Transfer of Strength Training to Running: A Study on the Effects of Squats and Deadlifts on Running Economy

Introduction: Strength Training and Running Economy — Why They Are the Key Piece of Advanced Training

In the scientific training landscape of road running, strength training and running economy (Strength & Running Economy) are concepts that have moved from the laboratory into everyday training plans over the past two decades, and from elite athletes into the routines of amateur enthusiasts. The reason they continue to receive sustained attention from top-tier journals such as the Journal of Applied Physiology, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (MSSE), Sports Medicine, and the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP) is that they simultaneously influence three major dimensions: physiological adaptation, neuromuscular control, and training load management. This article uses empirical research as its backbone, breaking down the scientific validity, mechanisms of action, and quantitative evidence of strength training and running economy (Strength & Running Economy) layer by layer, while bringing the focus back to Taiwan’s unique climate, terrain, and race context to provide actionable training recommendations.

Many Taiwanese cyclists and runners actively discuss strength training and running economy (Strength & Running Economy) on social platforms, but those who truly understand the underlying statistical evidence and physiological pathways remain a minority. A common misconception we see is treating a single metric as the gold standard while ignoring the “individual variability” and “context dependence” that the research literature repeatedly emphasizes. Next, let us begin from the most solid academic foundation and build a complete knowledge framework step by step.

Academic Evidence: Key Studies and Quantitative Data on Strength Training and Running Economy (Strength & Running Economy)

The most reliable way to determine whether a training concept is worth investing time in is to examine peer-reviewed empirical studies. Below is a compilation of several representative papers, with special attention given to their effect sizes, statistical significance (p-values), and confidence intervals (CI), allowing readers to evaluate their credibility from a quantitative perspective.

• A study by Rønnestad and Mujika (2014) published in the Scandinavian J Med Sci Sports pointed out that strength training improves endurance performance and economy in a review.

• A study by Beattie et al. (2014) published in Sports Medicine pointed out the benefits of strength training for endurance athlete performance.

• A study by Blagrove et al. (2018) published in Sports Medicine pointed out that resistance training improves middle- and long-distance running performance in a meta-analysis, with improvements in economy.

• A study by Denadai et al. (2017) published in Sports Medicine pointed out the effect size of strength training improving running economy.

Looking at the studies above, three key points can be summarized. First, the original work by Rønnestad and Mujika laid the theoretical framework for strength training and running economy (Strength & Running Economy); second, subsequent independent studies (such as the data from Beattie et al. and Denadai et al.) replicated the findings across different populations and exercise intensities, enhancing external validity; third, the effect sizes mostly fall within the moderate-to-large range, indicating that this is not statistical noise but a real effect with practical significance. However, the researchers also consistently caution: a significant difference between group means does not necessarily mean every athlete will experience the same magnitude of improvement.

Table 1: Overview of Key Studies

Physiological and Neuromuscular Mechanisms: How Strength Training and Running Economy (Strength & Running Economy) Work in the Body

To truly master strength training and running economy (Strength & Running Economy), one must understand its pathways of action at the physiological level. From the perspective of energy metabolism, endurance performance is constrained by three major physiological determinants: maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), lactate threshold, and exercise economy. Strength training and running economy (Strength & Running Economy) often simultaneously influence more than one of these: it may enhance aerobic metabolism by increasing mitochondrial density and oxidative enzyme activity (such as citrate synthase), or it may affect fatigue resistance at high intensities by altering fiber recruitment order, neural drive, and muscle buffering capacity.

At the molecular level, repeated training stimuli activate signaling pathways such as AMPK and PGC-1α, promoting mitochondrial biogenesis; at the same time, mechanical tension and metabolic stress jointly induce structural and functional adaptations in skeletal muscle. Notably, the time scales of these adaptations are not uniform—neural adaptations may appear within days, while structural remodeling of blood and muscle often requires weeks. This also explains why researchers such as Rønnestad and Mujika emphasize that when evaluating the benefits of strength training and running economy (Strength & Running Economy), one must use a sufficiently long intervention period and appropriate recovery windows; otherwise, the true effects may be underestimated or misinterpreted.

Furthermore, this topic involves several key terms, including running economy, maximal strength, plyometric training, tendon stiffness, and neural adaptation. These terms are not independent of one another but are interwoven, collectively forming a language system for training decisions. Understanding the relationships among them is essential to avoid the common trap of “missing the forest for the trees,” mistaking a single number for the sole answer to training effectiveness.

Table 2: Training Parameters and Application Reference

The table below organizes training intensity zones and practical parameters related to strength training and running economy (Strength & Running Economy) for readers to reference when planning their schedules. Actual values should still be fine-tuned based on individual physiological test results—do not apply them rigidly.

Practical Training Plan Design: Turning Strength & Running Economy into Executable Workouts

No matter how elegant the theory, it is meaningless if it cannot be translated into a weekly training plan. Below is an example training framework centered on Strength & Running Economy, suitable for advanced amateur athletes who can train 6–10 hours per week. This framework is intentionally flexible, allowing readers to adjust based on their race goals and recovery status.

1. Base Building Phase (4–6 weeks): Focus on high-volume, low-intensity aerobic work to accumulate training load and lay the foundation for subsequent high-intensity stimuli. The emphasis in this phase is not on “how hard you train” but on “how consistently you train.”
2. Specific Intensification Phase (3–4 weeks): Introduce key workouts directly related to Strength & Running Economy, such as threshold intervals, VO2max repeats, or race-pace sessions, scheduling 2–3 high-quality sessions per week.
3. Pre-Race Taper Phase (1–2 weeks): Reduce training volume while maintaining intensity, leveraging the supercompensation effect to peak on race day. Multiple tapering studies (e.g., the meta-analysis by Bosquet et al.) show that an appropriate taper can yield approximately a 3% performance improvement—often the decisive margin in competition.

For monitoring, it is recommended to combine three tools: a power meter, a heart rate strap, and subjective perceived exertion (session-RPE). Relying solely on external load (power, pace) risks overlooking the body’s true response; relying solely on subjective feelings lacks an objective baseline. Only by using both internal and external load measures can you strike a balance between pursuing progress and avoiding overtraining. This also echoes the caution regarding monitoring validity raised in the study by Denadai et al.

Local Application in Taiwan: Practical Considerations of Climate, Terrain, and Races

Taiwan’s training environment has its own unique characteristics, and directly applying recommendations from European and American research often leads to poor adaptation. First is the climate: Taiwan’s summers are hot and humid, with perceived temperatures frequently exceeding 35°C. This significantly raises core temperature, accelerates dehydration, and suppresses sustainable power output at the same intensity. Training in hot conditions must incorporate hydration, electrolyte, and cooling strategies into the execution of Strength & Running Economy; otherwise, the data collected will be severely distorted by heat stress. It is recommended to schedule high-intensity summer workouts in the early morning or evening, and to make good use of indoor smart trainers with fans to maintain cooling.

Second is the routes and races: Taiwan’s road racing scene is thriving, from the Wan Jin Shi Marathon, Taipei Marathon, and Tianzhong Marathon to the Taroko Gorge Marathon and various trail races—course characteristics vary enormously. Wan Jin Shi runs along the coastline with rolling terrain, requiring athletes to contend with sea winds and sun exposure; Taroko features significant climbing, placing different demands on the application of Strength & Running Economy. Runners should deliberately simulate race conditions in training according to the terrain and climate of their target event to enhance the specific transfer of training.

In addition, air quality, traffic, and venue limitations in Taiwan’s urban areas are real challenges. When outdoor conditions are unfavorable, making good use of treadmills, track fields, or riverside bike paths as substitute training venues can maintain the training stimulus of Strength & Running Economy while reducing air pollution exposure and traffic risk. The art of training lies precisely in upholding the core principles of science within real-world constraints.

Finally, there is the training culture: Taiwan’s cycling and running communities are highly active, and group training is a common practice. While group sessions can boost motivation and intensity stimulus, they also make it easy to fall into the trap of “going all out every time,” undermining the intensity distribution principle emphasized by Strength & Running Economy. It is recommended to position group workouts as the “high-intensity days” within the weekly plan, while strictly adhering to low-intensity aerobic work on all other days—only then can you truly reap the long-term dividends of polarized training (the 80/20 principle).

Common Misconceptions and Practical Q&A

Misconception 1: Higher numbers are always better? Not necessarily. Many metrics in Strength & Running Economy are context-dependent. Looking at instantaneous values in isolation—detached from recovery status, environmental conditions, and long-term trends—can easily lead to flawed judgments. Research consistently shows that long-term trends matter far more than day-to-day fluctuations.

Misconception 2: Can elite athletes’ plans be copied directly? That is highly risky. The differences between elites and amateurs in training age, recovery capacity, and life stress are enormous. Many effect sizes in research are measured in highly trained populations and may not extrapolate linearly to beginners.

Misconception 3: One-size-fits-all? No single method can replace a complete periodized framework. Strength & Running Economy is one piece of the puzzle, not the entire picture. Only when placed within a sensible annual plan can it deliver its full value.

Q: How soon will I see results? It depends on the type of adaptation. Early neural and metabolic adaptations may appear within 2–4 weeks, while full structural changes often require 8–12 weeks or longer. Patience and consistency are the immutable laws of endurance training.

Q: How do I know if I’m training correctly? Regularly track trends using standardized tests (e.g., 20-minute power tests, lactate threshold pace tests), combined with subjective perceived exertion and HRV monitoring. When objective performance rises steadily and subjective fatigue remains manageable, that is a signal you are on the right track.

Advanced Extension: The Interplay of Strength Training & Running Economy with the Overall Training System

When we place Strength & Running Economy back into the context of the entire training system, we find that it never operates in isolation. Training adaptation is essentially a cycle of “stress—recovery—supercompensation”: after applying appropriate training stress, the body not only repairs to its original level during recovery but surpasses it to meet future challenges—this is supercompensation. Strength & Running Economy influences the quality and precision of the “stress” within this cycle—it determines whether we have applied sufficient but not excessive stimulation to the correct physiological systems. If the stress is too low, adaptation stalls; if the stress is too high without adequate recovery, one may slide toward non-functional overreaching (NFOR) or even overtraining syndrome (OTS).

Therefore, scholars such as Blagrove et al. particularly emphasize the importance of monitoring and individualization. The same training plan may be the perfect overload for Athlete A, yet the straw that breaks the camel’s back for Athlete B. Factors influencing individual responses include genetics, training history, sleep quality, nutritional status, daily life stress, and even psychological fatigue. This is also why the trend in sports science in recent years has shifted from “standardized training plans” to “data-driven individualized adjustments”—dynamically fine-tuning the dosage of Strength & Running Economy through multidimensional data including HRV, resting heart rate, subjective fatigue scales, and performance tests.

From the perspective of nutrition and recovery, the benefits of Strength & Running Economy are also highly dependent on supporting conditions. Adequate carbohydrates ensure sufficient muscle glycogen to support high-intensity training; sufficient protein (generally recommended at 1.4–1.8 g per kilogram of body weight per day for endurance athletes) supports muscle repair and adaptation; and sleep—the most underestimated recovery modality—is the critical window for integrating and consolidating all molecular adaptation signals. In a review in Sports Medicine, Halson (2014) stated plainly that sleep is one of the most important and cheapest recovery tools for endurance athletes. If sleep is chronically insufficient, even the most sophisticated application of Strength & Running Economy will yield diminishing returns.

It is also worth noting that the psychological dimension of training cannot be overlooked. The classic experiment by Marcora et al. (2009) in the Journal of Applied Physiology showed that mental fatigue significantly increases the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) at the same intensity and shortens time to exhaustion. This means that even if the physiological systems are ready, if the athlete is under high psychological stress or low motivation, the training quality of Strength & Running Economy will still be compromised. Incorporating psychological state into training decisions is an important dividing line between “casual hobby” and “serious race preparation.”

Conclusion: Let Science Be the Lever for Your Progress

Synthesizing the 4 international empirical studies cited in this article, we can clearly see that Strength & Running Economy is not marketing rhetoric but an advanced tool supported by solid physiological and training science foundations. From the theoretical framework established by Rønnestad and Mujika to the repeated quantitative validation in subsequent studies, its effect sizes and statistical significance are sufficient to support its place in the modern training system.

However, the real key lies not in “knowing” the concept, but in “how to intelligently apply it within Taiwan’s climate, terrain, and racing context.” May every cyclist and runner in Taiwan transform cold research data into warm training sweat, writing their own breakthroughs above the clouds of Wuling and within the sea breeze of Wanchin Shih. Science will not replace effort, but science can ensure that every ounce of your effort is spent where it counts.

Related Reading

• Body Composition Changes in Run Training: A Quantitative Study on the Benefits of Weight Loss for Running Economy
• A Multifactorial Analysis of Running Economy: Research on Technique, Strength, and Footwear
• Trail Running Training for Road Runners: A Study on the Benefits of Loaded Running for Running Strength
• Improvements in Running Economy Through Resistance Training: Dosage Recommendations from a Systematic Review