Heavy Resistance Training Versus Plyometric Training for Improving Running Economy and Running Time Trial Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

For distance runners, two common strength-training approaches, heavy resistance training and plyometric (jump-based) training, are often added alongside running to try to improve running economy (how much oxygen the body uses at a given pace) and time trial performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled data from 22 studies to compare the two approaches head to head. Heavy resistance training showed a small pooled effect on running economy and a small effect on time trial performance, while plyometric training showed a trivial effect on both outcomes.

Effects from heavy resistance training were larger when loads were nearly maximal, at least 90% of one-repetition maximum, compared with lower loads, and longer training periods produced larger improvements in running economy for both training types. The abstract does not report on study quality, heterogeneity, or risk of bias in detail, so how consistent or robust these pooled findings are across the individual studies remains unclear.

If you're a distance runner curious about whether lifting heavy weights or doing jump training helps you run more efficiently or race faster, this review looked at exactly that question. Researchers combined results from 22 studies to compare heavy resistance training (like weighted squats) against plyometric training (jump-based exercises) as add-ons to regular running. They found that heavy resistance training was linked to small improvements in running economy (using less oxygen at a given pace) and small improvements in time trial performance, meaning both effects were present but modest.

Plyometric training's effects, by contrast, were described as trivial, or too small to be meaningful, for both outcomes. Lifting nearly maximal weights, meaning close to what someone could lift only once, appeared more effective than lighter loads, and longer training programs tended to show better results than shorter ones. It's worth understanding that these are pooled results across many different studies with varying designs, so we don't know how consistent the findings were study to study, and the review didn't report on study quality or safety.

This is a summary of research, not medical advice. Talk to your own healthcare provider about anything affecting your care.

This meta-analysis pooled 22 studies comparing heavy resistance training against plyometric training as adjuncts to running training, evaluating effects on running economy and time trial performance in long-distance runners. Heavy resistance training produced a small pooled effect for running economy (g = -0.32) and a small effect for time trial performance (g = -0.24), while plyometric training showed trivial effects for both (g = -0.13 and g = -0.17 respectively), with wide confidence intervals in several subgroups suggesting imprecision. Subgroup analyses indicated that near-maximal loading (≥90% 1RM) outperformed lower-load resistance protocols (g = -0.31 vs -0.17, the latter trivial with a very wide CI), and longer training durations were associated with larger effects in both modalities, for example 10-14 weeks versus 6-8 weeks in resistance training.

The abstract does not report pooled risk-of-bias assessment, heterogeneity statistics, or certainty grading, which limits confidence in how robust these comparative estimates are across the included trials. Given the modest effect sizes, wide confidence intervals in some subgroups, and absence of reported quality appraisal details, these findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive regarding the comparative superiority of heavy resistance training over plyometric training for endurance performance outcomes.