Plyometrics for Runners: Do Jumps Make You Faster?

Do plyometrics actually make runners faster?

On balance, the controlled evidence says yes, but the gains are moderate rather than dramatic. Ramírez-Campillo et al. (2021) pooled 21 controlled trials involving 511 endurance runners and reported a significant, moderate improvement in 2-5 km time-trial performance (effect size 0.88) after jump training. Alongside this, they saw small-to-moderate improvements in reactive strength, rate of force development, sprint speed and running economy (effect sizes 0.36-0.73).

A single earlier trial illustrates the scale. Spurrs et al. (2003) found that six weeks of plyometric training improved 3-km time-trial performance by 2.7% in trained male runners. That is meaningful over a race, but it is not transformative, and it sits on top of, not instead of, consistent running. The honest reading is that plyometrics are a useful supplementary stimulus rather than a substitute for aerobic training volume.

How do jumps improve running economy?

The mechanism is neuromuscular, not aerobic. Ramírez-Campillo et al. (2021) found no change in VO2max, lactate threshold or stride mechanics, which points to improved economy as the route to faster times. Running economy is how much oxygen you use to hold a given pace, and using less means you can sustain the same speed for less energetic cost.

Spurrs et al. (2003) attributed their improvements to increased lower-leg musculotendinous stiffness. A stiffer tendon-muscle unit stores and returns more elastic energy on each ground contact, so the leg behaves more like an efficient spring. Turner et al. (2003) reported that six weeks of plyometrics three times a week improved economy by roughly 2-3% across submaximal speeds in recreational runners, again with no change in VO2max. The consistent pattern across these trials is that runners become more efficient at their existing fitness, rather than fitter in the traditional aerobic sense.

How much does plyometric training improve running economy?

The typical improvement is a few percent, which matters over a race but is not enormous. Denadai et al. (2017) pooled explosive and plyometric-type training studies and found running economy improved by around 4.8% on average, an effect they judged comparable to heavy weight training and most pronounced in highly trained runners and at faster submaximal speeds.

Individual trials cluster in a similar range. Turner et al. (2003) reported roughly 2-3% improvements, while Saunders et al. (2006) found a 4.1% improvement at 18 km/h. It is worth treating these numbers cautiously: economy is measured differently across studies, sample sizes are small, and pooled averages hide considerable variation between individuals. A few percent is a fair expectation, but some runners will gain more and some very little. The gains also appear speed-specific, a point the next sections return to.

Do plyometrics beat heavy strength training?

This is where the evidence turns mixed, and where earlier optimism deserves tempering. Eihara et al. (2022) ran a head-to-head meta-analysis and found plyometric training had only a trivial effect on running economy (g = -0.13), whereas heavy resistance training produced a small favourable effect (g = -0.32). They concluded that heavy lifting with near-maximal loads may be superior to plyometrics for economy.

Dudagoitia Barrio et al. (2023) reached a compatible conclusion from a different angle. Plyometric jump training on its own had only a trivial effect on running economy (effect size 0.19), but combined with resistance training the effect became large (effect size 1.34). The practical implication is that plyometrics are best viewed as a complement to strength work rather than a standalone economy booster. Isolated jumping appears to underperform; jumping bolted onto a heavy lifting programme appears to do considerably more.

Does plyometric training work for already-fit runners?

It can, though the benefit becomes narrower and more speed-specific as fitness rises. Saunders et al. (2006) studied elite middle- and long-distance runners with a VO2max around 71 and found that nine weeks of supplementary plyometric training improved running economy by 4.1% at 18 km/h. Notably, the improvement did not appear at the slower speeds of 14 and 16 km/h.

That speed-specificity is an important caveat. A stiffer, springier leg seems to pay off most at faster paces, where elastic energy return contributes more, and less at easy running speeds. Denadai et al. (2017) similarly noted that economy benefits were most pronounced in highly trained runners and at higher submaximal speeds. For competitive runners this is encouraging, because it suggests plyometrics can still add value where volume alone has stopped yielding economy gains, but the effect may not show up at every pace you run.

How little plyometric work is enough?

Encouragingly, the doses used in these trials were modest. Berryman et al. (2010) added just a single weekly plyometric session for eight weeks and significantly reduced the energy cost of running in moderately to well-trained men, finding plyometrics at least as effective as dynamic weight training despite the low volume. Turner et al. (2003) used three sessions a week for six weeks, and Spurrs et al. (2003) and Saunders et al. (2006) ran their interventions over six and nine weeks respectively.

So the timescale for measurable change appears to be roughly six to nine weeks, and even one focused session a week can register. These studies do not, however, prescribe an optimal exercise menu, and none directly compared different weekly frequencies, so precise programming remains a judgement call. What the evidence supports is that a small, consistent plyometric stimulus, sustained over a couple of months, is enough to shift running economy in trained runners.

What are the risks and open questions?

The main practical caveat is that plyometrics are high-impact. Jumping loads tendons and joints sharply, and none of the trials cited here were designed to establish injury risk, so caution and gradual progression are sensible, particularly for runners with a history of Achilles or calf problems. The studies used trained participants and supervised progressions, which is not the same as adding maximal jumps cold.

The evidence base also has real limits. Sample sizes are small, economy is measured inconsistently, and results are mixed on whether plyometrics match heavy lifting, as Eihara et al. (2022) show. The most defensible position is that plyometric jump training is a worthwhile complement to strength work for improving running economy and short time-trial performance, delivering a modest, mostly neuromuscular benefit. It is not a replacement for aerobic training, and on current evidence it appears to work best when paired with heavy resistance training rather than done alone.

Do plyometrics improve VO2max?

No. Across the controlled trials, plyometric training did not change VO2max or lactate threshold. Ramírez-Campillo et al. (2021), Spurrs et al. (2003) and Turner et al. (2003) all reported faster running or better economy with no change in aerobic capacity. The performance benefit comes from a more efficient, springier neuromuscular system rather than a larger aerobic engine, so plyometrics complement aerobic training instead of replacing it.

How long before plyometrics improve my running?

The trials that measured change ran for roughly six to nine weeks. Spurrs et al. (2003) and Turner et al. (2003) used six-week programmes, Saunders et al. (2006) used nine weeks, and Berryman et al. (2010) saw benefits over eight weeks with just one session a week. A couple of months of consistent, progressive jump work is a reasonable expectation for measurable improvement in running economy.

Are plyometrics better than lifting weights for runners?

The evidence is mixed and leans towards heavy lifting for economy. Eihara et al. (2022) found plyometrics had only a trivial effect on running economy while heavy resistance training had a small favourable effect. Dudagoitia Barrio et al. (2023) found jumping alone was trivial but became highly effective when combined with resistance training. The pragmatic answer is to do both rather than choose.

Do plyometrics help experienced runners or just beginners?

They can help trained runners, but the benefit is speed-specific. Saunders et al. (2006) found elite runners improved economy by 4.1% at 18 km/h but saw no change at slower speeds. Denadai et al. (2017) also reported that economy gains were most pronounced in highly trained runners and at faster paces, suggesting the springier leg pays off most when you are running fast.

How much faster can plyometrics make me?

Modestly faster over shorter races. Spurrs et al. (2003) recorded a 2.7% improvement in 3-km time-trial performance after six weeks, and Ramírez-Campillo et al. (2021) found a moderate overall improvement in 2-5 km time-trial performance. Running economy typically improved by a few percent. These are meaningful over a race but should be seen as an addition to aerobic training, not a substitute for it.

Are plyometrics safe for runners?

They are high-impact, so caution is warranted. The cited trials used trained participants with supervised, progressive programmes and were not designed to measure injury risk. Jumping loads tendons and joints sharply, so progress gradually and be especially careful if you have a history of Achilles or calf problems. Building impact tolerance slowly is more sensible than adding maximal jumps without preparation.