Beattie 2016 Performance-1

The effect of strength training on performance indicators in distance runners
Kris Beattie, Brian P. Carson, Mark Lyons, Antonia Rossiter, Ian C. Kenny
Publication date
01-01-2017
Published in
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research;31 (1), pp. 9-23
Licence
This work is made available under the CC BY-NC-SA 1.0 licence and should only be used in accordance with
that licence. For more information on the specific terms, consult the repository record for this item.
Document Version
1
Citation for this work (HarvardUL)
Beattie, K., Carson, B.P., Lyons, M., Rossiter, A.and Kenny, I.C. (2017) ‘The effect of strength training on
performance indicators in distance runners’, available: https://hdl.handle.net/10344/5802 [accessed 24 Jul
2022].
This work was downloaded from the University of Limerick research repository.
For more information on this work, the University of Limerick research repository or to report an issue, you can
contact the repository administrators at [email protected]. If you feel that this work breaches copyright, please provide
details and we will remove access to the work immediately while we investigate your claim.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001464
The Effect of Strength Training on Performance Indicators in Distance Runners
Running head: Strength Training in Distance Runners
Authors: Kris Beattie1, Brian P. Carson1, Mark Lyons1 Antonia Rossiter2 and Ian C. Kenny1
D
Institutional Affiliations:
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick,
TE
Limerick, Ireland.
2
Irish Institute of Sport, National Sports Campus, Abbotstown, Dublin 15, Ireland.
EP
Corresponding Author:
Kris Beattie
Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences,
University of Limerick,
C
Limerick, Ireland.
Email: [email protected]
C
Fax: + 353 61 202814
Telephone: +353 61 234781

A
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank all the runners who participated in this study, Caroline MacManus of the Irish
Institute of Sport for guidance and physiological testing support, and Dr Will McCormack of
the University of Limerick for body composition testing support. The authors have no
conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article. This research is
supported by a University of Limerick Physical Education and Sport Science (PESS)
Scholarship awarded in 2012. The results of this present study do not constitute endorsement
of the product by the authors or the NSCA.
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Strength Training in Distance Runners 1
Abstract
& O2 max) are considered to

Running economy (RE) and velocity at maximal oxygen uptake (V V
be the best physiological performance indicators in elite distance runners. In addition to
& O2 max are partly dictated by neuromuscular factors. One

cardiovascular function, RE and V V
technique to improve neuromuscular function in athletes is through strength training. The
D
aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a 40 week strength training intervention on
TE
strength (maximal- & reactive-strength), & O2max,
VV economy and body composition (body
mass, fat & lean mass) in competitive distance runners. Twenty competitive distance runners
were divided into an intervention group (n = 11; 29.5 ± 10.0 years; 72.8 ± 6.6 kg; 1.83 ± 0.08
m) and a control group (n = 9; 27.4 ± 7.2 years; 70.2 ± 6.4 kg; 1.77 ± 0.04 m). During week
EP
0, 20 and 40, each subject completed three assessments: physiology (v2mmol/L BLa,
v4mmol/L & O2max, V

BLa, RE, V V & O2max), strength (1RM back squat; countermovement jump &
0.3m drop-jump) and body composition (body mass, fat mass, overall-lean & leg-lean). The
C
intervention group showed significant improvements in maximal- and reactive-strength
& O2max, at weeks 20 (p < 0.05) and 40 (p < 0.05).

qualities, RE and V V The control group
C
showed no significant changes at either time point. There were no significant changes in
body composition variables between or within groups. This study demonstrates that forty
A
weeks of strength training can significantly improve maximal- and reactive-strength qualities,
RE and vVO2max, without concomitant hypertrophy, in competitive distance runners.
& O2max, distance running.

Key Words: strength, running economy, V V

1 INTRODUCTION
2 Performance in distance running is multi-faceted; relying on an intricate interaction of
3 physiological, biomechanical and psychological factors. Even within the physiological
4 domain, there is a complex synergy between the central and peripheral system’s role in
5 facilitating adenosine triphosphate (ATP) regeneration for sustained running locomotion (4).
6 Since the original work of Hill & Lupton (15), there has been an abundance of research
D
7 & O2max) in distance running.
studies investigating the role of maximal oxygen consumption ( V
8 & O2max and middle- (800m, r = 0.75) and

Research has shown strong relationships between V
TE
9 long-distance (marathon, r = 0.78) performance in heterogeneous groups (17, 37). Due to
10 & O2max) protocols have been traditionally used in the

this, maximal oxygen uptake ( V
11 laboratory to monitor and predict the performance potential of both middle- and long-distance
EP
12 runners. However, at elite long-distance level (marathon time < 2 h 30 min), the relationship
13 & O2max and performance is weak (r = 0.01), and it is likely that this relationship is
between V
14 & O2max (> 70

negligible at ‘world-class’ standard (marathon time < 2 h 10 min) (37). A high V
15 mL/kg/min) may be a pre-requisite to be an elite distance runner, but additional physical

C
16 qualities are needed to succeed at this level. Key performance indicators such as running
C
17 & O2max) and anaerobic function

economy (RE), velocity at maximal oxygen uptake (V V
18 (velocity during maximum anaerobic running test: vMART; & max-velocity sprinting) have
A
19 been established as superior markers of success in these elite populations (5).
20 RE is defined as the metabolic cost to cover a given distance at a constant velocity (36).
21 RE represents the ability of a runner to translate cellular energy production into running
22 locomotion and is normally expressed as the volume of oxygen consumption per unit of body
23 mass required to run a kilometer (mL/kg/km) (36). RE has been shown to be a stronger
24 & O2max alone within elite homogenous populations, with inter-

indicator of performance than V
25 individual variability ranging between 20-30% (27). The east African dominance in distance

26 running has been partly attributed to their superior economy (36). RE is determined by the
27 athlete’s physiology, anthropometrics, biomechanics and environment; however
28 improvements in RE may be difficult to obtain in trained runners, and therefore any novel
29 training modality that results in marginal improvements may be crucial for success (2).
30 & O2max (V V
The velocity attained at V & O2max) is a ‘functional’ expression of maximal oxygen
&
31 consumption in velocity units (km/h). V VO2max is a composite of both maximal oxygen
D
32 consumption and economy. Due to this, the variable has shown to be strongly associated
33 with elite middle- (r = 0.71) (17) and long-distance (r = 0.89–0.94) (27) running performance.
TE
34 & O2max may remain stable throughout an elite distance runner’s career, research
Even though V
35 & O2max can improve by approximately 14% (19).

has shown that the velocity at V This
36 demonstrates that elite distance runners can improve their ability to translate maximal aerobic
EP
37 energy production into faster running velocities. During middle-distance events (800m &
38 1500m), or sprint finishes in long-distance events where velocities exceed & O2max,
VV the
39 contribution of the anaerobic energy system is increased (27). Endurance-specific ‘muscle

C
40 power’ is the ability of the neuromuscular system to rapidly produce force following a
41 sustained period of high-intensity exercise (high glycolytic and/or oxidative energy demand)
C
42 (28). This ability may be the differentiating factor for succeeding in elite distance running
43 (i.e. sprint finish). Therefore, rate of force development (RFD) is essential not only in short-
A
44 distance events (i.e. 100m, 200m & 400m), but also in middle- and long-distance running.
45 Consequently, in addition to cardiovascular capacity, limitations to elite distance running
46 performance may be dictated by peripheral neuromuscular force production ability.
47 One training technique for improving rate of force production in athletes is strength
48 training. Early work from Paavolainen et al (29, 30) demonstrated that the neuromuscular
49 adaptations from strength training (i.e. musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment
50 and synchronization, rate coding, intra- and intermuscular coordination & neural inhibition)

51 (10, 45) have the potential to improve performance in distance runners (44) by improving RE
52 & O2max and/or anaerobic function (24). However, strength training is generally still an
(2), V V
53 uncommon physical preparation modality in the distance running community. This is most
54 likely due to the ‘hypertrophic’ connotations associated with lifting weights, with distance
55 runners inadvertently linking strength adaptations to increased musculature and body mass -
56 which would potentially negatively affect relative physiological performance parameters (i.e.
D
57 & O2max, RE). Nonetheless, a recent systematic review by Beattie et al (5) in competitive
V
58 distance runners reported that strength training can improve 3 km (2.7%, ES = 0.13) (38) and
TE
59 5 km time-trial performance (3.1%) (30), economy (4.0 – 8.1%, ES: 0.3 – 1.03) (6, 21, 24,
60 & O2max (1.2%, ES: 0.43 – 0.49) (6, 24) and maximum anaerobic running
30, 32, 38, 40), V V
61 velocity (VMART) (3%) (24, 30). However, Beattie et al.’s (5) review showed that the
EP
62 strength interventions in these studies were relatively short-term (~ 8 weeks), and used
63 inadequate exercises (i.e. machine-based, isolated exercises) that may have limited optimal
64 strength development of the leg musculature for distance running performance (41).
65 Therefore, the current study addressed for the strength and conditioning community, the
C
66 uncertainty surrounding long term adaptations to strength training in trained distance runners
67 (1500 m – 10 000 m).

C
68 To our knowledge, the effects of a strength training intervention longer than 10 weeks, on
A
69 & O2max
VV and RE in distance runners, is unknown. Therefore, the aim of the current study was
70 to investigate the effect of a 40 week (20 week pre-season & 20 week in-season) strength
71 training intervention on strength qualities (maximal- & reactive-strength), key physiology
72 & O2max and RE) and body composition in collegiate and national-
performance indicators (V V
73 level distance runners (1500 m – 10 000 m). The experimental approach to answer this
74 research question was to conduct a 40 week longitudinal strength intervention study with a
75 parallel control group, measuring physiological, strength and body composition variables at

76 weeks 0, 20 and 40. We hypothesised that a 40 week strength intervention in distance
77 runners would result in significant changes in strength qualities (maximal- & reactive-
78 & O2max & RE) and body composition.

strength), key physiology performance indicators (V V
79 METHODS
80 Experimental approach to the problem
81 To investigate the hypothesis of the study, a longitudinal and controlled experimental
D
82 design was used to investigate the effect of a 40 week (20 week pre-season & 20 week in-
83 season) strength training intervention on strength qualities (maximal- & reactive-strength),
TE
84 & O2max and economy) and body composition in
key physiology performance indicators (V V
85 collegiate and national-level distance runners (1500 m – 10 000 m). A two group, repeated
86 measures (pre-, mid- and post-testing) design was used. After an 8-week off-season, subjects
EP
87 were divided into the two groups based on their ability to adhere to the study conditions (i.e.
88 time commitments and location relative to training facility). The two groups consisted of an
89 intervention group (endurance training AND strength training: n = 11; 29.5 ± 10.0 years; 72.8
C
90 ± 6.6 kg; 1.83 ± 0.08 m) and a control group (endurance training ONLY: n = 9; 27.4 ± 7.2
91 years; 70.2 ± 6.4 kg; 1.77 ± 0.04 m). There were no significant differences between groups at
C
92 baseline for all measures. All athletes and coaches were instructed not to deviate from their
93 normal 1500 m – 10 000 m endurance training. It is known that the control group did not
A
94 employ any strength training as part of their normal training programme. Due to the extensive
95 longitudinal nature of the study, endurance training (volume & intensity) was not controlled.
96 In addition to their endurance training, the intervention group strength trained twice a
97 week during the pre-season period (weeks 1-20, December – March, winter months), and
98 once a week during the in-season ‘racing’ period (weeks 20-40, April – July, summer
99 months) (see Figure 1). All strength sessions were coached by an experienced UK Strength

100 & Conditioning Association (UKSCA) accredited coach (the lead author). Each strength
101 session lasted approximately sixty minutes (see Table 1).
102 Subjects
103 Thirty competitive collegiate and national-level distance runners (1500 m – 10 000 m)
104 participated in the study, however due to unrelated injury and time commitment, twenty
105 subjects (n = 20; 28.2 ± 8.6 years; 71.6 ± 6.6 kg; 1.80 ± 0.07 m) completed the study. The
D
106 subjects had a mean maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) of 61.3 ± 3.2 mL/kg/min, which is
107 close to the BASES ‘national-level’ physiological standard (65-75 mL/kg/min) for male
TE
108 distance runners (Jones, 2006). It is also important to note that all subjects had no strength
109 training experience. All subjects were recruited through poster and email. After being
110 informed of the benefits and potential risks of the investigation, each subject completed a
EP
111 health-screening questionnaire and provided written informed consent prior to participation in
112 the study. All experimental procedures were ratified by the University of Limerick Research
113 Ethics Committee in accordance with the provisions of the most recent Declaration of
114 Helsinki.
C
115
116
C
117 Insert Figure 1 here
118
A
119
120 Strength, Physiology & Body Composition Assessment
121 During week 0, 20 and 40, each subject completed three assessment days: physiology,
122 strength and a body composition assessment day. All strength, physiology and body
123 composition assessments were undertaken at the same time of day to avoid diurnal variation
124 in performance. There were 48 hours between each testing day. To control the effect of diet

125 and physical readiness, each subject was asked to consume a habitual diet and avoid alcohol
126 (< 48 hours), limit caffeine ingestion (< 4 hours), and avoid vigorous exercise (< 24 hours)
127 prior to assessments. For body composition assessment, participants reported to the
128 laboratory following a 3h fast, having consumed 500ml of water, one hour prior to
129 measurement.
130
D
131 Strength Assessment
132 Prior to the strength assessment day, each subject carried out a familiarisation day to
TE
133 ensure habituation with the back squat, countermovement jump and drop-jump tests. The
134 familiarisation day included the same protocol as the strength assessment day (see below).
135 Also, all subjects were familiarised with the physiological measurement equipment during the
EP
136 warm-up period before physiological measurements (v2mmol/L BLa, v4mmol/L BLa, RE,
137 & O2max, V

VV & O2max) were taken. Before back squat 1 repetition maximum (RM) testing, each
138 subject completed a five minute warm-up (self-myofascial release, stretching and dynamic
139 mobility exercises). Following completion of the warm-up, subjects started the back squat 1
C
140 RM testing protocol to assess maximal-strength (25). This protocol consisted of a warm-up of
141 10 repetitions at 50% of their [estimated] 1RM load, 5 x 70% 1RM, 3 x 80% 1RM, and 1 x
C
142 90% 1RM. Each participant’s 1RM was estimated by the researcher based on the athlete’s
143 body mass, age and gender (25). Following the warm-up protocol, each subject had three
A
144 attempts to determine their actual 1RM (with 3 minutes in between sets). To ensure safe
145 conditions during testing, a box was set at the lowest depth the athlete could squat while
146 keeping optimal lumbar spinal position. Therefore, squat depth was specific to each subject
147 and knee angles ranged from 90o - 120o flexion. Only trials in which the subject touched the
148 box were considered successful lifts. The knee flexion angle was recorded to ensure the same
149 squat depth during week 0, 20 and 40 assessments.

150 Approximately ten minutes after the 1RM back squat, subjects started the reactive-
151 strength assessment. Reactive-strength movements are categorised depending on their slow
152 or fast stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) characteristics (34). Slow SSC function was assessed
153 through a countermovement jump (CMJ), and fast SSC function was assessed through a 0.3m
154 drop-jump. Both jumps were performed on a force platform (AMTI OR6-5; AMTI,
155 Watertown, MA, USA) operating at a sampling rate of 1000Hz. Each subject addressed the
D
156 CMJ in a standing position while keeping their hands on their hips in order to restrict arm
157 movement. After instruction, subjects initiated the jump via a downward countermovement.
TE
158 All subjects were instructed to choose a depth that they felt would maximise jump height. For
159 each trial the subject was told to “jump as high as possible”. Two minutes recovery was given
160 between jumps. Three jumps were performed with the highest value used for analysis.
EP
161 Following CMJs, subjects performed three individual drop-jumps from a 0.3 m box onto a
162 force platform. Each jump was separated by two minutes of recovery. Prior to each drop-
163 jump, the subject was instructed to step forward off the box, and on contact with the platform
164 to immediately jump as high as possible. They were also instructed to keep their hands on
C
165 their hips in order to restrict arm movement. Three drop-jumps were performed with the
166 highest reactive-strength index [RSI = jump height (m) / contact time (s)] used for analysis.
C
167
168 Physiology Assessment

A
169 & O2max, v V

All physiological variables ( V & O2max, RE, v2mmol/L & v4mmol/L BLa) were
170 determined during a two-part treadmill protocol (H/P/Cosmos Pulsar treadmill, H/P/Cosmos
171 Sports & Medical gmbh, Germany). The treadmill was set at 1% gradient throughout the
172 protocol. Oxygen consumption was determined continuously using a gas analyser (MOXUS,
173 Model DC-3A, AEI Technologies, Naperville, IL, USA). Before each test, the metabolic
174 cart was calibrated for air flow, and the gas analyser was calibrated against a certified gas

175 mixture. Prior to the protocol, each subject warmed-up on the treadmill for ten minutes. The
176 first five minutes was completed at a velocity that was 7 km/h slower than their estimated 4
177 mmol/L blood lactate velocity (v4mmol/L BLa), and the second five minutes at a speed that
178 was 6 km/h slower than v4mmol/L. Following the warm-up, a resting BLa sample was taken
179 using a Lactate Pro Analyser (Lactate Pro, ARKAY Europe, Amstelveen, Netherlands).
180 The first part of the treadmill protocol consisted of a twenty minute sub-maximal
D
181 ‘step’ test. The step test consisted of five, four minute stages. Each stage was four minutes
182 in length to allow for steady-state oxygen consumption, heart rate and BLa levels. The first
TE
183 stage was performed at a velocity 5 km/h slower than the subject’s estimated v4mmol/L. Each
184 stage increased by 1 km/h every four minutes so the final stage was at estimated v4mmol/L
185 BLa. Heart rate (Polar s610 HR Monitor, Kempele, Finland) and VO2 values used for
EP
186 analysis were the mean values from the last minute of each sub-maximal stage. RE, the
187 oxygen cost of running a kilometer at a specific velocity was calculated using the following
188 & O2 (mL/kg/min) / [speed (km/h) / 60]. After every stage the subject stepped off the
formula: V
189 treadmill for 15–20 s to allow ear-lobe blood samples to be taken for determination of BLa
C
190 concentration. The velocity at 2mmol/L & 4mmol/L of blood lactate were calculated using
191 Lactate-E 2.0 Software (26). The subjects rested for ten minutes following the sub-maximal
C
192 treadmill protocol.
193 The second part of the treadmill protocol consisted of a maximal ‘ramp’ test until
A
194 exhaustion. The initial velocity of the treadmill was set at 2 km/h slower than the subjects’s
195 estimated v4 mmol/L BLa stage velocity, and increased by 0.5 km/h every 30s until
196 & O2max was reached, each subject had to meet the following
exhaustion. To ensure that V
197 criteria: respiratory exchange ratio (RER) > 1.00; heart rate within 5% of their age-predicted
198 maximum; and/or BLa of 8–10 mM. Maximal oxygen uptake was taken as the highest 60s
199 & O2max.

VO2 value. Velocity at VO2max was taken as the minimum velocity that elicited V

200 Following the maximal ramp test, the subject cooled-down for ten minutes at a velocity that
201 was 7 km/h slower than their estimated v4 mmol/L velocity.
202
203 Body Composition Assessment
204 A Lunar iDXA™ (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) scanner (GE Healthcare,
205 Chalfont St Giles, Bucks., UK) with enCORE™ 2007 v.11 software was used to perform
D
206 total body scans. Each subject was instructed to refrain from exercise for 12 h, to refrain from
207 eating for 3 h and to consume 500 ml of water 1 h prior to testing. Each subject emptied their
TE
208 bladder immediately prior to the measurement. Participants were positioned on the scanner
209 bed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations and instructed to remain as still as
210 possible for the duration of the scan.

EP
211
212 Strength Programme
213 The lead author, an experienced UKSCA accredited S&C coach, designed and
214 coached the strength programme over the 40 weeks. The subcategories for strength training
C
215 in this programme included (1) maximal-strength that targets maximal force development
216 through high-load, low-velocity movements (e.g. back squats); (2) explosive-strength
C
217 (strength-speed and speed-strength) that improves RFD and maximal power output through
218 medium to high-load, high-velocity movements (e.g. jump-squats); and (iii) reactive-strength
A
219 that targets musculotendinous stiffness and stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) function through
220 low-load, high-velocity exercises (e.g. pogo-jumps, drop jumps) (12).
221 The programme’s aim can simplistically be described as to “increase the athlete’s
222 motor potential, and gradually improve their capacity to use [this] motor potential during the
223 performance of specific competition exercises” (41). Reactive-strength is the most important
224 strength quality for short-, middle- and long-distance running events (42). The kinematic and

225 kinetic characteristics of ‘fast’ SSC reactive-strength exercises (i.e. knee & hip joint
226 displacement, elastic musculotendinous force production) are similar to that of running.
227 However, during the first twenty weeks (pre-season, December - March), the primary focus
228 of the programme was maximal-strength development, with a secondary focus on
229 developmental reactive-strength training (see Table 1). There were two strength sessions per
230 week with at least 48 hours of recovery between sessions during the pre-season period. The
D
231 rationale for a ‘general’ maximal-strength emphasis is that (i) there is a positive correlation
232 between relative maximum-strength and reactive-strength levels in athletes (r = 0.63) (11),
TE
233 (ii) a maximum-strength programme can concurrently improve maximal-strength, explosive-
234 and sSSC reactive-strength qualities in relatively ‘weak’ athletes (7), (iii) maximum-strength
235 training improves stiffness (Kleg ) in relatively ‘weak’ athletes (8), and (iv) relatively ‘strong’
EP
236 athletes adapt quicker to power training when compared to the ‘weaker’ athletes (9).
237 During the in-season ‘racing’ period (weeks 20 to 40, April - July), after an increased
238 level of maximum-strength had been attained, the primary emphasis of the programme
239 changed to reactive- and explosive-strength development, with the secondary focus on
C
240 maintenance of maximal-strength adaptations. The frequency of strength sessions decreased
241 to one per week during the in-season ‘racing’ period.

C
242 Assistance work throughout the forty weeks consisted of either single-leg squat (e.g.
243 split-squat, reverse-lunge & single-leg squat) or single-leg deadlift variations (e.g. single-leg
A
244 Romanian deadlift) in the 5-12 repetition range to target (i) additional strength development
245 through the ‘sub-maximal effort’ method (45) and (ii) gluteal strength and femoral control for
246 knee stability (43). Supplementary gluteal and abdominal strength work was performed
247 during the warm-up and ‘core-circuit’ at the end of each session. The strength programme
248 was designed and developed from the works of Haff & Nimphius (12), Rippetoe & Baker
249 (31), Verkhoshanky & Verkhoshanky (41) and Zatsiorsky & Kraemer (45).

250
251
252 Insert Table 1
253
254
255 Statistical Analyses
D
256 Independent variables were defined in terms of the different interventions (strength
257 vs. control) and the three measurement points (pre-test vs. mid-test vs. post-test). The
TE
258 dependent variables were strength (maximum-strength: 1RM back squat; slow SSC reactive-
259 strength: CMJ; fast SSC reactive-strength: 0.3m drop-jump), physiology (2 & 4 mmol/L BLa
260 LT, VO2max, vVO2max & economy) and body composition (body mass, body fat, overall lean
EP
261 & leg lean). All data sets are presented as mean ± standard deviation or percentage change.
262 To test for differences between groups at week 0, an independent t-test was used. For each
263 group, variables (physiology, strength & body composition) at week 0, week 20 and week 40
264 were compared using a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. To test for differences between
C
265 groups, two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used. Homogeneity of variance was
266 evaluated using Mauchly’s test of sphericity and when violated, the Greenhouse-Geisser
C
267 adjustment was used. To determine the magnitude of within group change in variables, a
268 Cohen’s d effect size was performed. The criteria to interpret the magnitude of the effect size
A
269 were: 0.0-0.2 trivial, 0.2-0.6 small, 0.6-1.2 moderate, 1.2-2.0 large, and > 2.0 very large (16).
270 The level of significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. IBM SPSS Statistics 22 software (IBM Corp.
271 Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY) was used for
272 all statistical calculations. Reliability (coefficient of variation, CV %; intraclass correlation
273 coefficient, ICC) values for back squat 1 RM (< 4.3%; 0.91-0.99) (23), CMJ (< 6.5%; 0.83-

274 0.99) (23), 0.3m drop-jump RSI (< 5%; > 0.90) (22), sub-maximal and maximal VO2 (< 2.4
275 & O2max (< 2.4 %) (33) are all within acceptable ranges.
%), v4mmol/L BLa (< 6 %) and V V
276
277 RESULTS
278 There were no significant differences between the strength and control group at
279 baseline (week 0) with respect to strength, physiological and body composition variables (see
D
280 Table 2).
281
TE
282 Strength
283 No significant differences were observed for any strength measures between the
284 intervention and control groups at baseline. The change in absolute maximal-strength in the
EP
285 intervention group (85.7 ± 14.7 kg → 99.3 ± 19.0 kg) was not significantly different to the
286 change in the control group (100.0 ± 18.4 kg → 101.6 ± 17.1 kg) throughout the 40 weeks (p
287 = .116). However, the change in relative maximum-strength (1RM back squat) in the
288 intervention group was significantly different to the change in the control group throughout
C
289 the forty weeks (p = .039). Specifically, there was a 19.3 ± 24.1 % increase in the
290 intervention group maximum strength from week 0 to week 40 (d = 0.7, p = .052), largely
C
291 accounted for by week 0 to 20 increases (d = 1.2, p = .001). The control group had a 3.1 ±
292 9.2 % increase in maximum-strength from week 0 to 40 (d = 0.2, p > 0.05); however these
A
293 changes were not significantly different. There was a significant 12.7 ± 13.2 % increase in
294 sSSC reactive-strength from week 0 to week 40 (d = 0.6, p = .007), largely accounted for by
295 week 0 to week 20 increases (11.2 ± 15.2 %; d = 0.5, p = .009). The change in sSSC
296 reactive-strength in the intervention group was not significantly different to the change in the
297 control group. The change in ‘fast’ SSC (fSSC) reactive-strength (drop-jump RSI) in the
298 intervention group was significantly different to the change in the control group (p = .035).

299 Specifically, there was a 7.2 ± 20.1 % increase in fSSC reactive-strength in the intervention
300 group from week 0 to week 20 (d = 0.3, p = .596), and a 14.7 ± 27.8 % increase from week 0
301 to week 40 (d = 0.5, p = .155). However, in the control group, fSSC reactive-strength
302 deteriorated by 1.6 ± 22.4 % from week 0 to week 20 (d = 0.9, p > 0.05), and by 9.5 ± 24.0 %
303 from week 0 to week 40 (d = 0.5, p = .793).
304
D
305 Physiology
306 No significant differences were observed for any physiological measures between the
TE
307 intervention and control groups at week 0. Throughout the forty week intervention period,
308 the increases in v2 mmol/L BLa, v4 mmol/L BLa and VO2max for both intervention and
309 control groups were not significant (all p > 0.05). There was a 3.5 ± 2.9 % increase in
EP
310 vVO2max in the intervention group from week 0 to week 20 (d = 0.7, p = .013), and a 4.0 ±
311 3.1% increase from week 0 to week 40 (d = 0.9, p = .003). The control group demonstrated
312 no significant increase from week 0 to week 20 (d = 0.3, p = .579) or week 0 to week 40 (d =
313 0.3, p = .507). There was a 3.5 ± 3.2 % increase in RE in the intervention group from week 0
C
314 to week 40 (d = 0.6, p = .183), largely accounted for by week 0 to 20 increases (d = 1.0, p
315 =.01). The control group had a 1.7 ± 2.2 % increase from week 0 to week 20 (d = 0.3, p =
C
316 .648), and a 2.3 ± 4.4 % increase from week 0 to week 40 (d = 0.5, p = .353). These changes
317 were not significantly different from week 0 values.

A
318
319 Body Composition
320 No significant differences were observed for any body composition measures (body
321 mass, fat, overall lean & leg-lean) between intervention and control groups at week 0. Over
322 the forty week intervention period there were no significant changes in body composition
323 variables between or within groups.

324
325 Insert Table 1 here
329
D
330 DISCUSSION
331 The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a forty week strength training
TE
332 intervention on key physiological performance indicators, strength and body composition in
333 competitive distance runners. The main finding of this study was that strength training can
334 significantly improve strength (maximal- & reactive-strength) and key physiological
EP
335 performance indicators, specifically RE and vVO2max, in competitive distance runners.
336 Interestingly, the improvements in strength, RE and vVO2max were attained without
337 significant changes in body composition (body mass, fat & lean tissue mass). These results
338 strongly support the application of strength training within the distance running community;
C
339 demonstrating that to optimise endurance performance, strength training should be a vital
340 component in the physical preparation of distance runners.

C
341
342 Economy & vVO2max.

A
343 & O2max are accepted as the two most important performance indicators in
RE and V V
344 elite distance running (5). RE represents the ability of a runner to translate energy production
345 at a cellular level into running locomotion (36). An economical runner will use less energy
346 for any given workload and spare vital reserves for maximal and supra-maximal stages of
347 competition (i.e. a sprint finish). RE is dictated by a complexity of factors such as volume
348 and intensity of endurance training, nutrition and environment (2). In this study, the strength

349 training group displayed a significant 3.5 ± 3.2 % improvement in economy from week 0 to
350 week 40, largely accounted for by week 0 to week 20 increases (4.8 ± 3.2 %). These
351 improvements in RE occurred without significant changes in v2 mmol/L BLa, v4 mmol/L BLa
352 & O2max. The control group showed no change in RE throughout the forty weeks (see
and V
353 Figure 3). The results support previous research that noted similar improvements (4.0–8.1%)
354 in RE following strength training in competitive distance runners albeit in shorter time-
D
355 frames (6, 21, 24, 30, 32, 38, 40).
356 Velocity at VO2max (vVO2max) has strong associations with both middle- (r = 0.71) (17)
TE
357 and long-distance (r = 0.89 – 0.94) (27) performance in elite running populations. These
358 & O2max being a composite variable of both economy and

relationships are most likely due to V V
359 maximal oxygen consumption. Interestingly, the maximal anaerobic running test (VMART)
EP
360 & O2max (r = 0.85) and maximal-velocity sprinting
was found to be strongly associated with V V
361 (r = 0.96) (29); emphasising the anaerobic system’s contribution in providing energy
362 & O2max (28). In this study, the strength training

production for race velocities at, and above, V
363 group showed a significant improvement in vVO2max (3.5 ± 2.9 %) during the first twenty
C
364 weeks of strength training (week 0→20), and a significant (4.0 ± 3.1%) improvement
C
365 throughout the forty weeks (see Figure 3). The control group however showed no significant
366 changes in vVO2max throughout the forty weeks. The change in vVO2max in the strength group
A
367 & O2max

most likely resulted from an accumulation of improvements in economy (3.5 %), V
368 (3.4%) and potentially other anaerobic factors that were not assessed in this study (i.e. VMART
369 & maximum-velocity sprinting). The results support the work of Mikkola et al (24) and
370 Berryman et al (6) who found similar improvements (1.2 – 4.2 %) in vVO2max in competitive
371 distance runners following an eight week strength intervention.
372
373 Strength Qualities

374 Elite endurance running performance is not only influenced by cardiopulmonary
375 factors that dictate oxygen transport and utilisation, but also peripheral aspects relating to
376 neuromuscular force production. Reactive-strength is the most important strength quality in
377 middle- and long-distance running events, as athletes need to have proficient leg
378 musculotendinous stiffness and SSC function to rapidly absorb and utilise the elastic energy
379 during each stance-phase ground contact (42). Due to this, the primary aim of the strength
D
380 programme in this study was to increase the subject’s reactive-strength ability over the forty
381 week intervention period. However, during the pre-season period (week 0→20), the author
TE
382 designed the programme to focus on maximal-strength development (see ‘Strength
383 Programme’ in Methods for rationale), with a secondary focus on reactive-strength (see Table
384 1). This study showed that a maximal-strength emphasised programme in competitive
EP
385 distance runners resulted in a significant increase in sSSC reactive-strength (11.2 ± 15.2 %),
386 an increase in fSSC reactive-strength (7.2 ± 20.1 %), as well as a significant increase in
387 maximal-strength (21.1 ± 16.3 %) throughout the pre-season period (see Figure 2).
388 During the in-season period (week 20→40), the primary emphasis of the programme
C
389 shifted towards reactive-strength development (especially fSSC), with the secondary focus on
390 maintenance of maximal-strength. As the intervention group increased their level of

C
391 maximal-strength at the end of the pre-season training (1.18 ± 0.18→1.42 ± 0.22 kg/kg BW),
392 this change in programming focus was deemed appropriate. This focus on plyometric
A
393 development was reflected in the results as the intervention group increased their fSSC
394 reactive-strength by a further 6.8% throughout the racing season, while their maximal-
395 strength levels were maintained (see Figure 2). Interestingly, the control group’s fSSC
396 reactive-strength decreased by 9.4 % throughout the forty week period (1.28 ± 0.31→1.16 ±
397 0.12 RSI). This highlights the importance of strength training to ‘maintain’ reactive-strength
398 ability and musculotendinous elastic properties throughout the season.

399
400 Mechanisms
401 There are various potential mechanisms on how strength training can improve both
402 & O2max. Strength training increases maximal peak force and/or RFD (45), and
economy and V V
403 therefore the force required during each stride to produce a desired running velocity may
404 decrease to a lower percentage. Theoretically, this would lower the relative exercise intensity
D
405 and overall metabolic strain. However, the adaptations that result in increased maximal peak
406 force and/or RFD are complex. Strength training, whether maximal-, explosive- and/or
TE
407 reactive-, can result in morphological (muscle fibre type, architecture & tendon properties)
408 and neural (motor unit recruitment & synchronisation, firing frequency, inter-muscular
409 coordination) changes to the musculotendinous system (10). However, the physiological
EP
410 & O2max (and maximal-velocity sprinting) most likely come
adaptations that aid economy and v V
411 from a mixture of both neural and morphological adaptations. From a neural perspective, a
412 more efficient recruitment pattern of leg musculature may decrease running cost. Aligning
413 with Henneman et al.’s (14) size principle of motor units, strength training may increase the
C
414 neural recruitment of type I fibres, thereby decreasing their time to exhaustion and delay the
415 activation of the aerobically ‘inefficient’ type II fibres. This would reduce sub-maximal
C
416 & O2 max) and

oxygen consumption (economy) and increase the capacity for high-intensity (v V
A
417 anaerobic-dominant sections of a race (i.e. sprint finish). However, the most important
418 morphological adaptation from strength training may be from improved stiffness and
419 elasticity of tendon structures. Theoretically, improved utilisation of elastic energy from the
420 tendon would reduce the demand of ATP from the musculature, thus improving running
421 & O2max and maximum-velocity sprinting.

economy, v V
422
423 Body Composition & ‘Concurrent’ Training

424 Despite increasing evidence supporting the positive effect of strength training on
425 endurance performance, it is still an uncommon or less emphasised physical preparation
426 modality in the distance running community (5). One possible reason may be due to the
427 ‘hypertrophic’ connotations associated with lifting weights, with distance runners
428 inadvertently linking strength training to increased musculature and body mass. Increased
429 & O2max, economy) that

body mass can negatively affect relative physiological parameters (i.e. V
D
430 would inevitably affect running performance. However, this study demonstrates that when a
431 strength programme is designed and implemented appropriately (see Table 1), forty weeks of
TE
432 strength training can result in significant improvements in maximum- (19.3 ± 24.1 %) and
433 reactive-strength qualities (14.7 ± 27.8 %), RE (3.5 ± 4.4 %) and vVO2max (4.0 ± 4.0 %),
434 without significant changes in body composition variables (body mass, fat mass, overall lean
EP
435 & leg-lean) (see Figure 4). Recently, there has been a growth in the literature investigating
436 the compatibility of ‘concurrent’ training methodologies and their underpinning mechanisms
437 for protein synthesis (e.g. Baar, 2014) (1). Molecular physiologists have found that there is
438 an ‘interference’ effect, where signalling pathways activated by endurance training inhibit
C
439 skeletal muscle hypertrophy from strength training. However, the concurrent training
440 literature only discusses myofibrillar hypertrophy as the sole adaptation from strength
C
441 training. They do not acknowledge other neural adaptations that contribute to increased rate
442 of force production (i.e. musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment, intermuscular
A
443 and intramuscular coordination) (10).
444 Some applied sport scientists argue that low-intensity aerobic endurance training (i.e.
445 & O2max) is compatible with maximal-strength and speed

zone 1-3 / < LT2 / < 80% V
446 development (18). Both of these modes of training are physiologically harmonious as they
447 mutually target central mechanisms; low-intensity aerobic training increasing blood / oxygen
448 transport (cardiac dimension enlargement and capillarisation), whereas maximal-strength and

449 maximal-speed sprinting improves the rate of neuromuscular force production and absorption
450 qualities (39). Research has found that successful elite endurance athletes spend
451 approximately 80% of their training in these low-intensity, aerobic-dominant training zones
452 & O2max) (35) - which gives opportunity to

(zone 1 – 3, < Lactate Threshold 2 / < 80% V
453 appropriately program strength training sessions without hampering the preparation or
454 recovery of more specific and intense ‘threshold,’ ‘race-pace’ and / or maximum-aerobic
D
455 & O2max). In fact, elite sprint coaches
sessions (zone 4 & 5 / > Lactate Threshold 2 / > 80% V
456 over the last few decades have placed a large emphasis on programming low-intensity
TE
457 aerobic running, termed ‘extensive tempo’, to complement maximal-speed development by
458 increasing work capacity and enhancing recovery from intense sessions, thereby
459 demonstrating the compatibility of both low-intensity aerobic and strength / power training in
EP
460 an elite setting (13).
461 This study demonstrated that forty weeks of strength training can significantly
462 improve maximal- and reactive-strength qualities, as well as physiological markers of
463 & O2max in competitive distance runners. Therefore, the research hypothesis of
economy and V V
C
464 significant changes in maximal-strength, reactive-strength, & O2max

VV and economy is
C
465 accepted; the research hypothesis for a significant change in body composition is rejected.
466 Interestingly, the improvements in strength were attained without significant changes in body
A
467 composition (body mass, fat & lean). A large proportion of the maximal-strength
468 improvements were gained through the pre-season period, and then maintained throughout
469 the ‘racing’ season as programming shifted towards reactive-strength development.
470 However, within the control group, fSSC reactive-strength ability, arguably the most
471 important strength quality in running, deteriorated throughout the forty week period. It is
472 important to note that the main limitation to this study was that we did not control for each

473 participant’s endurance training (volume or intensity), nutrition, or randomisation of groups
474 (as per methods section).
475
476 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
477 A general maximal-strength orientated programme (2 x week, with low-volume
478 plyometrics) during the pre-season is an appropriate and efficient method for improving both
D
479 maximal- and reactive-strength capabilities in distance runners. This study demonstrated that
TE
480 & O2max over
this structure of strength programming can significantly improve economy and V V
481 a 20 week pre-season period. It is advised that during the ‘racing’ season, strength sessions
482 are performed once per week to maintain strength qualities, especially reactive-strength. In
483 fact, the intervention group in this study were able to improve reactive-strength by a further
EP
484 6.8% with only one session per week, while maintaining maximal-strength. This study
485 showed that in distance runners who do not perform strength training, reactive strength can
486 deteriorate by 7.9 % throughout the racing season period. Distance runners who are already
C
487 ‘strong’ and have high force capabilities, may need to place a greater emphasis on specific
488 reactive-strength training (9) and maximal-velocity sprinting (13) to gain further
C
489 & O2max. It is important to note that for optimal adaptation

improvements in economy and V V
490 and development of endurance and strength qualities, strength sessions should be carefully
A
491 programmed around ‘intense’ aerobic (i.e. ‘race-pace’ / > Lactate Threshold 2 / > 80%
492 2max) and anaerobic endurance training.
493
494 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

495 The authors would like to thank all the runners who participated in this study, Caroline
496 MacManus of the Irish Institute of Sport for guidance and physiological testing support, and
497 Dr Will McCormack of the University of Limerick for body composition testing support. The
498 authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.
499 This research is supported by a University of Limerick Physical Education and Sport Science
500 (PESS) Scholarship awarded in 2012. The results of this present study do not constitute
D
501 endorsement of the product by the authors or the NSCA.
502
TE
503
504 REFERENCES
EP
505 1. Baar K. Using molecular biology to maximise concurrent training. Sports Med
506 44(Suppl 2): S117-S125, 14
507 2. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Strategies to improve running economy. Sports Med
C
508 45(1):37-56, 2015
509 3. Barnes KR, McGuigan MR, Kilding AE. Lower-body determinants of running
C
510 economy in male and female distance runners. J Strength Cond Res 28(5): 1289-
511 1297, 2014

A
512 4. Bassett DR, Howley ET. Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and
513 determinants of endurance performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(1): 70-84, 2000.
514 5. Beattie K, Kenny IC, Lyons M, Carson BP. The effect of strength training on
515 performance in endurance athletes. Sports Med 44(6): 845-865, 2014.
516 6. Berryman N, Maurel D, Bosquet L. Effect of plyometric vs. dynamic weight training
517 on the energy cost of running. J Strength Cond Res 24(7): 1818-1825, 2010.

518 7. Cormie R, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic performance after
519 ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42(8): 1582-1598,
520 2010.
521 8. Cormie R, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Changes in eccentric phase contribute to
522 improved stretch-shorten cycle performance after training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
523 42(9): 1731-44, 2010.
D
524 9. Cormie R, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Influence of strength on magnitude and
525 mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42(8): 1566-1581,
TE
526 2010.
527 10. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power.
528 Part 1 – biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Med 41(1): 17-38,
EP
529 2011.
530 11. Dymond C, Flanagan EP, Turner AP. The relationship between maximal strength and
531 plyometric ability in rugby players. Rev Port Cein Desp 11(Suppl. 2), 2011.
532 12. Haff GG, Nimphius S. Training principles for power. Strength Cond J 34(6): 2-12,
C
533 2012.
534 13. Hansen D. Successfully translating strength into speed. In: Joyce D, Lewindon D,
C
535 editors. High-performance Training for Sports. Leeds, United Kingdom: Human
536 Kinetics; 2014. p. 145 – 166.

A
537 14. Henneman E, Somjen G, Carpenter DO. Functional significance of cell size in spinal
538 motorneurons. J Neurophysiol 28: 560-580, 1965.
539 15. Hill AV, Lupton H. Muscular exercise, lactic acid, and the supply and utilization of
540 oxygen. Q J Med 16: 135-171, 1923.
541 16. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham, AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for
542 studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41; 3-12, 2009.

543 17. Ingham SA, Whyte GP, Pedlar C, et al. Determinants of 800m and 1500m running
544 performance using allometric models. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40(2):345-350, 2008.
545 18. Issurin V. Principles and Basics of Advanced Athletic Training. Michigan, USA.
546 Ultimate Athlete Concepts; 2008. p.141.
547 19. Jones AM. The physiology of the world record holder for the women’s marathon. Int
548 J Sports Sci Coach 1(2): 101-116, 2006.
D
549 20. Jones AM. Middle- and Long-Distance Running. In. Winter EM, Jones AM,
550 Davison RC, et al. editors. Sport and Exercise Physiology Testing Guidelines:
TE
551 Volume I - Sport Testing: The British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences
552 Guide: Sport Testing v. 1 (BASES); 2006. 147 – 154.
553 21. Johnston RE, Quinn TJ, Kertzer R. Strength training in female distance runners:
EP
554 Impact on running economy. J Strength Cond Res 11(4): 224-229, 1997.
555 22. Markwick WJ, Bird SP, Tufano JJ, et al. The Intraday Reliability of the Reactive
556 Strength Index (RSI) Calculated From a Drop Jump in Professional Men's Basketball.
557 Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10(4): 482 – 488, 2015.

C
558 23. McMaster DT, Gill N, Cronin J, McGuigan M. A brief review of strength and
559 ballistic assessment methodologies in sport. Sports Med 44: 603-623, 2014.
C
560 24. Mikkola J, Rusko H, Nummela A, et al. Concurrent endurance and explosive type
561 strength training improves neuromuscular and anaerobic characteristics in young

A
562 distance runners. Int J Sports Med 28(7): 602-611, 2007.
563 25. Newton RU, Cormie P, Cardinale M. Principles of athletic testing. In: Cardinale M,
564 Newton R, Nosaka K, editors. Strength & Conditioning: Biological Principles and
565 Practical Application. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 255 – 270.
566 26. Newill J, Higgins D, Madden N, et al. Software for calculating blood lactate
567 endurance markers. J Sports Sci 25(12): 2007, 1403 – 1409.

568 27. Noakes TD, Myburgh KH, Schall R. Peak treadmill running velocity during the
569 VO2max test predicts running performance. J Sports Sci 8: 35-45, 1990.
570 28. Nummela A, Keranen T, Mikkelsson LO. Factors related to top running speed and
571 economy. Int J Sports Med 28(8): 655-61, 2006.
572 29. Paavolainen LM, Nummela A, Rusko H. Muscle power factors and VO2max as
573 determinants of horizontal and uphill running performance. Scand J Med Sci Sport
D
574 10(5): 286-291, 2000.
575 30. Paavolainen LM, Nummela AT, Rusko HK. Neuromuscular characteristics and
TE
576 muscle power as determinants of 5 km running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc
577 31: 124-130, 1999.
578 31. Rippetoe M, Baker A. Practical Programming for Strength Training (3rd Edition).
EP
579 Wichita Falls, Texas, USA. The Aasgaard Company; 2014. p. 113 – 204.
580 32. Saunders PU, Telford RD, Pyne DB, et al. Short-term plyometric training improves
581 running economy in highly trained middle and long distance runners. J Strength
582 Cond Res 20(4): 947-954, 2006.

C
583 33. Saunders PU, Green DJ. Runners and Walkers. In. Tanner RK, Gore CJ. editors.
584 Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes (Second Edition) - Australian Institute of Sport.
C
585 Leeds, United Kingdom: Human Kinetics; 2013. p. 397 - 409.
586 34. Schmidtbleicher D. Training for power events. In: Komi PV, editor. The
A
587 Encyclopaedia of Sports Medicine: Strength and Power in Sport. Oxford, UK:
588 Blackwell; 1992. p. 169–179.
589 35. Seiler S, Tønnessen E. Intervals, thresholds, and long slow distance: the role of
590 intensity and duration in endurance training. Sportscience [Internet]. 2009 (cited
591 2015 May 27); 13: 32-53. Available from: http://ww.w.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm.

592 36. Shaw AJ, Ingham SA, Folland JP. The valid measurement of running economy in
593 runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46(10): 1968-73, 2014.
594 37. Sjödin B, Svedenhag J. Applied physiology of marathon running. Sports Med 2: 83-
595 89, 1985.
596 38. Spurrs RW, Murphy AJ, Watsford ML. The effect of plyometric training on distance
597 running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 1–7, 2003.
D
598 39. Stewart G. Minimising the interference effect. In: Joyce D, Lewindon D, editors.
599 High-performance Training for Sports. Leeds, United Kingdom: Human Kinetics;
TE
600 2014. p. 269 – 276.
601 40. Støren O, Helgerud J, Støa EM, et al. Maximal strength training improves running
602 economy in distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 1089–1094, 2008.
EP
603 41. Verkhoshanky Y, Verkhoshanky N. Special Strength Training Manual for Coaches.
604 Rome, Italy: Verkhoshansky SSTM; 2011. p. 274.
605 42. Wild J, Bezodis N, Blagrove R, Bezodis IA. Biomechanical comparison of
606 accelerative and maximum velocity sprinting: specific strength training

C
607 considerations. Strength Cond J, 21: 23-36, 2011.
608 43. Wiley RW, Davis IS. The effect of a hip-strengthening program on mechanics during
C
609 running and during a single-leg squat. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 41(9); 625-632,
610 2011.
A
611 44. Yamamoto LM, Lopez, RM, Klau JF, et al. The effects of resistance training on
612 endurance distance running performance among highly trained runners: a systematic
613 review. J Strength Cond Res 22(6):2036-44, 2008.
614 45. Zatsiorsky VM, Kraemer WJ. Science and Practice of Strength Training.
615 Champaign, Il, USA: Human Kinetics; 2004.
616

617
618 FIGURE CAPTIONS
619 Figure 1. A schematic of the 40 week research design. Physiology: v2mmol/L BLa,
620 v4mmol/L BLa, RE, V 2max, 2max; Strength: maximal-strength (1RM back squat), sSSC
621 reactive-strength (CMJ) & fSSC reactive-strength (0.3m drop-jump RSI); Body Composition:
622 body mass, fat mass, overall-lean & leg-lean. * 2 x week strength training during pre-season
D
623 ** 1 x week strength training during in-season.
TE
624 Figure 2. Maximum-strength (1RM Back Squat) & fSSC reactive-strength (RSI) percentage
625 change.
626 Figure 3. Velocity at VO2max & economy percentage change.

EP
627 Figure 4. Body composition (body mass, body fat, overall-lean & leg-lean) percentage
628 change.
629
C
C
A

Table 1. Pre-season (2 x week) & in-season (1 x week) strength training programme. Pre-season (Weeks 1 – 20): maximum-strength emphasis & developmental reactive-strength
(Day 1: Heavy maximum-strength & fast SSC reactive-strength focus; Day 2: Light/Medium maximum-strength & slow SSC reactive-strength focus. There were 48 hours of
recovery between Day 1 and Day 2). In-season (Weeks 21 - 40): reactive-strength & explosive-strength emphasis, maximum-strength maintenance.
Pre-season (Weeks 1 – 20)

DAY 1 (Heavy) Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5
Strength Quality Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Reactive- Pogo DJ-
3x4 3x4 3x4 3x4 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x6 3x6 3x6 3x6 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5
strength (fSSC) Jumps 35cm
Maximum- Back Back
3x8 3x8 3x8 3x8 3x8 3x6 3x3 2x5# 3x8 3x6 3x3 2x5# 3x8 3x6 3x3 2x5# 3x5 3x3 5,3,2 2x5#
D
strength Squat Squat
Assistance 1
RDL 2x10 2x10 3x10 3x10 3x10 3x8 3x6 2x12# 3x10 3x8 3x6 2x12# RDL 3x10 3x8 3x6 2x12# 2x5 3x5 3x5 1x5#
(Posterior)
Assistance 2 Split- SL
TE
(Single-leg) squat Squat
DAY 2 (Light/Medium) Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5
Strength Quality Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Reactive- Cont.
CMJ 2x3 2x3 3x3 3x3 3x4 3x4 3x4 3x4 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x5 3x6 3x6 3x6 3x6
strength (sSSC) CMJ
EP
Maximum- Back Back
3x8 3x8 3x8 3x8 3x8* 3x6* 3x3* 2x5# 3x8* 3x6* 3x3* 2x5# 3x8* 3x6* 3x3* 2x5# 3x5* 3x3* 5,3,2* 2x5#
Assistance 1 SL
RDL 2x10 2x10 3x10 3x10 3x10* 3x8* 3x6* 2x10# 3x10* 3x8* 3x6* 2x10# 2x8 3x8 10,8,6 2x8# 2x8 3x8 10,8,6 2x8#
(Posterior) RDL
Assistance 2 Rev- Skater
2x10 2x10 3x10 3x10 2x12 3x10 3x8 1x12 2x12 3x10 3x8 1x12 2x8 10,8,8 10,10,8 1x8 2x8 10,8,8 10,10,8 1x8
(Single-leg) lunge Squat
DAY 1 (Heavy)
Strength Quality Week 21
Block 6
22 23 24 25
Block 7
26 27 C In-season (Weeks 21 – 40)
28 29
Block 8
30 31 32 33
Block 9
34 35 36 37
Block 10
38 39 40
C
Reactive- DJ- DJ-
3x4 5,4,4 3x5 1x5 3x4 5,4,4 3x5 1x5 3x4 5,4,4 3x5 1x5 3x4 5,4,4 3x5 1x5 3x4 5,4,4 3x5 1x5
strength (fSSC) 45cm 45cm
Explosive- Jump Jump
A
Strength Squat% Squat%
Maximum- Back Back
3x5 3x3 5,3,2 1x5# 3x5 3x3 5,3,2 1x5# 3x5 3x3 5,3,2 1x5# 3x5 3x3 5,3,2 1x5# 3x5 3x3 5,3,2 1x5#
Assistance 1 SL SL
1x8 2x6 3x5 1x5# 1x8 2x6 3x5 1x5# 1x8 2x6 3x5 1x5# 1x8 2x6 3x5 1x5# 1x8 2x6 3x5 1x5#
(Posterior) RDL RDL
Assistance 2 SL SL
1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8 1x8
(Single-leg) Squat Squat
Progressively load if Progressively load if Progressively load if competent Progressively load if
Technique emphasis on
Notes: competent #De-load on lifts, competent #De-load on lifts, #De-load on lifts, 50% of week 13/33 competent #De-load on lifts,
ALL lifts
50% of week 5/25 loads 50% of week 9/29 loads loads 50% of week 17/37 loads
3x4: 3 sets of 4 repetitions; SSC: stretch-shortening cycle; fSSC: fast stretch-shortening cycle; sSSC: slow stretch-shortening cycle; RDL: Romanian deadlift; R: right; L: left; RC: reverse crunch;
Alt. Bridge: alternate bridging; SL: single-leg; DJ-35cm: drop-jump from 35cm; Rev-lunge: reverse-lunge; PU F Plank: Press Up Front Plank; Abduct: leg abductions; Cont. CMJs: continuous
countermovement jumps; jump-squat%: jump squat with 20% of 1RM back squat.

TABLE 2. Physiological, strength & body composition values for weeks 0, 20 & 40.
Mean ± SD (95% C.I.) P value & Magnitude (d)
W0 W20 W40 W0 - 20 W 20 - 40 W0 - 40
Physiology Strength Control Strength Control Strength Control Strength Control Strength Control Strength Control
14.47 ± 1.25 15.40 ± 1.23 14.78 ± 1.45 15.78 ± 1.29 14.70 ± 1.19 15.76 ± 1.49 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
v2mmol/L Bla
(13.7 - 15.2) (14.6 - 16.2) (13.9 - 15.6) (14.9 - 16.6) (14.0 - 15.4) (14.8 - 16.7) Small Small Trivial Trivial Small Small
(km/h) (0.2) (0.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.2) (0.3)
16.46 ± 1.20 17.10 ± 1.04 16.80 ± 1.43 17.73 ± 1.09 16.81 ± 1.30 17.49 ± 0.93 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
V4mmol/L BLa
(15.8 - 17.2) (16.4 - 17.8) (16.0 - 17.6) (17.0 - 18.4) (16.0 - 17.6) (16.9 - 18.1) Small Moderate Trivial Small Small Small
(km/h) (0.2) (0.6) (0.0) (0.2) (0.3) (0.4)
D
20.15 ± 0.91 21.17 ± 1.03 20.85 ± 1.18# 21.56 ± 1.24 20.95 ± 0.96## 21.50 ± 1.03 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
VVO2max (km/h) (19.6 - 20.7) (20.5 - 21.8) (20.2 - 21.5) (20.7 - 22.4) (20.4 - 21.5) (20.8 - 22.2) Moderate Small Trivial Trivial Moderate Small
(0.7) (0.3) (0.1) (0.0) (0.9) (0.3)
198.0 ± 9.0#
TE
208.5 ± 12.0 203.4 ± 11.0 199.9 ± 12.0 201.2 ± 11.1 199.0 ± 9.3 p = 0.01 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p = 0.183 p > 0.05
Economy
(201 - 216) (196 - 211) (193 - 203) (192 - 208) (193 – 205) (195 – 208) Moderate Small Small Trivial Moderate Small
(mL/kg/km) (1.0) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1) (0.6) (0.5)
59.6 ± 2.5 63.2 ± 2.9 60.0 ± 3.0 64.0 ± 4.0 61.6 ± 5.2 65.0 ± 3.2 p = 0.013 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p = 0.003 p > 0.05
VO2max
(58.1 - 61.1) (61.3 - 65.1) (58.2 - 61.8) (61.4 - 66.6) (58.5 - 64.7) (62.9 - 67.1) Trivial Small Small Small Small Moderate
(mL/kg/min) (0.1) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.5) (0.6)
EP
Strength
1.18 ± 0.18 1.43 ± 0.25 1.42 ± 0.22*## 1.50 ± 0.26 1.39 ± 0.24* 1.47 ± 0.24 p = 0.001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p = 0.052 p > 0.05
1 RM Back Squat
(1.07 - 1.29) (1.27 - 1.59) (1.29 - 1.55) (1.33 - 1.67) (1.25 - 1.53) (1.31 - 1.63) Large Small Trivial Trivial Moderate Small
(kg/kg BW) (1.2) (0.3) (0.1) (0.1) (0.7) (0.2)
0.26 ± 0.06 0.27 ± 0.03 0.29 ± 0.06# 0.30 ± 0.03 0.29 ± 0.06# 0.28 ± 0.02 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
Countermovement
(0.22 - 0.30) (0.25 - 0.29) (0.25 - 0.33) (0.28 - 0.32) (0.25 - 0.33) (0.27 - 0.29) Small Moderate Trivial Moderate Moderate Small
Jump (m)
Drop-Jump 30cm
(RSI)
1.10 ± 0.28
(0.93 - 1.27)
1.28 ± 0.31
(1.08 - 1.48)
1.18 ± 0.26*
(1.03 - 1.33)
C 1.26 ± 0.18
(1.14 - 1.38)
1.26 ± 0.33*
(1.06 - 1.46)
1.16 ± 0.12
(1.08 - 1.24)
(0.5)
p > 0.05
Small
(0.3)
(0.9)
p > 0.05
Trivial
(0.1)
(0.6)
p > 0.05
Small
(0.3)
(0.6)
p > 0.05
Moderate
(0.7)
(0.6)
p > 0.05
Small
(0.5)
(0.5)
p > 0.05
Small
(0.5)
C
Body Composition
73.0 ± 6.6 70.4 ± 6.7 74.1 ± 4.0 70.3 ± 6.7 71.7 ± 7.3 70.6 ± 6.1 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
Body Mass
(69.1 - 76.9) (66.0 - 74.8) (71.7 - 76.5) (65.9 - 74.7) (67.4 - 76.0) (66.6 - 74.6) Small Trivial Small Trivial Small Trivial
A
(kg) (0.2) (0.0) (0.4) (0.1) (0.2) (0.0)
10.6 ± 2.5 10.0 ± 3.1 10.3 ± 2.4 8.7 ± 2.5 10.3 ± 2.4 9.7 ± 2.6 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
Body Fat
(9.1 - 12.1) (8.0 - 12.0) (8.9 - 11.7) (7.1 - 10.3) (8.9 - 11.7) (8.0 - 11.4) Trivial Small Trivial Small Trivial Small
(kg) (0.1) (0.5) (0.0) (0.4) (0.0) (0.4)
60.8 ± 7.1 57.6 ± 5.4 60.6 ± 3.5 58.4 ± 5.6 58.2 ± 6.8 57.6 ± 4.7 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
Overall Lean
(56.6 - 65.0) (54.1 - 61.1) (58.5 - 62.7) (54.7 - 62.1) (54.2 - 62.2) (54.5 - 60.7) Trivial Small Small Trivial Small Trivial
(kg) (0.0) (0.2) (0.4) (0.0) (0.4) (0.0)
21.9 ± 3.1 21.6 ± 2.4 22.0 ± 1.6 21.4 ± 2.3 21.0 ± 2.7 21.2 ± 2.0 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
Leg Lean
(20.1 - 23.7) (20.0 - 23.2) (21.1 - 22.9) (19.9 - 22.9) (19.4 - 22.6) (19.9 - 22.5) Trivial Trivial Small Trivial Small Small
(kg) (0.0) (0.1) (0.4) (0.1) (0.3) (0.2)
* Significantly different from control group, p < 0.05; # significantly different from week 0 value, p < 0.05, ##significantly different from week 0 value, p < 0.01

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Beattie 2016 Performance-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beattie 2016 Performance-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beattie 2016 Performance-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The effect of strength training on performance indicators in distance runners

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research;31 (1), pp. 9-23

Citation for this work (HarvardUL)

The Effect of Strength Training on Performance Indicators in Distance Runners

Running head: Strength Training in Distance Runners

Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences,

Fax: + 353 61 202814

Telephone: +353 61 234781

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

& O2 max) are considered to

be the best physiological performance indicators in elite distance runners. In addition to

& O2 max are partly dictated by neuromuscular factors. One

technique to improve neuromuscular function in athletes is through strength training. The

v4mmol/L & O2max, V

intervention group showed significant improvements in maximal- and reactive-strength

& O2max, at weeks 20 (p < 0.05) and 40 (p < 0.05).

RE and vVO2max, without concomitant hypertrophy, in competitive distance runners.

& O2max, distance running.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

2 Performance in distance running is multi-faceted; relying on an intricate interaction of

3 physiological, biomechanical and psychological factors. Even within the physiological

8 & O2max and middle- (800m, r = 0.75) and

10 & O2max) protocols have been traditionally used in the

14 & O2max (> 70

15 mL/kg/min) may be a pre-requisite to be an elite distance runner, but additional physical

17 & O2max) and anaerobic function

19 been established as superior markers of success in these elite populations (5).

24 & O2max alone within elite homogenous populations, with inter-

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

27 athlete’s physiology, anthropometrics, biomechanics and environment; however

35 & O2max can improve by approximately 14% (19).

39 contribution of the anaerobic energy system is increased (27). Endurance-specific ‘muscle

45 Consequently, in addition to cardiovascular capacity, limitations to elite distance running

46 performance may be dictated by peripheral neuromuscular force production ability.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

67 (1500 m – 10 000 m).

71 training intervention on strength qualities (maximal- & reactive-strength), key physiology

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

76 weeks 0, 20 and 40. We hypothesised that a 40 week strength intervention in distance

78 & O2max & RE) and body composition.

80 Experimental approach to the problem

81 To investigate the hypothesis of the study, a longitudinal and controlled experimental

83 season) strength training intervention on strength qualities (maximal- & reactive-strength),

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

101 session lasted approximately sixty minutes (see Table 1).

117 Insert Figure 1 here

120 Strength, Physiology & Body Composition Assessment

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

137 & O2max, V

149 squat depth during week 0, 20 and 40 assessments.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

168 Physiology Assessment

169 & O2max, v V

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

192 treadmill protocol.

199 & O2max.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

201 was 7 km/h slower than their estimated v4 mmol/L velocity.

203 Body Composition Assessment