All articles
6 min readrunning / training

Heavy squats beat jump drills: the lifting that speeds runners up

I run about 5,000 km a year and race 100 km. The training question other runners ask me most: does lifting help, or does it only add weight to carry up the hill? Two meta-analyses published in Sports Medicine in 2024, pooling 652 runners, answer both halves of that. Lifting helps, the gain arrives through running economy while VO2max stays flat, and the loads that produce it sit above 80% of one-rep max, far above the circuits most runners call strength work.

The evidence.

Berryman and colleagues pooled 28 studies out of 554 screened across running, cycling, cross-country skiing and swimming. A strength-training mesocycle produced a moderate improvement in middle- and long-distance performance, net SMD 0.52 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.70), alongside an improvement in the energy cost of locomotion, 0.65 (0.32 to 0.98). Intensity decided the size of the effect: maximal strength training and combinations of methods outperformed submaximal loads and maximal power training 1.

Llanos-Lagos and colleagues then split the question by running speed. Their meta-analysis covers 195 moderately trained, 272 well trained and 185 highly trained athletes, on programmes of 6 to 24 weeks with one to four sessions a week. High load training (above 80% of 1RM) improved running economy at speeds from 8.64 to 17.85 km/h (ES = -0.266, p = 0.039). Combining methods gave the largest effect, at 10.00 to 14.45 km/h (ES = -0.426, p = 0.018). Plyometric training improved economy at 12 km/h and below (ES = -0.307, p = 0.028). Submaximal loads, meaning 40 to 79% of 1RM, and isometric work moved economy at no speed tested 2.

The same team ran a companion analysis on performance rather than economy. Two or more methods combined produced the greater improvement, while the effects on VO2max, velocity at VO2max, maximum metabolic steady state and sprint capacity stayed trivial 3. Lifting does not raise the aerobic ceiling. It lowers the oxygen cost of holding a given pace under that ceiling.

Eihara and colleagues put the two popular methods head to head across 22 studies. Heavy resistance training came out ahead of plyometric training on running economy (g = -0.32 against -0.13) and on running time trial performance (g = -0.24 against -0.17), with the largest economy gains in the longer programmes for both methods 4.

The effect survives in athletes who already train seriously. Balsalobre-Fernández and colleagues restricted their meta-analysis to competitive middle- and long-distance runners with a VO2max above 60 ml/kg/min: 5 controlled trials, 93 runners, a large beneficial effect on running economy, and a recommendation of 2 to 3 sessions a week over 8 to 12 weeks 5.

Damasceno and colleagues show where the seconds land in a race. Eighteen runners, 8 weeks, strength group against control. The strength group gained 23.0 ± 4.2% on 1RM, 12.7 ± 4.6% on drop jump and 2.9 ± 0.8% on peak treadmill speed. Their 10-km time trial improved through higher speeds over the final 2,800 m, with no measured change in running economy in the separate assessment 6. The benefit arrived as resistance to the fade.

Then the number that pays for the gym membership on its own. Lauersen and colleagues pooled 6 studies covering 7,738 athletes aged 12 to 40 who sustained 177 acute or overuse injuries. Strength training cut injury risk to roughly a third of the control rate, RR 0.338 (0.238 to 0.480), with high strength of evidence. The relationship was dose-dependent: a 10% increase in strength training volume lowered injury risk by more than four percentage points 7.

The effect sizes are small, and that sets the dose.

A g of -0.32 on running economy will not convert a 3:30 marathoner into a 3:00 one. Read one trial at a time and the case for lifting looks thin. It holds up as a sum: a small economy gain, faster closing kilometres, and a third of the injury rate, bought with 80 minutes a week that cost almost nothing in running volume. The band that fails is the popular one. Sets of 12 with light dumbbells sit at 40 to 79% of 1RM, where the pooled data found no change in economy at any speed 2.

The protocol.

  1. Two sessions a week for at least 10 weeks. The trials ran 6 to 24 weeks 2; the analysis on highly trained runners settled on 2 to 3 sessions across 8 to 12 weeks 5. Below 8 weeks the literature has little to show you.
  2. Load above 80% of 1RM: 3 to 5 sets of 3 to 6 reps. Rest 3 minutes between sets, which accounts for most of the session clock. Four movements fill 40 minutes: back squat or trap-bar deadlift, a hip hinge, a loaded calf raise, and a single-leg press or step-up.
  3. Add 60 to 80 jump contacts after the lifts, once you have 4 weeks of heavy work behind you. Plyometrics earned their effect at 12 km/h and below 2, which covers easy running and long-course race pace.
  4. Run before you lift on shared days, and leave 6 hours between them. Runners who trained in that order and with that gap improved performance and economy more than those who reversed it 8.
  5. Keep the barbell off your two quality run days. Pair it with an easy run instead, so intervals and the long run stay clean.
  6. Track economy with a fixed loop. Every two weeks, run the same 5 km at a fixed heart rate and log the pace. Changes of this size read as a few seconds per kilometre, so compare 10-week blocks and ignore single sessions.
  7. Hold your running volume flat during the first block. If weekly kilometres and lifting both climb at once, a stalled economy test tells you nothing about which one to change.

Count back 12 weeks from your next race and put two 40-minute sessions in the calendar. Load the bar above 80%, six reps or fewer, and keep the running where it is.

Sources.

  1. Berryman, N., Mujika, I., Arvisais, D., Roubeix, M., Binet, C., & Bosquet, L. (2018). Strength Training for Middle- and Long-Distance Performance: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13(1), 57-63. doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0032
  2. Llanos-Lagos, C., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Moran, J., & Sáez de Villarreal, E. (2024). Effect of Strength Training Programs in Middle- and Long-Distance Runners' Economy at Different Running Speeds: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 54(4), 895-932. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01978-y
  3. Llanos-Lagos, C., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Moran, J., & Sáez de Villarreal, E. (2024). The Effect of Strength Training Methods on Middle-Distance and Long-Distance Runners' Athletic Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 54(7), 1801-1833. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02018-z
  4. Eihara, Y., Takao, K., Sugiyama, T., Maeo, S., Terada, M., Kanehisa, H., & Isaka, T. (2022). Heavy Resistance Training Versus Plyometric Training for Improving Running Economy and Running Time Trial Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine - Open, 8, 138. doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00511-1
  5. Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Santos-Concejero, J., & Grivas, G. V. (2016). Effects of Strength Training on Running Economy in Highly Trained Runners: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(8), 2361-2368. doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001316
  6. Damasceno, M. V., Lima-Silva, A. E., Pasqua, L. A., Tricoli, V., Duarte, M., Bishop, D. J., & Bertuzzi, R. (2015). Effects of resistance training on neuromuscular characteristics and pacing during 10-km running time trial. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115(7), 1513-1522. doi.org/10.1007/s00421-015-3130-z
  7. Lauersen, J. B., Andersen, T. E., & Andersen, L. B. (2018). Strength training as superior, dose-dependent and safe prevention of acute and overuse sports injuries: a systematic review, qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(24), 1557-1563. doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-099078
  8. Doma, K., & Deakin, G. B. (2013). The effects of strength training and endurance training order on running economy and performance. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 38(6), 651-656. doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2012-0362

Keep reading