Concrete Running?

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

Hardloper wrote:

There's a popular myth that concrete is harder than asphalt.

It's not a myth.

Get in on the joke or GTFO you dense fool

Runner10287 wrote:

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

It's not a myth.

Get in on the joke or GTFO you dense fool

Concrete is no joke.

Asphalt and concrete are bound (glued) by an adhesive matrix whereas dirt is not. The hardness of the former is typically around 3000 to 3500 psi and has no effective give to the compressive force of a person. Dirt in place is held together solely by the cohesive nature of its constituent components which can in non compacted condition move laterally outside the footprint from the impact of a person running. This lateral movement provides a small relief of pressure underfoot of the runner. (Based on 52 years of running experience and 40 years of roadway construction experience) I much prefer running on dirt.

Anyone here roller ski? You know the tips of the poles work great on paved roads but are useless are concrete slabs.

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

Hardloper wrote:

There's a popular myth that concrete is harder than asphalt.

It's not a myth.

Yeah it is. The difference in elasticity between the two is negligible since almost all the energy is absorbed by the shoe. Also, let's just think about how ridiculous the idea that you would get any cushioning from asphalt is. If you drop a golf ball on asphalt it will bounce pretty much the same as concrete.

fromtheheart wrote:

Asphalt and concrete are bound (glued) by an adhesive matrix whereas dirt is not. The hardness of the former is typically around 3000 to 3500 psi and has no effective give to the compressive force of a person. Dirt in place is held together solely by the cohesive nature of its constituent components which can in non compacted condition move laterally outside the footprint from the impact of a person running. This lateral movement provides a small relief of pressure underfoot of the runner. (Based on 52 years of running experience and 40 years of roadway construction experience) I much prefer running on dirt.

So since we have an expert here.

How much harder is a concrete surface compared to asphalt?

I like concrete and roads mainly. Trails and soft surfaces are great for easier days but I love a good tempo run on the crete or tar. I always feel faster and bouncier than I would on any other surface (besides a track). However, I will say, when I was dealing with a knee injury I had to spend most of my time avoiding the crete as the impact was too much for it. But otherwise, and especially as a marathoner, the crete is where it's at.

Asphalt is fine to run on. Concrete is not. It really is much harder. In my experience, running on concrete increases risk of platar fasciitis and other injuries.

I run on concrete everyday, never gotten injured.

The reason the Kenyans are so successful is because they run on concrete everyday.

St Patricks High School wrote:

The reason the Kenyans are so successful is because they run on concrete everyday.

Exactly. Kenya invented concrete.

I see some huge oversights from the Never Sidewalkers:

-Most asphalt in cities is found on roads. Roads are graded to slope down towards the gutter. In avoiding concrete you end up running on a laterally sloped surface. This causes awkward, asymmetric forces on the joints. This is compounded if you are always running against traffic, because you are always placing that asymmetrical stress on the same side.

-I happen to work at a level one trauma center for many years. Anecdotally, I have never seen a runner seriously injured while running on a sidewalk. I have seen many killed and maimed for running in a road.

-Concrete is SLIGHTLY more firm than asphalt. The difference in forces on the joints are so subtle, it's extremely unlikely to cause an injury. Injuries are far more likely to be caused other factors.

this is it wrote:

If that concrete runner dude was still around he'd set ya straight.

My all time favorite poster. Wish he'd come back.

runnER/DR wrote:

I see some huge oversights from the Never Sidewalkers:

-Most asphalt in cities is found on roads. Roads are graded to slope down towards the gutter. In avoiding concrete you end up running on a laterally sloped surface. This causes awkward, asymmetric forces on the joints. This is compounded if you are always running against traffic, because you are always placing that asymmetrical stress on the same side.

-I happen to work at a level one trauma center for many years. Anecdotally, I have never seen a runner seriously injured while running on a sidewalk. I have seen many killed and maimed for running in a road.

-Concrete is SLIGHTLY more firm than asphalt. The difference in forces on the joints are so subtle, it's extremely unlikely to cause an injury. Injuries are far more likely to be caused other factors.

It probably depends where you live. The sidewalks I could run on are very badly maintained. Roads are not as graded as they used to be. But again it depends on where you live.

Anyway, any serious runner will try to find a park or a track to trail kind of thing to train on.

fromtheheart wrote:

Asphalt and concrete are bound (glued) by an adhesive matrix whereas dirt is not. The hardness of the former is typically around 3000 to 3500 psi and has no effective give to the compressive force of a person. Dirt in place is held together solely by the cohesive nature of its constituent components which can in non compacted condition move laterally outside the footprint from the impact of a person running. This lateral movement provides a small relief of pressure underfoot of the runner. (Based on 52 years of running experience and 40 years of roadway construction experience) I much prefer running on dirt.

40 yrs of roadway experience and you say concrete is bound by adhesives ?? !!...good grief.

Now what about that running experience? Dirt compacted by other foot traffic, does not 'give' significantly in a vertical direction. You do lose traction, yes, and that makes it less efficient to run on.

This study disagrees, even between grass and concrete:

Results

The results showed that there were no significant differences in the 1st and 2nd peak plantar pressures (time of occurrence), pressure–time integral, and peak pressure distribution for the concrete, synthetic, grass, and normal treadmill surfaces. No significant differences in peak positive acceleration were observed among the five tested surface conditions.

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

moorest wrote:

Asphalt is fine to run on. Concrete is not. It really is much harder. In my experience, running on concrete increases risk of platar fasciitis and other injuries.

Forgot to quote in the above reply

I am Sam wrote:

40 yrs of roadway experience and you say concrete is bound by adhesives ?? !!...good grief.

.

It is. Cement is the adhesive for the aggregates.

What if the cement has just been poured?