REF-864 · Piacentini et al., 2013 · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Vol. · Paper · PubMed
Concurrent strength and endurance training effects on running economy in master endurance runners
Sixteen regularly training master marathon runners were randomised to maximal strength training, resistance training or a control group. Only the maximal-strength group improved: one-repetition maximum rose and running economy at marathon pace improved, while the other groups did not change and body composition was unchanged.
The authors conclude that master endurance athletes seem to benefit from concurrent strength and endurance training and suggest rate of force development may be crucial for the economy gain.
Participants
n=16 regularly training master marathon runners (abstract: "Sixteen participants"), randomly assigned:
Maximal strength training (MST): n = 6, 44.2 ± 3.9 years
Resistance training: n = 5, 44.8 ± 4.4 years
Control: n = 5, 43.2 ± 7.9 years
Sex is not stated in the abstract.
Protocol
Two strength protocols (maximal strength vs resistance training) added to endurance training; control continued running only. Loads, sets, frequency and duration are not given in the abstract.
Before and after: resting metabolic rate, body composition, 1 repetition maximum (1RM), squat jump, countermovement jump and running economy (RE).
Key Results
MST group: significant increases (p < 0.05) in 1RM (+16.34%) and RE (+6.17 %) at marathon pace.
Resistance-training and control groups: no differences (p > 0.05).
Anthropometric data unchanged after the intervention (p > 0.05).
Practical Application
In 16 master marathon runners in their mid-forties randomised to maximal strength training, resistance training or control, only the maximal-strength group improved — 1RM +16.34% and running economy at marathon pace +6.17% — with no change in body composition. To "as a masters marathoner, what kind of gym work helps?": heavy, maximal-strength work, not general resistance training.
The contrast between the two strength arms is the useful part: the type of strength work mattered, not simply doing some.
The authors' interpretation that rate of force development drives the economy gain is a hypothesis from this study, not a measured link.
Limitations
n=16 split three ways (6, 5 and 5); the authors call it a preliminary study.
Programme content, weeks of training and the "resistance training" load are not described in the abstract.
Sex not stated; economy measured at marathon pace only; no race outcome.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
parallel RCT, n=16 across three arms; the authors call it preliminary