Trail running

gym.gravity said:

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

Another recommendation-- rockefeller state park.

http://www.friendsrock.org/

Closer by, there's van cortlandt park, which has some nice cinder trails. It's
also a good place to do hill work -- lots of challenging inclines.

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

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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,

You are nothing if not persistent! A good opponent.

Just remember that sometimes the obvious is also the correct.

Regards,

Dan

Donovan Rebbechi said:

gym.gravity said:

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

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

road:

Another recommendation-- rockefeller state park.

Thanks for the recs, gents.

Any chance showers are available at either of these parks? If I'm
gonna spend something like six prime weekend hours between the commute
and the run, I'd sure prefer to be clean and dry for the last couple on
train or in car. (Yeah, I'm old - 37 - and soft, and have suffered
from adult-onset running for only a couple years.)

Quoted message said:

Closer by, there's van cortlandt park

Somehow I've never made it there, in 8 years in this city. More/better
off-road options than Prospect and Central Parks, I take it?

Also within the city: boardwalks make for good running. I've really
enjoyed starting some long runs out on Far Rockaway - if you start near
the end of the A line you'll have the first few miles almost to
yourself, then get some good people-watching later - where there's
something like 4, 5, 6 miles of wooden boardwalk before it runs out and
I end up on pavement the rest of the way home. Those first several
miles, my legs say "thank you, this is almost too easy" with every
stride. (And FWIW I don't think my joints suffer on pavement, it's my
muscles; I believe they work harder, and get more beat up, doing
whatever they do to cushion me at each footfall. That and the more
consistent, repetitive motion which comes with the unvarying flatness.)

if you see kay said:

Thanks for the recs, gents.

Any chance showers are available at either of these parks? If I'm
gonna spend something like six prime weekend hours between the

commute

Quoted message said:

and the run, I'd sure prefer to be clean and dry for the last couple

on

Quoted message said:

train or in car. (Yeah, I'm old - 37 - and soft, and have suffered
from adult-onset running for only a couple years.)

The Short Line bus drops you off at the Bear Mountain Inn. In the
summer, the pool is $2 according to this:
http://www.hudsonriver.com/bearmtn.htm They say there is a "bath
house" but it doesn't say there are showers. Jump your dirty ass into
the pool, cool off, have dinner at the restaurant.

gym.gravity wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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.

If you're in NYC, just cross the GW bridge, and the long path starts north
from there, a very scenic course next to the PIP along the cliffs for 10
miles before heading into Rockland county. It's marked with blue blazes.
Once in Rockland, the long path meanders through tallman mountain state
park, clausland mountain park, blauvelt county park, hook mountain state
park, and hi-tor state park, before heading into the much larger Harriman
state park. There's a wide variety of terrain, getting more hilly and
challenging after tallman SP, though it's a hiking trail from the very
beginning.

http://www.nynjtc.org/trails/longpath/

At the start by the GW bridge, there are paths at the base of the cliffs
along the river as well. You can see this whole section of palisades park at
http://www.njpalisades.org/. Click on Maps for a more detailed view of where
the trails are, on both the top and bottom of the cliffs. It's possible to
do a loop by running to the alpine boat basin on the bottom and back along
the top, or vise versa.

-Tony

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

As you would suspect I strongly disagree. While Dan gave you his
anecdotal case for his running salvation, there are literally hundreds
if not thousands that run on trails(not all ultra geeks but simply
trails) that swear the more forgiving surface has provided them with
continuous running future and minimized or eliminated their injuries. If
one was to tie into the ultra BBs this is a resounding echo but I guess
it's just this segment of opinion because there is no "scientific
evidence" to date.

As Dan also points out the Kenyans prefer trails for the majority of
their miles. Maybe it's just because the trails are ungraded and thus a
harder workout but I'll bet a brew or two it's the softer surface.

In addition, in my nearly 20 years of running I have had the privilege
of running with many running Docs(ortho, peds, GPs, urine ) and in their
professional opinion from being runners and taking care of runners they
all prescribe running on softer surfaces for those injuries one can run
through for recovery and prevention. Again, maybe no formal study but a
[censored] pile of hard life experience with positive results. Maybe you want
to claim it's all placebo but I'm not buying it. I'm not suggesting that
trails can be a 100% replacement for road racing but a serious chunk
can.

Even those you consider freaks that run ultras, 98% of the races are on
trails and very few on the roads. When the mileage is hiked up the
unforgiving harder surfaces eat their young. We would rather do 50 miles
with 5-20K of elevation than a flat or rolling road course. We are not
all Thoreau's looking for Walden Pond but those that like to go long and
minimize injuries.

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)

Good point with form and shoes being an excellent intial triage.

Quoted message said:

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.

I would add, definitely worth it, not probably, for long runs.

-DougF

a directoe who was ovr ears droping on a conn from me and a disability
person one day said that what a better place to drink beer then a
runners bikers trails, the cops would never think to look there......
he said maye because the parks are not open yet der..........
meds bags gone for use as surgical uses...and i amsure it was egg on and
is co used yes....she knows......were der........
break down then I would be a drug addit or bleed to death because this
won't stop bleeding.....cystss...... must be a runner in futur because i
got 3 of them in the back of head.
like a buck and on center.....
Mu hmo is lacking since no wok or pay check in over 2½ yeras. gee
these working people think this shat grow on trees here.....
Oh dear sir or mam I need hospital work or denist work and my goverment
is going to help me.....oh yes and 30 years in a trade means I can get a
job.......
Righttttttttttttttttttttttt
my my what a tick..............
wait a tick......Yahhhhhbaby......
time to ride....lol...:>😉
I am soooooo sexy.......
once you had fat you well never turn back.... I smell the great lakes
and saw that blue in the sky yesterday.......120 mile one way treck it
be........funny I farted and the thur ell breds went downwind........

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

As you would suspect I strongly disagree. While Dan gave you his
anecdotal case for his running salvation, there are literally hundreds if
not thousands that run on trails(not all ultra geeks but simply trails)
that swear the more forgiving surface has provided them with continuous
running future and minimized or eliminated their injuries. If one was to
tie into the ultra BBs this is a resounding echo but I guess it's just
this segment of opinion because there is no "scientific evidence" to date.

to come at this from a different angle...so, anecdotally, i've had the same
experience. i can do more mileage with less aches on trails and treadmill vs
paved roads. Perhaps a variable we're missing is size of runner. judging
from Donovan's times i would imagine he is pretty light and therefore doesnt
pound away too much on either road or trail and that would be the case for
just about every runner that might be worthy of a study. I'm 6'4" and not a
stranger to the buffet table so my legs, while shapely and attractive, take
a beating on whatever surface i'm running on but, as i said, they definitely
feel better on softer surfaces like dirt or a treadmill bed.

if this variable has been discussed i missed it and i apologize.

Quoted message said:

Jehovah said:

to come at this from a different angle...so, anecdotally, i've had the same
experience. i can do more mileage with less aches on trails and treadmill vs
paved roads.
Perhaps a variable we're missing is size of runner. judging

Being lighter definitely reduces the risk of injury. When people lose weight,
they are less likely to be injured.

But I think there are a bunch of factors that could cause the aches and pains
on the paved roads. For example, a lot of roads are moderately banked, which
introduces an imbalance. The uniformity of a paved surface (it's dead flat,
whereas trails have subtle variation in footing) could contribute to overuse
injuries (though that hasn't been shown)

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

Doug Freese said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

As you would suspect I strongly disagree. While Dan gave you his
anecdotal case for his running salvation, there are literally hundreds
if not thousands that run on trails(not all ultra geeks but simply
trails) that swear the more forgiving surface has provided them with
continuous running future and minimized or eliminated their injuries. If
one was to tie into the ultra BBs this is a resounding echo but I guess
it's just this segment of opinion because there is no "scientific
evidence" to date.

It's not as if there's a ton of evidence, and we're just waiting for the
scientists to get around to it. There are studies on injury. This review
covers a lot of prior work, you'll get several good hits by searching for
related articles:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1553455

High mileage consistently comes up as a strong predictor of injury (especially
rapid increase in mileage). When surfaces are entered into the equation, they
either don't show up as a factor or are only just above the radar.

Now you *could* make the argument that running surface is in fact a factor,
but it tends to be beneath the threshold for statistical significance. And
that's fine, I wouldn't dispute that claim. I'm not saying that we know there
is *no* difference in risk. I'm saying that if there is a difference, it is
greatly exaggerated (and that there are other risk factors that are much
greater).

I'm sure you'd agree with me that someone who is considering quitting running
altogether because they can't find a soft surface for their daily aerobic pace
runs should probably reconsider. And I think you'd agree with me that there are
risk factors that trump training surface (I would name mileage, footwear,
abrupt changes in training patterns, race frequency, frequency of speed work,
in about that order).

Quoted message said:

As Dan also points out the Kenyans prefer trails for the majority of
their miles. Maybe it's just because the trails are ungraded and thus a
harder workout but I'll bet a brew or two it's the softer surface.

My explanation would be that this is what they're used to. There is a Kenyan
tradition, a long history of training on trails, hills, etc. So it's not
surprising that their preference is aligned with their tradition.

In fact I'd venture that most people (even non-Kenyans) would probably have a
personal preference for a good trail route over pavement, if it were readily
available. But those who don't shouldn't worry themselves too much about it.

Quoted message said:

In addition, in my nearly 20 years of running I have had the privilege
of running with many running Docs(ortho, peds, GPs, urine ) and in their
professional opinion from being runners and taking care of runners they
all prescribe running on softer surfaces for those injuries one can run
through for recovery and prevention. Again, maybe no formal study but a
[censored] pile of hard life experience with positive results.

Treatment for injury always involves a broad strategy. Unlike a scientific
study, you don't hold all factors constant. You stack all factors in your
favor. If there is a factor that *might* have a positive effect, you still
want that in your favor.

Quoted message said:

Maybe you want
to claim it's all placebo but I'm not buying it.

No, instead I'd claim that the treatment included a broad injury prevention
strategy, and the combination of the available methods used in that strategy
resulted in succesful treatment. But that doesn't tell us which of those
methods were effective, and which had little or no effect. And in fact the
doctor doesn't care a whole lot of some of the methods have little or no effect
-- they think in terms of a broad strategy, and have nothing to gain by
experimenting with narrower treatments.

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

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jehovah said:

to come at this from a different angle...so, anecdotally, i've had the
same
experience. i can do more mileage with less aches on trails and treadmill
vs
paved roads.
Perhaps a variable we're missing is size of runner. judging

Being lighter definitely reduces the risk of injury. When people lose
weight,
they are less likely to be injured.

But I think there are a bunch of factors that could cause the aches and
pains
on the paved roads. For example, a lot of roads are moderately banked,
which
introduces an imbalance. The uniformity of a paved surface (it's dead
flat,
whereas trails have subtle variation in footing) could contribute to
overuse
injuries (though that hasn't been shown)

excellent points.

Quoted message said:

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

Tony wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

If you're in NYC, just cross the GW bridge, and the long path starts north
from there, a very scenic course next to the PIP along the cliffs for 10
miles before heading into Rockland county. It's marked with blue blazes.
Once in Rockland, the long path meanders through tallman mountain state
park, clausland mountain park, blauvelt county park, hook mountain state
park, and hi-tor state park, before heading into the much larger Harriman
state park. There's a wide variety of terrain, getting more hilly and
challenging after tallman SP, though it's a hiking trail from the very
beginning.

http://www.nynjtc.org/trails/longpath/

At the start by the GW bridge, there are paths at the base of the cliffs
along the river as well. You can see this whole section of palisades park

at

Quoted message said:

http://www.njpalisades.org/. Click on Maps for a more detailed view of

where

Quoted message said:

the trails are, on both the top and bottom of the cliffs. It's possible to
do a loop by running to the alpine boat basin on the bottom and back along
the top, or vise versa.

-Tony

It appears on the map from http://www.njpalisades.org/ that the trail at the
base of the cliffs starts south of the bridge. I've run the long path part,
but since I've never done the trail at the base of the cliffs near the
river, I plan to try it this spring. For others interested, there's a bus
that goes all along the route (on 9w) from the city, so you can do a nice
long one way trail run then take the bus home. For me I'd take the bus down
to the GW bridge and run home north for a good long run of about 18 miles on
trails, or shorter if I hop back on the bus going north. They say it's about
12 miles to the NY border, though that's trail miles, so plan accordingly.

The 9A and 9W have routes originating from the GW bridge bus station in NYC,
and from the port authority bus terminal in lower Manhattan.
http://www.redandtanlines.com/schedule.htm Anyone who's driven along the PIP
know's what the scenery is like. Though the trail is close to the PIP in
places, it's still worth doing. Also, the bottom trail next to the river is
probably very beautiful, though mostly flat I would guess. There are some
roads down there in places, but the the trail is marked with white blazes.
For those in NYC who want to try real trail running, the long path is a
perfect opportunity.

-Tony

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

Quoted message said:

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

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

dirt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

little in the way of good literature discussing injury), but they certainly

do

Quoted message said:

discuss impact forces.

Hey I believe in science, but honestly I don't know how to read those
studies you cited. Though what they measured appeared to show compensation,
that doesn't say they were able to measure all the forces involved in
running with certainty. Perhaps the common sense is wrong, but IMO common
sense prevails until it is resolutely proven wrong, or unless there are
clear alternative explanations. I just know that especially when I'm weary,
concrete seems to be bone-jarring, and dirt feels soft and easy on the body.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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"

Quoted message said:

are increased. But studies show that this intuition is at best flawed.

Apparently there are not any studies that compare controlled groups of
similar runners who run on dirt and on pavement respectively. Until there
are, we have no way of knowing.

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:

> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

fine for me.

Ironically, when I lived more upstate, it was in an area with fewer trails,
and I ended up running more on country roads. I would get away for trail
runs infrequently. That was the time I ran some road races.

Where I live now, I'm blessed with a 5 mile long cinder rail-to-trail a 1/4
mile away, a park with many woods trails 10/20 mins run/walk up the hill,
another cinder trail that goes along the hudson river for about 7 miles only
2 1/2 miles away, and numerous hiking trails including all of Harriman
within about 35 mins drive.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

minutes to get to the nearest trail, then you're better off doing your

weekday

Quoted message said:

runs on the pavement.

Agreed, you have to mix and match according to your time. For the long runs,
I think its well worth finding a good scenic spot and to make an outing of
it.

Quoted message said:

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:

> 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,

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

relevant to my point.

Actually, it's very interesting to think about what we are evolved for. I
would argue that we're more designed for (or that it's much more natural to
do) the kind of long relaxed pace of an ultramarathon, where you jog when
you can, and you make stops, eat, and walk in places, accordingly, over
natural terrain -- than for red-lined marathons on pavement. Of course I
have no proof...

-Tony

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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/

Doug Freese said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

As you would suspect I strongly disagree.

I'm going to toss in my anecdotal evidence. My experience is that
pavement generally means flat and repetitive, at least compared with
trails. I've found that the one factor that causes me to most likely get
injured is repetitiveness, that is if I run a constant pace for too
long. And on pavement, particularly flat pavement, it's real easy to run
it hard/fast and not vary your stride at all. I have learned to run
pavement and not get injured but I do it like trails. I take regular
walking breaks, I vary my pace slightly every few miles, I try to
incorporate as many hills as possible and I do zig-zaggy routes with
frequent turns.

--
- The Trailrunner

Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*

Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/