New journal article on lifting for runners - evidence heavy lifting improves running economy

This seems to support similar conclusions from the UNH study of several years ago. Thanks for the info.

As with all of these so-called 'studies' I'd like to see what "seventeen well-trained runner" means. Time and time again, in these studies the subjects aren't well-trained at all.

Wasn't it Steve Spence that used to do heavy lifting during part of his marathon training?

That's why I put it up in the original post - average 5K for four males and four females was 18:40. They also include the amount of time they ran in the weeks before and after the study. But, there are plenty of runners on here who run in that range and it may be useful for them.

I do agree, the terms "well trained" or "elite" are often thrown around a lot in scientific studies. I did one study with fifteen participants and the range of 5K PR's was 13:56 - 18:00, with an average of 15:30 - hard to use a single phrase to describe that group.

For the other post, yes, that was Steve Spence that did heavy lifting as part of his training.

So the lifting, that was an added workout, or it took the place of another workout?

The control group, they added a workout, just running, or didn't make any change at all?

Sorry, it's not clear to me. If you are adding a workout, I think you could add a hill workout or some such that would give more benefit than a weight workout.

Was there a third group that did stadium stairs, plyometrics, hill bounding, or hill running instead of heavy lifting or nothing else?

This has been known for a long time but never gained a following in the running community. I learned it from the great sports scientist Mel Siff many years ago. Runners, your little high-rep ciruits aren't doing you shit. Distance runners need to lift like sprinters.

marijuologist wrote:

This has been known for a long time but never gained a following in the running community. I learned it from the great sports scientist Mel Siff many years ago. Runners, your little high-rep ciruits aren't doing you shit. Distance runners need to lift like sprinters.

but that's hard and i don't want to get to big and why can't i just run another 10 miles tonight and why won't my "core" work with my pretty looking swiss ball and feather cut it?

Interesting thread.

A couple of weeks ago I decided to incorporate compound lifts into my workout routine 3x per week. It's the rippetoe beginner's lifting routine found on bodybuilding.com, and consists of 2 workouts. One is 3x5 squat, 3x5 bench press, 1x5 deadlift, and the other workout is 3x5 squat, 3x5 military press and 3x5 bent over row. I've been training pretty consistently all year long between 70-90 mpw, and plan on continuing to do so, so if this thread is still around in a couple months, I'll let you guys know what progress I have achieved, if any.

The intervention group (four males and four females) performed half-squats, four sets of four repetitions maximum, three times per week for 8 wk, as a supplement to their normal endurance training.

What exactly is a half-squat, and how much weight are we talking here?

Thanks for the info.

xc geek wrote:

marijuologist wrote:

This has been known for a long time but never gained a following in the running community. I learned it from the great sports scientist Mel Siff many years ago. Runners, your little high-rep ciruits aren't doing you shit. Distance runners need to lift like sprinters.

but that's hard and i don't want to get to big and why can't i just run another 10 miles tonight and why won't my "core" work with my pretty looking swiss ball and feather cut it?

Odds are that if you are a distance runner that you are not going to get bulky.

I assume that you are being facetious about the swiss ball, but in case you are not, your "core" is not going to do much to improve economy.

It is becoming more and more apparent that specific types of weight training/conditioning can be beneficial. It really supports Lydiard's use of bounding (a form of plyometrics). The problem is that few people lift the right program. Going in and doing leg lifts and the "normal" routines just won't get it done.

As for running another 10 miles, the question becomes would that improve running economy as much or as fast as 45 minutes of specific conditioning? If so, then which is more economical in terms of time?

I'm pretty sure a half squat is when you squat until your thighs are parallel to the ground. As for weight, if they are performing 4 sets of 4 reps, I'd imagine they are working with at least 80-85% of their 1 rep max.

The one rep max on the training group's squat (to 90 deg) was 73.4kg before training and 97.8kg after training. The paper does not describe how much they were lifting with the 4RM, other than what I posted previously in the methodlogy. From a scientific standpoint, one thing that is concerning is that the control group was squatting over 90kg pre and post training... It said they were all randomly assigned, but there was a lot of room for improvement in the training group. However, they both started out with a similar cost of running (running economy at 70% vVO2max) and only the training group improved.

Of note is that with that large increase in strength, there was no significant change in weight (60.3 vs. 60.9kg - a similar nonsignificant increase of 0.5kg was seen in the control group, who were heavier to begin with - around 70kg). Even if you make an argument that it was not statistically significant, they still gained weight - the end result is they were more economical despite that. Most gains in strength in the first eight weeks of training are neuromuscular adaptations (nervous system), rather than muscle hypertrophy (increased size) anyway. And I agree with the previous post, many (though not all) distance runners have trouble putting on weight anyway.

Regarding improving economy with weights vs. running more - they could be two different physiological methods to improve economy... different adaptations that produce the same result - less metabolic energy required to do the same amount of mechanical work. Also adding mileage may increase the risk for injury and perhaps lifting can provide an alternative means of improving economy, as somebody else posted also.

As far as plyometrics being more efficient, yes and no, in my opinion. This type of strengthening described here is exactly that - for developing muscle strength (maximal muscle force production). Plyometrics are geared at power (rate of force production). These are two related but different things. If somebody improves their strength but cannot translate that into greater power, their results are limited. If somebody improves thier power, that can improve running... However, further increasing strength may improve their potential power even more.

Most runners would never consider doing high intensity running (ie, intervals) without building a solid base. The same should hold true regarding strength/power. Muscle strength provides a base for higher intensity/lower volume workouts like plyometrics. If you do not have sufficient strength to support the landing (high impact on your musculoskeletal system), you may get injured doing plyometrics. This is one of the reasons the NSCA has recommendations for how much strength you need before engaging in plyometric training. Some runners can get by doing plyometrics without sufficient strength, but others will get injured. Plyometrics can definitely produce results, but the best results will likely be when periodized with strength training.

"well trained runners" is not compatible with 18:40 5k times.

seven 7s wrote:

"well trained runners" is not compatible with 18:40 5k times.

True! Someone could be well trained and slower than 18:40. Good call!

Crossfit.