Is it ok to jog on concrete?

[ChaoZ]

There arent' any good places to run near other than joining a gym or getting a treadmill. Will it be detrimental to my health if I do it just once a week (30-60 minutes)?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Yeah, it's alright to run on concrete. Especially if your form is on par, such as something like POSE, you won't really experience too much detriment.

 

[Capt Caveman]

This a serious question?

 

[RKS]

can you run on asphalt/road instead?

 

[ChaoZ]

Originally posted by: RKS
can you run on asphalt/road instead?

Nope. I'm in S.F. so even if I find an asphalt road, they'll always be cars parked.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: ChaoZ

Originally posted by: RKS
can you run on asphalt/road instead?

Nope. I'm in S.F. so even if I find an asphalt road, they'll always be cars parked.

When I used to work down on 2nd St. I used to jog in the street to the BART station.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Yeah, it's alright to run on concrete. Especially if your form is on par, such as something like POSE, you won't really experience too much detriment.

No it's not. Concrete (sidewalks, etc.) is roughly 4x as hard as asphalt, putting you at a much higher risk for stress fractures and joint injuries.

I run on the concrete only for a few steps if I have to cross over a street or dodge around a parked car.

Any other surface is much better for your body. Try a combination of asphalt, gravel, woodchip trails and grass - whatever is available to you.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: ChaoZ

Originally posted by: RKS
can you run on asphalt/road instead?

Nope. I'm in S.F. so even if I find an asphalt road, they'll always be cars parked.

I do the majority of my runs on asphalt since I'm training for road races. I run right down the middle of the residential streets here, with tons of parked cars on both sides. This way I avoid imbalance injuries from running on a camber.

As long as you are visible to the traffic (reflective strips in the winter dark; not a problem in summer) and you listen for the traffic and look around you, you shouldn't have a problem. When you hear a car approaching or see it, jump on the sidewalk for just a few steps until it passes, then come back onto the road. I've run thousands of miles on the streets without incident.

Note that this is obviously a bad idea on high traffic thoroughfares or arterial streets.

 

[StageLeft]

concrete vs asphalt is a trivial difference, the give in both is miniscule fractions of the compression of your legs and back. More than anything the runner is the important factor and his technique, not his shoes nor running surface (track vs road). A runner with good technique and musculature and no previous injuries can log dozens of miles/week on concrete if not more.

No it's not. Concrete (sidewalks, etc.) is roughly 4x as hard as asphalt, putting you at a much higher risk for stress fractures and joint injuries.

So what, you can run on a diamond track and it would be fine. If you film a runner on asphalt vs concrete and were actually able to determine the differences in how much the ground compresses and bends under their weight you'd find that 99% (my number) of shock absorption comes via their body, not any pitiful give in the ground. A runner' vertical plane changes a few inches on every footstrike, so there's no way the ground can possibly account for any meaningful portion of that unless it's a very soft surface like a track.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Yeah, it's alright to run on concrete. Especially if your form is on par, such as something like POSE, you won't really experience too much detriment.

No it's not. Concrete (sidewalks, etc.) is roughly 4x as hard as asphalt, putting you at a much higher risk for stress fractures and joint injuries.

I run on the concrete only for a few steps if I have to cross over a street or dodge around a parked car.

Any other surface is much better for your body. Try a combination of asphalt, gravel, woodchip trails and grass - whatever is available to you.

Except if you use front footstrike, the energy is absorbed by the muscles and not the joints. I run on concrete all the time with no problems at all. No joint discomfort or anything. The elasticity of my muscles take near to all of the force when I run in my VFFs with near POSE form.

 

[ChaoZ]

For pose running, it's basically just keeping your body vertical and straight? So it's sort of like running in place?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: ChaoZ
For pose running, it's basically just keeping your body vertical and straight? So it's sort of like running in place?

Its most important feature is front-foot footstrike. This absorbs most of the impact into the muscles in the feet and legs rather than in the joints. With rear-foot footstrike, the heel strikes, passing energy through your ankle, up through your bones to your knees, hips, and back. That really messes things up. However, the front footstrike pretty much alleviates this problem.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
concrete vs asphalt is a trivial difference, the give in both is miniscule fractions of the compression of your legs and back. More than anything the runner is the important factor and his technique, not his shoes nor running surface (track vs road). A runner with good technique and musculature and no previous injuries can log dozens of miles/week on concrete if not more.

No it's not. Concrete (sidewalks, etc.) is roughly 4x as hard as asphalt, putting you at a much higher risk for stress fractures and joint injuries.

So what, you can run on a diamond track and it would be fine. If you film a runner on asphalt vs concrete and were actually able to determine the differences in how much the ground compresses and bends under their weight you'd find that 99% (my number) of shock absorption comes via their body, not any pitiful give in the ground. A runner' vertical plane changes a few inches on every footstrike, so there's no way the ground can possibly account for any meaningful portion of that unless it's a very soft surface like a track.

Sorry, but this is wrong.

See this article in Runner's World

7. Asphalt
Asphalt is the mixture of gravel, tar and crushed rock that makes up 95 per cent of Britain?s roads. It isn?t the softest surface around, but it?s difficult to avoid and it?s better than concrete.

9. Concrete
Concrete is primarily made up of cement (crushed rock), and it?s what most pavements and five per cent of roads are constructed from. It delivers the most shock of any surface to a runner?s legs.
Pros: Concrete surfaces tend to be easily accessible and very flat, and if you stick to pavements, you can avoid traffic.
Cons: The combination of a hard surface (reckoned to be 10 times as hard as asphalt), kerbs, and the need to sidestep pedestrians, can lead to injury.

Looks like I was being generous by saying concrete is only 4x as hard as asphalt.

Or this article.

The solution to most running problems is to get off the concrete.

I am sure there are other sources that say the same thing: concrete is one of the worst surfaces to run on.

I didn't mention the continuity issue earlier, but your legs also need varied surfaces to work smaller stabilizing muscles in your feet and legs. Grass, trails, gravel and dirt are perfect for this. I recommended these in my earlier post, and I also follow my own advice by doing many of my runs, (and always my long run) on these softer surfaces.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Skoorb
concrete vs asphalt is a trivial difference, the give in both is miniscule fractions of the compression of your legs and back. More than anything the runner is the important factor and his technique, not his shoes nor running surface (track vs road). A runner with good technique and musculature and no previous injuries can log dozens of miles/week on concrete if not more.

No it's not. Concrete (sidewalks, etc.) is roughly 4x as hard as asphalt, putting you at a much higher risk for stress fractures and joint injuries.

So what, you can run on a diamond track and it would be fine. If you film a runner on asphalt vs concrete and were actually able to determine the differences in how much the ground compresses and bends under their weight you'd find that 99% (my number) of shock absorption comes via their body, not any pitiful give in the ground. A runner' vertical plane changes a few inches on every footstrike, so there's no way the ground can possibly account for any meaningful portion of that unless it's a very soft surface like a track.

Sorry, but this is wrong.

See this article in Runner's World

7. Asphalt
Asphalt is the mixture of gravel, tar and crushed rock that makes up 95 per cent of Britain?s roads. It isn?t the softest surface around, but it?s difficult to avoid and it?s better than concrete.

9. Concrete
Concrete is primarily made up of cement (crushed rock), and it?s what most pavements and five per cent of roads are constructed from. It delivers the most shock of any surface to a runner?s legs.
Pros: Concrete surfaces tend to be easily accessible and very flat, and if you stick to pavements, you can avoid traffic.
Cons: The combination of a hard surface (reckoned to be 10 times as hard as asphalt), kerbs, and the need to sidestep pedestrians, can lead to injury.

Looks like I was being generous by saying concrete is only 4x as hard as asphalt.

Or this article.

The solution to most running problems is to get off the concrete.

I am sure there are other sources that say the same thing: concrete is one of the worst surfaces to run on.

I didn't mention the continuity issue earlier, but your legs also need varied surfaces to work smaller stabilizing muscles in your feet and legs. Grass, trails, gravel and dirt are perfect for this. I recommended these in my earlier post, and I also follow my own advice by doing many of my runs, (and always my long run) on these softer surfaces.

Especially if he's only running once a week, his joints and everything will be fine especially if he stresses form. It's fine. I've run on concrete for year's without as much as a single injury. That's because I have consistent front footstrike.

I agree that other surfaces like dirt, grass, etc are better for stabilizers and would say that if there's a nice park to run at then to run there. However, if all he's got is concrete, then he will be ok.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I never said asphalt wasn't as hard. I said that, especially if he's only running once a week, his joints and everything will be fine especially if he stresses form. It's fine. I've run on concrete for year's without as much as a single injury. That's because I have consistent front footstrike.

I agree that other surfaces like dirt, grass, etc are better for stabilizers and would say that if there's a nice park to run at then to run there. However, if all he's got is concrete, then he will be ok.

I didn't accuse you of claiming no difference between asphalt and concrete - I was responding to Skoorb on that point.

You're probably right that if he's only running once a week he won't have problems, but I'm glad we both agree it's not the optimal surface.

My mileage is obviously much higher than the OP's so if he increases his frequency or volume in the future, he needs to switch surfaces.

As a side note, I have to run in regular training shoes with orthotics. I have tried a more minimalist approach unsuccessfully as I do not have optimal biomechanics. Since increasing my strengthening program though, I have noticed that my calves are much stronger and less tight than before, and while I still heel-strike, I can see from the wear pattern on my shoes that it is far less than before, with much more forefoot wear.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Skoorb
concrete vs asphalt is a trivial difference, the give in both is miniscule fractions of the compression of your legs and back. More than anything the runner is the important factor and his technique, not his shoes nor running surface (track vs road). A runner with good technique and musculature and no previous injuries can log dozens of miles/week on concrete if not more.

No it's not. Concrete (sidewalks, etc.) is roughly 4x as hard as asphalt, putting you at a much higher risk for stress fractures and joint injuries.

So what, you can run on a diamond track and it would be fine. If you film a runner on asphalt vs concrete and were actually able to determine the differences in how much the ground compresses and bends under their weight you'd find that 99% (my number) of shock absorption comes via their body, not any pitiful give in the ground. A runner' vertical plane changes a few inches on every footstrike, so there's no way the ground can possibly account for any meaningful portion of that unless it's a very soft surface like a track.

Sorry, but this is wrong.

See this article in Runner's World

7. Asphalt
Asphalt is the mixture of gravel, tar and crushed rock that makes up 95 per cent of Britain?s roads. It isn?t the softest surface around, but it?s difficult to avoid and it?s better than concrete.

9. Concrete
Concrete is primarily made up of cement (crushed rock), and it?s what most pavements and five per cent of roads are constructed from. It delivers the most shock of any surface to a runner?s legs.
Pros: Concrete surfaces tend to be easily accessible and very flat, and if you stick to pavements, you can avoid traffic.
Cons: The combination of a hard surface (reckoned to be 10 times as hard as asphalt), kerbs, and the need to sidestep pedestrians, can lead to injury.

Looks like I was being generous by saying concrete is only 4x as hard as asphalt.

Or this article.

The solution to most running problems is to get off the concrete.

I am sure there are other sources that say the same thing: concrete is one of the worst surfaces to run on.

I didn't mention the continuity issue earlier, but your legs also need varied surfaces to work smaller stabilizing muscles in your feet and legs. Grass, trails, gravel and dirt are perfect for this. I recommended these in my earlier post, and I also follow my own advice by doing many of my runs, (and always my long run) on these softer surfaces.

Runnersworld is not really authoritative on actual injury avoidance. In fact, I believe in the fairly recent future they have admitted that they were wrong to recommend shoes with arch support in treatment of plantar fasciitis and admit that such shoes could encourage it. They also continue, in literally every issue, to compare shoes for various people based on the elementary and shallow study of the arch of their foot, obliviuos to everything else.

I'm very familiar with the argument of running surfaces. I just think it's mostly bunk and unbased in any objective comparisons.

I think you are right about different surfaces being helpful for finite musculature, though, as it makes sense. However, until there is a proven source about concrete being worse than other surfaces, I'll also go with what makes sense, and I know that a human running cannot compress asphalt much more than concrete; both are obscenely hard surfaces and for all intents and purposes shock absorption is done by the skeleton.

As a side note, I have to run in regular training shoes with orthotics. I have tried a more minimalist approach unsuccessfully as I do not have optimal biomechanics. Since increasing my strengthening program though, I have noticed that my calves are much stronger and less tight than before, and while I still heel-strike, I can see from the wear pattern on my shoes that it is far less than before, with much more forefoot wear.

It's possible (some would say probable) that you need to transition slower. I am fairly unbiased in techniques and shoes, as I regularly have gone back and forth between forefoot, midfoot, heel, flats, and motion control shoes while experimenting around, but I am quite sold on the idea that if an adult who's been in shoes for decades on end tries to go without them he may encounter problems. Shoes' arches can act as a crutch--imagine if you had a cane for 10 years and then somebody said to walk without it. You'd have problems.

My approach these days is: Take the shoes off and try to run. I then find that I do land laterally on the midfoot and the ball of the foot hits a split second before the heel (which also ultimately does come down). I then try and mimic that with shoes, and the only ones I can do that in are very thin ones. I think it's something that takes time to get used to and build things up (speaking of which I had to pop a wicked blister on my foot from rushing this again this year!).

I know many swear that trail running is better for them than concrete. Enough that it may very well be the case. I wonder if that's the material they land on though, vs the terrain. As the author in that second article points out, straight line concrete running requires little in stability and the motion is unchanged for long periods of time. I wonder if a "trail" made out of concrete, with its troughs and hills and faux roots to jump over would work well.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I never said asphalt wasn't as hard. I said that, especially if he's only running once a week, his joints and everything will be fine especially if he stresses form. It's fine. I've run on concrete for year's without as much as a single injury. That's because I have consistent front footstrike.

I agree that other surfaces like dirt, grass, etc are better for stabilizers and would say that if there's a nice park to run at then to run there. However, if all he's got is concrete, then he will be ok.

I didn't accuse you of claiming no difference between asphalt and concrete - I was responding to Skoorb on that point.

You're probably right that if he's only running once a week he won't have problems, but I'm glad we both agree it's not the optimal surface.

My mileage is obviously much higher than the OP's so if he increases his frequency or volume in the future, he needs to switch surfaces.

As a side note, I have to run in regular training shoes with orthotics. I have tried a more minimalist approach unsuccessfully as I do not have optimal biomechanics. Since increasing my strengthening program though, I have noticed that my calves are much stronger and less tight than before, and while I still heel-strike, I can see from the wear pattern on my shoes that it is far less than before, with much more forefoot wear.

Sorry about that. I realized that you were talking to Skoorb (thought you quoted me at first) and edited it, but you had quoted it before I submitted it Wasn't meaning to sound like a douche.

 

[Yukmouth]

Keep to an incline and you'll reduce impact on concrete.

If you're trying to run in San Francisco, you have a wealth of paved hills you can run up.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Yukmouth
Keep to an incline and you'll reduce impact on concrete.

If you're trying to run in San Francisco, you have a wealth of paved hills you can run up.

This is true, but then you gotta run down them, too