Are hard surfaces really a thing anymore

I seem to recall seeing a study that suggested that there was no difference in injury rate between soft and hard surfaces. However it also is worth noting that even with otherwise perfect athletes, there can be slight differences. For instance, one might have flat feet or high arches and will adopt a stiffer landing strategy to compensate -- they will probably see fewer injuries on soft surfaces. And I would also say the psychological factor alone is a good enough reason to seek out soft surfaces.

If the surface is too soft you can get injured too. It depends on what your propensity for injury is. Also, is the problem instability-related or impact-related?

You do hear A LOT of people say they do not get injured since they switch to trails, soft surfaces and so on. It will build up all of the tiny structures that maybe don't get tested as much on the road. Strengthen you. And it is less pure repetition as with the road running.

This makes you start to wonder, is it the softness or the inconsistency. In part I'm questioning whether we are ever actually running on hard surfaces if we have these super cushiony trainers which are more cushiony than running on grass. No doubt there's probably some sort of unmeasurable advantage to working out on inconsistent surfaces with regard to proprioception and as you mentioned working out smaller muscles etc. Maybe a combination of both hard and soft services is best?

One phrase that was tossed around the barefoot scene for a while was "portable ground" when it came to those thin minimal shoes. Same applies for all other shoes I think. It's almost -- almost -- like an optimized surface that you take with you everywhere.

And in terms of training surface choice, there's a time and place for both. Obviously there's a race-specific requirement (i.e. XC surfaces for XC training, road workouts for road racing), but there's also something to be said about working those little stabilizers on soft surfaces vs. a really consistent surface like road or track. Maybe you shouldn't log a ton of miles on either surface, but instead get a mix of both to get some stress > recovery going.

I think variety is very important, often overlooked. Running is very repetitive in nature as it is. If you do all of your runs on one 10 mile loop on the road, no variety, I'd imagine you're more likely to get injured.

Softer surfaces do have more variety - things like trails are not the same each time, plus the undulations. IDK, I just think it makes you stronger in a different way. This is not to say pure road runners aren't strong. I would just think if you looked at the muscular development of trail runners it would be different - and maybe in the sense of a lower likelihood of injury/being protective. It is different stimuli being applied. With road it is maybe the same one over and over.

Just my opinion.

I am not 100% sure the ultra-cushioned shoes are the best choice for training in for everyone. It depends what your weakness is.

There is no grass softer than 30mm of Hoka EVA or Nike Zoom X.

So yes I think soft or hard surface was relevant back in the 80s when people ran in Adidas Sambas, but these days it doesn't matter anymore.

I’m pretty sure it’s been shown that having a more cushioned shoe actually increases the impact forces

Let me check with physics.

Yes.

I actually get less injuries when I run on hard, even surfaces. I ran 60 mile weeks, all on the roads, completely injury free. When I ran collegicially, we did a lot of our workouts on grass and I did a large portion of my easy mileage on sidewalks that where evaluated from the road, creating a sharp dip-down when they intersected with the roads. I constantly had issues with my left hip. I had adductor pain and my SI joint repeatingly kept coming out of place. Even worse, I fell running on wet grass and I ended up pulling my hamstring. Switched to running on roads again and no more hip pain.

wondering whether you got an injury because of a hard surface is like the princess wondering if she woke up with a crick in her neck because of the pea.

Speak for yourself.

Back in the mid aughts, I was obsessed with finding soft surfaces. Not trail running, but just a strip of dirt shoulder next to a bike path usually. I also wore pretty minimal shoes back then. Over time, I have moved towards more cushioned shoes. Now that the most cushioned shoes you can buy are racers, there's no real need to keep your lower legs in shape to handle flats and spikes. (Well, I guess spikes if you still race on the track.) Coinciding with my move to more cushioned shoes, I have really stopped worrying about hard surfaces. I'm inclined to agree that the soft-surface benefit seems to evaporate if your shoes are substantial.

I kind of don't think hard surfaces were ever a thing worth worrying about. Wear shoes that feel good, replace them when they wear out, and your body will take care of the rest. The only exception I'd make is that very hard tracks can be a problem. Anecdotally I'm WAY more likely to get a traumatic injury while trail running, and at least as sore after a big effort.

It's just another in a long line of common sense thoughts in running that turn out to be wrong (ice baths, stretching, taking NSAIDs all the time for reasons(?), mega-dosing antioxidants, watching people walk to decide what shoes they need)

I am 6' and weigh 190 lbs. I absolutely believe surfaces matter. If I run on roads, particularly in the winter, my lower legs feel like they've taken a beating. If I stick to the grass and cinder, not as much. Think about it this way, you'd rather fall on grass than the street for a reason.

This is a much more thought provoking question than I originally thought. I while back I got a stress fracture and when I got back to running I exclusively ran on soft surfaces. Grass, turf, trails, etc.

After a couple weeks I did a long run on sidewalks and my legs were absolutely destroyed.

I was talking to a Kenyan marathoner a couple years ago, he said although they do a lot of their running on dirt roads, they have to have some running on concrete/asphalt so that when they race they legs don’t get completely shocked and get flat within a couple miles.

So the key is specificity. If you’re doing road races, and you’re serious about running, you should make sure to purposely include road runs.

If you’re racing XC, you should purposely include grass workouts.

If you’re racing track, you need to do track workouts.

I do think variety is good, but the load on grass/dirt/trail is significantly less on your joints and bones than on concrete. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a time and place.

Dairyland wrote:

but the load on grass/dirt/trail is significantly less on your joints and bones than on concrete.

That would be common sense, but things get complicated once you strap an inch of foam to your feet -- going back to the "portable ground" idea.

Read what I wrote again. If you run on soft surfaces for a long time, then switch to concrete it will be tougher on your joints and bones.

some like it soft....