Simple Plyometrics Can Boost Running Efficiency as Much as Supershoes, New Study Finds

In the world of sports science and endurance athletics, few innovations have sparked as much disruption or captured as much commercial attention as the high-performance running shoe. For running journalist Alex Hutchinson, the ultimate benchmark for what constitutes a transformative breakthrough in performance technology sits right around four percent. That specific margin—roughly a four percent improvement in running economy—represents the exact efficiency gain delivered by Nike’s original Vaporfly supershoe when it burst onto the sports scene back in 2017.

The introduction of that shoe fundamentally altered distance running, igniting intense industry-wide debates, shifting competitive baselines, and setting a new standard for technological impact. Consequently, when researchers or sports scientists present data credibly pointing toward a performance margin of that magnitude, it commands immediate attention.

That precise context frames a newly published scientific study examining the impact of straightforward plyometric exercises on the running economy of masters-level distance runners. Conducted by a research team at Ritsumeikan University in Japan, led by investigators Yuuri Eihara and Sumiaki Maeo, the study set out to evaluate how simple explosive movements might influence athletic efficiency over a ten-week period. Cutting straight to the core findings, the researchers discovered an average improvement in running economy of 3.9 percent among participants who incorporated the routine alongside their regular weekly mileage.

While the general outcome aligns broadly with previous scientific literature showing that strength and power training can enhance running efficiency, the sheer scale of the 3.9 percent gain offers a compelling point of comparison against the relentless commercial hype surrounding modern footwear technology.

To understand why researchers are zeroing in on plyometrics, it helps to examine what these exercises actually entail. Plyometrics encompass a category of quick, ballistic movements such as hops, skips, and various forms of jumping. Broadly speaking, the primary physiological goal of plyometric training is to enhance neuromuscular function. Rather than focusing solely on hypertrophic muscle strengthening—building larger or bulkier muscle fibers—plyometrics train the nervous system to transmit electrical signals more efficiently, optimizing the recruitment of muscle fibers during the stretch-shortening cycle of movement.

While traditional strength training and plyometric routines both share significant overlap in their ability to improve running economy—which measures the metabolic cost or energy required to maintain a given running pace—sports scientists have long debated the precise mechanics at play. Specifically, researchers have sought to determine whether traditional weightlifting and explosive plyometrics improve running economy through identical physiological mechanisms or entirely distinct pathways. Furthermore, it remains an open question whether these performance benefits stem from visible alterations in a runner’s stride mechanics or from "invisible" physiological adaptations, such as more efficient internal muscle recruitment and tendon stiffness.

To explore these intricate questions, Eihara, Maeo, and their colleagues recruited 35 male masters runners ranging in age from 30 to 50. These athletes were asked to incorporate a structured ten-week plyometric program into their existing, consistent running routines. Before and after the training intervention, the participants underwent comprehensive physiological and biomechanical testing. This evaluation included assessments of lower-body strength and explosiveness, measured via various jump heights, alongside detailed kinematic analysis of their running strides, joint movements, and metabolic efficiency.

The primary result of the trial was striking. On average, the runners improved their running economy by 3.9 percent following the ten-week intervention. This margin is considerably larger than the typical coefficient of variation seen in repeated metabolic testing protocols, which sat at approximately 1.5 percent for this specific study design. Moreover, more than three-quarters of the individual runners achieved improvements exceeding that 1.5 percent threshold, demonstrating a remarkably consistent response across a mature athletic cohort.

When analyzing the vast array of pre- and post-test data to identify what drove these individual gains, the researchers found that two primary factors predicted the magnitude of a runner’s improvement: higher reactive jump height and a slightly lower running cadence.

Reactive jump tests evaluate how quickly and powerfully an athlete can transition from absorbing a landing into an immediate takeoff, mimicking the exact mechanical demands of running stride mechanics. In this study, the researchers utilized drop jumps—where an athlete steps off a raised platform and immediately explodes upward upon landing—as well as consecutive rebound jumps. Improvements in these specific reactive jump tests proved to be strong predictors of enhanced running economy. In contrast, standard countermovement jump improvements, which require an athlete to pause, bend their knees, and jump as high as possible from a stationary position, showed no predictive relationship with running efficiency.

Cadence, or the number of steps a runner takes per minute, also played a fascinating role. In contemporary running culture, conventional coaching wisdom often encourages athletes to increase their cadence, aiming for shorter and quicker steps to minimize impact forces. However, the data from this study pointed in the opposite direction. A slight reduction in cadence following the training period was associated with better running economy. More specifically, the interaction between reactive jump strength and cadence proved critical. Runners who successfully increased their lower-body explosiveness were able to utilize that power to "float" slightly farther with each stride, naturally lowering their cadence at a given submaximal pace and thereby boosting overall efficiency.

An intriguing nuance emerged when the researchers analyzed the kinematic data to see if the runners’ physical form had visually transformed. Previous studies involving younger, less experienced cohorts have sometimes suggested that plyometric training can alter running form for the better. In this study, however, the masters runners did not exhibit any statistically significant changes in their visible running stride.

The researchers hypothesized that older, highly experienced runners have ingrained their running stride mechanics so thoroughly over years or decades of training that their movement patterns are remarkably resistant to external alteration. Instead, the performance benefits observed in this group appeared to stem from internal adaptations—improving muscular propulsion and energy storage without altering the outward appearance of the running gait.

For runners looking to translate these findings into practical training habits, the structural demands of the protocol used in the study offer encouraging news. The routine was remarkably modest, requiring dedicated sessions just twice a week alongside normal running volume.

The progression began modestly in the first week, featuring basic movements like double-leg jump rope for three sets of 30 seconds, scissor jumps for three sets of 15 seconds, and bilateral hopping for three sets of 15 seconds. As the weeks progressed, the volume and complexity increased gradually, transitioning by the sixth week into single-leg variations. By the final week of the ten-week program, the routine consisted of single-leg jump rope for three sets of 20 seconds per leg, single-leg hopping for three sets of 10 seconds per leg, and alternating lunge jumps for three sets of 30 seconds.

While the study’s primary limitation was its focus exclusively on male masters runners—leaving open the need for direct confirmation in female populations and younger demographics, though researchers anticipate comparable physiological responses—the broader implications remain hard to ignore. For many endurance athletes, the realization that a brief, equipment-free, and straightforward plyometric routine can yield efficiency gains comparable to expensive technological advancements like supershoes raises a compelling question about how training time and energy are prioritized in the pursuit of peak performance.