Concurrent endurance training with either plyometric or dynamic body-weight training both improve running economy with minimal or no changes in running biomechanics.

Runners often add strength training to their endurance work hoping to run more efficiently, but it isn't clear how this actually changes the way people move. This trial compared two eight-week programmes added to standard endurance training in recreational male runners: one paired with plyometric exercises like jumping, the other with dynamic body-weight exercises. Both groups improved their running economy, meaning they used less energy to run at a given pace, but this improvement happened with only a small change in one movement measure and no meaningful shift in others such as ground contact time, step frequency, or leg stiffness. Interestingly, when the researchers looked specifically at people who responded strongly to training, those doing dynamic body-weight work showed a modest increase in step frequency, while the plyometric group showed no biomechanical change at all.

Neither approach was clearly better than the other. The study was small and only included men, so how well these findings apply more broadly, and what is actually driving the economy gains, remains unclear.

If you're a recreational runner curious about whether strength training changes how you run, this study offers some relevant clues. Researchers had thirty-one male runners follow their usual endurance training but added either jump-based (plyometric) exercises or dynamic body-weight exercises for eight weeks.

Both groups became more efficient runners on average, using less energy for the same effort, but this didn't come with major changes in things like stride length, contact time with the ground, or leg stiffness. Among the runners who improved the most, those doing body-weight exercises took slightly quicker steps afterward, while the jump-training group's running form stayed essentially the same. Neither training approach stood out as better than the other for improving efficiency or changing form. Because this was a small study involving only men, and it didn't dig into the deeper muscle or movement mechanics behind the improvement, it's hard to say why efficiency improved or whether these results would hold for other groups of runners.

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

This randomised trial (n=31 male recreational runners) compared eight-week concurrent strength and endurance training programmes combining standard endurance work with either plyometric or dynamic body-weight training, assessing running economy and spatiotemporal biomechanics pre- and post-intervention. Running economy improved significantly overall (-2.1 ± 3.9%, p=0.005), with no significant changes in contact time, duty factor, step frequency, or leg stiffness (p≥0.10), though flight time decreased (p≥0.03, direction of change consistent with shorter flight time).

Notably, 42% of participants were classified as high responders (economy improvement of -5.7 ± 2.4%), and among these, biomechanics were largely unchanged except for a 3% increase in step frequency specific to the dynamic body-weight group. The findings suggest that whatever mechanisms underlie running economy improvements after either training modality, they are not well captured by these surface-level biomechanical measures, and neither intervention demonstrated superiority. The abstract does not report between-group statistical comparisons of running economy change, limiting conclusions about relative efficacy.

With a modest, single-sex sample and no kinetic, kinematic, or electromyographic data, the physiological or neuromuscular mechanisms driving improved economy remain unexplained and warrant more detailed biomechanical investigation.