If you only have time for one thing, lift heavy and keep at it for 10 or more weeks. That’s where the pooled evidence points. Plyometrics alone show a much weaker effect on running economy, which is how much energy you burn to hold a given pace.
One note on the title. People often cite “the 2025 meta-analysis” on this. We found none that compares the two methods on running economy. The head-to-head work is Eihara et al. (2022). The broadest method-by-method review is Llanos-Lagos et al. (2024). Both are covered below.
Plyometrics vs heavy resistance training for running economy: the pooled numbers
Eihara and colleagues pooled studies of runners who did either heavy lifting or jump training. They report effect sizes as Hedges’ g. Negative means better economy. Under 0.2 is trivial, and around 0.2 to 0.5 is small.
Heavy training came in at g = -0.32 (95% CI -0.55 to -0.10). Plyometrics came in at g = -0.13 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.21). In short: lifting gave a small, reliable gain. Jumping gave a gain too small to tell apart from zero.
One caution. The authors ran two separate pooled effects. They did not test heavy against plyometric head to head. Also, the paper has some internal inconsistencies in its counts and intervals, so treat the exact decimals as approximate.
Think of running economy as your car’s miles per gallon. Heavy lifting is like building a stronger frame, so each stride asks less of the muscles. Plyometrics is like tuning the springs. That can help, but the tuning only seems to pay off in some conditions.
Speed matters more than most articles admit
Here’s the finding most summaries skip. Llanos-Lagos 2024 pooled runner studies across different paces. High-load training improved economy across speeds from 8.64 to 17.85 km/h (effect size -0.27). Gains were larger at faster speeds and in runners with higher VO2max, your maximal oxygen uptake.
Plyometrics helped at 12 km/h or slower. That’s a 5:00 per km pace, or about 8:02 per mile. Above that, the pooled data didn’t show a clear benefit.
A single trial inside Eihara’s review fits this. Jump training improved economy at 7.7 to 10.6 km/h but made it worse at 12.1 to 16.4 km/h. Eihara’s team also cite a trial where jumps helped at 16 km/h, so the picture is mixed.
Our inference, not a finding: a slower recreational marathoner running near 11 to 12 km/h sits inside the plyometric range. A runner racing at 15 km/h sits well outside it. We found no trial that tests that split directly.
Speed changes the answer. Check your own pace before you pick a side.
What the other modalities showed
| Method | Economy effect (Llanos-Lagos 2024) | Certainty (GRADE) |
|---|---|---|
| High-load training | Small gain (ES -0.27, p = 0.039) | Moderate |
| Plyometric | Small gain at 12 km/h or slower | Moderate |
| Combined methods | Moderate gain (ES -0.43, p = 0.018) | Low |
| Submaximal load | No significant change | Moderate |
| Isometric | No significant change | Moderate |
Combined programs looked best on paper. But the certainty rating is low, so don’t bank on it. For one way to pair the two, read complex training for distance runners.
How heavy, and for how long
Eihara’s moderator splits give practical targets. Loads at 90% of 1RM or above (about 4 reps to failure) gave g = -0.31. Lighter loads gave g = -0.17 with a very wide interval. In short: go near-max, not moderate.
Length mattered too. The average heavy program ran 9.6 weeks, and plyometric programs ran 6.9. Short blocks left gains on the table.
Heavy blocks more than doubled their effect from the short to the long programs. The authors suggest highly trained runners may need 12 or more weeks. Eihara did not report how many sessions per week were used.
Patience pays. A four-week trial tells you very little.
Does it help you race faster?
Less clear. In Llanos-Lagos 2024b (894 athletes), high-load training had a moderate effect on running performance. Combined training had a large one. Plyometrics alone had no significant effect. Certainty ranged from very low to moderate, so these are leads, not laws.
Time-trial evidence in Eihara’s review is thin. Only a few studies measured it, and the intervals were wide.
One reassuring result: none of the strength methods changed VO2max or the speed at VO2max. Nothing got worse. That doesn’t prove strength work never interferes at high volume. For the scheduling side, see concurrent training interference and how to combine strength and endurance training.
Effect sizes are shrinking, not growing
An older 2016 analysis in highly trained runners reported a pooled effect near -1.42, from combined heavy and plyometric programs. It’s an optimistic estimate drawn from small trials. Later pooled values run from about -0.13 to -0.43. A 2025 review of 80 runners (d = 0.47) found resistance training in general helps economy, but it didn’t split the methods. Real gains, yes. Miracle gains, no.
Ramp in without breaking yourself
No meta-analysis here gives an injury rate for plyometrics, so we won’t quote one. What follows is expert opinion from the Stronger by Science summary, not trial data.
Runners already get overuse injuries often. The suggestion is to start with one session a week, two to three sets, for the knee extensors, hip extensors and ankles. Add volume only if your feet, ankles, knees and hips feel fine. Expect to wait at least 8 to 10 weeks for payoff. If forced to pick one method, that author leans toward very heavy lifting.
If you add jumps, start small. Our post on five minutes of daily hopping covers a low-time option. Want to track jump readiness? See reactive strength index for runners. And if you’re lifting the day after a hard run, read strength training the day after a hard run.
A case study: Dana’s 12-week block
Take a runner I’ll call Dana. She’s 41, runs about 35 miles a week and races half marathons near 11.5 km/h (5:13 per km). The numbers below are illustrative, not from a study.
Dana does one heavy session a week: squats, deadlifts and calf raises at about 4 reps per set. She adds a short jump drill after two weeks. She logs each one as a strength session and notes “heavy” or “plyo.” Before the block, her easy-run heart rate at 6:00 per km averaged 148. After 12 weeks, it sat at 143, with similar weekly mileage.
That’s a proxy, not a lab test. Heat, sleep and fitness all move heart rate. But a five-beat drop at the same pace across 12 weeks is worth noticing.
How to check your block is working
AthleteOS lets you log strength as its own session type next to your runs. You note whether it was plyo or heavy. It doesn’t tag that for you. Open a run’s workout detail to see aerobic decoupling and your pace-to-heart-rate efficiency. Compare the same easy or goal pace at week 0 and week 12.
This doesn’t measure oxygen cost. It’s a trend line. To keep that trend in one place, try AthleteOS.
Pick one method, give it 10 to 12 weeks, and measure.