Does Characterizing Global Running Pattern Help to Prescribe Individualized Strength Training in Recreational Runners?

Lower Extremity Kinematic and Kinetic Characteristics as Effects on Running Economy of Recreational Runners

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine associations between running economy (RE) and running sagittal plane kinematic and kinetic parameters.

METHOD

A total of 30 male recreational runners (age: 21.21 ± 1.22 yr, V̇O 2max : 54.61 ± 5.42 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ) participated in two separate test sessions. In the first session, the participant's body composition and RE at 10 and 12 km·h -1 were measured. In the second session, measurements were taken for the sagittal plane of hip, knee, and ankle angles and range of motion (ROM), as well as ground reaction force.

RESULTS

Moderate correlations were found between lower energy costs at 12 km·h -1 and smaller hip flexion at toe-off ( r = 0.373) as well as smaller peak hip flexion during stance ( r = 0.397). During the swing phase, lower energy costs at 10 km·h -1 were moderately correlated with smaller peak knee flexion and smaller knee flexion and extension ROM ( r = 0.366-0.443). Lower energy costs at 12 km·h -1 were moderately correlated with smaller peak hip and knee flexion as well as knee extension ROM ( r = 0.369-0.427). In terms of kinetics, there was a moderate correlation between higher energy costs at 10 km·h -1 and larger peak active force, as well as larger peak braking and propulsion force ( r = -0.470-0.488). Lower energy costs at 12 km·h -1 were moderately to largely correlated with smaller peak impact and braking force ( r = 0.486 and -0.500, respectively). Regarding the statistical parametric mapping analysis, most outcomes showed associations with RE at 10 km·h -1 , including knee flexion (42.5%-65.5% of the gait cycle), ankle plantarflexion (32.5%-36% of the gait cycle), active force (30.5%-35% of the stance phase), and propulsion force (68%-72.5% of the stance phase). Lower energy costs at 12 km·h -1 were correlated with smaller hip flexion (5.5%-12% and 66.5%-74%) and smaller knee flexion (57%-57.5%) during the running gait cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that biomechanical factors are associated with RE in recreational runners. To design effective training methods to improve RE, coaches and runners should focus on the sagittal plane kinematics of the hip, knee, and ankle, as well as lower vertical and horizontal kinetic parameters.

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

BACKGROUND

The running performance of middle-distance and long-distance runners is determined by factors such as maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), velocity at VO2max (vVO2max), maximum metabolic steady state (MMSS), running economy, and sprint capacity. Strength training is a proven strategy for improving running performance in endurance runners. However, the effects of different strength training methods on the determinants of running performance are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to compare the effect of different strength training methods (e.g., high load, submaximal load, plyometric, combined) on performance (i.e., time trial and time until exhaustion) and its determinants (i.e., VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS, sprint capacity) in middle-distance and long-distance runners.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, SCOPUS). The search included articles indexed up to November 2022, using various keywords combined with Boolean operators. The eligibility criteria were: (1) middle- and long-distance runners, without restriction on sex or training/competitive level; (2) application of a strength training method for ≥ 3 weeks, including high load training (≥ 80% of one repetition maximum), submaximal load training (40-79% of one repetition maximum), plyometric training, and combined training (i.e., two or more methods); (3) endurance running training control group under no strength training or under strength training with low loads (< 40% of one repetition maximum); (4) running performance, VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS and/or sprint capacity measured before and after a strength training intervention program; (5) randomized and non-randomized controlled studies. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. A random-effects meta-analysis and moderator analysis were performed using Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 3.3.0.70).

RESULTS

The certainty of the evidence was very low to moderate. The studies included 324 moderately trained, 272 well trained, and 298 highly trained athletes. The strength training programs were between 6 and 40 weeks duration, with one to four intervention sessions per week. High load and combined training methods induced moderate (effect size =  - 0.469, p = 0.029) and large effect (effect size =  - 1.035, p = 0.036) on running performance, respectively. While plyometric training was not found to have a significant effect (effect size =  - 0.210, p = 0.064). None of the training methods improved VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS, or sprint capacity (all p > 0.072). Moderators related to subject (i.e., sex, age, body mass, height, VO2max, performance level, and strength training experience) and intervention (i.e., weeks, sessions per week and total sessions) characteristics had no effect on running performance variables or its determinants (all p > 0.166).

CONCLUSIONS

Strength training with high loads can improve performance (i.e., time trial, time to exhaustion) in middle-distance and long-distance runners. A greater improvement may be obtained when two or more strength training methods (i.e., high load training, submaximal load training and/or plyometric training) are combined, although with trivial effects on VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS, or sprint capacity.

Effect of Strength Training Programs in Middle- and Long-Distance Runners' Economy at Different Running Speeds: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Running economy is defined as the energy demand at submaximal running speed, a key determinant of overall running performance. Strength training can improve running economy, although the magnitude of its effect may depend on factors such as the strength training method and the speed at which running economy is assessed.

AIM

To compare the effect of different strength training methods (e.g., high loads, plyometric, combined methods) on the running economy in middle- and long-distance runners, over different running speeds, through a systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across several electronic databases including Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and SCOPUS. Using different keywords and Boolean operators for the search, all articles indexed up to November 2022 were considered for inclusion. In addition, the PICOS criteria were applied: Population: middle- and long-distance runners, without restriction on sex or training/competitive level; Intervention: application of a strength training method for ≥ 3 weeks (i.e., high loads (≥ 80% of one repetition maximum); submaximal loads [40-79% of one repetition maximum); plyometric; isometric; combined methods (i.e., two or more methods); Comparator: control group that performed endurance running training but did not receive strength training or received it with low loads (< 40% of one repetition maximum); Outcome: running economy, measured before and after a strength training intervention programme; Study design: randomized and non-randomized controlled studies. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. A three-level random-effects meta-analysis and moderator analysis were performed using R software (version 4.2.1).

RESULTS

The certainty of the evidence was found to be moderate for high load training, submaximal load training, plyometric training and isometric training methods and low for combined methods. The studies included 195 moderately trained, 272 well trained, and 185 highly trained athletes. The strength training programmes were between 6 and 24 weeks' duration, with one to four sessions executed per week. The high load and combined methods induced small (ES = - 0.266, p = 0.039) and moderate (ES = - 0.426, p = 0.018) improvements in running economy at speeds from 8.64 to 17.85 km/h and 10.00 to 14.45 km/h, respectively. Plyometric training improved running economy at speeds ≤ 12.00 km/h (small effect, ES = - 0.307, p = 0.028, β1 = 0.470, p = 0.017). Compared to control groups, no improvement in running economy (assessed speed: 10.00 to 15.28 and 9.75 to 16.00 km/h, respectively) was noted after either submaximal or isometric strength training (all, p > 0.131). The moderator analyses showed that running speed (β1 = - 0.117, p = 0.027) and VO2max (β1 = - 0.040, p = 0.020) modulated the effect of high load strength training on running economy (i.e., greater improvements at higher speeds and higher VO2max).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to a control condition, strength training with high loads, plyometric training, and a combination of strength training methods may improve running economy in middle- and long-distance runners. Other methods such as submaximal load training and isometric strength training seem less effective to improve running economy in this population. Of note, the data derived from this systematic review suggest that although both high load training and plyometric training may improve running economy, plyometric training might be effective at lower speeds (i.e., ≤ 12.00 km/h) and high load strength training might be particularly effective in improving running economy (i) in athletes with a high VO2max, and (ii) at high running speeds.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The original protocol was registered ( https://osf.io/gyeku ) at the Open Science Framework.

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

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to verify the effects of running-specific strength training alone, endurance training alone, and concurrent training on recreational endurance athletes' performance and selected anthropometric parameters.

METHOD

Thirty male recreational endurance runners were randomly assigned using a blocking technique to either a running-specific strength training group (RSSTG), an endurance training group (ETG), or a concurrent training group (CTG). RSSTG performed three strength-training sessions per week orientated to running, ETG underwent three endurance sessions per week, and CTG underwent a 3-day-per-week concurrent training program performed on non-consecutive days, alternating the strength and endurance training sessions applied to RSSTG and ETG. The training protocol lasted 12 weeks and was designed using the ATR (Accumulation, Transmutation, Realization) block periodization system. The following assessments were conducted before and after the training protocol: body mass (BM), body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage (BFP), lean mass (LM), countermovement jump (CMJ), 1RM (one-repetition maximum) squat, running economy at 12 and 14 km/h (RE12 and RE14), maximum oxygen consumption (VO₂max), and anaerobic threshold (AnT).

RESULTS

RSSTG significantly improved the results in CMJ, 1RM squat, RE12, and RE14. ETG significantly improved in RE12, RE14, VO₂max, and AnT. Finally, CTG, obtained significant improvements in BFP, LM, CMJ, 1RM squat, RE12, RE14, VO₂max, and AnT. RSSTG obtained improvements significantly higher than ETG in CMJ, 1RM squat, and RE14. ETG results were significantly better than those attained by RSSTG in AnT. Moreover, CTG marks were significantly higher than those obtained by ETG in CMJ and RE14.

CONCLUSION

Performing a 12-week concurrent training program integrated into the ATR periodization system effectively improves body composition and performance variables that can be obtained with exclusive running-specific strength and endurance training in recreational runners aged 30 to 40. Running-specific strength training enhances maximum and explosive strength and RE, whereas exclusive endurance training improves VO₂max, AnT, and RE. Performing concurrent training on non-consecutive days effectively prevents the strength and endurance adaptations attained with single-mode exercise from being attenuated. The ATR periodization system is useful in improving recreational endurance athletes' performance parameters, especially when performing concurrent training programs.