The Pros and Cons of Running on Sand

Ron Lawrence, who has run 13 Boston Marathons, tells AP writer Alicia Chang that “there is nothing like running on sand.” Geezer isn’t arguing, but he is asking “nothing good like running on sand, or nothing bad like running on sand?” Because, as Geezer remembers it, running on sand is like trying to swim through a great bowl of Jello: There is way more pain than gain. In fact, Geezer has cited studies showing that running on sand uses 1.6 times the energy that would be required to maintain the same speed on solid ground. Chang’s piece, which was picked up by the Washington Post, contains some helpful advice from Dave Watt, executive director American Running Association. Those who want more propulsion per calorie, says Watt, should run on the firm wet sand that is available only at low tide. That sand, he says, also offers the convenience of being flat, and it is still relatively kind to joints.
More measured advice comes from Steve Scott, a cross-country track coach at California State
University, San Marcos, who points out that flat terrain leaves a lot of muscles on the sidelines of a workout, while hilly terrain puts them in the game. Scott likes to see runners training on all kinds of terrain. Geezer knows that Scott’s regimen state-of-the-science, but secretly, he prefers the standard pre-Columbian course, which was all the rage back when the world was flat.