Do soft surfaces vs hard surfaces really matter?

The Lagat comment was interesting:

"But what changed this time around is how I approached my everyday training. Coach Li insisted that all my long runs be done on pavement- especially the 20+ miles long. Had to get used to pounding on the black top- as opposed to training continuously on dirt grounds. Li was spot on on this approach bc I did not ‘hit the wall’ or experienced excessive fatigue the entire 26.2mi."

I think in general it is very preferable to do a lot of training on soft surfaces to build strength and reduce pounding. I do think Lagat is onto something though with training how you race at least for some of your most race-like workouts. I know if I was doing a track 5,000 I'd want to do the key interval workouts on the track. Makes sense it would be the same for a long run to get your legs used to the pounding and the feel of the road. Doesn't mean I would necessarily do any of my other stuff on the road or the track as the case may be. But at least have some core workouts, so your body is used to it and doesn't experience fatigue from a new surface.

No it doesn't matter all that much. What is more important is the training itself. This means running each workout correctly. Most runners get injured by not recovering well enough from workout by running their easy runs too fast or by increasing mileage and intensity too quickly in their training cycle. Those things can happen on any surface and play a much larger role as far as longevity.

As expected, lots of strong opinions and no real science, so I'll add mine. I don't believe that the force absorbed by muscles, bones, and joints is different enough to matter. I've certainly never felt sore from the impact of hard surfaces. I have also been injured far more running on uneven trails than hard flat surfaces. In the long run, the strength you build in muscles that provide lateral stability might be the biggest benefit of off-road running. But as I age, the dangers of running on uneven surfaces seem to be increasing. I recover from injuries much faster when I eliminate my (frequent) trail runs and stick to paved paths and roads. MUCH faster.

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 going to run on the roads then you need to do some training on the roads.

Anecdotally, I find that my body feels better running on soft surfaces, but you are going to have a hard time gathering anything more than anecdotal evidence would be my bet.

Each person is going to have to find what works best for him/her.

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.

Check these links out from an experienced and trusted runner (Jim2/Hillrunner) on running surfaces:

I agree with theorist. In addition to running slower on grass, trails, etc (because surface is more uneven and you have to be careful not to trip, or to twist an ankle), you also run with shorter strides, because they help you maintain balance and stability (anti-falling strategies).

Of course, slower and shorter strides means less impact, possibly fewer injuries.

But it's not hard vs soft. It's faster, longer stride (more impact) vs slower, shorter stride (less impact).

Porkie wrote:

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

Yes concrete is awful. Where I live I see the local high school cross country team running on the sidewalk all the time and shake my head. Especially bad for older runners too.

Yes...10/10

Please do not paint them all the same!!!

Compare two reasonable responses:

webby wrote:As expected, lots of strong opinions and no real science

Luv2Run wrote:

Each person is going to have to find what works best for him/her.

To one silly one:

Les wrote:

Yes concrete is awful. Where I live I see the local high school cross country team running on the sidewalk all the time and shake my head. Especially bad for older runners too.

This is a dogmatic response. There's no science saying concrete is bad, nor is there any kind of consensus among runners. Either you're uncritically accepting something you were told long ago, or you're assuming that your own experience is authoritative.

Since marathons are all on asphalt everyone seriously doing a marathon should some long runs or tempos on the surface. Most don’t do well on the roads for a race that long if they haven’t done anything on the surface. That marathon on asphalt at that pace is brutal on the body no matter what. The majority of your training should still be soft surfaces if possible.

YES, YES THEY DO

Think of it this way. Asphalt is such a predictable surface that you don't need to alter your foot strike to absorb the impact. A dirt/grass/whatever surface probably is slightly uneven or has obstacles that you need to use your foot and ankle to absorb the impact more so in the end your entire legs take less pounding than mindlessly running on pavement.

Dr. James Fries, lead author of the Stanford study on lifelong runners that found runners have 1/7 the incidence of knee & hip replacement as nonrunners, told me that it's the wobbling of the joint on trails that causes the most damage. Also, the greatest amount of force (GRF) you experience during your running stride isn't at impact, it's about 50% of the way through your ground contact time (as your foot is moving beneath your hips). Regardless of the surface you're on, you'll have to generate enough mid-stance force to get back into the air. So you don't spare your legs GRF by running on trails. While the initial spike of impact force looks pretty daunting on a chart, there's no convincing evidence that it leads to injury. Personally, I split it up about 50/50 between road and trail, because who wouldn't rather be running on a trail, even if the road leads to less wobbling. In fact, I'm off to do that right now. ;-)

as a runner with a history of stress fractures, I try and stay on dirt as much as possible.

NOP, Bowerman, NAZ - you all see them on turf, grass or dirt a LOT.

I've heard the argument that we adjust our impact in accordance with how hard the surface is, but I'm wary. I don't really think the benefit of dirt is the "softer" ground, but more that you are altering your footfall with each step.

as always, it depends wrote:

Bowerman, - you all see them on turf, grass or dirt a LOT.

They're not injured enough.

I can see this if you're running an incredibly rough trail. But there is dirt trails where is not an issue. I'd think most dirt trailers the majority of runners run on are not a concern.

Reader of the run wrote:

antedotal

Hilarious.

Hoka Bondi on the roads is the best, at least if you don't have good trails around. But running on dirt in the Bondis feels like running in sand.

if you roam through youtube you will find that Usain Bolt was performing workouts on a grass track... pretty sure that is more than a coincidence...

running in grass is harder and strengthens your muscles... not a bad thing to do