Doing a 14 mile long run on Concrete amd Asphalt (side walk and road) am I just asking for a stress frature???

What do you think we do in the Northeast all winter?

In other words, of course not...

Well, if you have only been running on trails, I can see your concern, but unless your bones are very brittle, you will survive one long run on the roads/sidewalk. You may be a bit sore after though since you are running than a harder than normal surface.

Chelsea Elveres wrote:

Traveling this weekend, the only place I can run in the place im going would be side walks, road.

Have you heard of the Boston Marathon? People run for almost twice as far as 14 miles and do just fine.

howonearth wrote:

Chelsea Elveres wrote:

Traveling this weekend, the only place I can run in the place im going would be side walks, road.

Have you heard of the Boston Marathon? People run for almost twice as far as 14 miles and do just fine.

pics or it didn't happen

good to be concerned about it.

Running on dirt trails would seem to be the way to go if a person lives near trails.

One option is possibly take the weekend off although it sounds as if you are addicted and must run.

booboomagoo wrote:

howonearth wrote:

Have you heard of the Boston Marathon? People run for almost twice as far as 14 miles and do just fine.

pics or it didn't happen

Here you go:

Research consistently finds no relationship between running surface and injury risk. Impact and active forces are just as high on a hard surface as on a soft one. In fact, hard surfaces should theoretically be better for preventing bone stress injuries, because leg stiffness decreases when you run on a hard surface, which increases the load borne by the soft tissue of the leg, and decreases the load borne by the bones. In practice, this effect is probably trivial due to the aforementioned lack of research connecting hard surfaces with stress fractures (or any injury).

This.

Asphalt is our friend.

It's times like these that I wish The Concrete Runner was still around to chime in. "KEEP IT ON THE CRETE."

Northern Star wrote:

Research consistently finds no relationship between running surface and injury risk. Impact and active forces are just as high on a hard surface as on a soft one. In fact, hard surfaces should theoretically be better for preventing bone stress injuries, because leg stiffness decreases when you run on a hard surface, which increases the load borne by the soft tissue of the leg, and decreases the load borne by the bones. In practice, this effect is probably trivial due to the aforementioned lack of research connecting hard surfaces with stress fractures (or any injury).

Idiot. I suggest you stop believing in toy experiments from third rate experimenters and get some real life practice. Pretty much every elite runner avoids hard surfaces if possible. Take a course in physics too and get a clue to why something hard makes more damage than something soft.

"Science" parrots like you are the reason why people get hurt and never improve their running.

Northern Star wrote:

Research consistently finds no relationship between running surface and injury risk. Impact and active forces are just as high on a hard surface as on a soft one. In fact, hard surfaces should theoretically be better for preventing bone stress injuries, because leg stiffness decreases when you run on a hard surface, which increases the load borne by the soft tissue of the leg, and decreases the load borne by the bones. In practice, this effect is probably trivial due to the aforementioned lack of research connecting hard surfaces with stress fractures (or any injury).

Rather than some limited study of joggers here is my research someone asked coach of El G how much running his athlete does on roads. 'None' wa the reply. The coach said he could not believe it when he saw american 'elite' marathoners training on a grass park but on the concrete path. Kenyans also train on softer trail surface. More research Brother Colm 'tarmac is death to young runners legs' He coaches the 800m WR holder

Why do shoe manufacturers go on about replacing shoes every couple of months (apart from the obvious). Once the EVA/foam degrades it provides less cushioning why should this make any differenace for a neutral runner if you don't need a a softer surface

Of course you can and will get injured running on any surface but if you want to knacker yourself run marathons for years on the road. Don't give me some exception to this which proves nothing

Moron Star wrote:

Take a course in physics too and get a clue to why something hard makes more damage than something soft.

"A course in physics" won't tell you anything about this issue.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Rather than some limited study of joggers here is my research someone asked coach of El G how much running his athlete does on roads. 'None' wa the reply. The coach said he could not believe it when he saw american 'elite' marathoners training on a grass park but on the concrete path. Kenyans also train on softer trail surface. More research Brother Colm 'tarmac is death to young runners legs' He coaches the 800m WR holder

You make a fair point about limited studies vs. real world experience of top runners, but you undermine your own point by showing that there is no unanimity in the practice of elite runners.

Anecdotally, I switched from about 90% trails to 90% concrete when I moved, and I felt zero difference. Theoretically, harder surfaces might be better, because they train recruitment patterns that match actual racing conditions. You get much lower ground contact times. Running on dirt (or unstable surfaces) isn't teaching your body to be more efficient in the same way as running on hard surfaces.

As with everything else in running, there's no right answer. Do a mix of trails and concrete and you will be just fine.

If you get a stress fracture from ONE RUN in concrete, it shows you had a pre condition. One run makes absolutely no difference.

Instead of basing your arguments on what you THINK is right, or seems rights, check your facts first. And you don't have to be angry!

First of all: on hard surfaces, the elastic recoils of the body do much of the work, and the muscles work less. On softer surfaces the muscles need to do more work, and that is one factor contributing to injury.

Second of all: beacuse a lot of injuries occur on the asphalt, it has gotten a bad reputation, but basically, it's just that the body isn't used to running on it, because we hear about people who has gotten injuries.

Thirdly: Arthur Lydiard's pupils ran well over 200km a week on asphalt, and as he says in several books, his athletes didn't get injured. And they didn't get injured because they were USED to run on it.

Chelsea Elveres wrote:

Traveling this weekend, the only place I can run in the place im going would be side walks, road.

If you haven't done a log run close to that distance recently, then yes.

If you are running in shoes that are past their time, then yes.

As long as you don't have any crazy mechanical problems and you have appropriate shoes and you aren't ramping up the mileage too quickly and aren't skipping recovery days and you don't have osteoporosis or brittle bones, then you should be ok.

If you are staying in a hotel, you COULD also just run on a treadmill in the fitness center.

One run won't kill you. If you did 14 milers regularly on the CRETE than you might be concerned.

I seem to recall a formerly active poster around here going by "The Concrete Runner".

I think he ran something like 92 miles per week, all on the 'crete.

I miss that guy.

Where you going? Maybe there's someone on her from nearby and can give you a trail option.

Sid Luft wrote:

good to be concerned about it.

Running on dirt trails would seem to be the way to go if a person lives near trails.

One option is possibly take the weekend off although it sounds as if you are addicted and must run.

skip the run because it has to be on pavement? are you serious?