[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

I know Golfing Eagles found this humorous and worthy of Darwinism, but the truth is known in long distance runner or walker circles.

Years of the cumulative impact motion on the joints from walking and running exercise take their toll on joints, meniscus, tendons, and the rest of the muscular exoskeleton. The cumulative impact is mitigated by asphalt (road) versus concrete (sidewalk). An exception to this would be some of the UK roads where they use the rock that we use to surround railroad tracks. The rock is leveled but floated to the surface, so in effect you are running more on granite than on asphalt in Dublin.

Long term and long distance exercises are better served by exercising on the "softer" asphalt over time. Dirt is better, but the inherent unevenness and pebbly protrusions can negatively impact one's ankles, knees, toes, etc.

So yes, the walker is better off on the softer road than the harder concrete. A short and occasional walk to Publix will probably have no quantifiable difference, but if you regularly run or walk 25-50 miles per week, then yes, there would be a difference worth pursuing.

FWIW.

Originally Posted by jdulej

As an ex avid runner (before arthritis) I can confirm what he said. Running on a cement sidewalk and then stepping off onto an asphalt road was a little bit of heaven to my feet.

I stand corrected.
I always thought it was cheap running shoes caused the damage to joints.
I will walk in the road in future!