Sports FAQ
Home / Running / Walking

NY Times article about whether different running surfaces matter

salsabike2011-10-12 14:19:03 +0000 #1
NbyNW2011-10-12 14:26:19 +0000 #2
More questions than answers . . . I was hoping to see a comparison of asphalt/concrete roadways to soft surface tracks which are level.
OakLeaf2011-10-12 14:39:42 +0000 #3
Like most of their running coverage, the whole thing just made me mad.

It seems obvious to me that people who typically run on the road, and who don't otherwise pay much attention to their fitness, like a lot of recreational runners - are likely to have very weak hips and ankles. So duh, yeah, they're at risk for twisting injuries when they suddenly get onto an uneven surface.

They could've added in two sentences lifted from "Born to Run" about the way the Tarahumara train, chasing a hackysack over hill and dale, so that they never train the propulsive muscles while neglecting the stabilizers the way most Americans do. The article would've been just as faddish but more informative.

But that would've made too much sense.
Jolt2011-10-12 15:20:33 +0000 #4
I wasn't too impressed either. Let me just say that the picture at the top made me cringe...that runner's form is horrible!! On a side note, I was running on the beach yesterday and saw four other runners...all of whom were wearing shoes--to run on the (nice, sandy, not gravel) beach. I don't get it!



Other posts in this category