The Effect of Strength Training Methods on Middle-Distance and Long-Distance Runners' Athletic Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis
This meta-analysis compared strength training methods — high load (≥ 80% of one repetition maximum), submaximal load (40-79%), plyometric and combined — in middle- and long-distance runners, against running-only controls or low-load (< 40%) strength training.
High-load training had a moderate effect and combined methods a large effect on running performance (time trial and time to exhaustion), while plyometric training alone did not reach significance. No method improved VO2max, velocity at VO2max, maximum metabolic steady state or sprint capacity, and no subject or programme moderator changed the results.
It is the performance companion to the same team's running-economy meta-analysis REF-801.
Participants
Controlled studies including 324 moderately trained, 272 well trained and 298 highly trained middle- and long-distance runners, without restriction on sex or level. The number of included studies is not given in the abstract.
Protocol
Search of Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and SCOPUS for articles indexed up to November 2022.
Eligibility: strength training for ≥ 3 weeks, as high load (≥ 80% of one repetition maximum), submaximal load (40-79%), plyometric or combined (two or more methods); control group with running only or low-load strength training (< 40% of one repetition maximum); running performance, VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS and/or sprint capacity measured before and after; randomised and non-randomised controlled studies.
Programmes lasted between 6 and 40 weeks, with one to four intervention sessions per week.
Random-effects meta-analysis and moderator analysis (Comprehensive meta-analysis, version 3.3.0.70); certainty by GRADE.
Key Results
| Method | Effect on running performance (time trial, time to exhaustion) |
|---|---|
| High load (≥ 80% 1RM) | Moderate: effect size = -0.469, p = 0.029 |
| Combined (two or more methods) | Large: effect size = -1.035, p = 0.036 |
| Plyometric | Not significant: effect size = -0.210, p = 0.064 |
None of the methods improved VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS or sprint capacity (all p > 0.072).
Moderators — subject (sex, age, body mass, height, VO2max, performance level, strength training experience) and intervention (weeks, sessions per week, total sessions) — had no effect on performance or its determinants (all p > 0.166).
Certainty of evidence: very low to moderate.
Practical Application
Across controlled trials in 324 moderately trained, 272 well-trained and 298 highly trained middle- and long-distance runners, high-load strength training (≥ 80% of 1RM) improved running performance by a moderate amount (effect size = -0.469) and combined methods by a large amount (-1.035), plyometrics alone did not reach significance (-0.210, p = 0.064), and no method changed VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS or sprint capacity. To "which gym work will make me race faster?": heavy lifting, ideally combined with another method such as plyometrics — and expect the gain in performance, not in the lab ceiling numbers.
The benefit held regardless of sex, age, level or strength-training experience, so it is not reserved for one kind of runner; the absence of a moderator effect for weeks or sessions per week means this paper cannot set a dose.
Inference, not tested here: this and the economy meta-analysis REF-801 come from the same team and very likely share trials, so count them as one body of evidence, not two confirmations.
Limitations
Certainty of evidence very low to moderate (GRADE); non-randomised studies included.
The number of included studies and the heterogeneity statistics are not given in the abstract.
The plyometric estimate narrowly missed significance; "no effect" is not shown.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
meta-analysis of controlled trials, certainty of evidence very low to moderate
Full text (checked 2026-10-12)
38 studies were included, with 894 participants (651 male and 243 female) aged between 17 and 40 years; the running-performance analysis pooled 8 high-load studies, 14 groups from 12 plyometric studies and 6 combined studies, while the 2 submaximal-load studies were too few to pool (full text).
GRADE certainty for running performance was moderate for high load (follow-up mean 8.1 weeks, 72 vs 65 participants) and plyometric training (mean 7.4 weeks), and very low for combined training (mean 14.7 weeks) (full text, Table 4).
The combined-method estimate had significant, moderate heterogeneity (Q(5) = 15.373, p = 0.009, I2 = 67.475%) and was the only analysis with detected publication bias; the high-load estimate had I2 < 0.001% (full text).
Pooled effects on the determinants were near zero, e.g. VO2max with high load ES = −0.014 (p = 0.924), MMSS with high load ES = 0.049 (p = 0.760), and sprint capacity with combined training ES = −0.493 (p = 0.072) (full text).
All combined programmes paired plyometric training with high-load and/or submaximal-load training, and four of the five studies with submaximal loads instructed maximal velocity intention (full text).
In one included trial, high load plus plyometrics vs high load alone improved 5-km performance by 2.80% vs 2.09% and running economy at 14.00 km/h by 7.68% vs 4.89%, with no significant difference between groups (full text).
The authors report the running-economy effects (high load ES = −0.266, combined ES = −0.426) as coming from a secondary analysis of studies included in this systematic review (full text).