Effects of a Regular Endurance Training Program on Running Economy and Biomechanics in Runners

Abstract

A regular endurance training program may elicit different adaptations compared to an isolated training method. In this study, we analyzed the effects of 8 weeks of a regular endurance training program on running economy (RE), particularly neuromuscular and biomechanical parameters, in runners of different athletic abilities. Twenty-four male runners were divided into two groups: well-trained (n=12) and recreational (n=12). Both groups completed a 4-min running bout at 13 and 17 km·h-1, respectively, for the recreational and well-trained group, and a 5-jump plyometric test pre-post intervention. During the training program, participants completed low-intensity continuous sessions, high-intensity interval training sessions, and auxiliary strength training sessions. RE, measured as oxygen cost and energy cost, decreased by 6.15% (p=0.006) and 5.11% (p=0.043), respectively, in the well-trained group. In the recreational group, energy cost of running, respiratory exchange ratio, and leg stiffness decreased by 5.08% (p=0.035), 7.61% (p=0.003), and 10.59% (p=0.017), respectively, while ground contact time increased by 3.34% (p=0.012). The maximum height of the 5-jump plyometric test decreased by 4.55% (p=0.018) in the recreational group. We suggest that 8 weeks of regular endurance training leads to an improvement of ~5% in RE in recreational and well-trained runners with different physiological adaptations between groups and few changes in biomechanical and neuromuscular parameters only in recreational runners.

Changes in running economy and running technique following 6 months of running with and without wearable‐based real‐time feedback

“…Among the spatiotemporal metrics, only increases in contact time were significantly associated with improvements in running economy (Figure 3; Table 3). In line with our finding, a previous study also reported that 8 weeks of combined continuous, interval and strength training among recreational runners significantly improved running economy and prolonged ground contact time 39 . Although most runners naturally select contact times that are close to their optimum value, one study found that runners often select slightly shorter contact times than optimal 57 .…”

“…The average improvements in running economy across all speeds were 6.1% and 7.7% for the control, and intervention groups, respectively. These changes are comparable to reductions found in previous studies were runners performed continuous running training without specific feedback on running technique 39–42 . Such improvements are larger than the between‐day typical error of ~2.5%, (range: 0.8%–3.3%) 43–45 and smallest worthwhile change of ~2.5% 43 reported for running economy in other studies and may therefore be considered clinically relevant.…”

“…These changes are comparable to reductions found in previous studies were runners performed continuous running training without specific feedback on running technique. [39][40][41][42] Such improvements are larger than the between-day typical error of ~2.5%, (range: 0.8%-3.3%) [43][44][45] and smallest worthwhile change of ~2.5% 43 reported for running economy in other studies and may therefore be considered clinically relevant. For example, such improvements would translate into a 3-4 min reduction in 10 km time for a recreational runner, running at 3 ms −1 (~56 min 10 km) at baseline.…”

“…In line with our finding, a previous study also reported that 8 weeks of combined continuous, interval and strength training among recreational runners significantly improved running economy and prolonged ground contact time. 39 Although most runners naturally select contact times that are close to their optimum value, one study found that runners often select slightly shorter contact times than optimal. 57 Contact time may therefore have increased due to self-optimization, whereby a longer contact time may reduce lower-limb fascicle shortening velocities and hereby improve running economy (e.g., 58 ).…”

Comparison of Metabolic Power and Energy Cost of Submaximal and Sprint Running Efforts Using Different Methods in Elite Youth Soccer Players: A Novel Energetic Approach

“…Thus, this remains a topic that needs further investigation to better understand the main mechanistic–energetic needs and, consequently, make meaningful methodological choices. Currently, there are numerous existing studies evaluating MP and energy expenditure, utilizing global positioning systems (GPS) and inertial measurement units (IMU) [ 24 , 32 , 33 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], but there is a complete absence of studies calculating these parameters from EMG technology. Analyzing submaximal and maximal sprint behavior with the aim of determining the MP and EC calculated by EMG and the EMG and force relationship could help clarify actual metabolic and neuromuscular engagement during linear running actions.…”