Asphalt and concrete : essentially no difference bwtween the two running surfaces

Why the hell would you believe an Instagram selfie-taking hobby jogger with an idiot grin?

Wrong, asphalt is more bouncy. So, you can run faster on it, but takes more out of you.

Look buddy, just because you can't detect the asphalt deforming a couple millimeters under your foot doesn't mean it isn't happening. I can't sense the earth spinning at 25,000 mph, does that mean that isn't happening either?

Every engineer knows that asphalt (bituminous concrete) is a flexible pavement, while concrete (Portland cement concrete) is a rigid one. I work as a surveyor and I've driven thousands of nails into asphalt, they go in quite easily and the hammer will easily dent the asphalt. With concrete, you can hammer all day but you'll just bend the nail or crack the sidewalk. I have to break out a heavy duty hammer drill instead and drill a hole.

There's also a whole industry that makes special shoes and floor mats for factory and warehouse workers who stand on concrete floors. Concrete doesn't seem any harder than most other flooring surfaces, but spend a few hours standing on it and you'll notice the difference.

This is the classic 'beyond a certain density' phenomenon. Beyond a certain density, you can't convince some people of anything no matter how irrefutable the evidence.

Didn't notice before that he had linked to a "scientific study". Basically, somebody looked up a table of the elasticities of different materials, without considering any other variables or doing any experiments. The problem is he didn't consider how flexible those materials are and what's underneath them - which in the case of pavement is soft sand and gravel. Concrete acts as a rigid block, which is why a tree root growing under a sidewalk will heave a whole section of the sidewalk. Asphalt is flexible, and if a tree root grows under it it will simply deform around the root. And if a runner lands on it, the asphalt itself might not compress much, but it will flex under their foot because there's soft sand and gravel below.

The least elastic material he lists, steel, is five times less elastic than concrete. But it's also very flexible - ever run over one of those steel plates covering a hole in the street? They're fairly bouncy, because steel is flexible and there's nothing but air underneath the plate.

25,000 mph would really screw up a calendar.

Sorry, ~1,000 mph

Nuff said.

I thought that concrete was a faster surface than asphalt due to concrete being harder and the foot can generate more force during liftoff.

What about asphalt vs trail? That would be a better comparison, no?

asphalt : faster than dirt trail or crushed limestone trail.

We have trails here but many are paved so that defeats the purpose of having a trail.

The bike riders like the asphalt though.

Keep it on the 'crete!

Ryan Hall set the American half marathon record in Houston which is mostly concrete.

If the surface was not the fastest then he supposedly could have run faster on asphalt.

Jeff the fat guy wrote:

Ryan Hall set the American half marathon record in Houston which is mostly concrete.

If the surface was not the fastest then he supposedly could have run faster on asphalt.

What is the road surface in the Dubai marathon?

concrete=rigid wrote:

I've driven thousands of nails into asphalt, they go in quite easily and the hammer will easily dent the asphalt.

The human foot has a lot more surface area than a nail or even a hammer to dilute the force. A running foot probably has a much higher ratio of surface area to force when it strikes, even if you're deliberately trying to "hammer" your workout. It also takes a long time for footstrike to play out, with much of the impact absorbed by the arch.

Cut a piece of a running shoe, even the outsole - hell, even a piece of leather with a bit of foam on it to simulate a fat pad - and glue it to your hammer, and see how easily the asphalt dents then.

That asphalt is "softer" for runners is the original assertion. It can and should be tested, dodging a shifted burden of proof means nothing. It would be easy in the laboratory to prove nowadays with precision equipment. Until then, I won't bother with the notion.

Concrete is smoother and faster to run on, primarily because it is flat.

Asphalt, in comparison, is quite bumpy and rough.

newly paved asphalt is not rough.

Running on old, bumpy, cracked with slightly different level asphalt is a bummer and to be avoided by Yours Truly.

This guy is always on FB bragging about himself. He is a loud mouth, self-promoter. Constantly saying he can "kick's a$$" and would demolish anyone in street fights. He runs with an American flag in races, and thereby claiming to be more patriotic than others. Meanwhile this blowhole never served his country a day in his life.

Hey moron ; Shut UP

It's BS. It's not a sound argument to say that just because the foam in a running shoe is softer than either surface doesn't mean the other surface doesn't matter. By that argument running would never cause stress fractures because foam is also softer than bone.