Remind me how many miles pro marathoners will train on the road vs on trail, treadmill or track when they race entirely on roads?

---

Chasing PB Podcast Latest interview with Eli Hemming on Targeting a US MTR spot in Tokyo

You mean how many miles they train on sidelwaks. That is the issue.

Altough for any post I’ve ever seen on social media, or any pro I follow on Strava, I’ve never seen a sidewalk as part of their training.

I will run in the bike lane or on the road going against traffic and if I see a bike or car coming at me, I get the f out of the way.

I'm with this. You can lecture me on your rights, but end of day if something is hurtling at you the law isn't gonna stop you from getting wrecked

---

Chasing PB Podcast Latest interview with Eli Hemming on Targeting a US MTR spot in Tokyo

It really isn't the issue, it's about surface you train on, but whatever. I'm not against avoiding sidewalks for the fact concrete is harsher on joints, that sidewalks tend to have more imperfections (at least where I've lived) and I have bad ankles, but doing it for "race prep" is a relatively moot point against others. I wish I had good sidewalks to run on - I've got 3 km of brick pavers I have to clear before I get to a rural road on my usual out and back. Way worse than concrete imo

---

Chasing PB Podcast Latest interview with Eli Hemming on Targeting a US MTR spot in Tokyo

It would blow their minds to know that something like cross-country and trail running exists.

Also, while the whole concrete vs. asphalt thing IS true about the COR......that's not how it works when you've got springs in series. One person running in a Vaporfly 4% on asphalt is probably worse than I would be in my really cushy Adidas shoes on the sidewalk.

The issue with sidewalks and serious folks is that unless you want to get really bored, those folks are running lots of miles. And sidewalk running is often pretty boring in terms of how it limits a route.

I have a paved greenway behind my house and choose to use that.

The posts by "seeyouincourt" in this topic don't really match well given the username choice.

The original poster said, “I went on a long run the other day and was running in the bike lane rather than on the concrete sidewalk,” so it kind of seems like that framed the issue. Plus I quipped about races not being on sidewalks and it being perfectly legal in CA to run on street, so also trying to stay on point there.

As for running on the road not being good race prep, I’ve only done road marathons, so running on the road seems pretty race specific. Naturally I mix things up with trails, but I get to those trails on the road, which I’m running on. As much as I like my Peloton I’m certainly not doing 10, 12, 16 milers on a treadmill, nor can I go round and round on a track for over an hour. If that’s what the pros are doing then more power to them. I also don’t zwift for hours on end either but instead do long rides outside. This may be why I’m not a great athlete.

i love this thought that many runners have: that somehow not running on concrete will save you from impact stress. how many miles do you run a week? 30? 50? i mean come on. running on asphalt vs. concrete is just a placebo effect that has no real grounding in science for most of us amateur runners. now, you start running 10+ hours a week and i'll give you a nod.

jkhayc wrote:

i love this thought that many runners have: that somehow not running on concrete will save you from impact stress. how many miles do you run a week? 30? 50? i mean come on. running on asphalt vs. concrete is just a placebo effect that has no real grounding in science for most of us amateur runners. now, you start running 10+ hours a week and i'll give you a nod.

https://www.hillrunner.com/jim2/id27.html

I have another reason I try to run on the street/bike lanes if they are accessible and that is because there is rarely a sidewalk that is close to even without and cracks and big sections taken out. And with the winter rarely do people shovel. But like a post above said if I am ever running in a bike lane, against traffic, and I see a cyclist I get on the grass to get out of the way.

Also, didn't someone do a "study" and post in on here about how little of a difference there really was between concrete and asphalt?

---

Twitter - Instagram

you're gonna use "jim's running page" as evidence? mmk.

So tons of people pass you without incidence and one shows a little displeasure and your gut reaction is to be pissed off by that? Maybe grow some thicker skin, you can't please everybody.
Apart from that, if it will be accepted by most people depends on the local situation. Space, general attitude, underground of bike lane and pedestrian path etc.

jkhayc wrote:

you're gonna use "jim's running page" as evidence? mmk.

Would a PHD fit your bill better?

https://www.slowtwitch.com/...VvzdPuFt-ROO40O2peks

yea, i remember reading that. did you?

PHD wrote:

So I might as well let you know up front that the hardness difference between concrete and asphalt is insignificant when running in shoes, because the cushioning afforded by shoes far exceeds any cushioning provided by those surfaces.

Quote:

and in researching this article, it became clear that some runners are convinced they can sense the impact difference between concrete and asphalt

tl;dr

If you convince yourself that something is true, it likely will be...for you. Objectively, there is no material difference between running on concrete and running on asphalt.

I like, like this commenter, notice:


A road's crown does far more damage to me (mentally, anyway) than does the alleged stress of running on concrete.

Apparently not well enough. :)

Don’t care about impact stress. I do care that roads are basically flat mile after mile and sidewalks are basically not. Curbs, driveways, cracks, etc.

I run against traffic in the bike lanes. I'll jump to the sidewalk if necessary to avoid bikes. Typically, the sidewalks have dog walkers, people walking, kids riding bikes and lots of moms w strollers. It's far easier to run in the bike lane and jump to the sidewalk when cyclists are approaching.

Young's modulus isn't useful in determining the forces in a spring-mass-dashpot system.

Young's modulus has to do with the physical stress/strain curve relationship for elastic and plastic deformation. I really really hope you're not exerting enough force when running to deform the pavement.

You want the differential equations used in mechanical vibrations modeling.

So, you all still don't know what you're talking about.

So instead of that last sentence could you help us out by maybe explaining it in terms regular folks can understand and even better, post a link to something we could look at?

He's probably of similar minds with Ed O'Malley (Row2Tri on ST), who commented on your linked article:

" did not read the papers you referenced, but your description of "hardness" and your use of Young's modulus is incorrect and you are leaving out many critical factors. This does not mean that the conclusion is wrong, but I do not believe the conclusion can be reached given the analysis provided. Hardness can sometimes, in some materials be approximately related to E, but not always. Hardness instead is measured using a variety of scales determined by empirical measurements, such as Rockwell hardness. These generally involve measuring how far an object made of a certain material in a certain shape depresses into another material when a certain force is applied. Hardness would be an important factor in measuring impact if one was running in track spikes, but it is not likely to be a major factor in normal running shoes. In that case, stiffness, measured by E, is probably an important factor, but knowing E alone cannot tell you how much a material will deflect. First, you must know the dimensions of the material - especially the thickness. Even a very stiff material can flex a lot under a load if the material is thin. Second, we are running on a system of materials, not merely asphalt or concrete alone. You must take the substrate into account. In other words, the dirt it is laid on top of. Finally, in addition to the flex of the material you are running on causing force, there are other factors that can cause discomfort or injury. I would postulate that a surface that does not dampen the vibration from the impact would be more damaging to run on. This is also related to E and I would expect surfaces with a higher modulus to transfer more vibration back into the leg of the runner, but I do not know if it is enough for your average runner to perceive, though I do think I have experienced it.

Ultimately, your conclusion might be right, but just observing that roads are made of "stiff" materials and shoes are "soft" is not enough to reach it."

You could model it in mechanical vibrations as a "spring-mass-dashpot" system.

Imagine your leg to be like the spring/shock absorber system on a car and your body is the mass. That system has a mass, a spring constant for each connected component, and dampening for each component.

Imagine also the car system going over a speed bump and exerting a force into the system.

That's about the easiest to understand I can convey it in relating it to running. The spring constant "K" of the asphalt or concrete or steel plate is going to be extremely similar since it is effectively a rigid body in the system. The shoe, sock, the skin and fat and muscles in your foot, the muscles/tendons and other things up through your leg........they all will have an effective dampening and spring constant.

Those are not rigid. They measurably give.

To have a spring constant to begin with, the item has to deform. You apply force to a spring, it compresses or extends. Same for a shoe, the fat/skin/muscles in your foot, and the muscles and tendons in your leg.

Asphalt and concreted do have a spring constant "K", but it is essentially infinite in both cases. Large forces and minor deformation: F=kx, so k=F/x.......F super large and x is infinitesimally small......so assume infinity.

In the vibrations formulas, the springs in series (your shoes, the surface, your legs/foot/sock) are: 1/keq = 1/k + 1/k.......

If the second "k" is effectively infinite (concrete or aspahalt), the equivalent spring constant is equal to just the spring constant of the rest of the system. One divided by infinity is effectively zero. Complete the equation and you're left with the original spring constant of the rest of the leg/foot/sock/shoe spring constants.

This is why it is nonsense about the asphalt versus concrete.

Thanks guys. I appreciate it. I never thought I would say this but boy I wish I had taken physics in high school. :)

No it's not :rolleyes:

CVC 21966: No pedestrians shall proceed along bike path or lane where there is an adjacent adequate pedestrian facility.

That law has been on the books since 1976!

I don't know where you went to law school or what state you practice law in, but you do not know what you are talking about.

The California Court of Appeals has stated, in 2008, "As to foot passengers, the old common-law freedom of use of the king's highway has not been modified in this state by any positive enactment. So that it still remains the law that foot passengers have the right to use and traverse the highway at all its points, being chargeable only for the exercise of a due amount of care, which due amount of care, in its quantum, is governed by the circumstances attending the use which the pedestrian actually makes.” So that’s the law. There is more than 100 years of published appellate decisions on this going back to at least 1914. In the case that I am referring to, from 2008, the court held that walking down the middle of the road [inside a business or residential district] was lawful conduct.

If the Legislature wants to abrogate the common law when it passes a statute the language or evident purpose of the statute needs to manifest a legislative intent to repeal a common law rule, otherwise there is a presumption against displacement of the common law.

If the Court of Appeals thought Chapter 5 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code “Pedestrians’ Rights and Duties,” which is where you cite from, abrogated the common law then it would have said so. Instead, what the court determined the law of California to be, is that the common law right of freedom of use of the king's highway has not be modified by any statute.

The language of “adequate pedestrian facility” in Vehicle Code 21966 has also been litigated successfully before trial courts. Section 21966 (in the Vehicle Code) by its own terms applies to Class I (bike path) and Class II (bike lane) bikeways, yet a Class I bikeway by statutory language allows a pedestrian (in the Streets and Highways Code).

Run in the bike lane if you want, it is perfectly legal, but don’t be a dick about it.

Nice gatekeeping! Please let me know how many miles a week i need to hit before i can talk about my knees hurting and receive a nod from you. If someone has bad knees they might feel the mileage at 30 while someone else is fine pounding asphalt till 80 mpw.

I agree asphalt vs concrete is a stupud argument and people taking this line would actually benefit by finding some dirt. Surface quality is the only reason i end up in the road when its clear.