Asphalt vs Concrete: Does it really matter?
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() A lot people say that running on asphalt is better than on concrete since is is "softer" and more forgiving on your joints. My gut tells me that asphalt might give a bit for a 2,000 lb car, but is as hard as concrete for a 100-200 lb person. Is there any scientific evidence that running on asphalt is easier on your body than running on concrete? Any convincing anectodal evidence? I'm moving from a place where I run 100% on asphalt to a place where I'd likely run mostly on concrete..... Brian |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() I prefer sidewalks. The road has a cambered surface, and I have found from personal experience that it screws with my legs. I've never had an issue in terms of pounding brought on by running on concrete. I have had issues when I run on roads. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() It depends. Old asphalt tends to be more compressed and just as hard as concrete. It may have a tiny bit of cushioning when it's very warm outside. New asphalt is usually much more forgiving than concrete. If you had to do 100% of your running on concrete you would likely notice a difference, especially if you run higher mileage. My running is a mix of concrete, asphalt, and dirt trails. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Probably all in my mind but I do find asphalt softer. Concrete is tough to run on - but that's just me. Although I do agree the camber of the roads can create problems. I'm sure it lead to some of my IT Band issues early on. enjoy, Duane |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Yeah the cambered roads are a pain, literally, i try to run in the center of the road in neighborhoods. Most of the sidewalks around me suck and are horribly askew. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Sensei![]() | ![]() Asphalt IS a bit softer. Especially here. You can even dimple it with your thumb if you press hard enough on a hot day (AND if you want to burn you finger)... |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Concrete/cement feels much harder to me than asphalt. I do as much on asphalt as possible (until I move in May when I get a 25mile crushed limestone path to run on!!!). When I do have to run on concrete/cement, my feet are noticeably more sore afterward, where when I run on asphalt they are really not sore at all. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() The reason most tennis courts are asphalt instead of cement is because the asphalt is supposed to be softer (and cheaper). I have a cement court at home and I consider it to be fine but my wife complains that she would prefer asphalt (which she didn't want at first because it was "ugly") |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() | ![]() It may all be in my head, but, if I run on concrete I feel like crap during and afterwards ( I weigh 218 lbs). Achy, sore. I avoid running on concrete whenever I can. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() For me to goes in the following order from hardest to softest. 1. Concrete 2. Asphalt 3. Boardwalk (there is a greenway nearby that has a good amount of boardway mixed in with paved concrete) 4. Trail I never run trails, so the best I run on is the boardwalk. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GO put to the side walk and hit with a hammer then try doing the same on the asphalt. You tell me which is softer. In hardness testing off the top of my head asphalt 6/10, concrete 9-10/10. That is for running surfaces not minerals Training as you race run on asphalt. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Maybe I'm odd, but I actually search out the harder surfaces when I'm running. If there's a dirt trail next to a concrete path or asphalt road, I'll run on the concrete or the asphalt. I believe it helps to strengthen my joints in the long run (no pun intended). Which I feel helps me deal with the pounding you take running downhill. Plus, I'm faster on hard surfaces than dirt/gravel trails. But I'm not suggesting other people do that kind of training. I also prefer the camber of the left side of the road because of my years of running prior, perhaps my right leg is slightly shorter than the left? |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Someone published a study not that long ago that looked at 2 groups of runners that were randomized to run X months on one surface or the other (I forget the details but from what I recall it was a relatively well thought-through experiment) and found no difference between the groups in injuries at the end. Of course, everyone will have their own experience and how the surface played into their injury but this study argued against that. I'll see if I can find the reference. I couldn't locate it after a quick search and have other things to do :-) |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() OK, I found looking into this more interesting than what I am supposed to be doing. Didnt find what I was looking for but I thought this was interesting (although it doesnt extend to actual injury): Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 May;41(5):1138-45. Training surface and intensity: inflammation, hemolysis, and hepcidin expression.Peeling P, Dawson B, Goodman C, Landers G, Wiegerinck ET, Swinkels DW, Trinder D. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() I know I'm way late in talking on this subject. Just signed up. Anyway, here's the skinny on asphalt vs. concrete. Concrete = 150.01 psf Asphalt = 140 psf That's a 7% difference. Since we take over 30,000 foot strikes in a marathon..... It makes a difference. http://www.aqua-calc.com/page/density-table Scott |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ascottweiland - 2012-10-06 7:07 PM I know I'm way late in talking on this subject. Just signed up. Anyway, here's the skinny on asphalt vs. concrete. Concrete = 150.01 psf Asphalt = 140 psf That's a 7% difference. Since we take over 30,000 foot strikes in a marathon..... It makes a difference. Funny that the study posted just above your post found that there was no difference. While your argument seems reasonable and would be what most people woudl give as a common sense response, the available data do not support your hypothesis. Shane |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Asphalt for me. Concrete does seem worst to run on to me. |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Asphalt for me. Concrete does seem worst to run on to me. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ascottweiland - 2012-10-06 6:07 PM I know I'm way late in talking on this subject. Just signed up. Anyway, here's the skinny on asphalt vs. concrete. Concrete = 150.01 psf Asphalt = 140 psf That's a 7% difference. Since we take over 30,000 foot strikes in a marathon..... It makes a difference. http://www.aqua-calc.com/page/density-table Scott I am sure there is a scientifically discernable difference. I am also equally sure that with a relatively standard running shoe on (not Vibrams, but maybe even then...), that there is no difference in forces on the body--see study above. I run in pretty minimalist shoes and I know I sure can't tell a difference. I see people running in the street all the time when there is a perfectly good sidewalk ten feet away and I think they are probably doing it because of the "softer" asphalt. It just seems crazy to me to run with the cars and take that risk (and irritate drivers) in order to be on asphalt. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gsmacleod - 2012-10-06 8:04 PM ascottweiland - 2012-10-06 7:07 PM I know I'm way late in talking on this subject. Just signed up. Anyway, here's the skinny on asphalt vs. concrete. Concrete = 150.01 psf Asphalt = 140 psf That's a 7% difference. Since we take over 30,000 foot strikes in a marathon..... It makes a difference. Funny that the study posted just above your post found that there was no difference. While your argument seems reasonable and would be what most people woudl give as a common sense response, the available data do not support your hypothesis. ShaneWell, to be precise, the study found no difference on the variables they investigated. What the results of the study mean depends on whether you believe those variables are the best indicators of the outcomes we care about. Until they find a reliable way of measuring Total Global Runner Happiness Factor, we will be stuck looking at a lot of different variables and wondering how well they represent what we care about. Going the other way, it's perfectly possible that a measurable 7% difference in surface hardness is not enough difference to influence Total Global Runner Happiness (or its associated variables investigated in the linked study). See, this is the cool thing about research - we're always getting new bits and pieces of data, without ever definitively answering the question. Edited by alath 2012-10-06 10:34 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() asphalt has rubber in it, and it makes a big difference. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() alath - 2012-10-06 10:31 PM See, this is the cool thing about research - we're always getting new bits and pieces of data, without ever definitively answering the question. Haha! That is so true! For some reason, I used to think the asphalt was harder, but noticed a touch more soreness after running on the sidewalks. This would be from going back & forth on the two at different points of the runs. Then I did actually look up the values. Something else that has come up in a study is the people will adjust their stride a bit for the surface. One result of that is how well does that study listed above still apply? Another is that how much does the surface still matter if we adjust accordingly? I think in there it will depend on ones ability to adjust. This has come up before and it was brought up that the deflection was ridiculously small compared to the shoes and leg movement available. While true, I still wonder why static force logic was applied to a dynamic system. What happens to the energy? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() alath - 2012-10-07 12:31 AM Going the other way, it's perfectly possible that a measurable 7% difference in surface hardness is not enough difference to influence Total Global Runner Happiness (or its associated variables investigated in the linked study). There is also a very easy and straightforward reason why, for a shod runner, the hardness of the surface wouldn't make a difference in the forces experienced by the body. See, this is the cool thing about research - we're always getting new bits and pieces of data, without ever definitively answering the question. Yes, science is awesome and continually strives to further refine our insight into questions we have. However, since I'm not actively involved in impact force research due to surface material, I'm left to use the best data at hand which says that there is no discerernable difference in the forces experienced by a runner on different surfaces. Shane |
|