Trail running

Tony said:

"On a trail I escape the noises of the city and I no longer need to dodge
cars at busy intersections... To me roads are fairly redundant and pavement
looks much the same from Maine to California. But the same trail looks
different if you just run on it in the reverse direction. In fact, a trail
takes on a new look as the seasons change..."

His love of the scenery on trails is subjective, so it's pretty hard to argue
with it -- if they provide him with a more enjoyable experience, then they're
preferable (at least for him)

Quoted message said:

"When runners complain of overuse injuries, it's a safe bet to assume that
they got hurt from running on roads.

Yes, but when they don't complain of overuse injuries, it's also a safe bet to
assume that their not getting hurt involved a good deal of running on pavement.

There's plenty of evidence that the human body adapts to different surfaces,
and no published evidence of increased risk of injury from running on paved
surfaces.

Quoted message said:

Pounding the pavement with little
variation in stride or foot strike, mile after mile, just isn't natural.
We're simply not made for logging big miles on the streets...

Neither is it "natural" to run ultra marathons. Appeal to nature and "design"
of this sort is a fallacy.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

"Many more ultramarathons are run on trails than they are on roads. This is
so for many reasons. First, the ultra community is a more mature crowd that
has learned that the road to injury is paved, especially in races longer
than 26.2 miles. Ultrarunners are also often characterized as aficionados of
natural beauty, which is why the biggest and best ultras are in some of the
most awe-inspiring places..."

I think the second reason trumps the first. I don't believe they hold ultras
on trails to prevent injury. The courses are often quite challenging, and
provide plenty of opportunity to get hurt if you're not well prepared.

But I aree with the comments about scenery -- who wants to spend all day
running around a track or on a treadmill ? (well, some ultra runners I suppose,
but they're a fringe within a fringe ... )

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

There's plenty of evidence that the human body adapts to different
surfaces,
and no published evidence of increased risk of injury from running on
paved
surfaces.

Well, let me publish something right here and now on the preference for
trails over pavement among competitive runners ;-)

I used to train (70-80 mpw) on paved roads, and when I switched over to
mostly trails and dirt and sand, I was able to train harder and my legs felt
much better (less soreness). My subjective feel was that 90 mpw on dirt was
the equivalent of 75-80 on paved roads. Oh, and I got faster when I
switched over, and ran my fastest times when I ran 80% on dirt.

The only time I got injured doing intervals is when I messed up my Achilles
doing 67 second quarters on pavement.

Also, I asked the Kenyans I ran with (2:09 and 2:11 runners), and they
enthusiastically said "trails" when I asked them what they trained on. (And
it was on a dirt trail where I had this conversation as they were tapering
for the LA marathon).

Finally, at the Athens olympics, the organizers were apologetic about not
having many paved roads in the area where the distance runners were staying.
They said they'd pave them right away, and the runners rose up and said "No
way!"

'Nuff said?

-- Dan

This is nothing about the topic in general, but I need some specific
advice.

I love dirt trails and wilderness, most people do. But I would
have to drive no less than 30 miles to get to the nearest dirt
trail (as far as I know).

I run alone, not by choice, but because it is very hard to find a
compatible training partner (with similar pace, times, walking
breaks, who can shut up and run etc). It is easier to train in a
small group, IMHO.

Within a mile of my home there is a paved trail by the ocean
that stretches for around 20 miles or more. It is used mostly by
bikers, but also by walkers and runners.

I have a choice of driving one mile to this paved trail and
jogging on a hard surface or driving 30 miles to a dirt trail
and jogging. I am not of a very strong constitution but not too
weak either. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I ran a 2:20:22
Half Marathon and yesterday I ran a 0:58:54 10K.

I train at about 11min/mile - 12min/mile pace, with emphasis
on a reasonable distance and not much on speed (I am truly
afraid of injuries, after having to lay off from jogging for more
than 3 months at a time due to injuries). My longest jog is about
10M, averaging about 30-40miles/week. I don't think I will ever
exceed 50miles/week.

Am I doing alright running on a paved trail or must I switch to
a dirt trail. Thanks.

Quoted message said:

This is nothing about the topic in general, but I need some specific
advice.

I love dirt trails and wilderness, most people do. But I would
have to drive no less than 30 miles to get to the nearest dirt
trail (as far as I know).

As I've argued, there is no hard scientific evidence that paved
surfaces are a greater injury risk. so from an injury prevention
standpoint, I don't think you should worry too much about the
fact that you can't always get to trails.

But you certainly should worry about other issues -- training style,
appropriate footwear that isn't too badly worn (this is very
important. A trashed shoe is even worse than a "bad" shoe)

From a personal enjoyment standard, I'd strongly recommend you
take a drive every weekend, every other weekend, or whenever you
can, and do a long run on the trails. It's up to you of course,
but I'm betting you'll find the experience makes the commute
worthwhile. It's not easy to justify an hours driving for a 40
minute jog, but if it's your 2hr long run (e.g. 10 miles nice and
slow) then it's probably worth it.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

DonVon,
What's 'slow' for you?

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is nothing about the topic in general, but I need some specific
advice.

I love dirt trails and wilderness, most people do. But I would
have to drive no less than 30 miles to get to the nearest dirt
trail (as far as I know).

As I've argued, there is no hard scientific evidence that paved
surfaces are a greater injury risk. so from an injury prevention
standpoint, I don't think you should worry too much about the
fact that you can't always get to trails.

Hard evidence would be hard to establish. It would be difficult to do an
appropriate study, especially since trail runners may train somewhat
differently, on a mixed variety of surfaces. Dan's comments about the
kenyans he met and the olympic runners are illustrative.

Quoted message said:

But you certainly should worry about other issues -- training style,
appropriate footwear that isn't too badly worn (this is very
important. A trashed shoe is even worse than a "bad" shoe)

From a personal enjoyment standard, I'd strongly recommend you
take a drive every weekend, every other weekend, or whenever you
can, and do a long run on the trails. It's up to you of course,
but I'm betting you'll find the experience makes the commute
worthwhile. It's not easy to justify an hours driving for a 40
minute jog, but if it's your 2hr long run (e.g. 10 miles nice and
slow) then it's probably worth it.

This sounds like good advice. It's not that some road running will hurt you.
The main advantages of trails are a softer surface for impact on the legs
and a wider range of motion.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony said:

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is nothing about the topic in general, but I need some specific
advice.

I love dirt trails and wilderness, most people do. But I would
have to drive no less than 30 miles to get to the nearest dirt
trail (as far as I know).

As I've argued, there is no hard scientific evidence that paved
surfaces are a greater injury risk. so from an injury prevention
standpoint, I don't think you should worry too much about the
fact that you can't always get to trails.

Hard evidence would be hard to establish. It would be difficult to do an

True, but the evidence also weighs in against this notion. For example,
there are studies that measure impact accelerations at different points
and show that subtle adjustments can reduce most of the impact forces
that result from hard surfaces. So there's no reason apriori to believe
that harder surfaces cause more injury -- in particular, the popular
notion that running on a harder surface results in much greater impact
forces on the knees and hips is not only unsupported, it is just wrong,
nothing more than a misconception driven by erroneous intuition.

Force is proportional to acceleration, and acceleration can be adjusted
by tightening or loosening muscles in the leg. Research on running mechanics
demonstrates that this really does happen. I'll dig it up when I'm less
tired but for now, all of this is discussed and referenced to death in
Noakes.

Quoted message said:

appropriate study, especially since trail runners may train somewhat
differently, on a mixed variety of surfaces. Dan's comments about the
kenyans he met and the olympic runners are illustrative.

I'm not sure what they "illustrate". They're cherry-picked anecdotes, and
as such, they don't prove a whole lot. BTW, athletes are as susceptible
to popular myths about training surfaces as anyone else. Athletes also
have personal and subjective preferences, which is fine, but their
preferences could be motivated by a number of things (in particular,
might not have anything to do with injury prevention)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

"On a trail I escape the noises of the city and I no longer need to dodge
cars at busy intersections... To me roads are fairly redundant and

pavement

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

looks much the same from Maine to California. But the same trail looks
different if you just run on it in the reverse direction. In fact, a

trail

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

takes on a new look as the seasons change..."

His love of the scenery on trails is subjective, so it's pretty hard to

argue

Quoted message said:

with it -- if they provide him with a more enjoyable experience, then

they're

Quoted message said:

preferable (at least for him)

Quoted message said:

"When runners complain of overuse injuries, it's a safe bet to assume

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they got hurt from running on roads.

Yes, but when they don't complain of overuse injuries, it's also a safe bet

to

Quoted message said:

assume that their not getting hurt involved a good deal of running on

pavement.

Quoted message said:

There's plenty of evidence that the human body adapts to different

surfaces,

Quoted message said:

and no published evidence of increased risk of injury from running on paved
surfaces.

Listen to yourself. If you run on concrete or asphalt, the forces on the
bones, joints, tenons and ligaments are higher than when running on dirt.
Are you really saying that the runner who runs a significant amount of time
on dirt can't do more miles/week without reaching the threshold for injury?
Is there *any* running book out there that says does not advocate softer
surfaces for running?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pounding the pavement with little
variation in stride or foot strike, mile after mile, just isn't natural.
We're simply not made for logging big miles on the streets...

Neither is it "natural" to run ultra marathons. Appeal to nature and

"design"

Quoted message said:

of this sort is a fallacy.

He's not referring exclusively to ultramarathons. He's talking about runners
with overuse injuries.

Quoted message said:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

"Many more ultramarathons are run on trails than they are on roads. This

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so for many reasons. First, the ultra community is a more mature crowd

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has learned that the road to injury is paved, especially in races longer
than 26.2 miles. Ultrarunners are also often characterized as aficionados

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

natural beauty, which is why the biggest and best ultras are in some of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

most awe-inspiring places..."

I think the second reason trumps the first. I don't believe they hold

ultras

Quoted message said:

on trails to prevent injury. The courses are often quite challenging, and
provide plenty of opportunity to get hurt if you're not well prepared.

Sure, the first is his biased opinion. It's a fact that most ultras in the
US are run on trails, and there is a reason for this beyond the natural
beauty. There's a lake near where I live that has a paved path the whole 3
miles around it. Right next to that path is a singletrack dirt trail that
the runners have created over the years. If surfaces are equal you'd have to
wonder why so many runners would have chosen to run on the side, where the
surface is often sloping or muddy.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

But I aree with the comments about scenery -- who wants to spend all day
running around a track or on a treadmill ? (well, some ultra runners I

suppose,

Quoted message said:

but they're a fringe within a fringe ... )

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony said:

Listen to yourself. If you run on concrete or asphalt, the forces on the
bones, joints, tenons and ligaments are higher than when running on dirt.

WRONG. Look, let me explain it in as simple terms possible. Force is
proportional to acceleration. Acceleration is not determined by surface
stiffness alone, it is also determined by footwear, and leg stiffness.
Leg stiffness is NOT constant, it varies depending on surface.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11079523
http://tinyurl.com/5az7n

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11796653
http://tinyurl.com/4anwq

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15815938
http://tinyurl.com/589x9

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14688034
http://tinyurl.com/67657

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9675909
http://tinyurl.com/3kfn2

This work (and other work which I'm too lazy to dig up) consistently
finds that the body adapts in a way that closes the gap in landing forces.

Quoted message said:

Are you really saying that the runner who runs a significant amount of time
on dirt can't do more miles/week without reaching the threshold for injury?

Yes. (do you have so much as a shred of evidence to support your claim that
you can do more miles on trails ?)

Quoted message said:

Is there *any* running book out there that says does not advocate softer
surfaces for running?

I don't know. Which running books advocate softer surfaces, and what
research do they cite in support of their position ? I don't think Noakes
or Daniels specifically recommend soft surfaces.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pounding the pavement with little
variation in stride or foot strike, mile after mile, just isn't natural.
We're simply not made for logging big miles on the streets...

Neither is it "natural" to run ultra marathons. Appeal to nature and
"design"
of this sort is a fallacy.

He's not referring exclusively to ultramarathons. He's talking about runners
with overuse injuries.

So what ?

Quoted message said:

the runners have created over the years. If surfaces are equal you'd have to
wonder why so many runners would have chosen to run on the side, where the
surface is often sloping or muddy.

I didn't argue that the surfaces were "equal". (if the surface is indeed sloping
or muddy, I'd argue that it's less desirable actually) Most of them are probably
worried because they've heard that running on pavement is "bad for your knees".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote

Quoted message said:

Sure, the first is his biased opinion. It's a fact that most ultras in the
US are run on trails, and there is a reason for this beyond the natural
beauty. There's a lake near where I live that has a paved path the whole 3
miles around it. Right next to that path is a singletrack dirt trail that
the runners have created over the years. If surfaces are equal you'd have
to
wonder why so many runners would have chosen to run on the side, where the
surface is often sloping or muddy.

Where I come from, we call that voting with your feet!

-- Dan

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Listen to yourself. If you run on concrete or asphalt, the forces

on the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bones, joints, tenons and ligaments are higher than when running on

dirt.

Quoted message said:

WRONG.
Leg stiffness [...] varies depending on surface.

Presumably then leg stiffness will also vary depending on shoe,
accommodating a less cushioned or non-cushioned shoe just as it
accommodates concrete.

And whatever your leg does to change its stiffness, it's clearly
orthogonal to likelihood of injury.

So you'll be running exclusively in minimal flats or giving up shoes
altogether, will you, because your legs will just take up the slack?
May as well jettison that unnecessary weight, no?

Quoted message said:

This work (and other work which I'm too lazy to dig up) consistently
finds that the body adapts in a way that closes the gap in landing

forces.

Right, so on hard surfaces it adapts to minimize the landing force. Or
from the other direction, on softer surfaces the body adapts to
increase the landing force.

Hmmm. Why do you suppose it might do that? Why wouldn't it just
always minimize landing force, so that on dirt or grass you're
practically floating over the surface?

I'm fond of softer surfaces for a few reasons. One that hasn't come up
in this thread is that I can confidently wear more minimal shoes,
depending on surface and mileage. I believe - with no formal five year
study to back it up, sorry - that eliminating as much of that mass,
height (especially heel), and cushioning/support/whatever the hell
attached to my feet is a strong positive, on a surface which doesn't
require it. Feels a lot better and more natural, and my informal
"correlation" (based on poor memory and gut feeling) of surface with
injury history seems to support it at least loosely. But mostly it
feels a lot better and more natural. That's my favorite part, the
feeling better.

This is what'll eventually drive me out of NYC: access to trails.

Quoted message said:

This is nothing about the topic in general, but I need some specific
advice.

I love dirt trails and wilderness, most people do. But I would
have to drive no less than 30 miles to get to the nearest dirt
trail (as far as I know).

A couple thoughts as to finding trails. I don't know where you are or
whether you're in a city or rural area, so I'll make some general
suggestions. Look for published trail guides. Check with city, county,
or state parks and rec or forestry or similar departments. Find mtn
bikers or trail runners or xc skiers in your area - or a trail users or
advocacy group. Check the web, ask in ng or forums, etc. If there aren't
dirt or gravel trails, but there is a greenbelt or roadway with space
alongside, see if a trail could be built (opportunity to volunteer). Or
see if a dirt or gravel trail could be put adjacent to the paved one.

Look for gravel / dirt / grass alongside paved trails or highways
(shoulders). Not the best, but it works in a pinch.

Quoted message said:

I run alone, not by choice, but because it is very hard to find a
compatible training partner (with similar pace, times, walking
breaks, who can shut up and run etc).

I can relate to problems finding a compatible partner for exactly the
reasons you cite, but I do prefer to run alone most of the time
(personal time) - except in bear habitat.

Quoted message said:

It is easier to train in a
small group, IMHO.

Within a mile of my home there is a paved trail by the ocean
that stretches for around 20 miles or more. It is used mostly by
bikers, but also by walkers and runners.

I have a choice of driving one mile to this paved trail

If you're going to be on pavement anyway, why not run that part or bike
it. Are there flat, but firm, portions of the beach that you could run
on? Soft sand would be a great workout, as long as it's not slanted.

and

Quoted message said:

jogging on a hard surface or driving 30 miles to a dirt trail
and jogging.

I am not of a very strong constitution but not too

Quoted message said:

weak either. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I ran a 2:20:22
Half Marathon and yesterday I ran a 0:58:54 10K.

I train at about 11min/mile - 12min/mile pace, with emphasis
on a reasonable distance and not much on speed (I am truly
afraid of injuries, after having to lay off from jogging for more
than 3 months at a time due to injuries). My longest jog is about
10M, averaging about 30-40miles/week. I don't think I will ever
exceed 50miles/week.

Am I doing alright running on a paved trail or must I switch to
a dirt trail. Thanks.

Do what works for you, but you seem to have a preference for trails, so
I'd spend some time trying to find some local ones. For myself, my feet
are fairly intolerant of asphalt or other flat, hard terrain so I avoid
it if at all possible. I'd probably have problems with rocky trails, but
don't know. Others run on asphalt just fine. Trying some variety may
help relieve the repetitiveness. While roads tend to hit repetitive
injuries, trails can provide their own set of injuries - twisted ankles,
etc - unless you carefully train your feet (although some people may
have sufficiently strong ankles and feet with no problem).

Good luck.

Dot

--
"running is a mysterious journey that we take not just to beat other
people or to stay in reasonable physical shape - but to find out more
about ourselves" - Owen Anderson

Tony said:

These are from a book someone gave me ("The ultimate guide to trail
running"😉 that I finally got around to looking over while in the bathroom.

I thought they sounded familiar when I read them 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quotes are from the introduction, the rest of the book sucks. Lessons: Even
sucky books have some good quotes sometimes.

Actually, I found the book quite good when I was first starting in trail
running (about 3 yr ago - when I was also still new to structure
running). It gave me some different approaches to things that I hadn't
thought of while I was still reading traditional training schedules. It
got me out of the box, so to speak. That said, I took a quick glance at
it a little while ago and found it simpler than what I remembered. I
think it's better than the other one I've got (Trail Running: from
novice to master).

Quoted message said:

Unless you share the same
interest and know the same or more than the one you're buying for, never try
to buy a gift for an enthusiast because you'll always miss the mark.

True.

Dot

--
"running is a mysterious journey that we take not just to beat other
people or to stay in reasonable physical shape - but to find out more
about ourselves" - Owen Anderson

if you see kay said:

Presumably then leg stiffness will also vary depending on shoe,
accommodating a less cushioned or non-cushioned shoe just as it
accommodates concrete.

And whatever your leg does to change its stiffness, it's clearly
orthogonal to likelihood of injury.

So you'll be running exclusively in minimal flats or giving up shoes
altogether, will you, because your legs will just take up the slack?
May as well jettison that unnecessary weight, no?

Indeed -- there is little evidence to show that heavy footwear reduces
the likelihood of injury. I currently do most of my training in light
trainers or flats. If it ain't broke, why fix it ? I'm doing fine with
my current choice of footwear, and reducing shoe weight by 1-2oz on
training runs isn't a high priority. The trainers are more durable than
most flats. I might end up in light flats all the time some day, but
any change should be made incrementally. There are other issues with
flats, because they change your running dynamics in ways that surface
stiffness variations don't.

BTW, Noakes points to some studies that show that orthotics and insoles
reduce risk of injury. Also, excess wear on shoes has been shown to
increase risk of injury. So there's evidence that shoes make some sort
of difference, but the evidence seems to point towards *support*, not
cushioning, being the critical factor.

Quoted message said:

Right, so on hard surfaces it adapts to minimize the landing force. Or
from the other direction, on softer surfaces the body adapts to
increase the landing force.

Hmmm. Why do you suppose it might do that? Why wouldn't it just
always minimize landing force, so that on dirt or grass you're
practically floating over the surface?

Because minimizing landing force is not very economical. Your body
tries to maximise economy (at the expense of reducing impact) Try running
in such a way that your knees flex all the way to 90 degrees. This
reduces landing force, but is very hard work (and probably more likely
to cause injury because your muscles have to work extremely hard).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

Listen to yourself. If you run on concrete or asphalt, the forces on the
bones, joints, tenons and ligaments are higher than when running on dirt.

WRONG. Look, let me explain it in as simple terms possible. Force is
proportional to acceleration. Acceleration is not determined by surface
stiffness alone, it is also determined by footwear, and leg stiffness.
Leg stiffness is NOT constant, it varies depending on surface.

Looked at these, they say nothing about injury, just an arcane discussion of
leg stiffness and hoping.

Quoted message said:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=A

bstract&list_uids=11079523

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/5az7n

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=A

bstract&list_uids=11796653

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/4anwq

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=A

bstract&list_uids=15815938

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/589x9

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=A

bstract&list_uids=14688034

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/67657

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=A

bstract&list_uids=9675909

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/3kfn2

This work (and other work which I'm too lazy to dig up) consistently
finds that the body adapts in a way that closes the gap in landing forces.

It adapts and it must work harder to produce the same speed on softer
surfaces, but once again, this says nothing about injury, pro or con.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you really saying that the runner who runs a significant amount of

time

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on dirt can't do more miles/week without reaching the threshold for

injury?

Quoted message said:

Yes. (do you have so much as a shred of evidence to support your claim that
you can do more miles on trails ?)

Well if you want to run on concrete because it makes you go faster, be my
guest. Sometimes, in the absense of hard evidence one way or another, you
have to go with what works. Asphalt and road running work for you. Many who
live near trails would always choose the trail.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is there *any* running book out there that says does not advocate softer
surfaces for running?

I don't know. Which running books advocate softer surfaces, and what
research do they cite in support of their position ? I don't think Noakes
or Daniels specifically recommend soft surfaces.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Pounding the pavement with little
> variation in stride or foot strike, mile after mile, just isn't

natural.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> We're simply not made for logging big miles on the streets...

Neither is it "natural" to run ultra marathons. Appeal to nature and
"design"
of this sort is a fallacy.

He's not referring exclusively to ultramarathons. He's talking about

runners

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with overuse injuries.

So what ?

So, I think he's saying, that the constant unvaried motions of running on
roads can over-stress certain parts of the body, while if the terrain is
more varied this does not happen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the runners have created over the years. If surfaces are equal you'd have

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wonder why so many runners would have chosen to run on the side, where

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

surface is often sloping or muddy.

I didn't argue that the surfaces were "equal". (if the surface is indeed

sloping

Quoted message said:

or muddy, I'd argue that it's less desirable actually) Most of them are

probably

Quoted message said:

worried because they've heard that running on pavement is "bad for your

knees".

[censored], they probably choose it for the same reason I do -- it feels
better, even if it's slower. The pounding on the pavement right next to it
does not feel good -- the dirt path makes it feel better, simple! This is
especially true during long runs for me.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

if you see kay said:

This is what'll eventually drive me out of NYC: access to trails.

Take the short line up to Bear Mountain for your long run, trails or
road:

http://www.rocklandroadrunners.org/HarrimanMaps.html

Nice sig.

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Because minimizing landing force is not very economical. Your body
tries to maximise economy (at the expense of reducing impact) Try running
in such a way that your knees flex all the way to 90 degrees. This
reduces landing force, but is very hard work (and probably more likely
to cause injury because your muscles have to work extremely hard).

You've just posted what I was about to write...when you're racing or going
hard, you don't want to adjust your stride to reduce shock, you want to
maximize speed.

And in order to race fast, you've got to train fast. If you're
microadjusting your stride to reduce shock, you will be less fit than
someone who can train free at max pace. On the other hand, if you just
forget about adjusting you stride and bash onward on hard surfaces, you'll
be greater risk of injury.

Also, when tired, (and when you train hard, you do a lot of running when
tired) you need all the help you can get from the surface.

Finally, consider the effect 50,000 miles of a lifetime of running (I've got
over 70k miles on me, nearly all on dirt, with no joint problems). Would
you recommend to someone who's in it for the long haul, to run on pavement?

Final question: If you lived in an area with a 10 mile long greenbelt (such
as Portland OR) on soft trail, what percentage of your non-track running
would you do on it? (n=1, p=.7 :-)

-- Dan

(who is lobbying the nba to switch over to more durable and maintenance-free
concrete. Then, horse racing. I say pave the track and give the beasts
rubber gel shoes. After that, it's on to the olympics, to ban tartan tracks
in favor of macadam, and restore the pole vault pit to gravel ;-)

Tony said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Listen to yourself. If you run on concrete or asphalt, the forces on the
bones, joints, tenons and ligaments are higher than when running on dirt.

WRONG. Look, let me explain it in as simple terms possible. Force is
proportional to acceleration. Acceleration is not determined by surface
stiffness alone, it is also determined by footwear, and leg stiffness.
Leg stiffness is NOT constant, it varies depending on surface.

Looked at these, they say nothing about injury, just an arcane discussion of
leg stiffness and hoping.

You said (still quoted above) that "the forces on bones, tendons, and
ligaments are higher than when running on dirt".

These articles for the most part suggest that they are not.

It is true that the articles do not discuss *injury* (there is actually very
little in the way of good literature discussing injury), but they certainly do
discuss impact forces.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This work (and other work which I'm too lazy to dig up) consistently
finds that the body adapts in a way that closes the gap in landing forces.

It adapts and it must work harder to produce the same speed on softer
surfaces, but once again, this says nothing about injury, pro or con.

No, but it does say something about your claim about "higher forces". Leg
stiffness varies in such a way that acceleration (hence force) is not simply
dependent on the surface.

Recall that the premise of your argument (and in fact the common but flawed
intuition) that pavement increases injury risk is that forces "on the joints"
are increased. But studies show that this intuition is at best flawed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you really saying that the runner who runs a significant amount of

time

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on dirt can't do more miles/week without reaching the threshold for

injury?

Quoted message said:

Yes. (do you have so much as a shred of evidence to support your claim that
you can do more miles on trails ?)

Well if you want to run on concrete because it makes you go faster, be my
guest.

I want to run on concrete because that's what it available. And it works just
fine for me.

Quoted message said:

Sometimes, in the absense of hard evidence one way or another, you
have to go with what works.

Yep. I agree with this. So for example, if you're the guy who has to drive 30
minutes to get to the nearest trail, then you're better off doing your weekday
runs on the pavement.

But if you live near trails, and your preference is for trails, then why not ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Neither is it "natural" to run ultra marathons. Appeal to nature and
> "design"
>of this sort is a fallacy.

He's not referring exclusively to ultramarathons. He's talking about

runners

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with overuse injuries.

So what ?

So, I think he's saying, that the constant unvaried motions of running on
roads can over-stress certain parts of the body, while if the terrain is
more varied this does not happen.

No, my point is that he's appealing to the "we're designed for XXXX" fallacy,
yet he doesn't even apply his own fallacy consistently (because if he did
apply it consistently, he'd have to concede that running ultras is not
"natural"😉. So the fact that he's not referring exclusively to ultras is not
relevant to my point.

Quoted message said:

[censored], they probably choose it for the same reason I do -- it feels
better,

Well, whatever. Either way, they chose it because of some sort of subjective
preference. Which is fine, but there's no reason that someone who has a
different subjective preference is "wrong".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Dan Stumpus said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Because minimizing landing force is not very economical. Your body
tries to maximise economy (at the expense of reducing impact) Try running
in such a way that your knees flex all the way to 90 degrees. This
reduces landing force, but is very hard work (and probably more likely
to cause injury because your muscles have to work extremely hard).

You've just posted what I was about to write...when you're racing or going
hard, you don't want to adjust your stride to reduce shock, you want to
maximize speed.

Actually, the knee flexes a certain amount, so optimal economy doesn't mean
that you stop shock-absorbing. And the amount of shock absorbing your body
takes care of decreases as the surface gets softer.

Quoted message said:

And in order to race fast, you've got to train fast. If you're
microadjusting your stride to reduce shock, you will be less fit than
someone who can train free at max pace. On the other hand, if you just
forget about adjusting you stride and bash onward on hard surfaces, you'll
be greater risk of injury.

Except that you don't "forget" any more than you'd "forget" to land on your
toes if you were jumping rope barefoot.

Quoted message said:

Finally, consider the effect 50,000 miles of a lifetime of running (I've got
over 70k miles on me, nearly all on dirt, with no joint problems). Would
you recommend to someone who's in it for the long haul, to run on pavement?

Absolutely. I think most naive observers greatly underestimate the capacity of
the body to absorb shock, and misattribute injuries to magnitude of impact
forces when culprits are more likely to be subtle biomechanical issues,
imbalances either in the body, the environment (banked roads) or even those
things acting in a feedback loop with footwear (e.g. uneven wear on shoes
caused by surface or biomech messes up biomechanics which messes up footwear,
etc), too-much-too-soon issues with training, etc.

Quoted message said:

Final question: If you lived in an area with a 10 mile long greenbelt (such
as Portland OR) on soft trail, what percentage of your non-track running
would you do on it? (n=1, p=.7 :-)

About 50% as a wild guess.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/