Content uploaded by Jennifer Klau
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Klau on Nov 17, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE EFFECTS OF RESISTANCE TRAINING ON
ENDURANCE DISTANCE RUNNING PERFORMANCE
AMONG HIGHLY TRAINED RUNNERS:ASYSTEMATIC
REVIEW
LINDA M. YAMAMOTO,REBECCA M. LOPEZ,JENNIFER F. KLAU,DOUGLAS J. CASA,
WILLIAM J. KRAEMER,AND CARL M. MARESH
Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs,
Connecticut
ABSTRACT
Yamamoto, LM, Lopez, RM, Klau, JF, Casa, DJ, Kraemer, WJ,
and Maresh, CM. The effects of resistance training on
endurance distance running performance among highly trained
runners: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 22(6):
2036–2044, 2008—The current perception among highly
competitive endurance runners is that concurrent resistance
and endurance training (CT) will improve running performance
despite the limited research in this area. The purpose of this
review was to search the body of scientific literature for original
research addressing the effects of CT on distance running
performance in highly competitive endurance runners. Specific
key words (including running, strength training, performance,
and endurance) were used to search relevant databases
through April 2007 for literature related to CT. Original research
was reviewed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database
(PEDro) scale. Five studies met inclusion criteria: highly trained
runners ($30 milewk
21
or $5dwk
21
), CT intervention for
a period $6 weeks, performance distance between 3K and
42.2K, and a PEDro scale score $5 (out of 10). Exclusion
criteria were prepubertal children and elderly populations. Four
of the five studies employed sport-specific, explosive resistance
training, whereas one study used traditional heavy weight
resistance training. Two of the five studies measured 2.9%
improved performance (3K and 5K), and all five studies
measured 4.6% improved running economy (RE; range = 3–
8.1%). After critically reviewing the literature for the impact of
CT on high-level runners, we conclude that resistance training
likely has a positive effect on endurance running performance or
RE. The short duration and wide range of exercises imple-
mented are of concern, but coaches should not hesitate to
implement a well-planned, periodized CT program for their
endurance runners.
KEY WORDS resistance training, endurance training, endurance
athlete, performance
INTRODUCTION
‘‘We knew we could run in the mud because
of our strength training,’’ reported
Coach Keith Andrew after his Coates-
ville, Pennsylvania high school boys
cross-country team won the 2006 Nike Team Nationals on
a waterlogged Portland Meadows 5K course (29).
Concurrent resistance and endurance training (CT)
challenges the perception that improvements in endurance
running performance are achieved only through aerobic
training. However, current research indicates that muscular
strength and anaerobic power may also be important for
increased running performance through neurological and
muscular changes (1,21,34). Positive muscular adaptations
may include increased anaerobic enzyme activity, increased
force production, increased intramuscular glycogen, or shifts
within major fiber type groups (1,21,34). Neural adaptations
may include improved motor unit recruitment and syn-
chronization, improved force development rate, and im-
provements in the stretch-shortening cycle (1,21,30,34).
In combination, these positive adaptations may enable
runners to sustain attacks, climb hills, or sprint in the final
minutes, which should enhance running performance (38).
Historically, runners were hesitant to resistance train
because of concerns of possible negative side effects of
hypertrophy on capillary density and mitochondrial function
(23). However, others have found no negative change in
maximal oxygen uptake (
_
Vo
2
max) from resistance training
(RT) (22), and RT can increase running efficiency by
BRIEF REVIEW
Address correspondence to Linda M. Yamamoto, linda.yamamoto@
uconn.edu.
22(6)/2036–2044
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2008 National Strength and Conditioning Association
2036
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
attenuating the reduction of Type I muscle fibers and
connective tissue (22) and potentially stave off injury.
Instead of running performance, many CT researchers
focus on running economy (RE), which involves the
relationship between
_
Vo
2
and a given running velocity.
Running economy has been shown to influence performance
for well-trained distance runners (28). Improved RE would
increase speed over a given distance or increase distance
traveled at a given speed because of decreased oxygen
consumption (16,35,37,39), and, thus, it would increase
performance. The benefit of RT may improve RE through
several mechanisms: 1) increased strength may improve
mechanical efficiency, muscle coordination, and motor
recruitment patterns (34), 2) greater total body strength
may lead to advantageous mechanical changes in running
style (16), or 3) increased muscular strength and coordination
may reduce relative intensity (14). Improved RE may be
a result of both improved running mechanics and neuro-
muscular efficiency to reduce oxygen consumption at a given
speed (14,16). Simultaneous RTand endurance training (ET)
has been associated with limited strength development and
no change in
_
Vo
2
max (6,13,15). However, this line of
research focused predominantly on the impact of ET on
strength performance and not on the effects of RT on
endurance performance (2,6,10,12,15). Additionally, most
subjects were previously untrained runners, which accounted
for the large improvements in running performance or
RE (3,9,20).
Several review articles focus on CT and summarize the
available data; however, these reviews do not synthesize the
best available research to address a specifically defined
question (17,18,38). This systematic review focuses specifi-
cally on valid research of highly trained endurance runners
on the effects of CT on performance and/or RE. The use of
CT in endurance athletes continues to grow with increased
desire for improved performance. However, there is a lack of
evidence supporting potential beneficial effects of RT on
endurance performance in highly trained athletes. Does RT
increase long-distance running performance? If so, what type
of RT is best suited for increased performance? What
manipulation of the acute program variables (choice of
exercise, order of exercise, volume, rest, and intensity [19]) is
best? The purpose of this systematic review was to search the
body of scientific literature for original research addressing
the effects of CT on distance running performance in highly
competitive endurance runners.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A search was performed using MEDLINE, Sport Discus,
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research archives, and
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases through
September 2007 for literature related to CT. Key words used
were (marathons OR marathoning OR running[mesh])
AND (‘‘strength training’’ OR ‘‘resistance training’’ OR
‘‘weight lifting’’ OR ‘‘weightlifting’’) AND (performance OR
speed OR time trials OR endurance) AND English[language]
NOT (obese OR obesity OR sprint OR sprinters OR stroke
OR soccer OR ‘‘Running/injuries’’ NOT amphetamine).
Research specific to measures of performance with CT in
elite athletes were identified. All randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) assessing the effects of RTon endurance exercise were
initially examined (Figure 1). All articles were read, and the
outcomes of each article were recorded. The references of
identified articles were examined to identify additional
articles that were eligible for this review. The majority of
FIGURE 1. Criteria for selection of articles for review.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 6 | NOVEMBER 2008 | 2037
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
the articles that examined CT were review articles or training
studies for untrained or recreationally trained individuals,
that were retained for review and discussion; however, these
articles were not included for analysis because they did not
meet inclusion criteria. Resistance training was defined as
nonrunning, weight-bearing or weight-loaded activity in-
cluding free-weight and machine exercises. The subcatego-
ries for RT included circuit training (a series of free-weight
and/or machine exercises performed one after the other with
minimal rest between exercises), heavy weight training
(dynamic constant external RT with exercises such as back
squat, and bench press), and explosive strength training
(plyometric or stretch-shortening cycle exercises) (7).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for this analysis were
established to narrow the focus of the analysis. Inclusion
criteria were highly trained runners ($30 milewk
21
or $5
dwk
21
), CT intervention for a period $6 weeks,
performance distance 3K–42.2K, and a quality score $5.
Exclusion criteria were untrained subjects, prepubertal
children, and elderly populations.
Once the five articles were identified, the Physiotherapy
Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (32) was used to rate the
articles. The PEDro scale examines the internal validity and
interpretability of experimental trials. The scale scores
internal validity through aspects of study design, such as
randomization, allocation, similarity of key measures at
baseline, and blinding of subjects, therapists, and assessors.
Additionally, the scale measures interpretability of research
by examining between-group statistics, descriptions of point
measures, and measures of variability. The 11-item scale
(Table 1) yields a maximum score of 10 points if all criteria
are satisfied.
We chose the PEDro scale because it has tested reliability
data and was developed to evaluate RCT evaluating physical
therapist interventions. Although we are not looking at
physiotherapy, the similarity of the type of trials warrants the
use of the PEDro scale. Maher et al. (24), examined the
reliability of the 11 items and the total score of the PEDro
scale, and found interclass correlations of 0.56 for total score
for individual ratings and 0.68 for panel ratings.
TABLE 1. PEDro scale (32).
Paavolainen
et al. (30)
Spurrs
et al. (37)
Mikkola
et al. (26)
Saunders
et al. (36)
Millet
et al. (27)
Eligibility criteria were specified
(no points awarded). Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Subjects were randomly
allocated to groups. 0 1 0 1 1
Allocation was concealed. 0 0 0 0 0
The groups were similar at
baseline regarding the
most important prognostic indicators. 1 1 1 1 1
There was blinding of all subjects. 0 0 0 0 0
There was blinding of all therapists who
administered the therapy. 0 0 0 0 0
There was blinding of all assessors who
measured at least one key outcome. 0 0 0 0 0
Measures of at least one key outcome were
obtained from more than 85%
of the subjects initially allocated to groups.
1 1111
All subjects for whom outcome measures were
available received the treatment
or control condition as allocated, or, where this
was not the case, data for at least
one key outcome were analyzed by
‘‘intention to treat.’’ 1 1 1 1 1
The result of between-group statistical
comparisons is reported for at least
one key outcome. 1 1 1 1 1
The study provided both point
measures and measures of variability
for at least one key outcome.
1 1111
Total points awarded 5 6 5 6 6
2038
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Resistance and Endurance Training on Performance
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
TABLE 2. Reviewed articles.
Authors Subject description Age (y)
Resistance training
type and duration
Description of treatment
and control groups Results
Improvement
(%)
PEDro Scale
(32) score (max = 10)
Paavolainen
et al. (30)
18 elite male distance
runners;
_
Vo
2
max =
68 mlkg
21
min
21
20–30 Plyometric
training, 9 wk
CT = 68% ET, 32%
sport-specific plyometric
training; ET = 97% ET,
3% sport-specific
plyometric training
Decreased 5K run
time in CT;
improved RE
in CT
3.1 (5K);
8.1 (RE)
5
Spurrs
et al. (37)
17 male distance
runners;
_
Vo
2
max =
57 mlkg
21
min
21
Plyometric
training, 6 wk
CT = concurrent plyometric
training (two sessions
per week for 3 weeks,
then three sessions per
week for 3 weeks) and normal
ET; ET = continued normal
training
Decreased 3K run
time in CT;
improved RE
in CT
2.7 (3K);
4–7 (RE)
6
Mikkola
et al. (26)
18 male, 7 female
distance runners;
_
Vo
2
max=62
mlkg
21
min
21
16–18 Plyometric
training, 8 wk
CT = 81% endurance and
supplemental training, 19%
sport-specific explosive strength
training; ET = 96% endurance
and supplemental training, 4%
sport-specific explosive
strength training
No DRE or
_
Vo
2
max;
increased anaerobic
and selective
neuromuscular
performance in CT
35
Saunders
et al. (35)
15 elite male
distance runners;
_
Vo
2
max = 68–70
mlkg
21
min
21
20–30 Plyometric
training, 9 wk
CT = concurrent plyometric
training (three sessions per
week) and normal ET
Improved RE in CT 4.1 6
Millet
et al. (27)
15 elite male
triathletes;
_
Vo
2
max
= 67–69
mlkg
21
min
21
18–30 Heavy weight
training, 14 wk
CT = concurrent HWT
(lower limb, two sessions per
week) and consistent, supervised
aerobic training; ET = consistent,
supervised aerobic training
Improved RE in CT 5.3 6
Average 9.2 wk 4.5 5.6
CT = concurrent resistance and endurance training; ET = endurance training; HWT = heavy weight training; RE = running economy.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 6 | NOVEMBER 2008 | 2039
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
TABLE 3. Description of treatment and control group training.
Author Paavolainen et al. (30) Spurrs et al. (37) Mikkola et al. (26) Saunders et al. (36) Millet et al. (27)
CT
group
Endurance 84% below, 16%
above anaerobic
threshold
Running: 60–80 kmwk
21
71% endurance,
.95% below
anaerobic threshold,
mainly running
Running: 100.2 6
48.1 kmwk
21
Run: 48 6
7kmwk
21
swim:
18.3 65.0 kmwk
21
cycle: 221 6
49 kmwk
21
Sport-specific
explosive/
heavy weight
training
32%: Sprinting
(5–10 320–100 m),
jumping (alternating,
bilateral
countermovement,
drop, hurdle, one-
legged), weighted
explosive leg press,
knee extension/flexion
(30–200 contractions)
2310 squat jump,
2310–12 scissor jump,
2–3 310–12 double-leg
bound, 2–3 310–15
alternate-leg bound, 2–3
310–15 single-leg
forward hop, 2–3
36–10 depth jump,
2–3 310 double-leg
hurdle jump, 2–3
310 single-leg
hurdle hop
19% sport-specific
explosive: Sprinting
(5–10 330–150 m),
jumping (alternating,
calf, squat, hurdle),
strength (2–3
sets 36–10 reps,
half squat, knee
extension/flexion,
calf raises)
1–2 315 back
extension, 2–5 3
6–8 leg press,
1–3 36
countermovement
jump, 1–3 320 knee
lift, 1–3 310 ankle
jump and hamstring
curl, 1–6 310
alternate-leg bound,
1–5 330–20 m skip
for height and single-
leg ankle jump, 5 35
hurdle jumps, 5 38
scissor jump for
height
Heavy weight training:
Hamstring curl,
leg press, seated
press, parallel
squat, leg extension,
heel raise
Frequency 1 time per week
(weeks 1–3), 2 times
per week (weeks 4–6),
3 times per week
(weeks 7–9)
3 times per week 3 times per week 2 times per week
Duration 15–90 minutes 30–60 min 30 minutes 2–3 warm-up sets,
3–5 sets
33–5 reps
to failure
Supplemental/
circuit
training
Circuit training: Unweighted,
slow-velocity abdominal
and leg exercises
10% supplemental:
Coordination
training, circuit
training, ball
games
Control
group
Endurance 84% below, 16% above
anaerobic threshold
Running: 60–80
kmwk
21
82% endurance,
.95% below
anaerobic
threshold, mainly
running
Running: 114.1
639.8 kmwk
21
Run: 44 6
5kmwk
21
swim: 19.8 6
4.0 kmwk
21
cycle: 210 6
40 kmwk
21
2040
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Resistance and Endurance Training on Performance
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
Five RCTs that met the inclusionary criteria were inde-
pendently evaluated by two reviewers using the PEDro scale.
Scores were recorded, and full consensus was achieved over
the scores given to the five articles. A third reviewer was not
needed as a tiebreaker to resolve differences in article scores.
The kappa value (measure of observed agreement) for all five
RCTs was 1.0 (perfect agreement).
As currently reported, CT studies do not score high with
the PEDro scale because of the difficulty of researchers to
blind allocation, treatment, and assessment. Future research-
ers could increase their PEDro score by concealing allocation,
stating random allocation, and blinding assessors as to the
groups to which subjects were allocated.
Data Synthesis
Scores on the PEDro scale for the five selected articles ranged
from 5 to 6 of a maximum 10 points (Table 1). All authors
reported increased running performance or RE with CT
compared with ET alone. Two of the five authors (30,37)
reported increased running performance and RE, although at
different distances (5K vs. 3K, respectively), whereas the
other three authors (26,27,36) reported improved RE only.
Additionally, four of the five authors (26,30,36,37) imple-
mented plyometric training in their studies, whereas only one
author (27) employed heavy weight training. All five studies
are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
The Paavolainen et al. (30) and the Mikkola et al. (26)
articles both scored 5/10 on the PEDro scale. Random
allocation of subjects into training groups was not specified.
The Mikkola et al. (26) study attempted to randomly allocate
subjects, but some subjects initially assigned to the CT group
were moved to the ET group for personal reasons (personal
communication). Please see Table 1 for specific scores on
the PEDro scale.
The PEDro scale scores for the three additional articles
(27,36,37) were 6/10. Concealment of allocation is not
entirely relevant for these training studies, because one
subject is no more likely to improve with training than
another subject if training is monitored for volume and
intensity. Additionally, blinding of subjects and therapists is
not possible; blinding of assessors was not specified. Please
see Table 1 for specific scores on the PEDro scale.
Paavolainen et al. (30) compared the combined effects of
sport-specific explosive strength and ET for 9 weeks on
running performance and RE. The sport-specific plyometric
training consisted of sprints and jumps (unloaded, or with
low loads) to optimize high or maximal movement velocities.
This study had no true control group because both training
groups performed plyometric training; however, the CT
group had a significantly greater proportion of plyometric
training as their total training volume, compared with the
control group (32 vs. 3%, respectively). Concurrent resistance
and endurance training resulted in significantly decreased
5K time trials and increased RE.
Sport-specific
explosive/heavy
weight training
3%: Sprinting (5–10 3
20–100 m), jumping
(alternating, bilateral
countermovement, drop,
hurdle, one-legged),
weighted explosive leg
press, knee extension/
flexion (30–200
contractions)
Frequency 3 times per week
Duration 15–90 minutes 30–60 min
Supplemental/
circuit training
Circuit: Unweighted,
slow-velocity abdominal
and leg exercises
14% supplemental:
Coordination training,
circuit training,
ball games
CT = concurrent resistance and endurance training.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 6 | NOVEMBER 2008 | 2041
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
Spurrs et al. (37) examined 6 weeks of concurrent
plyometric and ET in 17 male distance runners. All subjects
ran 60–80 kmwk
21
; intensity and volume were maintained
and monitored over the course of the study. Plyometric
training (two sessions per week for 3 weeks, followed by
three sessions per week for 3 weeks) consisted of various
unloaded jumps, bounds, and hops in both the horizontal and
vertical planes. Both groups were tested pre- and posttraining
for RE,
_
Vo
2
max, lactate threshold, relative stiffness of the
musculotendinous system, maximal isometric force, rate of
force development, countermovement jump, a five-bound
test, and a 3K time trial. The ET group trended toward
superior pretraining 3K time trial performance, but no
significant baseline differences existed between groups. The
CTgroup significantly improved in all posttraining measures,
but the ET group remained unchanged.
Mikkola et al. (26) compared concurrent explosive strength
training and ET in postpubertal teenage distance runners
(male and female). No true control group existed because
both groups performed supplemental (coordination, and
circuit training, ball games, etc.) and explosive strength
training; however, strength training for CT was 19% of total
training hours, with only 4% for ET. Strength training
sessions lasted 30–60 minutes and occurred three times per
week. Exercises included running sprints, jumping exercises
without external load, and half squats, knee extensions, knee
flexions, calf raises, abdominal curls, and back extensions
with low load. For both groups, .95% of ET occurred below
their anaerobic threshold. Several outcomes significantly
increased in the CT group: maximal speed of anaerobic and
30-m speed running tests, concentric and isometric leg
extension forces, and force-time characteristics accompanied
by increased rapid neural activation of the muscles. For both
groups, thickness of the quadriceps femoris increased,
whereas maximal speed of aerobic running test and
_
Vo
2
max
remained unchanged. Running economy only slightly (3 64%,
p= 0.07) increased in the CT group.
Saunders et al. (36) examined the effects of short-term
(9 weeks) plyometric training on RE in highly trained distance
runners. Plyometric training (three sessions per week, loaded
and unloaded exercises) were added to subjects’ normal
training for the CT group. The subjects were tested for RE
at 14, 16, and 18 kmh
-1
at weeks 5 and 9. Significant
improvement for CT was only found at week 9 for the
18 kmh
-1
test. All other measures (
_
Vo
2
max, respiratory
exchange ratio, heart rate, stride rate, blood lactate
concentration, strength, and power) were not significantly
different at baseline or after the intervention.
Millet et al. (27) compared the combined effects of CT
during 14 weeks. The ET was predominantly aerobic, with
the majority of the training under 70% of
_
Vo
2
max. The
strength training consisted of three to five sets of three to five
repetitions of lower-body exercises (hamstring curl, leg curl,
leg press, seated press, parallel squat, leg extension, and heel
raises) twice per week. Periodization of the training program
was composed of several 3-week periods, during which
weight was incrementally increased to approximately 90%
of one-repetition maximum; one-repetition maximum was
reassessed every 3 weeks to ensure maintenance of maximal
loads for the duration of the study. The CT group
significantly increased RE as measured by increased velocity
associated with
_
Vo
2
.
DISCUSSION
This systematic review of five CT studies suggests that
strength training (explosive and/or heavy weight) improves
long-distance running performance and/or RE (an indicator
of running performance). The moderate PEDro scale scores
(5 or 6) should not diminish the quality of the reviewed
studies, considering the constraints that training studies
have in blinding subjects, therapists, and assessors to the
treatment received. Despite the numerous CT studies
(3,9,11,14,16,20,26,27,30,31,36,37,39), relatively few of these
studies have looked at highly trained endurance runners. This
review is unique because of its narrow focus on highly trained
endurance runners. One limitation of this review was the
small number of articles that met the inclusion criteria, but
this further emphasizes that CT is used by distance running
coaches with little empirical evidence. Although all studies
included provide evidence that concurrent training may
improve distance running performance, further research is
needed to elucidate the most effective training programs.
Despite the strong relationship between RE (4,5,33) and
explosive strength training, only two of the five articles
reviewed examined running performance (30,37). The
importance of
_
Vo
2
max, lactate threshold, RE, and neuro-
muscular measures should not be ignored, but for athletes the
most important variable is race time, or time trial
performance. Additionally, many of the studies in this
systematic review consisted of relatively short training
duration (average = 9.2 weeks) and used athletes who were
not strength trained. It is unknown how chronic adaptations
to CT will affect endurance running performance. Early
improvements on running with RT are associated with
neuromuscular adaptations (34), but the effects of chronic RT
on muscle mass, muscle metabolic activity, or the risk:benefit
are still unknown. Because the studies in this review assessed
high-level athletes, it was likely difficult to control training
for a longer period of time because of the competitive
season cycle.
Each researcher attempted to tightly control RT and
reported workout regimens; however, aerobic training pro-
gram descriptions were noticeably absent. The RT programs
were all well-planned protocols that tested strength gains to
adequately increase workout intensity for the duration of the
study. Most competitive athletes engage in a myriad of
aerobic workouts (steady state, tempo, interval, etc.), which
also vary with different phases of training. Interpretation of
CT results with ET would be more insightful if aerobic
training programs had been defined.
2042
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Resistance and Endurance Training on Performance
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
Many authors report that CT is well studied (17,18,27) and
recommend highly specific RT programs (17). However, the
majority of the studies cited studied nonelite runners
(16,20,39), elite cross-country skiers (14,31), or untrained
subjects (3,9,20). Untrained or recreationally active subjects
had improved running performance regardless of whether
CT or ET alone was used (9,20,39). However, these results
may not necessarily translate to highly trained, elite distance
runners because of their high degree of fitness and adaptation
that has already occurred.
To disseminate the results of CT, researchers must consider
the different types of RT. Circuit training, which involves
a variety of resistance exercises with minimal rest, has only
been shown to improve endurance performance in untrained
individuals (8,25). Traditional RT (e.g., squat, bench press)
improved RE in trained cross-country runners, but it has not
been researched in conjunction with performance per se (27).
Explosive, or plyometric, training (loaded and unloaded) is
the most frequently studied type of RT in endurance runners.
The addition of plyometric exercises to ET consistently
improved both distance running performance (30,37)
and RE (26,36).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Current research supports increased RE with CT. The
importance placed on RE in performance warrants the
incorporation of sport-specific explosive strength or heavy
weight training programs to current ET in highly trained
runners. Additionally, the research presented showed
improved 3K and 5K run times in trained distance runners
who incorporated loaded and unloaded explosive strength
training to their normal ET programs. The authors
recommend the inclusion of well-structured, periodized
RT programs in their athletes’ training regimens based on
the health and ability of individual athletes during each
training phase. We believe that the positive benefits of CT
cannot be overlooked despite the limited body of evidence.
However, it is evident that there is a need for further research
with trained distance runners on the potential benefits of
various forms and on periodization of RT on distance
running performance.
REFERENCES
1. Abernethy, PJ, Jurimae, J, Logan, PA, Taylor, AW, and Thayer, RE.
Acute and chronic response of skeletal muscle to resistance exercise.
Sports Med 17: 22–38, 1994.
2. Bell, GJ, Syrotuik, D, Martin, TP, Burnham, R, and Quinney, HA.
Effect of concurrent strength and endurance training on skeletal
muscle properties and hormone concentrations in humans. Eur J
Appl Physiol 81: 418–427, 2000.
3. Chtara, M, Chamari, K, Chaouachi, A, Koubaa, D, Feki, Y, Millet, G,
and Amri, M. Effects of intra-session concurrent endurance and
strength training sequence on aerobic performance and capacity.
Br J Sports Med 39: 555–560, 2005.
4. Costill, DL. The relationship between selected physiological
variables and distance running performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
7: 61–66, 1967.
5. Costill, DL, Thomason, H, and Roberts, E. Fractional utilization of
the aerobic capacity during distance running. Med Sci Sports 5: 248–
252, 1973.
6. Dudley, GA and Djamil, R. Incompatibility of endurance- and
strength-training modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol 59:
1446–1451, 1985.
7. Fleck, SJ and Kraemer, WJ. Designing Resistance Training Programs.
Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2003.
8. Gettman, LR, Ward, P, and Hagan, RD. A comparison of combined
running and weight training with circuit weight training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 14: 229–234, 1982.
9. Gotshalk, L, Berger, R, and Kraemer, W. Cardiovascular responses to
a high-volume continuous circuit resistance training protocol.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 760–764, 2004.
10. Hakkinen, K, Alen, M, Kraemer, WJ, Gorostiaga, E, Izquierdo,
M, Rusko, H, Mikkola, J, Hakkinen, A, Valkeinen, H, Kaarakainen,
E, Romu, S, Erola, V, Ahtiainen, J, and Paavolainen, L.
Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and
endurance training versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol
89: 42–52, 2003.
11. Hickson, R, Dvorak, B, Gorostiaga, E, Kurowski, T, and Foster, C.
Potential for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance
performance. J Appl Physiol 65: 2285–2290, 1988.
12. Hickson, RC. Interference of strength development by simulta-
neously training for strength and endurance. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol 45: 255–263, 1980.
13. Hickson, RC, Rosenkoetter, MA, and Brown, MM. Strength training
effects on aerobic power and short-term endurance. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 12: 336–339, 1980.
14. Hoff, J, Gran, A, and Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training
improves aerobic endurance performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports
12: 288–295, 2002.
15. Hunter, G, Demment, R, and Miller, D. Development of strength
and maximum oxygen uptake during simultaneous training for
strength and endurance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 27:
269–275, 1987.
16. Johnston, R, Quinn, T, Kertzer, R, and Vroman, N. Strength training
in female distance runners: impact on their running economy.
J Strength Cond Res 11: 224–229, 1997.
17. Jones, P and Bampouras, T. Resistance training for distance running:
a brief update. Strength Cond J 29(1): 28–35, 2007.
18. Jung, A. The impact of resistance training on distance running
performance. Sports Med 33: 539–552, 2003.
19. Kraemer, W. Exercise prescription in weight training:
manipulating program variables. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 5:
58–59, 1983.
20. Kraemer, W, Vescovi, J, Volek, J, Nindl, B, Newton, R, Patton, J,
Dziados, J, French, D, and Ha
¨kkinen, K. Effects of concurrent
resistance and aerobic training on load-bearing performance and the
army physical fitness test. Mil Med 169: 994–999, 2004.
21. Kraemer, WJ, Deschenes, MR, and Fleck, SJ. Physiological
adaptations to resistance exercise. Implications for athletic condi-
tioning. Sports Med 6: 246–256, 1988.
22. Kraemer, WJ, Patton, J, Gordon, S, Harman, E, Deschenes, MR,
Reynolds, K, Newton, R, Triplett, N, and Dziados, J. Compatability
of high-intensity strength and endurance training on hormonal and
skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol 78: 976–989, 1995.
23. MacDougall, J, Sale, DG, Moroz, J, Elder, G, Sutton, J, and
Howald, H. Mitochondrial volume density in human skeletal
muscle following heavy resistance training. Med Sci Sports 11:
64–66, 1979.
24. Maher, CG, Sherrington, C, Herbert, RD, Moseley, AM, and Elkins,
M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized
controlled trials. Phys Ther 83: 713–721, 2003.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 6 | NOVEMBER 2008 | 2043
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
25. Marcinik, EJ, Potts, J, Schlabach, G, Will, S, Dawson, P, and Hurley,
BF. Effects of strength training on lactate threshold and endurance
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 23: 739–743, 1991.
26. Mikkola, J, Rusko, H, Nummela, A, Pollari, T, and Hakkinen, K.
Concurrent endurance and explosive type strength training
improves neuromuscular and anaerobic characteristics in young
distance runners. Int J Sports Med 28: 602–611, 2007.
27. Millet, G, Jaouen, B, Borrani, F, and Candau, R. Effects of concurrent
endurance and strength training on running economy and
_
Vo
2
kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 1351–1359, 2002.
28. Morgan, DW, Baldini, FD, Martin, PE, and Kohrt, WM. Ten
kilometer performance and predicted velocity at
_
Vo
2
max among
well-trained male runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 21: 78–83, 1989.
29. Notes from nationals. Sports Illustrated 105(23): 48, 2006.
30. Paavolainen, L, Ha
¨kkinen, K, Ha
¨ma
¨la
¨inen, I, Nummela, A, and
Rusko, H. Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time
by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol 86:
1527–1533, 1999.
31. Paavolainen, L, Hakkinen, K, and Rusko, H. Effects of explosive type
strength training on physical performance characteristics in cross-
country skiers. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 62: 251–255, 1991.
32. PEDro Scale. Available at: http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/
scale_item.html. Accessed April 4, 2007.
33. Pollock, ML. Submaximal and maximal working capacity of elite
distance runners. Part I: cardiorespiratory aspects. Ann N Y Acad Sci
301: 310–322, 1977.
34. Sale, DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 20: S135–S145, 1988.
35. Saunders, P, Pyne, D, Teldorf, R, and Hawley, J. Factors affecting
running economy in trained distance runners. Sports Med 34: 465–
485, 2004.
36. Saunders, PU, Telford, RD, Pyne, DB, Peltola, EM, Cunningham,
RB, Gore, CJ, and Hawley, JA. Short-term plyometric training
improves running economy in highly trained middle and long
distance runners. J Strength Cond Res 20: 947–954, 2006.
37. Spurrs, RW, Murphy, AJ, and Watsford, ML. The effect of plyometric
training on distance running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 89:
1–7, 2003.
38. Tanaka, H and Swensen, T. Impact of resistance training on
endurance performance. A new form of cross-training? Sports Med
25: 191–200, 1998.
39. Turner, AM, Owings, M, and Schwane, JA. Improvement in running
economy after 6 weeks of plyometric training. J Strength Cond Res 17 :
60–67, 2003.
2044
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Resistance and Endurance Training on Performance
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited