Are there any physiological benefits to which running surface you run on? Running on the roads and sidewalks definitely seems to beat me up more than the dirt track at my local park. I was thinking of switching most of my runs to softer surfaces. Any reason not to do so exclusively? How does running on soft surfaces effect speed (not that I have any) since it seems like the softer surface makes me a bit slower?
Soft surfaces are definitely easier on the legs. The only reason not to train on soft surfaces exclusively is for racing on hard surfaces. Most triathlons seem to have a run on pavement. I would think that if you trained only on soft surfaces, racing on pavement would increase your risk injury and make for longer recovery times.
Are there any physiological benefits to which running surface you run on? Running on the roads and sidewalks definitely seems to beat me up more than the dirt track at my local park. I was thinking of switching most of my runs to softer surfaces. Any reason not to do so exclusively? How does running on soft surfaces effect speed (not that I have any) since it seems like the softer surface makes me a bit slower?
I’ve honestly never noticed a difference. Ran x-country from last yr. junior high through 3 years of college, varying terrain/surfaces, then continued tri training after that. probably 80% of all my training has been on some variant of concrete/asphalt, and it never really bothered me.
John
Not necessarily. Training on softer surfaces will minimize injuries by allowing you to go faster/longer. This in turn strengthens the supporting structure(ligaments, etc.). Thus, making injuries lesser regardless of surface. Running on harder surfaces exclusively will limit your running volume and has no benefits over softer surfaces. I always (ready ALWAYS) recommend running on softer surfaces.
I tried moving to softer surfaces almost exclusively over the winter. Much less pounding on the knees, which is nice. Developed a heel/AT problem, though, which in hindsight I attribute to the extra strain of trying to push off without a firm enough platform. It flared up about the time the trail was resurfaced so it was a lot ‘fluffier’ until it rained and got beat down by more traffic again.
Several years ago Runners world rated various surfaces. It turns out concrete is 10X’s harder than asphalt and I would think even more in the heat of summer. Since reading this I have stayed off the sidewalks for sure. I believe red wood chip trails were the best, if you’re fortunate enough to be near them. I’m currently recovering from an ankle sprain so the flatter and more stable the surface the better for now.
Back in the 70’s they talked about “tempering your legs” for pavement. Maybe the “science” has advanced since then.
If you are young, it probably doesn’t matter as much. In my 20’s i did not notice running 70/wk on asphalt, but now at 50, I like to do most long runs on trails. I’ve read the side-to-side and constant adjustment of stride on trails is healthier than the more consistent motion of road or treadmill runs. Hal Higdon, a well known marathoner/coach, attributes soft surface running to be factor in his running longevity.
In general you’ll be slower on soft surfaces, because you’ll have less traction. If you hit a well-packed dirt path or something the difference might be negligible though.
One could argue that if you’re on a soft surface and get beaten up less then you’ll be able to go faster later in the run since you feel so good and therefore your average speed will be faster on the soft surface…but that argument annoys me because it requires that the runner can’t handle hard surfaces for that length of a run.
I can think of one case in which soft surfaces should not be used exclusively, and that’s if you plan to race on roads or other hard surfaces. In that case, the more time you spend training on hard surfaces, the better you’ll prepare your legs for them on race day.
Have you been running only on hard surfaces prior to this? That injury shows that your supporting structures aren’t as strong as the rest of your legs. When you switched to the more unstable surface, your supporting structures which weren’t used as much on hard surfaces, were trying to play catch up(which probably caused a strain since you were probably running close to your regular pace).
One could argue that if you’re on a soft surface and get beaten up less then you’ll be able to go faster later in the run since you feel so good and therefore your average speed will be faster on the soft surface…but that argument annoys me because it requires that the runner can’t handle hard surfaces for that length of a run.
I can think of one case in which soft surfaces should not be used exclusively, and that’s if you plan to race on roads or other hard surfaces. In that case, the more time you spend training on hard surfaces, the better you’ll prepare your legs for them on race day.
I think the mistake here is thinking that specificity of running surface is the main issue. I believe this is not true. Your main argument(your last paragraph) is that running on hard surfaces prepares you for the race on a hard surface. I believe that having a strong physical foundation prepares you for the race on hard surface(or any surface really). So it does not matter how you really get to that strong physical foundation. It could be by training on hard OR soft surfaces(or both). However, by running on soft surface, you’ll run a lower risk of injury since the impact is lesser(plus the added benefit of strengthening supporting structures). This increases your running volume and in turn strengthens your running physique. Obviously if you’ve never ran on soft surface before, take it slow.
However, by running on soft surface, you’ll run a lower risk of injury since the impact is lesser(plus the added benefit of strengthening supporting structures).
Conventional wisdom thinks so but research has never shown that a harder surface is actually more likely to cause injury. I had a post on this awhile back (search “question for biomechanics people” or something to that effect")
One could argue that if you’re on a soft surface and get beaten up less then you’ll be able to go faster later in the run since you feel so good and therefore your average speed will be faster on the soft surface…but that argument annoys me because it requires that the runner can’t handle hard surfaces for that length of a run.
I can think of one case in which soft surfaces should not be used exclusively, and that’s if you plan to race on roads or other hard surfaces. In that case, the more time you spend training on hard surfaces, the better you’ll prepare your legs for them on race day.
I think the mistake here is thinking that specificity of running surface is the main issue. I believe this is not true. Your main argument(your last paragraph) is that running on hard surfaces prepares you for the race on a hard surface. I believe that having a strong physical foundation prepares you for the race on hard surface(or any surface really). So it does not matter how you really get to that strong physical foundation. It could be by training on hard OR soft surfaces(or both). However, by running on soft surface, you’ll run a lower risk of injury since the impact is lesser(plus the added benefit of strengthening supporting structures). This increases your running volume and in turn strengthens your running physique. Obviously if you’ve never ran on soft surface before, take it slow.
Well, the point of specificity is not that it’s the ONLY way to stimulate an adaptation, but that it’s the best. So yeah, training on soft surfaces will prepare your body to some degree for running on the road. But it won’t be as good as actually running on roads.
So you claim a strong physical foundation prepares someone to race on a hard surface. I agree with that. I’m just saying that running exclusively on soft surfaces is not the best way to achieve that. If that confuses you, consider the reverse situation: someone training only on roads and then decides to run a trail race. Would you argue that this person was wise to avoid trails in training?
What means “strong physiological foundation”
Bone remodeling happens on either surface.
Tendons, ligaments, etc actually get more work on trails, grass, sand - where they are more unstable.
just a couple thoughts
Well that term could mean lots of things. It’s our little placeholder term.
Again, I agree that adaptation happens on either surface. But that doesn’t mean they are equally effective for racing on a single surface.
Here’s how we can settle it. Go train for a marathon on a golf course. It’ll feel nice, but then run the marathon on the road. It won’t feel so nice anymore, especially late in the race.
As a 40+ Clyde, armed with the knowledge that running injuries are what takes down the majority of Triathletes (vs. cycling or swimming) I do the majority of my running off road, either on the beach or on the trails. I do my speedwork on asphalt and I avoid concrete as if it were an uncleared minefield.
Anecdotally speaking, I’ve seen really fast road runners hit the trail and blow apart at the seams, turning ankles, constantly tripping on obstacles because their foot lift was too low for the conditions; just having a miserable run before eventually getting dropped.
I’ve seen trail runners hit the road, and have no issues; including recovery issues.
Personally speaking, when I run trails I find the inability to create that repetitive motion (that you can on the road) keeps me fresher mentally, and physically. dodging boulders, adjusting to camber changes in the trail and all kinds of elevation changes just keeps you from getting into a groove. I’ve never seen anybody get slower by running trails, but I CONSTANTLY hear about road runners beating their joints to pieces.
IMHO
Hmmmm… You bring up some interesting points about trail running that I had never even considered. I live in downtown Atlanta and almost all of my running has been on sidewalks until very recently. I just noticed such a huge difference in my recovery from my dirt track runs but that is also pretty low “foot lift”.
So I have been running on a dirt track exclusively since I posted this message originally (more than 2 weeks ago). I have actually been trying out a new approach where I have cut down on my running volume but upped the frequency while doing all runs on this soft surface. As a 220 pound guy I have been amazed at how much better I have been recovering from runs. Aches and pains I just assumed were part of running disappeared completely.
Last night I did my first run on pavement. The run started off feeling really good. I felt faster and lighter on my feet on the pavement. But towards the end of the run I started getting those familiar aches and pains again. Today I have some tendonitis in my foot and I’m probably going to have to take the day off. No more running on pavement for me unless I’m racing or until I get under 200 pounds. Specificity of surface matters much less than frequency in this case. I would imagine that any runner would benefit from running a high percentage of their runs on soft surfaces.
…couple of issues no one has mentioned yet…Ground Reaction force. GRF is greatly reduced running on trails compared to hard surfaces like asphalt/concrete. This is what you all are saying is so great. However, runners with excellent technique utilize the ground reaction force in an efficient manner. This “free rebounding” is lost/greatly minimized on the trails and would require an adjustment in technique to accomodate. This is the same argument that is had about very soft tracks vs. firmer tracks. Firmer tracks, IMO, are faster and safer in the long haul.
I’m not saying don’t run on trails, just saying that if your technique sucks and you don’t want to change it, then you probably will be absorbing the hard surface ground reaction force instead of utilizing and benefiting from it.
david K
Not completely equal, but there are studies that show football players who train on grass injure themselves more than football players who train on synthetics when playing on synthetics
.