Title |
Concurrent endurance training with either plyometric or dynamic body-weight training both improve running economy with minimal or no changes in running biomechanics
|
---|---|
Published in |
Sports Biomechanics, April 2023
|
DOI | 10.1080/14763141.2023.2200403 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Aurélien Patoz, Thibault Lussiana, Bastiaan Breine, Laurent Mourot, Cyrille Gindre, Kim Hébert-Losier |
Abstract |
We compared the effects of two 8-week concurrent strength and endurance trainings (CSETs) on running economy (RE) and running biomechanics, and we explored whether the effects on running biomechanics were mediated by responder status [high vs low responder based on -2.6% change in RE]. Thirty-one male recreational runners were randomly assigned to a standard endurance running training combined with either plyometric (CSET-PLY) or dynamic body-weight (CSET-DYN) training. RE and running biomechanics [contact (tc) and flight (tf) time, step frequency (SF), duty factor (DF), and leg stiffness (kleg)] were measured pre- and post-intervention. RE significantly improved following CSET (RE = -2.1 ± 3.9%; p = 0.005) and no changes in tc, DF, SF, and kleg (p ≥ 0.10) but a shorter tf (p ≥ 0.03) from pre- to post-intervention were seen. The prevalence of high responders was 42% (RE = -5.7 ± 2.4%). Among high responders, there were no changes in running biomechanics except participants following CSET-DYN who increased their SF (+3%). These results indicate that improvements in RE obtained through CSET-PLY and CSET-DYN involve minimal to no changes in running biomechanics and that there was not a training modality, which was better than the other. More detailed biomechanical assessments involving kinematics, kinetics, and electromyography could shed light on the underlying mechanisms of RE improvement. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 3% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 30 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 20 | 63% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 25% |
Scientists | 3 | 9% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
Researcher | 1 | 3% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 15 | 52% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sports and Recreations | 8 | 28% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 15 | 52% |