Concurrent endurance training with either plyometric or dynamic body-weight training both improve running economy with minimal or no changes in running biomechanics

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the 8-week running endurance training.

Weeks	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Volume (min)	130	135	145	150	160	165	170	175
Aerobic zone (min)	104 (80%)	106 (79%)	113 (78%)	114 (76%)	121 (76%)	121 (73%)	122 (72%)	123 (70%)
Threshold zone (min)	17 (13%)	19 (14%)	21 (14%)	24 (16%)	27 (17%)	30 (18%)	33 (19%)	35 (20%)
High intensity zone (min)	9 (7%)	10 (7%)	11 (8%)	12 (8%)	13 (7%)	14 (9%)	16 (9%)	17 (10%)

Figure 1. Circuit training protocol for the plyometric training (a) and dynamic body-weight training (b). Adapted from Patoz et al. (2021) with permission.

Table 2. Characteristics of the 8-week strength training.

Weeks	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Volume (min)	40	40	62	62	62	62	80	80
Session * cycle (per week)	1 × 4	1 × 4	1 × 4 + 1 × 2	2 × 4 + 1 × 2	3 × 4 + 1 × 2	4 × 4 + 1 × 2	2 × 4	2 × 4
Warm up (min)	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7
Time per exercise (sec)	20	25	30	30	35	35	40	40
Rest between exercise (sec)	40	35	30	30	25	25	20	20
Rest between cycle (min)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3

Table 3. Participant characteristics, initial peak treadmill speed, as well as pre-intervention running economy and running biomechanics (contact time, flight time, step frequency, duty factor, and leg stiffness) for participants following concurrent running endurance training with either plyometric (CSET-PLY) or dynamic body-weight training (CSET-DYN).

Characteristics	CSET-PLY	CSET-DYN	p
Age (y)	30 ± 11 [24, 36]	30 ± 8 [26, 33]	0.94
Height (cm)	175 ± 9 [170, 179]	179 ± 7 [176, 182]	0.10
Body mass (kg)	70 ± 9 [65, 74]	77 ± 14 [70, 84]	0.11
Weekly training sessions	3 ± 1 [2, 3]	3 ± 1 [2, 3]	0.94
Initial peak treadmill speed (km/h)	16.0 ± 1.2 [15.3, 16.6]	15.8 ± 1.5 [15.0, 16.5]	0.69
Running economy (ml/kg^0.75/km)	630 ± 41 [608, 651]	621 ± 46 [599, 642]	0.57
Contact time (ms)	276 ± 20 [265, 286]	285 ± 22 [274, 295]	0.57
Flight time (ms)	89 ± 21 [78, 100]	74 ± 22 [63, 84]	0.05
Step frequency (Hz)	2.78 ± 0.23 [2.66, 2.90]	2.80 ± 0.09 [2.75, 2.84]	0.85
Duty factor (%)	38.3 ± 3.3 [36.6, 40.1]	39.8 ± 3.0 [38.4, 41.2]	0.21
Leg stiffness (kN/m)	10.2 ± 1.7 [9.3, 11.1]	10.8 ± 2.3 [9.7, 11.9]	0.41

Data are mean ± standard deviation as well as 95% confidence intervals [lower, upper]. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) between CSET-PLY and CSET-PLY groups as determined by unpaired Student’s t-tests are indicated in bold.

Figure 2. Pre- and post-intervention running economy (RE) for participants following concurrent running endurance training with either plyometric (CSET-PLY) or dynamic body-weight training (CSET-DYN). Two-way repeated measures ANOVA identified a significant pre-post effect (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 4. Pre- and post-intervention running biomechanics (contact time, flight time, step frequency, duty factor, and leg stiffness) as well as 95% confidence intervals [lower, upper], corresponding changes in running biomechanics (expressed in percent units), and Cohen’s d effect size for participants following concurrent running endurance training with either plyometric (CSET-PLY) or dynamic body-weight training (CSET-DYN).

Variable	Group	Pre	Post	Change (%)	d
Contact time (ms)	CEST-PLY	276 ± 20 [265, 286]	271 ± 17 [262, 280]	−1.8 ± 4.2 [−4.0, 0.4]	0.3
	CEST-DYN	285 ± 22 [274, 295]	285 ± 23 [274, 296]	0.2 ± 3.1 [−1.3, 1.7]	0.0
	Main intervention effect: 0.12 Main pre-post effect: 0.24 Interaction pre-post x intervention: 0.15
Flight time (ms)	CEST-PLY	89 ± 21 [78, 100]	84 ± 26 [70, 98]	−6.0 ± 13.1 [−12.9, 0.9]	0.2
	CEST-DYN	74 ± 22 [63, 84]	69 ± 21 [59, 79]	−6.4 ± 16.8 [−14.4, 1.6]	0.2
	Main intervention effect: 0.06 Main pre-post effect: 0.03 Interaction pre-post x intervention: 0.88
Step frequency (Hz)	CEST-PLY	2.78 ± 0.23 [2.66, 2.90]	2.81 ± 0.21 [2.71, 2.92]	1.1 ± 5.5 [−1.8, 4.0]	0.1
	CEST-DYN	2.80 ± 0.09 [2.75, 2.84]	2.83 ± 0.12 [2.77, 2.89]	1.3 ± 2.9 [−0.1, 2.7]	0.3
	Main intervention effect: 0.80 Main pre-post effect: 0.13 Interaction pre-post x intervention: 0.91
Duty factor (%)	CEST-PLY	38.3 ± 3.3 [36.6, 40.1]	38.1 ± 3.2 [36.4, 39.8]	−0.6 ± 5.7 [−3.6, 2.4]	0.1
	CEST-DYN	39.8 ± 3.0 [38.4, 41.2]	40.3 ± 2.9 [38.9, 41.7]	1.4 ± 3.9 [−0.5, 3.2]	0.2
	Main intervention effect: 0.09 Main pre-post effect: 0.63 Interaction pre-post x intervention: 0.26
Leg stiffness (kN/m)	CEST-PLY	10.2 ± 1.7 [9.3, 11.1]	10.5 ± 1.8 [21.7, 25.1]	2.7 ± 10.4 [−2.7, 8.2]	0.2
	CEST-DYN	10.8 ± 2.3 [9.7, 11.9]	10.8 ± 2.6 [23.3, 27.6]	−0.5 ± 7.1 [−3.9, 2.8]	0.0
	Main intervention effect: 0.10 Main pre-post effect: 0.10 Interaction pre-post x intervention: 0.29

Data are mean ± standard deviation. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) as determined by the two-way repeated measures ANOVAs are indicated in bold. Effect size is classified as small, moderate, and large when d values are larger than 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively (Cohen, 1988).

Table 5. Pre- and post-intervention running economy (RE) and running biomechanics (contact time, flight time, step frequency, duty factor, and leg stiffness) as well as 95% confidence intervals [lower, upper], corresponding changes in RE and running biomechanics (expressed in percent units), and Cohen’s d effect size for high and low responders of concurrent running endurance training with either plyometric (CSET-PLY) or dynamic body-weight training (CSET-DYN).

Intervention	Variables	High responders		Change (%)	d	Low responders		Change (%)	d
		Pre	Post			Pre	Post
CSET-PLY	RE (ml/kg^0.75/km)	637 ± 23 [618, 655]	592 ± 37 [570, 614]	−7.0 ± 2.3 [−8.8, −5.2]	1.8	625 ± 52 [589, 660]	627 ± 57 [587, 667]	0.3 ± 2.2 [−1.2, 1.8]	0.0
	Contact time (ms)	269 ± 18 [255, 283]	270 ± 19 [254, 285]	0.3 ± 1.7 [−1.1, 1.7]	0.0	281 ± 21 [267, 295]	272 ± 16 [261, 283]	−3.1 ± 4.4 [−6.2, −0.0]	0.5
	Flight time (ms)	83 ± 22 [66, 101]	77 ± 23 [58, 95]	−7.8 ± 12.6 [−17.8, 2.4]	0.3	94 ± 21 [80, 108]	90 ± 29 [70, 110]	−6.7 ± 17.4 [−18.8, 5.4]	0.2
	Step frequency (Hz)	2.93 ± 0.26 [2.72, 3.14]	2.90 ± 0.25 [2.70, 3.10]	−0.8 ± 6.6 [−6.1, 4.4]	0.1	2.67 ± 0.13 [2.58, 2.77]	2.75 ± 0.15 [2.64, 2.86]	2.9 ± 3.8 [0.2, 5.6]	0.5
	Duty factor (%)	39.4 ± 4.1 [36.1, 42.7]	39.0 ± 2.5 [37.0, 41.0]	−0.5 ± 6.5 [−5.7, 4.7]	0.1	37.5 ± 2.6 [35.7, 39.3]	37.4 ± 3.6 [34.9, 39.9]	−0.4 ± 4.5 [−3.5, 2.7]	0.0
	Leg stiffness (kN/m)	9.7 ± 1.1 [8.8, 10.6]	9.5 ± 1.1 [8.6, 10.4]	−1.9 ± 3.8 [−4.9, 1.1]	0.2	10.6 ± 2.0 [9.2, 12.0]	11.2 ± 1.9 [9.9, 12.5]	6.8 ± 13.7 [−2.7, 16.4]	0.3
CSET-DYN	RE (ml/kg^0.75/km)	599 ± 43 [566, 631]	570 ± 38 [543, 598]	−4.7 ± 2.2 [−6.3, −3.1]	0.7	636 ± 43 [609, 662]	641 ± 47 [612, 670]	0.7 ± 2.1 [−0.6, 2.0]	0.1
	Contact time (ms)	275 ± 14 [265, 286]	274 ± 14 [264, 185]	−0.3 ± 2.9 [−2.5, 1.8]	0.1	291 ± 24 [276, 306]	293 ± 25 [277, 308]	0.6 ± 3.3 [−1.5, 2.6]	0.1
	Flight time (ms)	81 ± 21 [66, 97]	73 ± 19 [59, 87]	−10.1 ± 5.9 [−14.5, −5.7]	0.4	68 ± 22 [55, 82]	66 ± 22 [53, 80]	−0.1 ± 28.4 [−17.7, 17.5]	0.1
	Step frequency (Hz)	2.81 ± 0.10 [2.74, 2.88]	2.89 ± 0.11 [2.80, 2.97]	2.9 ± 3.3 [0.5, 5.3]	0.8	2.79 ± 0.10 [2.73, 2.85]	2.79 ± 0.11 [2.72, 2.86]	0.1 ± 2.2 [−1.2, 1.5]	0.0
	Duty factor (%)	38.7 ± 2.7 [36.7, 40.6]	39.6 ± 2.6 [37.7, 41.6]	2.5 ± 1.9 [1.1, 4.0]	0.4	40.5 ± 3.0 [38.6, 42.4]	40.8 ± 3.1 [38.9, 42.7]	0.7 ± 4.6 [−2.1, 3.5]	0.1
	Leg stiffness (kN/m)	10.5 ± 1.9 [9.0, 11.9]	10.7 ± 2.6 [8.8, 12.6]	1.7 ± 7.3 [−3.7, 7.1]	0.1	11.1 ± 2.6 [9.5, 12.7]	10.8 ± 2.7 [9.1, 12.5]	−2.6 ± 5.5 [−6.0, 0.8]	0.1

Data are mean ± standard deviation. Effect size is classified as small, moderate, and large when d values are larger than 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively (Cohen, 1988).

Patoz, A., Breine, B., Thouvenot, A., Mourot, L., Gindre, C., & Lussiana, T. (2021). Does characterizing global running pattern help to prescribe individualized strength training in recreational runners? Frontiers in Physiology, 12(330). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.631637

 Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The dataset supporting this article is available on request to the corresponding author.