Do you believe this? Scientific study: Running on trails isn't any better for your legs/injury prevention than the roads

Malmo impersonator wrote:

RunnerSam wrote:

Hasn't malmo been saying this for like 20 years?

*Scoff*

Try 30.

Good one. Actually 45 years.

Just me, but I've never noticed a difference between trails and pavement. But grass is a different story. I think if a surface (like grass) feels noticeably slow, then it is probably absorbing some of the energy that would otherwise stress your bones and joints.

I'd rather listen to the opinion of the best runners in the world and apply that instead of some scientists.

a study of only 15 recreational runners!?

how can they definitively get to any conclusion based on that?

What?! What happened to common sense?

Back when I was still running, it felt so much better coming off injury to run on a soft trail versus sidewalks or asphalt. Especially if I had a back injury. Nowhere near as jarring.

I was always under the impression that the benefit of trails was more about: a) less REPETITIVE stress (not necessarily less stress) and b) creating more strength. Thus, one would think people would be less vulnerable to overuse injuries would be in better shape and a runner’s body would be stronger and able to deal with more stress. In particular, your ankles get stronger from the uneven footing.

Thus, my hypothesis isn’t that you are less likely to get injured on any given run on a trail, but that over time, your body handles stress better and the stresses will be diverse enough that overuse is less of a concern.

pumped up kicks wrote:

a study of only 15 recreational runners!?

how can they definitively get to any conclusion based on that?

I also wonder if it takes some time to adjust to running on a trail and improve landing, and the rec runners they picked may have been road runners. Just like all the studies that “proved” that your body natually picks the most effecient form. Of course, the truth is that in the 1-2 months that your body adapts to the neuromuscular form changes the efficiency goes down, but long-term, adjusting to better form is better.

Also, based on Owen Anderson’s research, he’s “proved” with rec runners that you never need to run more 20-30 mpw for a fast HM.

pumped up kicks wrote:

a study of only 15 recreational runners!?

how can they definitively get to any conclusion based on that?

You throw a die 15 time, and every time it comes up 6. You say "it such a small sample it doesn't mean anything.

i dont really think you can study this effectively. its like how studies mostly conclude massage isnt beneficial despite every professional using it as a staple of recovery. similar to a good massage, soft surface running just feels better for some people and a study with a dozen or so people running various low mileages isnt going to give you any conclusive results.

Run for 1-2 months on exclusively soft surfaces. Then switch to concrete. You will feel the difference.

Each is supposedly a sample of one, yet in a lifetime of running tens of thousands of miles on concrete, asphalt, grass, track, and dirt, I've had thousands of instances to tell which is harder on my feet, so many more times than 15 rec runners in a short-term study.

I totally agree with the outcome of the article in general after running 120+ mpw off and on for years on mostly concrete/asphalt ... but the study is not good... they didn't look at stress on feet structure which based on the forum is arguably higher on concrete nor did they look at hip/knee issues that come from uneven surfaces. much less the tiny sample size.

As someone else mentioned the benefit of trails and soft surface is strengthening the small muscles used in your running gate.

I think if you want to be a good road marathoner run on the roads.. if you want to be a good trail runner run on trails.. and if you want to race races on crushed granite or dirt roads your kinda out of luck as there aren't many races like that.

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Each is supposedly a sample of one, yet in a lifetime of running tens of thousands of miles on concrete, asphalt, grass, track, and dirt, I've had thousands of instances to tell which is harder on my feet, so many more times than 15 rec runners in a short-term study.

My lifetime of 77,000 miles training at a high level, mostly on asphalt proves that a consistent footing and cadence afforded by a firm surfaces is more reliable than your experience. I have 77,000 instances to tell me which is harder on my feet, so many more times than you. ;-). See how that works?

My only major injuries (PF and stress fracture) occurred when I was running on trails and grass. Oh, I fell down and dislocated my arm once when I tripped on a nice soft trail, so make that three.

not a duck wrote:

Run for 1-2 months on exclusively soft surfaces. Then switch to concrete. You will feel the difference.

Then switch to asphalt. You'll feel the difference.

a the sample is three humans and a few rabbits. so the typical medical or sports study.

like 80% of common running tips are old wives tales that have no basis in reality. "running on soft surfaces prevents injury" is one of many

malmo wrote:

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Each is supposedly a sample of one, yet in a lifetime of running tens of thousands of miles on concrete, asphalt, grass, track, and dirt, I've had thousands of instances to tell which is harder on my feet, so many more times than 15 rec runners in a short-term study.

My lifetime of 77,000 miles training at a high level, mostly on asphalt proves that a consistent footing and cadence afforded by a firm surfaces is more reliable than your experience. I have 77,000 instances to tell me which is harder on my feet, so many more times than you. ;-). See how that works?

My only major injuries (PF and stress fracture) occurred when I was running on trails and grass. Oh, I fell down and dislocated my arm once when I tripped on a nice soft trail, so make that three.

Interestingly enough, this article from Runners Connect proposes that running on softer surfaces actually increases the risk of tibial stress fractures and planter fasciitis due to the the body naturally increasing leg stiffness when running on softer surfaces.

Useless article. Perhaps the actual published scientific article offers a little more insight, but the magazine summary contains basically no useful information. It only says, some unnamed researchers studied a tiny group of joggers, on trails vs roads, with accelerometers on their shins and heads (which as far as I know is not a proven way of determining injury rates), and concluded there was no significant difference - and therefore you, the reader, can safely conclude that running on trails for injury prevention is a waste of time.

For starters, just saying "trails" is not helpful. There's a pretty wide variety out there! Same with roads, for that matter. I think it goes without saying that it would be less likely to lead to injury to run an hour on a nice, flat stretch of newly-laid asphalt than to run an hour on rooty, rocky, muddy, hilly trails. Trails can be terrible! But "trail" might also refer to a gentle forest pathway with a bed of pine needles. And there are other soft surfaces besides trails: rubberized tracks, golf courses, playing fields, etc.

Furthermore, they only studied "recreational runners", with no mention of how far they ran, how fast, etc. Maybe the effects would be different for more competitive runners, or runners with different running form, or more for males vs. females, etc, - who knows?

So I'm perfectly willing to concede that merely choosing trails over roads will not automatically reduce your injury risk - I never would have thought it did to begin with. There are too many factors to consider. But it would be silly to claim that this skimpy article about a weak study has debunked once and for all the "myth" that it can be good to incorporate softer surfaces on some of your training runs.