Concrete Running?

are you kidding me???? wrote:

Are there any advantages/disadvantages to running on concrete?

The relative hardness of concrete, asphalt, trail are all the same. Meaning the magnitude of the forces the skeleton and bones are subjected to.

I believe the consensus on the benefits from running of the called "soft surfaces" come from the small variations on the way our feet/legs hit the uneven trails, directing the forces a little bit differently. Probably this results on a tiny reduction of the repetitiveness, but may also work as a "better workout" for the muscles/tissue, so long term it's better for your body.

The extreme flipside of that is that if you have serious ankles/knee issues you may end up hurting yourself on the trails if not careful or build up slowly

*that should say forces bones/tendons and muscle are subjected to

What do you mean by "relative hardness". From a engineering/physics perspective, the order of the materials, from hardest to softest is:

1. concrete

2. asphalt (hardened asphalt, not some real gooey stuff on a hot summer day, which then could be softer than hard-packed dirt)

3. dirt

To extend the discussion, a 'bouncy' midsole can greatly complicate the explanation of what is going on; ground contact time might even stay the same, yet the time distribution of the impact force could reveal the peak g forces are less than for a 'dead' sole (e.g., flat, hardened EVA)

the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:

What do you mean by "relative hardness". From a engineering/physics perspective, the order of the materials, from hardest to softest is:

1. concrete

2. asphalt (hardened asphalt, not some real gooey stuff on a hot summer day, which then could be softer than hard-packed dirt)

3. dirt

Of course you are correct, from an physics perspective in the sense that you take a chunk of material and try to test its hardness. I was referring to the magnitude of the forces the body experiences under normal running conditions with running shoes on. For practical purposes they are relatively the same. Bad choice of words

CorrectorII wrote:

Of course you are correct, from an physics perspective in the sense that you take a chunk of material and try to test its hardness. I was referring to the magnitude of the forces the body experiences under normal running conditions with running shoes on. For practical purposes they are relatively the same. Bad choice of words

Okay, but...."I was referring to the magnitude of the forces the body experiences under normal running conditions with running shoes on. For practical purposes they are relatively the same.."

I dunno, without getting into a deeper explanation, backed up with real data. :-)

Asphaltrailisbetter wrote:

Concrete is a lot harder than asphalt.

Avoid it when you can.

I thought they where the same???

Cathy loves to run 15 wrote:

Asphaltrailisbetter wrote:

Concrete is a lot harder than asphalt.

Avoid it when you can.

I thought they where the same???

Drop a golf ball, from the same height, onto concrete, and then onto asphalt; the golf ball will bounce higher off of the harder surface.

the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:

Cathy loves to run 15 wrote:

I thought they where the same???

Drop a golf ball, from the same height, onto concrete, and then onto asphalt; the golf ball will bounce higher off of the harder surface.

And then try it on a mondo track surface, dirt, clay, etc.

Occasional issues with tendinitis and calves running on concrete/asphalt. No issues at all running on gravel, dirt roads and fields.

Certainly, even deciding what to measure can be argued. Here's one study, the plot show tiny pressure variations for different surfaces. It's not the big difference people have in mind when they think "soft surface"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095254615000861

Conclusion

During overground running, surface conditions did not influence the characteristics of in-shoe plantar pressure and tibial acceleration, yielding no changes in 1st and 2nd peak plantar pressure (and time of occurrence), PTI, peak pressure distribution, and peak tibia acceleration. These findings indicated that different running surfaces do not necessarily affect the peak plantar impact and, by implication, impact-related injuries in runners. It is, however, still noteworthy that running on cushioned treadmill is associated with a reduced peak pressure at the heel compared to a concrete surface.

the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:

Cathy loves to run 15 wrote:

I thought they where the same???

Drop a golf ball, from the same height, onto concrete, and then onto asphalt; the golf ball will bounce higher off of the harder surface.

First wrapping the golf ball in an inch think EVA ball of course :)

From the paper:

"Tillman et al.11 reported that maximum plantar force, contact time, and total impulse were not significantly different when running on asphalt, concrete, synthetic, or grass surfaces. A proposed explanation was that runners may utilize internal compensatory mechanisms to deal with the changing surfaces. Moreover, from an epidemiological viewpoint, occurrence of running injuries was independently associated with higher weekly mileage (p < 0.001), rather than running and training surfaces (p > 0.05).15, 16 Thus, no clear scientific consensus has been reached yet regarding the compliance influence of running surfaces on reducing plantar pressure and/or overuse injury during running."

So as the runner fatigues, do those "internal compensatory mechanisms" become less effective over time? If that is the case, did this study take that into account by having the subjects run for a prolonged period of time (at least an hour) before taking the measurements?

the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:

Brasil wrote:

My regular running loop has turf, concrete, bitumen and crushed gravel. All I can say that would add to the conversation is that the energy return from concrete is noticeably greater than the others. It's to the point I'll switch to the concrete (I run on the verge cos natural surfaces are more interesting) when I'm a little gassed to get my breath back.

The concrete itself is not returning energy. Shoe midsoles can vary greatly in how much energy they return. The effectiveness of any energy they return will typically be greater on a hard surface vs. a soft (e.g., dirt) surface.

Nonetheless, even with a 'bouncy' midsole capable of returning energy, the total impact force on the harder surface (concrete) can be significantly greater than when running on dirt.

I was thinking in terms of ground reaction force--or, more so higher peak ground reaction force from concrete. My understanding is the ground returns all the energy fed into it, but ground contact time is higher on softer surfaces. Therefore the total energy return per foot strike is equivalent across surfaces, but energy return power unit of time is higher on harder surfaces.

I genuinely ask this--am I misunderstanding, or incorrectly using terms?

Keep it on the 'crete

Stop overthinking wrote:

Keep it on the 'crete

+1

....caution, made up percentages for illustrative purposes, but the exact numbers can be determined.

If a foot strikes the surface, with running shoe, and the amount of deformity of each material is , say,:

Shoes 10mm

'crete 0.001mm

asphalt 0.01mm

hard trail 0.1mm

grass track 1mm (not counting the blades with no resistance of course

...then , % of deformity 'lost' versus the grass is say,

trail: (11-10.1)/11*100 = 8.18%

asphalt: (11-10.01)/11*100= 9.00%

concrete:(11-10.001)/11*100= 9.08%

Titanium reinforced surface with no deformity: 1/11*100=9.09%

In otherwords, the difference is overcome by the relative deformity of shoe vs surface. Even barefeet on grass vs shoes on concrete the latter would be 'softer'.

Also, when casually testing for deformity, using a hammer and nail for example, massive difference between asphalt and concrete, so you can say the former is 'much softer'.

However, we are running with soles made from EVA not nails.

The main consideration, especially when people report 'after effects' of concrete, it is more so due to the lack of training on concrete, because concrete will usually give you dead even repetitive footstrike and strides, and more repetitive muscle us fatigue.

A great anecdodal example in Australia is listening to runners complain after Gold Coast marathon (flattest) vs Sydney or others. No difference in surface material, just the lack of variation

Cathy loves to run 15 wrote:

Asphaltrailisbetter wrote:

Concrete is a lot harder than asphalt.

Avoid it when you can.

I thought they where the same???

Not even close.

the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:

Cathy loves to run 15 wrote:

I thought they where the same???

Drop a golf ball, from the same height, onto concrete, and then onto asphalt; the golf ball will bounce higher off of the harder surface.

Drop a 20 lb bag of sand on each surface and let me know the difference.