5 ms·

I'm not an expert by any means, but I've scanned the literature using what tools I have, and the impression I get is this: (sorry, I don't have all my reference

I'm not an expert by any means, but I've scanned the literature using what tools I have, and the impression I get is this: (sorry, I don't have all my references handy) * Running (with shoes) is not a predictor of osteoarthritis (see http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/6/342.full http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/6/342.full). Elite athletes (running vastly more than typical recreational runners) do exhibit more signs visible in X-Rays, but do not report symptoms at a higher rate than any other group. * Reliable predictors of acute injury are "too much, too soon", history of past injury, and, oddly, old shoes. (See http://www.time-to-run.com/footwear/mechanisms.htm http://www.time-to-run.com/footwear/mechanisms.htm). Matching the type of shoe to type of gait (as running shoes stores often attempt to do) has never been shown to reduce injury rate. * It is possible to run with shoes and without injury. (I did it for 10 years; my old coach for 30+). * It is possible to run barefoot on concrete and asphalt without injury. (I've done it for 5 years; others have for longer). Those last two anecdotes don't speak to long-term injury, but I'm not terribly worried for two reasons: The first is the lack of correlation between running in shoes and osteoarthritis. The second is that the foot-achilles-knee is a spring-like appendage with vastly more play than 1/2 inch of EVA foam. Anecdotally again, I feel no pounding when running barefoot on concrete.

glanch 15y ago
Is it safer/healthier to run on grass than concrete? I like to run laps on a soccer field near my apartment rather than on city sidewalks so I don't have to deal with traffic. But I seem to be the exception in my neighborhood. I see tons of people running down the streets, but nobody running on grass. I assumed that a softer running surface would create less impact on my joints and prevent injury and reduce wear and tear on my body. But I could be wrong. Just curious.
- dpark 15y ago
  Probably depends on how you run. If you're a forefoot striker, running on asphalt is probably better than running on grass, because the vast majority of the impact will be absorbed by the calf/foot muscles. The danger from stepping in a hole or tripping over an object hidden in the grass probably outweighs the minimal increase in impact from running on concrete (not that either of these should actually be a significant danger). On the other hand, if you're a heel striker, the reduction in impact might be worth it. Stomping on concrete with your heels sends a lot of force through your ankles and knees.
- Zdkroot 15y ago
  Completely depends on how you run. The trend I see is that everyone thinks running on hard surfaces incurs more impact, but that isn't necessarily the case. http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFo... Dredged that out of my memory from a couple years ago. Heel strike - Effective mass is approximately the foot plus the lower leg, which equals 6.8% of total body mass. Forefoot strike - Effective mass is the forefoot and some portion of the rearfoot and leg, which equals 1.7% of total body mass. "We have found that even on hard surfaces (a steel force plate) runners who forefoot strike have impact forces that are 7 times lower than shod runners who heel strike. Rates of loading are equal to or less than rates of loading for shod runners."

glanch 15y ago

Is it safer/healthier to run on grass than concrete? I like to run laps on a soccer field near my apartment rather than on city sidewalks so I don't have to deal with traffic. But I seem to be the exception in my neighborhood. I see tons of people running down the streets, but nobody running on grass. I assumed that a softer running surface would create less impact on my joints and prevent injury and reduce wear and tear on my body. But I could be wrong. Just curious.

dpark 15y ago
Probably depends on how you run. If you're a forefoot striker, running on asphalt is probably better than running on grass, because the vast majority of the impact will be absorbed by the calf/foot muscles. The danger from stepping in a hole or tripping over an object hidden in the grass probably outweighs the minimal increase in impact from running on concrete (not that either of these should actually be a significant danger). On the other hand, if you're a heel striker, the reduction in impact might be worth it. Stomping on concrete with your heels sends a lot of force through your ankles and knees.
Zdkroot 15y ago
Completely depends on how you run. The trend I see is that everyone thinks running on hard surfaces incurs more impact, but that isn't necessarily the case. http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFo... Dredged that out of my memory from a couple years ago. Heel strike - Effective mass is approximately the foot plus the lower leg, which equals 6.8% of total body mass. Forefoot strike - Effective mass is the forefoot and some portion of the rearfoot and leg, which equals 1.7% of total body mass. "We have found that even on hard surfaces (a steel force plate) runners who forefoot strike have impact forces that are 7 times lower than shod runners who heel strike. Rates of loading are equal to or less than rates of loading for shod runners."