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

arunne wrote:

Are you able to share the full PDF here? I’d like to read the paper.

Unfortunately, no. You might try asking a friend who has a university affiliation to download and e-mail it to you.

I think a mix of surfaces is best for injury prevention, but all the posters on here who are like "trails are more dangerous, I could sprain an ankle!" are actually dumb. Like why do you think your ankles are so goddamn weak if you only run on asphalt all the time? Running on uneven surfaces will strengthen your ankles, I twist my ankle from time to time when I do go onto trails, and it might be kinda sore the next minute or two but it's not big deal bc they're strong.

teapot willy wrote:

arunne wrote:

Are you able to share the full PDF here? I’d like to read the paper.

Unfortunately, no. You might try asking a friend who has a university affiliation to download and e-mail it to you.

You definitely shouldn't look into scihub though, because that would mean these prestigious journals wouldn't be doing their job to stop the spread of knowledge. To think, anyone could just look up the DOI of a journal article, search it on scihub, and download the paper illegally. Discusting!

purpledow wrote:

I think a mix of surfaces is best for injury prevention, but all the posters on here who are like "trails are more dangerous, I could sprain an ankle!" are actually dumb. Like why do you think your ankles are so goddamn weak if you only run on asphalt all the time? Running on uneven surfaces will strengthen your ankles, I twist my ankle from time to time when I do go onto trails, and it might be kinda sore the next minute or two but it's not big deal bc they're strong.

Absolutely endorse this. By avoiding the stresses you fear will hurt them, they are weaker when they confront them. Is it that the trails are inherently dangerous and damage their ankles, or is it that they're bubble boys?

I might have been out of the loop, but why the heck trail running would even be considered as reducing injury. I mean, on letsrun. Isn't that what non-runners would often say, along with 'running will destroy your knees'. They'l follow by 'of course you do run your lots-of-miles on soft surfaces, don't you". Yeah well.

I think everyone with some firsthand experience of trail running would say it would INCREASE the injury risk, although mostly not in the ways that can be detected by an accelerometer. Like you can stumble on tree roots in the forest, slip on ice, fall on a steep mountain descent. Running on sand and fresh snow would make you use muscles you don't normally use for running, which is why people do that sometimes, to strengthen those, but that would likely be just the forces they can record with accelerometers and as such increasing injury risk. Isn't that so?

Injury is a result out of many and complex relationsships between different aspects. I transitioned to barefoot running when I was working on my running form 9 years ago. For running form, for me, minimal shoes with no drop gives the best feedback and ability to run well. Now, that was not the title of this thread, but I have experienced a different relationship between shoe cushioning and surface than what one can expect. For me, the more smooth surface without stones and roots, like on hard smooth roads, I run with the most minimal shoes with NO cushioning. If I run on gravel or trails with roots and stones I need more protection so I choose more cushioned shoes. I do NOT need any cushioning for the impact since I have my natural foot. In theory I could have run truly barefoot if I knew the surface was completely smooth and that my foot skin had managed it. But it don't so I need some protection. On trails and on gravel, a small stone can hurt my foot sole so I need stiffer soles to protect me (but really not for cushioning as such).

So the softest feeling for me is when I run at the hardest surface with the most minimal shoes, cause then the legs adapt to the best and smooth running form. That is the running form I believe is the best for staying injury free, in case the muscles are prepared for exactly that running form of course.

coachcommentsnicely wrote:

MyAchilles' wrote:

Sample size of only 15 and heavily skewed - in this case female. This might be true (perhaps for females but not males - yes, there are real differences - or true for neither) but little can be generally concluded based on such a small, heavily skewed, sample size. Quadruple the sample size and even out the female to male ratio, then we might have something to talk about.

These comments go to show how little Letsrunners know about exercise science.

Getting +30 people to participate is nearly impossible for these researchers.

Most runners are female. Heck, most people who work out are female, so that is going to skew the study.

These studies are not useless. As long as the researchers provided specifics on how they made this study, it should be repeatable. It can be redone, and a meta-analysis can be made from it.

This is exactly the point. It doesn’t matter if it’s easy or hard to get a sample that is sufficiently random and large. That there is a huge logistical challenge to studying exercise science doesn’t entitle a researcher to do bad science and suppose that meaningful conclusions were reached.

Since, as you say, it’s nearly impossible field of exercise science to create studies with good samples, many of the studies shouldn’t inform how we think about training.

I basically agree, but empirical/practical experience from coaches and athletes cannot provide the evidence either. So my take on it is that one must combine the two in a very thoughtful manner. The science is limited due to short periods, small groups and can only look at single aspects at a time. We know training is not like that, as it is long term and very emergent, meaning it is a matter of complex combination of different aspects of training, the individual, their history and training over years, genetics, and so on.

Still we can rely on objective evidence, like physical measurements, time trials under the exact same conditions, and so on, but we should be careful to judge the interpretations of the results.

Training is a matter of trial and error, hoping that the error is not too large...

Definitely softer than asphalt are woodchip trails and deep sand. Running shoes have become firmer too (not supershoes.) I think runners have self-selected to people with sound form.

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

I do NOT need any cushioning for the impact since I have my natural foot.