Salazar Interview, hard v. soft surfaces

I know somehow this is a stupid question, but I don't know why.

What is the difference between running on a soft surface with typical shoes and running on a hard surface with shoes with a little more softness?

I hear that using "soft" running shoes is a bad thing, but running on soft surfaces is a good thing. Why?

This thread is begging for the Concrete Runner.

I run in Chicago and my team and I pound hundo's on the pavement, althoguh it's not exactly enjoyable. That being said, we are very close to Washington Park, which is all gravel, and the lakefront, which has a gravel path alongside it, so that lessens the blow a bit. In my hometown there's a beautiful forest that I did all my miles on during High School and I was hitting 90's and 100's no problem. When I get older one of the requirements for where I live is going to be that the place is like 10-15 minutes away from a forest preserve.

Just to add a contrasting opinion. I found little difference in my road/trail injury rates. I now run exclusively on roads 100-110mpw given that I am training for road marathons. I think running on the roads has taught me to run more efficiently with less pounding. I love running on the trails but it does not simulate running on the roads. For me if I train on the trails and try to race on the roads, my body feels really beat up during and after the race. Not fun. I am 5"10 and 135 FWIW.

100-120 mpw, pretty much all on roads, albeit mainly asphalt, not concrete. I'm also a good deal heavier than the guy above me.

I think a movement to increase the growth of trail soft surface running would do a lot more for the prevalence of most running injuries than the current minimalist shoe craze. I run 100% on trails, unless I am training for a road race, like now. I second the comment that doing all your miles on trails makes the roads hurt more when racing. The only time I start to feel overuse injuries starting is when I am doing a high percentage of road miles, or even hard dirt road miles where your stride is very uniform mile after mile. Not much of a surprise

A great experiment is to do a hard 20-30 mile run on dirt and compare it to a similar effort on pavement and see how you feel the next week. It's amazing how much faster you can recover from a hard run on trails.

All roads wrote:

For me if I train on the trails and try to race on the roads, my body feels really beat up during and after the race. Not fun. I am 5"10 and 135 FWIW.

I agree with that part totally. And I'm your height but weight 155 at my youthful peak so I know about pounding ;-) If I have a road race coming up I make sure I've done a couple of tempos on the roads to get used to the surface.

I totalled my soft-surface running up when i heard that 90% figure he mentions for C. Goucher. I think of myself as someone who runs mostly trails (and living in Portland, OR makes access pretty easy.) I was surprised to learn I only run trails 66-80% of the time. While that's still pretty good, it's funny because I my initial thought that i would be 90-95% as I only really run streets to get to the trails.

Anyhow, does anyone think it's good to get a little bit of mileage on the streets? I do most of my racing on the roads/track, not much cross country, so it stands to reason i should run some on the streets? maybe?

Run Runner wrote:

Anyhow, does anyone think it's good to get a little bit of mileage on the streets? I do most of my racing on the roads/track, not much cross country, so it stands to reason i should run some on the streets? maybe?

I wholeheartedly agree. It seems like doing a really high percentage on trails would increase the likelihood that a hard road race would cause injury. It would be quite a shock to the system.

Very interesting topic. I moved to Boulder last summer and like a previous poster mentioned, you can run trails as little or as much as you want. So I ran on trails. Nearly 85% (6 out of 7 days) I was out at the Res, Mesa, up at Mags, or Rollinsville. And yes, I think this helped me be less prone to injury. But then came Boston in April. (this was my second Boston) And oh how I was not prepared for the roads and the pounding like I was the year before after living in Atlanta and running 6 out of 7 days on the roads/sidewalks. My legs killed me from the pounding at Boston and I sucked.

So now what I have discovered is that I need to run around 50% on trails and 50% on roads. This still allows me to do high mileage (70-80mpw) and not be injuried, plus it better prepares me for racing on the roads. 5'7 135lbs.

Maybe Kara was "special" and was doing too much on the roads, but also maybe something else was a factor. I feel that training for a marathon, you have to get on the roads a few times a week just to get your body used to the pounding.

A Duck wrote:

Exactly, I ran from about 20th, down across campus, by Oregon Hall, across the Mill Race bridge, over the Willamette took a right along the bike path by the river, and then cut over to Pre's trail. I averaged 18 a day, with a little extra on Sunday. So there was what, 4 miles a day on pavement etc. and the rest on the chips.

That's pretty identical to what I've been doing. I go from 24th, down University, through campus, across the Autzen footbridge to Pre's Trail. It's a little over 2 miles from my house to Pre's. That encompasses my evening runs. The problem I have is with my morning runs. I like to do 4 mile shake outs before work (or class, depending on time of year) but I don't really have time to drive to Pre's to get all the miles in there, and it doesn't really make sense to run to Amazon to get the miles in there. Therefore, all my morning miles are on roads.

X-Runner wrote:

This thread is begging for the Concrete Runner.

In his place at least for now I'll say that I've had the complete opposite experience. I need a smooth surface or my knees just kill me. Hard or soft doesn't seem to matter as long as it's smooth, but it's a lot easier to find smooth hard surfaces than smooth soft ones.

In my best years I still preferred hard surfaces. I found that if I did most of my training on soft surfaces my legs went dead in the latter stages of long races. That improved greatly when I made a point of doing lots of training on roads.

I agree. Both hard and soft surfaces have their advantages. Hard surfaces are faster, and if you are training for a road race, then it makes sense to do some of your hardest workouts on the road.

When I do a hard session on the road, I wear racing flats the surface doesn't feel awkward, it just feels fast, compared to soft trails.

In my opinion, which may not be worth a bucket to pee in, soft surface running is ideal for the runner wearing traditional trainers. The body's natural gait is thrown out of whack over time wearing traditional training shoes (again, my opinion). This pounding feeling is greatly reduced by running on soft surfaces.

Ever since I've begun training in real minimal shoes I have found no difference in the way my body feels after running on a variety of surfaces. Granted this transition took a few years. I actually enjoy running on asphalt roads sometimes because you can fall into the zone and not worry so much about foot placement. As mentioned several times on this thread, it is somewhat necessary if you plan on doing longer road runs.

However, I have recently moved real close to a huge, forested trail network that takes me two minutes from my backdoor before I'm running on trail. I love trail running and find it to be more enjoyable, especially for longer runs. I also think it provides for a better overall leg workout than road running, as you use many more stabilizing muscles on undulating terrain.

I agree with All Roads above. I'm the exact same height/weight as him at 5'10" and 135lbs if that makes any difference. I do almost 100% of my running on roads, bike paths, and yes, even sidewalks and routinely hit 100+ mpw. In high school and college I ran about 75% of my mileage on trails or soft surfaces...mainly because I had the time to drive to those places, not so much anymore.

I totally agree with whoever said running on trails and racing on roads leaves you feeling beat up more than it should...I've experienced that as well. I'm sure it makes a difference regarding injuries on hard vs. soft surfaces, it's only logical...but I've yet to tell the difference. In fact, my only 3 injuries were during periods where I ran exclusively on trails. Since I've migrated to the marathon and 100+ mpw all on roads, I haven't been injured...probably because I'm training smarter now than I have in the past.

My point is, I don't think you NEED to run on trails/soft surfaces to stay injury free.

Run Runner wrote:

Anyhow, does anyone think it's good to get a little bit of mileage on the streets? I do most of my racing on the roads/track, not much cross country, so it stands to reason i should run some on the streets? maybe?

Definitely. It's good to do a little of your mileage on the roads, especially if you're training for a road race. I actually like to run on the roads sometimes because I feel like I can run faster and get more with each push-off. Because I know running hard on pavement is bad, and since grass feels too soft to me, my favorite surface is probably packed dirt (actually it's 1/2 inch thick crisp snow on top of concrete, but that's only available a few days a year).

The only soft surface close by right now is basically the cemetary, which is about 600m from my apt and is about 1.1 miles a lap if I run the perimeter. That makes getting in 9+ mile runs kind of monotonous, so I'm just going to run about half my mileage on the streets, running on the grass next to the sidewalk whenever possible, then finishing off with a few laps around the cemetary. Then I'll drive somewhere for my weekend long run. I figure I'll be able to get 60-75% of my mileage on soft surfaces, which is a lot better than the 10-30% I was doing before.

Do people consider tracks soft surfaces? I like to do threshold runs on the track in flats. I realize it's softer than pavement, but it's nothing like grass. Thoughts?

HRE gets it. It all depends on which body part you're trying to protect. Running on roads beats the crap out of my ankles and shins, etc. However, running on trails, I'm more likely to have uneven surfaces, etc., and this can be a disaster for my knees, which are prone to all sorts of issues from getting slightly out of alignment or whatever.

I suppose if I had some higher quality trails, it'd work for me, but for me, all the trails near me are rough and I have to be careful on. I have to drive 25 minutes each way to get a soft smooth surface with any distance on it. Not worth it for me.

When I was training heavy (average 70-80, with a peak just over 100), I was doing almost everything on roads, probably 85-90%, with one run or so a week on some rougher trails, which I loved, but was always scared I would screw up my knee. Long hard runs, tempos, etc., all were on roads. My ankles always felt sore and 'compressed', but if I was careful I could manage high mileage on that.

the body will adapt to anything given the proper time and progression.

everything in moderation.

.............................. wrote:

the body will adapt to anything given the proper time and progression.

I'm sorry, that's simply not true. That's taking a simple concept, that the body can adapt to a lot of things, perhaps more than we think they can, and taking it to such a hyperbole that it becomes untrue. There are lots of things the body can't adapt to. Where that line is is different for different people. And it's different for the same person at 40 than it was at 22.

The problem with making a statement like that is many believe it.