Explosive work can make you more efficient
Medium confidence
Running economy is how much energy you burn to hold a given pace. Across trials, explosive training cut that cost by about 5 percent on average, and jump training gave a moderate improvement in 2 to 5 km time trials. Results for plyometrics alone are mixed across pooled analyses.
Why it works
Short explosive efforts build muscle power, rate of force development and sprint speed, and these gains track with better running economy and race times. The aerobic engine (VO2max) does not change. The exact pathway is unresolved: Turner found no change in elastic-energy markers, and pooled jump-training trials found no change in leg stiffness.
What it means in practice
Present strides as a low-cost way to practice short, fast running. The trials tested explosive-strength and jump training, not strides, so do not present strides as a proven economy tool. For a more dependable economy gain, pair them with heavy strength work.
The evidence
-
The explosive-strength group ran 5 km faster with no change in VO2max, so the gains traced to running economy and neuromuscular changes rather than aerobic power. Economy improved and maximal anaerobic running velocity rose, each correlating with the 5K gain (r = -0.54 and r = 0.55). The control group (3% explosive work) did not get faster. This classic small trial suggests that short, high-velocity work transfers to distance performance through non-cardiorespiratory pathways.
n=18
-
Six weeks of plyometric training improved running economy in the plyometric group (p<0.05), while controls showed no improvement. VO2max did not change, and neither did jump height or the jump-efficiency measures that would have indicated better storage and return of elastic energy, so the authors say the mechanism must still be determined. Unlike Paavolainen 1999, whose explosive-strength program in well-trained athletes mixed sprints and weightlifting with plyometrics, this study isolated plyometrics in recreational runners. The small sample (n=18) and short duration keep it preliminary.
n=18
-
Across 22 studies of long-distance runners, heavy resistance training improved running economy (g = -0.32, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.10, small), while plyometric training's effect on economy was trivial and not reliable (g = -0.13, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.21). Time-trial effects were also larger for heavy resistance (g = -0.24, small) than plyometrics (g = -0.17, trivial). Near-maximal loads (≥90% 1RM) and longer programs (10-14 weeks for heavy resistance) produced greater effects. The authors conclude heavy resistance training, especially with near-maximal loads, may be superior to plyometric training for economy and time-trial performance.
-
Strength training improves running economy in highly trained middle- and long-distance runners. This meta-analysis pooled 5 controlled trials (n=93), all with VO2max above 60 ml/kg/min, in which runners added low-to-high intensity resistance work plus plyometrics 2 to 3 times per week for 8 to 12 weeks. The pooled effect on running economy was large (SMD -1.42, 95% CI -2.23 to -0.60), and 4 of the 5 trials used low-to-moderate loads (40-70% of 1RM). That VO2max threshold excludes typical recreational runners, so the effect at lower fitness levels stays an open question.
n=93
-
Jump training produced a moderate improvement in time-trial performance over 2.0 to 5.0 km (ES 0.88) and small-to-moderate improvements in running economy, jump performance, rate of force development, sprint performance and reactive strength (ES 0.36-0.73). It did not improve VO2max, velocity at VO2max, velocity at submaximal lactate, submaximal heart rate, stride rate, stiffness, body mass or maximal strength.
n=511
-
Adding strength training improved running economy by about 3.9% versus control. Explosive training (-4.83%) and heavy weight training (-3.65%) produced similar improvements, while isometric training had no significant effect. Longer programs produced larger gains.
Why we call confidence medium
Medium: small trials and some meta-analyses support explosive and jump training, but pooled results for plyometrics alone are inconsistent and no study tests strides. Paavolainen (1999, n=18 well-trained endurance athletes) found 9 weeks of explosive-strength work improved 5K time and economy with no VO2max change, and Turner (2003, n=18 recreational runners) found plyometrics improved economy only. Denadai's 2017 meta-analysis found explosive training cut oxygen cost about 4.8 percent, and Ramirez-Campillo (2021, 21 studies) found a moderate 2 to 5 km time-trial gain from jump training. Against this, Eihara (2022) found the plyometric effect on economy trivial and not significant, and Llanos-Lagos (2024) found plyometric training alone did not significantly improve performance.
Where it applies
Distance and endurance runners from recreational to well-trained, both sexes. Turner's runners averaged 29 years (SD 7); the meta-analyses pooled runners of varied ages. Older runners are a plausible extension, not a direct finding.
Does not apply to: complete beginners with <6 months running history (form/load tolerance not yet adapted); runners managing acute injury where high-velocity efforts contraindicated.
Plans that respect this
Plans that scored well on the rubric measures informed by this claim.
- 10-Week Advanced 10k Training (5 days)
- 10-Week Run a Faster 10k (3 days)
- 10-Week Run a Faster 10k (4 days)
- 10-Week Run a Faster 10k (5 days)
- 10-Week Run a Faster 10k (6 days)
- 10-Week Run a Faster Half Marathon (3 days)
- 10-Week Run a Faster Half Marathon (4 days)
- 10-Week Run a Faster Half Marathon (5 days)
- 10-Week Run Your First 10k (3 days)
- 10-Week Run Your First 10k (4 days)
- 10-Week Run Your First Half Marathon (3 days)
- 10-Week Run Your First Half Marathon (4 days)
Last reviewed Oct 14, 2026. See how we score.