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

I see your point, and have heard about the stiffness of muscles changing before. But it can’t be the whole story with respect to impact forces. How else does one explain the fact that thousands of people each year get a stress fracture within a few months of running in Vibrams.

I like your previous post, and think it is a good balance in perspectives, but there is a lot that of evidence that is difficult to explain entirely with this model.

versatile wrote:

I am amazed how many people here avoid trails altogether because of the potential unevenness!

But then again, I see people running on the street in traffic because they don't feel confident to navigate sidewalks.

It's like gym bros who only worry about aesthetics in the mirror but are not actually strong in a functional sense. What's it like to be trapped on smooth, flat roads? Most here should take a break from focusing on pace every once in a while and have some fun engaging body and mind on an uneven trail! I feel like the typical LRCer is a joyless pace slave and that makes me sad.

You're creating an argument where there is none. Most runners will run on a various surfaces if given the chance, it's just that most find it easier to hit the roads and bike paths because most people don't live close to miles and miles of dirt trails. I mean trails are great but even on the best trails around me to get more than 10M I'd doing a number of loops.

It's best to mix it up, roads, trails, paths, and tracks- even treadmills.

I'm sure I could create a study showing any result I want when it comes to trail vs dirt. A sample size of 15 hobby joggers doesn't necessarily impress me. Also not sure you can translate a study from hobby joggers to anyone running substantial mileage.

As someone who has run plenty of 100+ mile weeks all I know is my body feels worse when I do the majority on paved surfaces, especially a long run on paved surfaces.

Richard Nose wrote:

I'm not even trying to be a proponent of soft surfaces over hard surfaces. I find it unlikely that there is no difference whatsoever regarding the effects of running on one vs. the other.

Rodger Kram (he is sometimes here btw), one of the leading expert in this field, has a clear opinion to this. A higher stacked marathon shoe, a so called supershoe, generates less stress on muscle and prevents/reduced small muscle damages. I agree on that. Thats why allmost all companies have nowadays high stacked marathon supershoes. If Kipchoge could be just one second faster in vibrams he would wear it. Nike would have them on the start. Or he would run with 0 drop (but thats another story).

If you see working people in a bar/restaurant, the most of them wear soft shoes. They do not work in hard shoes the whole day. You see that world-wide.

Same on the airport. The personal there has to stand a long time, some of them have special (soft) mats to stand on it.

And last but not least, i am a heavy runner and if i would run just one week alone on racing flats compared to the other soft shoes the difference would be huge. There would be much more load with racing flates. Simple as that.

Open your eyes guys and you see it in practice and nature.

Having said that, downhill running on trails generates much more force as running flat. And there are uneven surfaces, and a much higher risk to trip and get hurt. Trail running can't be safer, but it makes a lot of fun:)

For me, running on trails, soft surfaces, and grass has been life changer (no more injuries)!

rojo wrote:

The study, published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, had 15 recreational runners (12 females and three males) run over dirt, gravel and paved surfaces in a trail environment with accelerometers attached to their shins and heads.

/

"Recreational runners" lol. There is your problem. A small sample of hobby joggers.

Any college athlete who spent years pounding away 80+ mile weeks knows there is a substantial difference running on majority concrete/pavement vs. soft dirt, mulch and grass.

Gravel isn't really any softer than pavement. The difference I found running on gravel is your foot can shift more easily than pavement, acting as compensation for poor running form.

Just listened to a podcast with Pete Magill. He said essentially the same thing. No reduction. Runners get different type of injuries on soft surfaces.

The day after it rains, the trails are so soft it's like a foot massage

Agree. I also think the time spent on technical trails in particular improves overall athleticism. I'm a better skier due to trail running for example. Trip injuries are pretty common though, bruises and scrapes and the occasional sprained ankle. You can't really zone out while running on a trail (or you will fall) so the mental aspect of it is a plus as well.

I can buy the claim that there is a tendency for trail running to cause different injuries to road running, but that doesn't mean they are equally likely to cause injuries of some sort. In fact it would be a remarkable coincidence if they caused different injuries, but in exactly the same quantity.

I'm very much pro-science in general, but as a couple of posters mentioned, exercise science with regards to distance running tends to be pretty shoddy, so sometimes personal experience and the consensus of other experienced runners is more useful than guidance from studies. I've been running for 35+ years, and based on that experience and the experience of fellow runners, teammates, etc., you'd have a hard time convincing me that running on softer surfaces (assuming they are not treacherously slippery, rocky, root-filled, etc) has no benefit as far as far as injury prevention.

True if you're s jogger

There are a lot of different approaches to measuring shock attenuation. And it is a big presumption that measuring shock attenuation will be definitive evidence that soft trails and hard asphalt/crete make no difference for running injuries. I would be very skeptical of this study. I have don hard 20+ mile long runs on concrete and have done the same length/effort on trails. After running on crete, my legs are on fire. I can feel the inflammation from all the pounding. After the same effort on trails, my legs are tired, but they do not feel inflamed like they do after running on crete.

I think there is a lot more going on than is measured by shock attenuation. And as others have noted, what about pace, mileage, etc.? Bogus study. Keep it on the trails.

About 20 years ago, I switched to doing about 60% of my work on trails. The results were profound from an injury standpoint. Until the switch, I had numerous injuries that came from repetitive stress. On the kinds of trails I started running on, almost no two steps were the same. My core got stronger, my feet got stronger and my injured time dropped dramatically. With today's shoes, I don't see the benefit being quite the same as it once was when it comes to pounding but, for me, the benefit from trails is from the constant change in the activity. For the same reason, I almost never run in the same model of shoes on back to back days anything to change things up, even if the change is minimal.

For what it's worth, I'm 56 and easily sub 6 in the mile and sub 19 5K.

Force upon your tibia is not the only physiological benefit of trail running

It also strengthens ancillary muscles, improves coordination, and is all around a more dynamic full body exercise than road running

While this specific insight regarding impact isn’t stunning (how many trails are very hard dirt or rocky), the more relevant insight would be, what injuries are strict road runners more susceptible to due to hyper repetitive motion

I think we can all agree that the study is useless.

I look it like others, from a mix of experience and common sense of the physical world and nature around us and some hard scientific truths. Hard is harder. The heavier the object the bigger the impact. The harder the more damage. If you fell 10ft from a window onto a concrete surface, it’s not going to be fun. If you fell 10ft from a tree onto a nice trail or grass, it’s still not going to be nice but I know which I would choose.

The repetitive stress argument is something I found helped me. More rounded distribution of impact and muscle use. It may not make you faster but it will make you stronger. Look at trail runners legs and ankles.

Too many variables give too many contrasting results. People ramp up the miles too fast when changing surfaces (in both directions). People’s natural form may be more suited to one than the other (something that can be worked on). People rely too much on their shoes to do the work. But give two people with the same natural talent and recovery abilities the same shoes and same training time and proper form on respective surfaces and I’m pretty sure that when they start to go over their limits, the one running on concrete will crack first.

Injuries and falls doesn’t form part of the argument. I have to question people’s running ability/training when they say they are constantly tripping on roots or rolling ankles on trials. I run on buffed out trails to more technical mountain paths. Hardly ever do I have a slip. Maybe once every few years from being tired a moment of lack of concentration and then it’s not serious. You kind of go into flight mode and stay focused with trial/mountain running, something else that could be considered in the injury argument? Isn’t the adrenaline system designed to avoid injury and fight on?

Anyway. Nobody will agree.

It would be interesting to get Jim Walmsley’s take on this. He is predominantly a trial runner but comes from a track / traditional running background. What take it more out of him- running the 100k world champs or a 100k trail race? I’m pretty sure the recovery time from the road will be longer. Although even then it’s hard to compare - 1) he still trains majority on trails. 2) speed is faster on road and time and vert is greater on trail.

garbage in garbage out

real runners do sslsd

https://youtu.be/w_UKZxXZmZg

Runners who believe concrete is a worse surface are princesses complaining about the pea. Their shoes have a big soft fat chunk of foam, what difference does it make what's under that?

If the concrete is too hard for the princess, get a softer midsole to compensate.

This trail is awesome. Who says trails are softer than asphalt or concrete? I'm pretty sure granite is harder than both.

http://www.citrusmilo.com/yosemite2017/joebraun_olmstedpoint02.jpg