Effects of Running-Specific Strength Training, Endurance Training, and Concurrent Training on Recreational Endurance Athletes' Performance and Selected Anthropometric Parameters.

Recreational runners often wonder whether time is better spent lifting weights, running more, or combining both. This trial compared three 12-week training approaches in male recreational endurance runners: running-specific strength training alone, endurance training alone, and a concurrent program that alternated strength and endurance sessions on non-consecutive days, all structured using a periodization framework that cycles training phases. Each approach produced its own pattern of gains. Strength training improved jump performance, maximal strength, and running economy at certain speeds.

Endurance training improved running economy, aerobic capacity, and the point at which the body shifts to relying more heavily on anaerobic energy. The concurrent group matched or exceeded these gains across a broader set of measures, including body composition. This suggests combining both types of training on separate days may avoid the interference effect sometimes seen when strength and endurance work are mixed, though the study was small and involved only thirty men aged 30 to 40, so findings may not generalize widely.

If you're a recreational runner deciding between strength training, more running, or both, this study offers some relevant clues. Researchers followed thirty male recreational runners for twelve weeks, splitting them into three groups: one did running-focused strength training, one did endurance training only, and one alternated both types of session on different days. Each approach helped in its own way.

The strength-only group got better at jumping, squatting heavier weights, and running efficiently at some speeds. The endurance-only group improved their aerobic fitness and running efficiency too.

The group doing both types of training saw improvements across the widest range of measures, including body composition, without losing the benefits either single approach provided on its own. This is encouraging news for runners short on time, but it comes from a small study of thirty men in a specific age range, so it's hard to say how well these results would apply to women, older or younger runners, or larger groups. It also doesn't tell us what would happen with a different training schedule.

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

This randomized trial assigned thirty male recreational endurance runners to running-specific strength training, endurance training, or concurrent training combining both, delivered three times weekly over twelve weeks using an Accumulation-Transmutation-Realization block periodization model, with strength and endurance sessions alternated on non-consecutive days in the concurrent group. Within-group improvements were seen across all three arms, but the pattern differed: the strength group improved countermovement jump, one-repetition maximum squat, and running economy at 12 and 14 km/h; the endurance group improved running economy, maximal oxygen consumption, and anaerobic threshold. The concurrent group improved body fat percentage, lean mass, jump, strength, running economy, maximal oxygen consumption, and anaerobic threshold.

Between-group comparisons showed the strength group outperformed the endurance group on jump, strength, and running economy at 14 km/h, while the endurance group outperformed the strength group on anaerobic threshold; the concurrent group exceeded the endurance group on jump and running economy at 14 km/h. These between-group differences support the interpretation that combining modalities on separate days avoided the attenuation sometimes attributed to concurrent training interference. However, the sample size is small, the population is narrowly defined by sex and age, and no data on longer-term retention, adherence, or adverse events were reported, limiting generalizability and certainty.