For Runners, Soft Ground Can Be Hard on the Body (Gina Kolata in the Times)

The best runners in the world run on dirt roads and trails...thats good enough for me.

All of my top training memories involved great runs on soft surfaces, whether at Umstead State Park or Duke Forest in NC, the woodchip trails of Eugene, or the myriad CA and OR coastal trails. For runners with knee issues like me, SOFT is clearly the way to go. Yup, I've sprained my foot stepping on granite rocks on the trail, but the achilles and calf problems that plagued me for so long seemed to magically disappear on softer ground. To each his own, and variety is definitely not a bad thing in preparation for a road race, but for the majority of your slower but important LD miles, you'd be INSANE to strictly go on the asphalt. Insane.

This time I am siding with the Brojo's.

Any runner who has spent any good amount of time comparing their training on pavement or soft surfaces can tell you that soft surfaces are less compromising on the body.

I compared running on pavement to running on a gravel pathway...over a long period of time...after the age of 30...

10 miles on gravel...yielded the same soreness as 6 miles on pavement.

Once I figured this out...all of my running was done on soft surfaces, except track training.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have that ability to hit the trails.

I think the older you get, the more you benefit from soft surfaces / less pounding.

That said, I think there is such a thing as too soft a surface (Pre's Trail, freshly re-chipped), and that when starting on some soft surfaces it takes a while to adapt.

Same with softer shoes.

Consider the "audience" for the article-urban dwellers with probably minimal access to trails, non-competitive runners, etc.

From the responses here, people have gotten hurt on hard and soft surfaces. Also people have "adapted" to hard or soft surfaces--whether that is by developing better stabilizing muscles for soft uneven surfaces or using one of the "natural" running techniques (chi, pose, barefoot) for the pavement.

If you've been running after high school for more than 10+ years you probably figured a way to make whatever surface you like to run on (or forced to run on) work for you.

The bottom line is each surface type has some pros and cons. Even an ideal surface like a mondo track can criticized for not allowing the runner to develop stabilizing muscles or not forcing the runner to adapt a less shock inducing running style.

IMO, modern shoes (can) have so much cushioning it really doesn't matter. Perhaps too much cushioning, hence the minimalism movement.

I used to run up and down a rock strewn mountain every weekend every week for years and never once sprained my ankle

Maybe this doctor should watch where he is going!

Perhaps boxers should stop wearing gloves as well

This has been discussed endlessly you can get injured on any surface but logic dictates that a softer surface causes less injuries. Otherwise why do shoe manufacturers say you should change shoes every 6 wks/ Plus in the real world runners do not change their shoes any where near that often, hence need the extra cushioning

Basic physics. There is a nice quote from WeJo regarding road versus trails. Take a golf ball, drop it on a paved road, it comes right back to. Drop same golf ball on a trail and it does not bounce at all. Repeat that 1000s of times and imagine the force exerted on the human body. As far twisting an ankle, I have twisted my ankle more on roads than in the woods. Roads lull you into a sense of complacency while trail running sharpens your senses (below the knees). All in all running on the roads should be avoided as much as possible when possible. Easy for me as a suburnanite, much harder for city folk. I run 90% in the woods and have been mostly injury free for 10+ years. Stay COOL!

Japs Bomb Pearl Harbor.

I've twisted my ankle twice, both times on roads.

I went to college in a small town with lots of dirt roads and trails. I went home for two weeks after my junior year and was doing big miles mostly on pavement, and I got hurt.

Sure, this does not conclusively prove that hard surfaces lead to injuries, but it's a little to coincidental for me to think the pavement had nothing to do with it.

Fact check: The human body is not a golf ball. We have highly advanced impact-absorption systems in our feet and legs. I've been running mostly on the roads for 12 years with no injuries.

Come on now. Shoe manufacturers want you to change your shoes every six weeks because they sell more shoes that way than if they told you to change them every six months.

I was thinking about this the other day. According to this theory,

Wolff's law is a theory developed by the German Anatomist/Surgeon Julius Wolff (1836–1902) in the 19th century that states that bone in a healthy person or animal will adapt to the loads it is placed under.[1] If loading on a particular bone increases, the bone will remodel itself over time to become stronger to resist that sort of loading.

it could be said that running on harder surfaces would actually increase the strength of bone because of the increased impact on bones?

Lets Runners,

Many folks are in the camp of “don’t bother me with the truth, I’ve already made up my mind”.

Trust me, it is true….”the harder the surface, and less between your foot and the ground, the softer the landing”.

See the front page video and read the text in the clip “Learning Good Barefoot Running Style”

http://naturalrunningcenter.com/

Browse our site for lots of articles and the shared experience of the leading science advisors on the topic.

For an amazing read on the science and experience of the effect of surface on impact forces on your body see this enlightening post by likely the smartest scientist in the house Dr. Casey Kerrigan on her experience with the Harvard track. She is comment #73 in the NYT piece.

http://zero-drop.com/?p=2852

All the best to healthier running,

Dr. Mark Cucuzzella

There's an internist in Montreal called Steve Robbins who took an interest in the issue of running injuries and cushioned, protective shoes back in the 80s that he's maintained since then. The reference in the article to studies done with pressure plates may be to some of his work though others may have done similar things.

What Steve will tell you his research shows is that the foot wants stability when it lands and has evolved to "read" the syrface its landing on and react to that surface in a stable manner. It can adapt to either a hard or soft surface, a smooth one or an irregular one. But it needs to "feel" the ground.

Shoes that have lots of cushioning make it harder for the foot to feel the ground so the runner compensates by slamming the foot into the ground harder in an attempt to feel what the surface is like. Paradoxically, more cushioning in shoes increases impact.

Someone posted that running in bare feet over a cushioned mat would be like running in cushioned shoes. If Robbins is right, that would not be true as the feet would read the cushioned mat and respond appropriately but the cushioned shoes would impair the ability to feel the ground.

To me, this, along with your comment, suggests that surface doesn't matter generally though it may matter quite a lot individually. I nearly always ran on asphalt or concrete as did most of my contemporaries and we were fine for the most part, perhaps for the reason you suggest, but we may be less adapted to irregular surfaces. But someone who has made a point of finding soft surfaces to run on from early in their running career may not have developed the bone strength necessary to do a lot of running on hard surfaces and will struggle on them until he or she does so.

FYI - The article is not poor journalism but is poorly titled and the journalists don't write the titles.

The Magic wrote:

FYI - The article is not poor journalism but is poorly titled and the journalists don't write the titles.

You say it's not poor journalism. She interviews one exercise physiologist who points to anecdotal evidence about himself. She references one "athlete" - herself. She talks to a couple of doctors who say there's no proof either way. And she bases her conclusions on that very limited sample. Could she not find a coach, a physiologist and medical doctors who advocate running on soft surfaces to provide some balance and counterpoint?

Mark Cucuzzella MD wrote:

Lets Runners,

Many folks are in the camp of “don’t bother me with the truth, I’ve already made up my mind”.

Trust me, it is true….”the harder the surface, and less between your foot and the ground, the softer the landing”.

For an amazing read on the science and experience of the effect of surface on impact forces on your body see this enlightening post by likely the smartest scientist in the house Dr. Casey Kerrigan on her experience with the Harvard track

Not very convincing Doc. I will not get into the shoe debate right now, but let's focus on the surface and the impact which are the original topics of this thread.

Firstly, let's look at this:

** "Dr. McMahon studied the effects of imposing a compliant surface between the foot and an otherwise hard ground surface. By compliant, he meant a surface that compressed and released in tune with the rise and fall of the body’s center of mass during running (and jumping). " **

Cement does NOT compress when landed on by a human. Thus, under this doc's own definition, cement is not a compliant surface.

Now let's look at this:

"The results were just as he expected. In the 1977-1978 Harvard indoor track season, injuries were reduced by one-half compared to the prior season. Running efficiency also improved as evidenced by faster race times (approximately 3% improvement)......The evidence was clear. A compliant surface that is physiologically tuned to the rise and fall of the body’s center of mass reduces injury and improves efficiency."

This exact article you posted contradicts your own assertions (amazing). Did you read it? You asserted that "the harder the surface...the softer the landing." But the article states that a more compliant surface, compared to a harder surface, allows some impact to be absorbed and then returned in time with the foot/body, thus reducing injury. Sounds like a "softer landing" to me than your preferred hard surface.

And the harvard track produced faster times. An even more compliant surface might have further reduced injuries, albeit with not faster times (less energy return). Grass and dirt are compliant surfaces. So are good all weather tracks. Based on the info you've given me, I most CERTAINLY will choose them over harder surfaces like cement that have less compliance and compression to them.

Here is another contradictory quote from your outstanding source:

** " In fact, there is biomechanical evidence to support the opposite -- that impact has nothing to do with injury (discussed in my recent post here). It was clear from McMahon’s data that the plywood surface did not compress at initial contact. Rather the plywood compressed and released much later in the stance phase, in tune with when the foot is fully planted and the body weight forces are at their peak. **

So let's see here:

a) doc concludes that "impact has NOTHING to do with injury" (she actually did not state "INITIAL impact", or "INITIAL touchdown force", only IMPACT)

b) Other doc's harvard track study showed that injuries were reduced when running on a surface that was compliant and thus compressed when body forces were at their peak, i.e., when the force from impact with the ground was at its peak, ie, some of the impact forces were absorbed by the surface, and then returned.

Sounds to me like reducing overall impact forces via the surface one runs on DOES help reduce injury. More compliant surfaces 1, harder surfaces 0.

And lastly, doesn't she claim that she has developed a shoe that does EXACTLY what the harvard track does? Something that might reduce injury? Sounds like that contradicts what you are saying, that the "less between your foot and the surface, the softer the landing." Looks like she does believe a shoe can reduce impact forces, and injuries. But only the correct shoe, HER shoe.

Interesting indeed.

Agreed, and perhaps even more importantly, our legs and feet are under the control of our brain. A couple of other thoughts that I'll throw out there without much elaboration: 1. Most readers of NYT run much much much less than most readers of Letsrun. It is quite possible that what is true for somebody running 10 or 20 or even 50 miles a week cannot necessarily be generalized to somebody who is running 120 - 140 miles a week. Ross Tucker at Science of Sport makes this point with regard to minimalism, i.e., that when a high-volume runner is spending a lot of time on their feet in a fatigued state, that is perhaps one time when the otherwise-possibly-sound underlying idea of minimalism (teach the brain to make the feet not hit the ground so hard, per original comment) might break down. 2. Adaptation is underrated - for somebody who is accustomed to doing lots of running on soft surfaces and none on hard surfaces, running on hard surfaces will hurt at first, because the legs, feet, and brain won't yet have figured out how to handle the hard surface without undue stress. For somebody who is accustomed to doing lots of running on hard surfaces, soft surfaces initially may be similarly stressful at first. Something that I find immensely difficult and uncomfortable is to change from a very hard surface to a very soft surface in the middle of a single long run. I basically agree with the comment in the NYT article that running on hard surfaces and running on soft surfaces can be thought of essentially as different activities. One can get quite good and efficient at one without being so good and efficient at the other.

Fine Journalism wrote:

Fact check: The human body is not a golf ball. We have highly advanced impact-absorption systems in our feet and legs. I've been running mostly on the roads for 12 years with no injuries.

Since wearing lighter/flexible shoe for all my runs, I feel the surface much more. I've run on asphalt, concrete, packed dirt/rocks trail and have been injury free for couple years now. I've run 65-75 miles with most of my LRs /or base miles on the trail. I will run more on the road when it gets closer to a race.

I agree with the poster who said you can twist an ankle or injure yourself on any surface. Most of my mishaps have happened mostly on asphalt/concrete.