7 Studies on Running Economy & Strength Training

August 6, 2026

Running Economy Is the Variable Most Finishers Have Never Deliberately Trained

If two runners share the same VO2 max and the same weekly mileage, the one who finishes three minutes ahead likely has a significant edge in running economy: the amount of oxygen their body consumes to sustain a given pace. [1] Unlike VO2 max, which tends to plateau after 18 to 24 months of consistent training, running economy keeps responding to targeted work well into a runner's career. The problem is that most recreational runners track weekly mileage, finish times, and maybe heart rate zones—but never the metric that ties all those numbers together. This post breaks down what seven peer-reviewed studies actually found about how strength training and plyometrics change running economy, what the effect sizes really mean for someone aiming to qualify for Boston or simply finish their next half feeling strong, and how to think about measuring progress over time.

What Running Economy Actually Measures (and Why It Matters More Than VO2 Max After Year Two)

Running economy (RE) is formally defined as the energy demand at submaximal running speed. [2] In practice, it is measured as the steady-state oxygen consumption in millilitres per kilogram per minute at a fixed sub-threshold pace. A runner with good economy uses less oxygen than a runner with poor economy at the same speed. That means they can either run faster at the same physiological cost or sustain a given pace for longer before fatiguing.

Among trained runners who have similar VO2 max values, running economy is generally a stronger predictor of race performance. [1] The reason is straightforward: VO2 max describes the ceiling of your aerobic engine, while running economy describes how efficiently you operate below that ceiling—which is where every distance race is actually run. In athletes with a similar VO2 max, those with better RE can run at a higher relative intensity or maintain a constant intensity for a relatively longer period. [2]

Running economy is also a multifactorial variable. It reflects metabolic, cardiorespiratory, biomechanical, and neuromuscular characteristics simultaneously. [3] That complexity is exactly why it responds so well to strength and plyometric training—both modalities target the neuromuscular underpinnings that mileage alone does not adequately stress.

What 7 Studies Found: The Evidence on Strength Training, Plyometrics, and Running Economy

Study 1: Støren et al. (2008) — Maximal strength training produces a 5% improvement in 8 weeks

This is arguably the most cited single study in the strength-training-for-runners literature. Researchers assigned 17 well-trained runners to either a maximal strength training group or a control group. [1] The intervention group performed half-squats at four sets of four repetitions maximum, three times per week for 8 weeks, on top of their normal endurance training. The result was a significant 5% improvement in running economy at 70% VO2 max, with no change in maximal oxygen uptake or body weight. [1]

One important caveat: the study had a small sample of 17 runners split across two groups, which limits statistical power. The effect, however, was large enough to be practically meaningful, and has since been replicated across multiple independent labs.

Study 2: Paavolainen et al. (1999) — Explosive strength training improves 5-km time without raising VO2 max

A Finnish research team investigated what happens when endurance athletes replace a meaningful chunk of their running volume with explosive strength work. Ten experimental athletes replaced 32% of their training with explosive-type exercises while a control group kept only 3% of training as explosive work, with total volume held constant across both groups. [4] The experimental group improved their 5 km time, running economy, and maximal anaerobic running velocity. The control group improved VO2 max but showed no change in 5 km performance. [4]

This finding challenged the prevailing view that more aerobic volume is always better. Improved neuromuscular characteristics—specifically motor unit recruitment and reduced ground contact time—appear to be the primary mechanism behind the RE gains. [4]

Study 3: Balsalobre-Fernández et al. (2016) — Meta-analysis of highly trained runners confirms consistent RE gains

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched four databases for controlled trials examining strength training programs lasting at least four weeks in competitive middle- and long-distance runners with VO2 max above 60 ml/kg/min. [5] Five studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding a total sample of 93 high-level runners. The meta-analysis confirmed significant improvements in running economy across the included studies. [5] The authors recommended strength programs combining low-to-high intensity resistance exercises and plyometrics, performed two to three times per week for eight to twelve weeks.

Limitation worth noting: five studies at 93 participants is a small evidence base for a meta-analysis. The consistency of the directional effect across independent labs, though, strengthens the conclusion.

Study 4: Blagrove, Howatson and Hayes (2018) — Comprehensive systematic review confirms RE as a primary responder

This Sports Medicine systematic review searched multiple electronic databases and included studies on middle- and long-distance runners with at least six months of experience. [3] Twenty-four studies met the full inclusion criteria. Running economy was measured in 20 of the included studies and generally showed improvement. The review found that adding two to three strength training sessions per week, including a variety of modalities, is likely to provide performance benefits for distance runners. [3] Notably, the proposed mechanisms include increased musculotendinous stiffness, reduced muscle fibre recruitment at the same running speed, enhanced motor unit synchronisation, and an augmented rate of force development.

Study 5: Eihara et al. (2022) — Heavy resistance training edges plyometrics for RE, but duration matters for both

A 2022 meta-analysis from Ritsumeikan University directly compared heavy resistance training versus plyometric training as adjuncts to running training in long-distance runners across 22 studies. [6] The pooled effect size for running economy was greater in heavy resistance training (g = -0.32, small effect) than in plyometric training (g = -0.13, trivial). [6] Critically, running economy appeared to improve better when training was performed for a longer period in both modalities, suggesting that training duration is a key moderator. [6]

The practical takeaway here is that six weeks of plyometrics will not tell you much. Programmes lasting 10 weeks or longer show more consistent RE gains in both modalities.

Study 6: Llanos-Lagos et al. (2024) — Speed specificity matters: different methods improve economy at different paces

This open-access Sports Medicine meta-analysis from a team at Universidad Pablo de Olavide is among the most granular analyses published to date. The research specifically examined running economy at different running speeds across training methods. [2] The dataset included 195 moderately trained, 272 well trained, and 185 highly trained athletes across studies spanning 6 to 24 weeks. [2]

The findings were nuanced. High load strength training produced small improvements in economy at speeds between 8.64 and 17.85 km/h, while plyometric training improved economy at speeds at or below 12 km/h. [2] Combined methods produced moderate improvements at speeds of 10 to 14.45 km/h. This distinction is directly relevant to race planning: a half-marathon runner operating at roughly 10 to 12 km/h may benefit from a combined approach, while a faster runner targeting 15 km/h and above may get more from heavy resistance work specifically.

Study 7: Zanini, Folland, Wu and Blagrove (2025) — Strength training sustains economy under marathon-intensity fatigue

Published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise in July 2025, this randomised controlled trial from Loughborough University directly addressed a question previous research left open: does strength training protect running economy as fatigue accumulates, not just in fresh conditions? [7] Twenty-eight well-trained male runners were performance-matched and randomly assigned to a running-only control group or a supplementary strength and plyometrics program. The study quantified the effect of a 10-week strength training program on running economy throughout 90 minutes of running in the heavy-intensity domain, and subsequent high-intensity performance after that fatigue. [7]

The result that matters most to marathoners: strength training improved running economy durability, meaning athletes maintained efficiency under prolonged fatigue rather than just performing well in the first few kilometres. [7] This translates directly to what most runners experience in miles 20 through 26, when form breaks down and oxygen cost per kilometre rises sharply. Importantly, the study enrolled only well-trained male runners, so caution is warranted when generalising to recreational or female populations.

What These Studies Collectively Tell You About Designing Your Training Block

Taken together, the seven studies above converge on a few actionable conclusions that are more specific than the generic advice to "add strength training."

Load matters more than most runners assume. Submaximal load training (40 to 79% of one-rep max) and isometric training showed limited evidence of improving running economy in the Llanos-Lagos analysis. [2] The neuromuscular adaptations that reduce oxygen cost—faster motor unit recruitment, stiffer tendons, reduced ground contact time—appear to require near-maximal or explosive loading to be triggered reliably. That means machine-based moderate-weight circuits are likely not the optimal stimulus for RE, even though they have other valid purposes.

Duration must be at least 8 to 10 weeks. Both the Støren study and the Eihara meta-analysis point to this minimum threshold. The Balsalobre review concurred, recommending programmes of 8 to 12 weeks. [5] Starting a strength block four weeks before a goal race and expecting measurable economy gains is not supported by the evidence.

Two sessions per week is the minimum effective dose for most runners. The Blagrove review and the Balsalobre meta-analysis both point to two to three sessions per week as the realistic optimal range for most competitive runners managing concurrent mileage. [3]

The benefit extends well into a race, not just at the start line. The 2025 Zanini et al. trial is the most relevant single study for anyone who has ever slowed dramatically in the final miles of a marathon. The economy durability finding suggests that the strength gains are not just making you faster fresh—they are partially insulating your stride efficiency against the degradation that fatigue causes. [7]

One honest caveat across this literature: the majority of studies recruit well-trained to highly trained runners (VO2 max above 55 to 60 ml/kg/min), and effect sizes are generally small to moderate. Recreational runners may see different magnitudes of response. The direction of the effect, improved economy, is consistent—but the exact percentage gain will vary based on training history, starting level of neuromuscular development, and programme specifics.

Tracking the Metrics That Actually Reflect Progress: Why Finishers Should Celebrate More Than Finish Times

Here is a misconception that threads through running communities on platforms like r/running and r/AdvancedRunning alike: runners treat a personal best finish time as the primary measure of their development and dismiss cycles where times stayed flat as unproductive. The research tells a different story.

Running economy improves before race times do. A runner adding two sessions of heavy half-squats per week may see measurable stride efficiency gains by week 10, but those gains often manifest first as the ability to run the same pace at a lower heart rate, or to hold race pace through mile 22 without the characteristic form collapse—not necessarily as a new PR in week 12. These intermediate markers are real physiological progress. They deserve to be recognised.

The metrics worth tracking alongside finish time include: pace at a fixed heart rate on a standard training route (a field-expedient proxy for running economy), perceived effort at a given training pace, and the ability to maintain form late in long runs. None of these show up on a finisher's medal—but they represent the adaptations the studies above are actually measuring.

That brings up the question of how you create an environment at home that treats every finished race as meaningful data in a longer progression, rather than just a single event. The medals from your half marathons, marathons, and local 10Ks are physical markers of training blocks completed. The race bib pinned beside them records the conditions and the number. The chalkboard space adjacent to the display lets you write in the things no photo captures: the heat index, the negative split you finally executed, the week in training where it clicked. The BLAUBECK Running Medal Hanger and Bib Display Board with Chalkboard mounts to any wall surface with the included hardware and provides exactly this kind of functional display: medal hooks for multiple medals, bib display, and a chalkboard panel where you can record the contextual data a medal alone does not carry. It is not a trophy case. It is a training log in a format you actually see every day.

Common Misconceptions About Strength Training and Running Performance

Misconception 1: Strength training will make you heavier and slower. The studies reviewed here consistently found that running-specific strength programmes, particularly those emphasising neural adaptations over hypertrophy through high loads and low repetitions, did not increase body weight in runners. The Støren study explicitly reported no change in body weight alongside the 5% economy improvement. [1] The fear of adding unwanted mass from two sessions of half-squats per week is not supported by the literature.

Misconception 2: You need to reduce running volume significantly to add strength work. The Paavolainen study replaced 32% of training volume with explosive work to test a specific hypothesis—it was not a protocol recommendation. [4] Most of the reviewed studies added strength sessions alongside existing running volume without dramatic volume reduction. The Blagrove review found RE improvements in programmes where strength training was supplementary to normal endurance training. [3]

Misconception 3: VO2 max is the only number worth chasing. As the evidence above demonstrates, two runners with identical VO2 max values can have substantially different race outcomes because of economy differences. Among trained athletes with similar VO2 max, economy is a stronger performance predictor. Chasing mileage and interval sessions to raise VO2 max while ignoring strength training leaves the economy variable largely unaddressed.

Misconception 4: Plyometrics are only for sprinters or younger athletes. The Llanos-Lagos meta-analysis, which included athletes across a range of training statuses, found plyometric training effective for improving economy specifically at speeds at or below 12 km/h—which describes the race pace of a large proportion of recreational marathon and half-marathon finishers. [2]

Conclusion

The evidence across seven peer-reviewed studies, from Paavolainen's 1999 explosive training trial through to the 2025 Loughborough RCT by Zanini and colleagues, is consistent: strength training and plyometrics improve running economy in trained distance runners, with effects ranging from trivial to moderate depending on the modality, duration, and training status of the athlete. The mechanisms are neuromuscular—better motor unit recruitment, stiffer tendons, less energy waste per stride—not cardiovascular. Those adaptations take time, require sufficient loading intensity, and show their full value not at the start line but in the final miles when economy durability separates finishers from faders.

Tracking those improvements means going beyond finish times. If your training log, your bib collection, and your race times all live in different places, you lose the connective tissue between blocks of work and their outcomes. The BLAUBECK Running Medal Hanger and Bib Display Board with Chalkboard keeps your race history visible and annotatable in one place, wall-mounted with included hardware on drywall, wood, or concrete. It is a simple tool for runners who understand that the medal represents a data point, not a destination.

References

Frequently Asked Questions

How much can strength training realistically improve my running economy?

Based on the studies reviewed here, improvements of roughly 3 to 5% are realistic for well-trained runners following high-load or combined programmes lasting 8 to 12 weeks. A 5% improvement in economy, as seen in the Støren et al. study, is meaningful at race pace: it can translate to running at the same effort for longer, or sustaining a target pace at a lower physiological cost. Recreational runners with less neuromuscular training background may see larger gains initially, though the research base for that population is thinner. Effect sizes in most meta-analyses are small to moderate, so temper expectations accordingly.

Will strength training interfere with my running volume or aerobic development?

The evidence does not support this concern for two to three strength sessions per week added alongside normal training. The Blagrove 2018 systematic review found running economy improvements in programmes where strength work was supplementary to endurance training. The Paavolainen 1999 study, which replaced 32% of running volume with explosive work, was testing a specific scientific question—not recommending a protocol. Most practical programmes introduce one to two days of strength work without requiring significant volume cuts, particularly early in a base-building phase rather than in peak race preparation.

What type of strength training is most effective for running economy?

The answer depends on your race pace. High-load training, typically above 80% of one-rep max, shows the strongest evidence for improving economy at faster running speeds (roughly above 12 km/h). Plyometric training shows good evidence at speeds at or below 12 km/h, which covers most recreational marathon and half-marathon finishers. A combined approach produced moderate improvements across a broader speed range in the Llanos-Lagos 2024 meta-analysis. Submaximal resistance training (40 to 79% of one-rep max) and isometric training showed limited economy benefits in the same analysis, which is worth knowing if your gym routine currently centres on moderate-weight machine work.

How should I track running economy improvements without lab equipment?

Laboratory measurement of running economy requires metabolic gas analysis, which is not accessible to most recreational runners. Practical field proxies include tracking pace at a fixed heart rate zone on a consistent course over several months, monitoring perceived effort at your standard training pace, and observing your ability to maintain form and pace in the final third of long runs. These are not perfect substitutes, but they respond to the same underlying adaptations that formal RE measurement captures. Many runners also find value in annotating their race experiences—conditions, pacing strategy, where fatigue set in—alongside their finish times, which turns a collection of race results into a training-informed dataset over multiple seasons.

Recommended: Running Medal Hanger & Bib Display Board with Chalkboard — Wall-mounted display board with included mounting hardware.