. 2022 Nov 12;8:138. doi: 10.1186/s40798-022-00511-1

Table 2.

Study designs, training variables, and the results of the studies adopting heavy resistance training

Study designs				Training programs			Results
Performance level	Study	Group	Number of participants: sex, age	Training period (weeks)	Training mode	Maximal intensity through the intervention	Running economy	Running time trial performance
1	Albracht and Arampatzis [63]	HRT	13: M, 27 ± 5	14	IRT	90% MVC	10.8 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 5.0%, g = − 0.92 [ − 1.72, − 0.12] ECr; − 4.7%, g = − 0.59 [ − 1.37, 0.19] 12.6 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 3.4%, g = − 0.55 [ − 1.33 0.23] ECr; − 3.5%, g = − 0.46 [ − 1.24 0.32]	–
1	Albracht and Arampatzis [63]	Control	13: M, 25 ± 3	14	–	–	10.8 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂;0.0%, g = 0.00 [ − 0.76, 0.76] ECr; 0.0%, g = 0.00 [ − 0.76, 0.76] 12.6 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 0.0%, g = 0.00 [ − 0.76, 0.76] ECr; 0.0%, g = 0.03 [ − 0.73, 0.79]	–
1	Bohm et al. [64]	HRT	13: M = 9, F = 4, 29 ± 5	14	IRT	90% MVC	9 km/h: ECr; − 3.8%, g = − 0.59 [ − 1.37, 0.19]	–
1	Bohm et al. [64]	Control	10: M = 3, F = 7, 31 ± 3	14	–	–	9 km/h: ECr; − 0.9% g = − 0.10 [ − 1.98, 0.78]	–
1	Damasceno et al. [65]	HRT	9: M, 34.1 ± 7.7	8	DRT	3RM	12 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 1.4%, g = − 0.16 [ − 1.08, 0.76]	10 km: − 2.5% (p = 0.039)
1	Damasceno et al. [65]	Control	9: M, 32.9 ± 9.2	8	–	–	12 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 1.9%, g = − 0.17 [ − 1.09, 0.75]	10 km: − 0.7% (NS, p ≥ 0.05)
1	Ferrauti et al. [66]	HRT	11: M = 9, F = 2, 40.0 ± 11.4	8	DRT MET	DRT: 3RM MET: 20RM	8.6 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 5.1%, g = 0.60 [ − 0.26, 1.46] 10.1 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 2.2%, g = 0.30 [ − 0.54, 1.14]	–
1	Ferrauti et al. [66]	Control	11: M = 7, F = 4, 40.0 ± 11.4	8	–	–	8.6 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 4.0%, g = 0.34 [ − 0.50, 1.18] 10.1 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 4.6%, g = 0.55 [ − 0.29, 1.39]	–
1	Festa et al. [67]	HRT	11: M = 6, F = 5, 44.2 ± 6.0	8	DRT	No numerical data	8.5 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 6.3%, g = − 0.80 [ − 1.63, 0.09]	2 km: − 4.5%, g = − 0.47 [ − 1.31, 0.37] 10 km: − 6.1%, g = − 0.71 [ − 1.57, 0.15]
1	Festa et al. [67]	Control	9: M = 6, F = 3, 45.4 ± 8.0	8	–	–	8.5 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 0.8%, g = 0.06 [ − 0.85, 0.99]	2 km: − 2.2%, g = − 0.18 [ − 1.10, 0.74] 10 km: − 2.5%, g = − 0.14 [ − 1.06, 0.78]

Study designs				Training programs			Results
Performance level	Study	Group	Number of participants: sex, age	Training period (weeks)	Training mode	Maximal intensity through the intervention	Running economy	Running time trial performance
1	Karsten et al. [68]	HRT	8: M = 5, F = 3, 39 ± 5.1	6	DRT	80% 1RM	–	5 km: − 3.5%, g = − 0.23 [ − 1.21, 0.75]
1	Karsten et al. [68]	Control	8: M = 6, F = 2, 30 ± 7.7	6	–	–	–	5 km: 0.5%, g = 0.03 [ − 0.95, 1.01]
2	Johnston et al. [69]	HRT	6: F, 30.3 ± 1.4	10	DRT	6RM	12.8 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 4.1%, g = − 0.66 [ − 1.82, 0.50] 13.8 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 3.8%, g = − 0.61 [ − 1.77, 0.55]	–
2	Johnston et al. [69]	Control	6: F, 30.3 ± 1.4	10	–	–	12.8 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 0.5%, g = 0.13 [ − 1.01, 1.27] 13.8 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 0.9%, g = 0.22 [ − 0.92, 1.36]	–
2	Piacentini et al. [70]	HRT	6: M = 4, F = 2, 44.2 ± 3.9	6	DRT	90% 1RM	9.75 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 0.5%, g = − 0.04 [ − 1.18, 1.10] 10.75 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 6.2%, g = − 0.62 [ − 1.78, 0.54] 11.75 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 2.8%, g = 0.24 [ − 0.90, 1.38]	–
		HRT	5: M = 3, F = 2, 44.8 ± 4.4		DRT	70% 1RM	9.75 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 1.7%, g = − 0.25 [ − 1.50, 1.00] 10.75 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 1.3%, g = − 0.19 [ − 1.42, 1.04] 11.75 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 1.2%, g = − 0.12 [ − 1.35, 1.11]	–
		Control	5: M, 43.2 ± 7.9		–	–	9.75 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 0.0%, g = 0.04 [ − 1.19, 1.27] 10.75 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 1.3%, g = − 0.19 [ − 1.42, 1.04] 11.75 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 1.2%, g = − 0.12 [ − 1.35, 1.11]	–
2	Vikmoen et al. [71, 72]	HRT	11: F, 31.5 ± 8.0	11	DRT	4RM	10 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 0.5%, g = − 0.10 [ − 0.98, 0.78]	–
2	Vikmoen et al. [71, 72]	Control	8: F, 34.9 ± 7.5	11	–	–	10 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 0.3%, g = 0.05 [ − 0.93, 1.03]	–

Study designs				Training programs			Results
Performance level	Study	Group	Number of participants: sex, age	Training period (weeks)	Training mode	Maximal intensity through the intervention	Running economy	Running time trial performance
3	Fletcher et al. [73]	HRT	6: M, 22.2 ± 3.1	8	IRT	80% MVC	12.3 km/h: ECr; 1.0%, g = 0.12 [-1.02, 1.26] 13.9 km/h: ECr; − 0.2%, g = -0.03 [-1.17, 1.11] 15.6 km/h: ECr; − 0.5%, g = -0.10 [-1.24, 1.04]	–
3	Fletcher et al. [73]	Control	6: M, 26.3 ± 6.0	8	–	–	12.3 km/h: ECr; 0.0%, g = 0.00 [-1.14, 1.14] 13.9 km/h: ECr; 0.2%, g = 0.04 [-1.10, 1.18] 15.6 km/h: ECr; − 0.2%, g = -0.06 [-1.20, 1.08]	–
3	Millet et al. [74]	HRT	7: M, 24.3 ± 5.2	14	DRT	90% 1RM	15.0 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 6.9%, g = -0.87 [-1.97, 0.23] 17.5 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 5.6%, g = -0.85 [-1.95, 0.25]	–
3	Millet et al. [74]	Control	8: M, 21.4 ± 2.1	14	–	–	15.0 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 7.1%, g = 0.74 [-0.28, 1.76] 17.5 km/h: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 5.4%, g = 0.49 [-0.51, 1.49]	–
3	Storen et al. [75]	HRT	8: M = 4, F = 4, 28.6 ± 10.1	8	DRT	4RM	70% of $\dot{V}$ O_2max: $\dot{V}$ O₂; − 5.0%, g = -0.97 [-2.01, 0.07]	–
3	Storen et al. [75]	Control	9: M = 5, F = 4, 29.7 ± 7.0	8	–	–	70% of $\dot{V}$ O_2max: $\dot{V}$ O₂; 1.8%, g = 0.23 [-0.75, 1.21]	–
Summary		–	Total size 216	9.6 [8.0, 11.2]	–		Weighted average by sample size HRT group: g = -0.43 [-0.69, − 0.17] Control group: g = 0.07 [-0.06, 0.21]	Weighted average by sample size HRT group: g = -0.44 [-0.48, − 0.39] Control group: g = -0.07 [-0.20, 0.06]

HRT: heavy resistance training, M: male, F: female, IRT: isometric resistance training, DRT: dynamic resistance training, MET: muscle endurance training, RM: reputation maximum, reps: reputations, wk: week, MVC: maximum voluntary contraction, $\dot{V}$ O₂: oxygen consumption, ECr: energy cost of running, SD: standard deviation, NS: no significant differences (p ≥ 0.05) between pre and post

Notation of results: The results for running economy were represented as “running speed: parameter; percentage changes, Hedges’ g [95% CIs lower limit, upper limit]” and running time trial performance, represented as “running distance: percentage changes, Hedges’ g [95% CIs lower limit, upper limit].”

Data provided in the paper were described if we could not calculate the effect sizes due to the lack of data