 549.08+56.88mm >
458.19+42.16mm, 340.27+54.24mm >
326.40+108.93mm respectively). Wrist stroke area,

wrist stroke height, average peak shoulder angle,

and average ROM shoulder angle were all
diminished for surfers compared to non-surfers in
Table 1 (257,611.90 104,137.51mm2 <
306,265.41 104,137.51mm2, 389.08 74.51mm <
491.71 70.00mm, -2.10 14.12 < 14.00
15.02, 93.47 21.71 < 106.74 29.76
respectively).
Table 1: Fresh values of Surfers and Non-surfers
during testing
Surfers
Wrist
Stroke
Area
(mm2)
Wrist
Stroke
Length
(mm)
Wrist
Stroke
Height
(mm)
Elbow
Stroke
Area
(mm2)
Elbow
Stroke
Length
(mm)
Elbow
Stroke
Height
(mm)
Ave Peak
Shoulder
Angle ()
Ave ROM
Shoulder
Angle ()

257611.90
104137.51

Nonsurfers
306265.41
104137.51

955.03
123.41

849.07
81.45

389.08
74.51

491.71
70.00

93891.89
42835.95

75007.24
43395.63

549.08
56.88

458.19
42.16

340.27
54.24

326.40
108.93

-2.10
14.12

14.00
15.02

93.47
21.71

106.74
29.76

Results are expressed as mean SD

Table 2 shows the averages of the surfers and nonsurfers during fatigue of the wrist, elbow, and
shoulder positions. The wrist stroke area, wrist

stroke length, wrist stroke height, elbow stroke area,

elbow stroke length, elbow stroke height, average
peak shoulder angle, and average ROM angle were
all diminished for the surfers compared to nonsurfers in Table 2 (32,689 23,114mm2 < 99,573
5,502mm2, 5.72 4.04mm < 97.24 68.75mm,
45.34 32.07mm < 102.44 72.43mm, 38,352
5,905mm2 < 21,126.93 14,938mm2, 19
13.43mm < 25.5 18.02mm, 34.67 24.52mm <
67.22 47.53mm, 6.63 4.68 < 23.68 16.75,
9.96 7.05 < 23.34 16.50 respectively).
Table 2: Change following fatigue in Surfers vs. Nonsurfers
Wrist
Stroke
Area
(mm2)
Wrist
Stroke
Length
(mm)
Wrist
Stroke
Height
(mm)
Elbow
Stroke
Area
(mm2)
Elbow
Stroke
Length
(mm)
Elbow
Stroke
Height
(mm)
Ave Peak
Shoulder
Angle ()
Ave ROM
Angle ()

Surfer
32689
23114

Non-surfer
99573
5502

5.72 4.04

97.24
68.75

45.34
32.07

102.44
72.43

38352
5905

21126.93
14938

19 13.43

25.5
18.02

34.67
24.52

67.22
47.53

6.63 4.68

23.68
16.75

9.96 7.05

23.34
16.50

Results are expressed as mean SD

Figure 2 demonstrates the average of surfers and nonsurfers elbow stroke length when the subjects were
performing after being rested. Data shows that surfers

were able to perform longer elbow stroke length when

compared to non-surfers (Average elbow stroke length
549.0856.88mm > 458.1942.16mm for surfers
compared to non-surfers respectively).
Figure 2. The average elbow stroke length for surfers
and non-surfers after subjects were rested.
Figure 3 demonstrates the average of surfers and nonsurfers elbow stroke length when the subjects were
performing fatigued. Data shows that surfers performed
longer elbow stroke length when compared to nonsurfers (Average elbow stroke length 530.08102.80mm
> 432.6961.17mm for surfers compared to non-surfers
respectively).
Figure 3. The average elbow stroke length for surfers
and non-surfers during subject fatigue

After running an independent t-test on initial and final

data, we discovered three significant differences between
surfers and non-surfers. Figure 4 shows that surfers have
a higher initial elbow stroke length compared to nonsurfers (p=0.01). Figure 5 shows a significant difference
during initial wrist stroke height between groups
(p=0.04). In comparison with figure 5, figure 6 displays
wrist stroke height during fatigue. Non-surfers have a
higher wrist stroke height initially compared to surfers
(fig. 5), which during fatigue switched to surfers having
a significantly higher wrist stroke height compared to
non-surfers (fig. 6) with p=0.005.

Figure 4. This graph illustrates the initial elbow stroke

lengths in surfers and non-surfers.

Figure 6. This graph illustrates wrist stroke height in

both surfers and non-surfers during fatigue.
Discussion

Figure 5. This graph illustrates the initial wrist stroke

height in both surfers and non-surfers during the fresh
state.

Surfing is a recreational activity whose popularity

has increased within the past 10 years. More individuals
are seeking out this sport as a means of leisure and
exercise. Despite the suggestive health implications that
the sport may elicit, the majority of the few studies that
do exist have only looked at the physiologic changes and
adaptations in both competitive and recreational surfers
i.e. VO2 and muscle power output.
Very little is known about the biomechanical
aspects of surfing. To our knowledge no studies have
looked at the joint kinematics of surfers, specifically
involving upper-body surfing techniques. The purpose of
this study was to examine the difference in joint
kinematics in surfers and non-surfers while performing a
arm paddling motion until they reach volitional fatigue
using a swim bench ergometer.
Based on the findings from this study the null
hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, we accepted our
hypothesis that subjects with surfing experience will
sustain maximal power output for a longer duration and
will reach fatigue later in comparison to subjects without
surfing experience; that there will be a difference in arm
kinematics between surfers and non-surfers; and that
there will be specific changes in kinematics related to
fatigue.
The main finding of the current study was that
surfers demonstrated longer arm extension while
paddling compared to non-surfers. While performing a

longer arm extension method, surfers were able to

sustain higher power output over a longer duration of

time. This particular technique may play a role in

increasing time to fatigue. Future studies may consider
comparing surfers of similar athletic ability performing
various arm paddling techniques to determine if a
specific arm technique will elicit increased time to
fatigue.
Limitations
Due to the nature of the sport it would be difficult to
simulate realistic environmental conditions. Future
investigators might consider developing a means of
collecting data that better replicates the actual
environment of the sport; for the mean time, current
research accepts the method of data collection in the lab
using equipment such as the kayak or swim bench
ergometer (Mndez-Villanueva et al., 2005). `Although
the sample size may have confounded the statistical
power to determine significant findings, this study has
data supported by relevant research involving similar
sample sizes (Shepard et al.,2012; Farley,2012).
Furthermore, throughout the duration of this study there
were few alterations to the protocol as a result of
equipment availability and time constraints.
Nevertheless, subjects and investigators maintained the
integral components of the study to gather the
information to address the stated hypothesis.
Practical Applications
This study has supportive data showing that experienced
surfers maintain longer arm paddling motions to perform
a surf-related action. Surfing instructors now have data
to support any training techniques involving arm
movement that can help teach aspiring surfers the
preferred technique as demonstrated by experienced
surfers in this study.
Conclusion
This study was able to determine that surfers
demonstrate longer arm paddling motions as opposed to
non-surfers. Given the scarcity in research regarding
upper-body joint kinematics in surfers, this also serves as
a pilot study for future investigators and the growing
literature on the topic.
References

1. Baudouin, . A., & Hawkins, D. (2002, July 8). A

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

biomechanical review of factors affecting rowing

performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
36, 396-402. Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Farley, O.L., Harris, N.K, & Kilding, A.E.
(2012). Anaerobic and aerobic fitness profiling of
competitive surfers . The Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Association, 26(8), 2243-2248.
Farley, O. L., Harris, N. K., & Kilding, A. E.
(2012). PHYSIOLOGICAL DEMANDS OF
COMPETITIVE SURFING. Journal Of Strength
& Conditioning Research (Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins), 26(7), 1887-1896.
Fitts, R. H. (1994, January 1). Cellular
Mechanisms of Muscle Fatigue. American
Physiological Society, 74, 49-94.
Hawley, J. A., Williams, M. M., Vickovic, M. M.,
& Handcock, P. J. (1992). Muscle Power Predicts
Freestyle Swimming Performance. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 26(3), 151-155.
Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Loveless, D J. (2010). Peak aerobic power and
paddling efficiency in recreational and
competitive junior male surfers. European
journal of sport science, 10(6), 407-415.
Mndez-Villanueva, A, et al. "Upper body aerobic
fitness comparison between two groups of
competitive surfboard riders." Journal of science
and medicine in sport 8.1 (2005):43-51.
Sheppard, J M, Sheppard, P, McNamara, M, et al.
(2012). Association between anthropometry and
upper-body strength qualities with sprint
paddling performance in competitive wave
surfers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 26(12), 3345-3348.