Do soft surfaces vs hard surfaces really matter?

I think it’s best to mix it up, but to much running on the roads can put a lot of strain on your knees.

I dont think it really matters too much but I like training on the surface that I race on which I think is an important thing to fast running

You also increase injury risk if you go from only running on pavement to suddenly hitting a trail or the other way around because your legs arent used to it so I like keeping a mix of it in there

Salazar lets the NOP athletes train almost exclusively 100% on soft surfaces, even most workouts are on grass or some dirt trails rather than on track (which is already a soft surface in itself). He even had his athletes during a meet in Germany do a distance run on a 300m grass loop to avoid the asphalt.

The impact is just 100x lower. You can feel every road run the day after, or even the run something comes up, whereas soft trails can go endless.

Some people argue that the hard work has to be done on the roads, I think Meb or Lagat was talking about that he needs to go to roads few weeks before a marathon to prepare the legs for the asphalt pounding, but even they train on trails most of the time.

If you could 50 mpw on roads, WITH injury risk vs 80 mpw on soft surfaces pretty much fully safe what would you do?

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Salazar lets the NOP athletes train almost exclusively 100% on soft surfaces,

Aren't they injured all the time? Maybe that's why he does it.

The worst is concrete, has the highest density. Over time, running on it will definitely result in injuries, aches and pains.

From my own experience and antedotal evidence of running 80+ miles a week it makes a big difference.

Keep it on the Crete.

Yes.

There are some who argue the contrary, based on very crude laboratory studies and simplistic biomechanical models. They are wrong.

Take your fist and punch a concrete sidewalk. Not too hard.

No do this on a single-track soft dirt path.

Not scientific. But I think there is some basic common sense conclusions that can be drawn.

punchy wrote:

Take your fist and punch a concrete sidewalk. Not too hard.

No do this on a single-track soft dirt path.

Not scientific. But I think there is some basic common sense conclusions that can be drawn.

Take your fist and punch 30mm of EVA foam sitting on top of concrete. Do the same with soft dirt. How much of a difference do you notice? It's there, but it's pretty subtle.

I used to be a big believer in dirt as a way of avoiding injury, but I'm a bit more of a skeptic now.The "asphalt destroys knees" claims actually seem pretty similar to the more general "running destroys knees" claims. Both positions seem to be based in the view of the body as a machine like a car that will inevitably wear out when exposed to stress. But bodies are much more complicated. They can respond to stresses both by getting stronger and by breaking down, depending on a lot of variables. In general, injuries are caused by running improperly and by exposing the body to more stress than it's ready to accept. If your biomechanics are sound, asphalt should be fine.

None of that is to suggest that I don't think soft surfaces have a purpose. For instance, I think of it almost as a form of very specific cross training. Soft trails can feel nice on recovery days. I've also found, anecdotally, that I can do long marathon pace runs of 20 miles on soft surfaces and be ready to rock a fast race 2 weeks later, whereas if I do the same run on hard surfaces, I feel flat on race day. So I've definitely found a place for soft surface running in my training. I just happen to think that the differences between hard and soft surfaces are often greatly exaggerated, especially with regard to injury prevention.

It's not just about impact, but Salazar said it's better bang for the buck. On trails, the feet and leg muscles get a much better, versatile training than on asphalt and concrete where each foot strike is a replication of the previous one.

Jack Foster picked up running in his 30's and became a world class marathoner due to exclusive trail running over hills. The pounding on pavement would have severely limited his progression and not given his sedentary feet and legs the stimulus that they needed.

African's run primarily over trails - it is listed as one of the reasons why their feet are so strong and stress resistant.

Scientists seem to be completely wrong about this. Another test they should do, is take a bottle and throw it down on grass/soft trails and then on asphalt/concrete. Maybe then they realize that it matters.

it makes a huge difference... especially as you get older.

i attribute part of my longevity in the sport (40 years since my first marathon and running number 50 soon) and lack of major injuries to all the running i've on the beach and on trails.

if you're going to race on the roads, a certain amount of pavement running is essential.

but you can do the bulk of your training off-road and still run very well on the road.

concrete and brick are the worst.

yearsoffroading wrote:

it makes a huge difference... especially as you get older.

i attribute part of my longevity in the sport (40 years since my first marathon and running number 50 soon) and lack of major injuries to all the running i've on the beach and on trails.

if you're going to race on the roads, a certain amount of pavement running is essential.

but you can do the bulk of your training off-road and still run very well on the road.

concrete and brick are the worst.

Darn, so much for running on the yellow brick road?

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

It's not just about impact, but Salazar said it's better bang for the buck. On trails, the feet and leg muscles get a much better, versatile training than on asphalt and concrete where each foot strike is a replication of the previous one.

Jack Foster picked up running in his 30's and became a world class marathoner due to exclusive trail running over hills. The pounding on pavement would have severely limited his progression and not given his sedentary feet and legs the stimulus that they needed.

African's run primarily over trails - it is listed as one of the reasons why their feet are so strong and stress resistant.

Scientists seem to be completely wrong about this. Another test they should do, is take a bottle and throw it down on grass/soft trails and then on asphalt/concrete. Maybe then they realize that it matters.

Horseshit. Foster became elite because he was talented. John Campbell beat Foster's record and he smashed the 'Crete and 'Phalt exclusively.

skiptheline wrote:

Honest question. In relation to injuries or staying healthy. Does it actually make a difference if I was to run on soft surfaces (grass, trails, track) vs the roads? Or is it all about form which matters.

It matters and you should try to do as much on soft surfaces as possible. Humans didn't evolve running on concrete.

If you do road races maybe do a tempo here and there on roads or parts of runs on roads. When I was younger I'd say I was 80-90% on dirt or track for workouts. Now due to time constraints that is at more like 60%. Form, body type, and genetics matter. But it is simple science the impact difference.

The only exception is if you have a lower leg injury often running on softer less stable surfaces can be worse then a firmer surface like asphalt. But there was probably a reason the injury developed beyond running on a soft surface.

Generally speaking we run slower on trails, which reduces the impact forces. Movement energy being proportional to the square of the velocity and all that jazz.

That's my zero proof theory.

You're welcome.

skiptheline wrote:

Honest question. In relation to injuries or staying healthy. Does it actually make a difference if I was to run on soft surfaces (grass, trails, track) vs the roads? Or is it all about form which matters.

I would say you are looking at two different types of injuries. Concussive on a hard surface, and more likely tweaks and instability related problems on trails.

I'm 62 and have run competitively since around 14. I've trained a good percentage of that on roads, and although I've had my share of injuries, no foot or knee problems related to hard surfaces. Probably most problems from imbalances and or speed work on tracks.

skiptheline wrote:

Honest question. In relation to injuries or staying healthy. Does it actually make a difference if I was to run on soft surfaces (grass, trails, track) vs the roads? Or is it all about form which matters.

If you are a merican weakling who falls over when the wind blows yes it matters

yes yes yes

soft surfaces allow for building lower extremity strength in muscles tendons ligaments in order to handle the physical demands of racing

hard surfaces or tarmac allow for building bone structure that can withstand racing long on the road

both matter, train specifically