The Effect of Strength Training Methods on Middle-Distance and Long-Distance Runners' Athletic Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Coaches and runners have long debated whether lifting weights actually helps middle- and long-distance running, given that endurance performance depends on things like maximal oxygen uptake, running economy, and sprint capacity. This systematic review with meta-analysis pooled studies comparing different strength training approaches, high load, submaximal load, plyometric, and combined methods, against endurance training alone or with very light loads, in runners ranging from moderately trained to highly trained. The pattern that emerged was that high load training and, more strongly, combined training (mixing two or more methods) improved overall running performance, such as time trial results or time to exhaustion, while plyometric training alone did not show a statistically significant effect. Interestingly, none of the methods produced improvements in the underlying physiological determinants like maximal oxygen uptake or sprint capacity, suggesting performance gains may come through some other mechanism.

The certainty of this evidence was rated very low to moderate, and study characteristics like training experience or program length didn't explain the differences seen, so these findings should be read as a promising but still uncertain picture.

If you're a distance runner wondering whether strength training is worth your time, this review looked at exactly that question by combining results from multiple studies of runners doing different types of strength work, from heavy lifting to jump-based plyometric exercises to combinations of methods. The overall pattern suggests that heavy lifting, and especially combining several strength methods together, was linked to better running performance, measured as things like race times or how long runners could sustain effort before exhaustion. Plyometric training alone did not show a clear benefit in this analysis.

Interestingly, none of the strength methods appeared to improve the underlying fitness markers researchers measured, like maximal oxygen uptake, meaning the performance improvement may work through some other pathway that wasn't captured by these measurements. It's worth understanding that the certainty behind these findings ranges from very low to moderate, meaning the science isn't fully settled yet. The studies varied in runner experience and program length, but these differences didn't clearly explain why some approaches worked better than others.

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

This systematic review with meta-analysis pooled data from studies involving 324 moderately trained, 272 well-trained, and 298 highly trained middle- and long-distance runners, comparing high load (≥80% one-repetition maximum), submaximal load (40-79% one-repetition maximum), plyometric, and combined strength training methods against endurance-only or low-load control conditions over programs lasting 6 to 40 weeks. High load training showed a moderate effect on running performance (effect size -0.469, p=0.029), and combined training showed a large effect (effect size -1.035, p=0.036), while plyometric training alone did not reach significance (effect size -0.210, p=0.064). Notably, none of the strength methods produced statistically significant improvements in maximal oxygen uptake, velocity at maximal oxygen uptake, maximum metabolic steady state, or sprint capacity (all p>0.072), indicating the performance benefit is not explained by these commonly assessed physiological determinants. Moderator analyses examining sex, age, body mass, height, fitness level, training experience, and program characteristics found no significant influence on outcomes (all p>0.166).

GRADE-rated certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, and clinicians should weigh these performance findings against that uncertainty rather than treating them as settled.