Heavy Resistance Training Versus Plyometric Training for Improving Running Economy and Running Time Trial Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As an adjunct to running training, heavy resistance and plyometric training have recently drawn attention as potential training modalities that improve running economy and running time trial performance. However, the comparative effectiveness is unknown. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if there are different effects of heavy resistance training versus plyometric training as an adjunct to running training on running economy and running time trial performance in long-distance runners.

METHODS

Electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus were searched. Twenty-two studies completely satisfied the selection criteria. Data on running economy and running time trial performance were extracted for the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed with selected potential moderators.

RESULTS

The pooled effect size for running economy in heavy resistance training was greater (g = - 0.32 [95% confidence intervals [CIs] - 0.55 to - 0.10]: effect size = small) than that in plyometric training (g = -0.13 [95% CIs - 0.47 to 0.21]: trivial). The effect on running time trial performance was also larger in heavy resistance training (g = - 0.24 [95% CIs - 1.04 to - 0.55]: small) than that in plyometric training (g = - 0.17 [95% CIs - 0.27 to - 0.06]: trivial). Heavy resistance training with nearly maximal loads (≥ 90% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM], g = - 0.31 [95% CIs - 0.61 to - 0.02]: small) provided greater effects than those with lower loads (< 90% 1RM, g = - 0.17 [95% CIs - 1.05 to 0.70]: trivial). Greater effects were evident when training was performed for a longer period in both heavy resistance (10-14 weeks, g = - 0.45 [95% CIs - 0.83 to - 0.08]: small vs. 6-8 weeks, g = - 0.21 [95% CIs - 0.56 to 0.15]: small) and plyometric training (8-10 weeks, g = 0.26 [95% CIs - 0.67 to 0.15]: small vs. 4-6 weeks, g = - 0.06 [95% CIs 0.67 to 0.55]: trivial).

CONCLUSIONS

Heavy resistance training, especially with nearly maximal loads, may be superior to plyometric training in improving running economy and running time trial performance. In addition, running economy appears to be improved better when training is performed for a longer period in both heavy resistance and plyometric training.

The effect of long-distance running on bone strength and bone biochemical markers

It still remains controversial whether exercise will help or adversely affect the bone formation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of common long-distance running on the magnitude of change in bone properties as measured by quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and bone biochemical markers. Subjects included 68 long-distance runners and 40 controls. Long-distance runners had been training in the marathon club for at least 6 months, the average period of exercise was 2 years, and running at 48.6±24.9 km per week. Otherwise, controls were people who had not experienced any specific sports before. Bone speed of sound (SOS) was measured by QUS at the distal one third radius and the mid-shaft of the tibia. Serum osteocalcin and urine deoxypyridinolin were measured in all groups. No significant differences were found in tibial and radial SOS between the two groups. Serum osteocalcin was higher in long-distance runners than control (P<0.05) in both the 30s and 40s of the participants, but urine deoxypyridinolin showed no significant difference between the two groups. It is concluded that long-distance running at the club level increases bone formation marker, but seems to do no harmful effect on bone properties as measured by QUS.

Athletic identity, compulsive exercise and eating psychopathology in long-distance runners

Having a high athletic identity is thought to increase vulnerability for compulsive exercise and Eating Disorder (ED) psychopathology. This study examined whether there is an association between athletic identity and levels of compulsive exercise and ED psychopathology in long-distance runners. A sample of 501 long-distance runners completed the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS), Compulsive Exercise Test (CET) and Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire (EDEQ). There was a significant positive association between participants' AIMS and total CET scores (moderate effect size; r=0.34 for males and 0.33 for females). BMI did not influence the relationship between AIMS and CET scores in males. However, for females, AIMS scores were positively associated with levels of Weight Control Exercise when covarying for BMI (small to moderate effect size, r=0.22). No significant associations with EDEQ scores were found (negligible to small effect sizes; r=0.06 for males and r=0.14 for females). Following replication, coaches might need to be vigilant to the welfare of endurance runners that have a strong athletic identity, since this could be linked to them exercising compulsively. Future work should examine whether having a strong athletic identity predicts ED psychopathology when this identity is challenged (e.g., due to injury).

How does high-intensity intermittent training affect recreational endurance runners? Acute and chronic adaptations: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to critically analyze the literature to determine how high-intensity intermittent training (HIIT) affects recreational endurance runners in the short- and long-term.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for literature dating from January 2000 to October 2015. The search was conducted using the key words "high-intensity intermittent training" or "high-intensity interval exercise" or "interval running" or "sprint interval training" and "endurance runners" or "long distance runners". A systematic approach was used to evaluate the 783 articles identified for initial review. Studies were included if they investigated HIIT in recreational endurance runners. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (for intervention studies) and the modified Downs and Black Quality Index (for cross-sectional studies).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies met the inclusionary criteria for review. The results are presented in 2 parts: cross-sectional (n = 15) and intervention studies (n = 8). In the 15 cross-sectional studies selected, endurance runners performed at least 1 HIIT protocol, and the acute impact on physiological, neuromuscular, metabolic and/or biomechanical variables was assessed. Intervention studies lasted a minimum of 4 weeks, with 10 weeks being the longest intervention period, and included 2 to 4 HIIT sessions per week. Most of these studies combined HIIT sessions with continuous run (CR) sessions; 2 studies' subjects performed HIIT exclusively.

CONCLUSION

HIIT-based running plans (2 to 3 HIIT sessions per week, combining HIIT and CR runs) show athletic performance improvements in endurance runners by improving maximal oxygen uptake and running economy along with muscular and metabolic adaptations. To maximize the adaptations to training, both HIIT and CR must be part of training programs for endurance runners.