Abstract
strength training (ST) being well characterized by professional runners, little is known about the inclusion of ST models for recreational runners. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the presence of ST in the training practices of recreational runners, with a focus on understanding its characteristics and the motivations of recre- ational athletes for including ST in their routines. To this end, 801 recreational runners (493 male and 308 female) completed a structured questionnaire regarding their training habits, the inclusion of ST, and its characteristics, concerning the type of ST, training vol- ume, and the reasons for including ST in their training programs. To assess the possible associations between categorical variables, data were analyzed using the chi-square test for independent samples. Approximately 625 runners (78.1%) reported that they included ST in their training routine, with a statistically significant difference between the sexes (men: 73.5%
characteristics, concerning the type of ST, training vol- ume, and the reasons for including ST in their training programs. To assess the possible associations between categorical variables, data were analyzed using the chi-square test for independent samples. Approximately 625 runners (78.1%) reported that they included ST in their training routine, with a statistically significant difference between the sexes (men: 73.5% vs. women: 85.4%; X 2 = 14.09;p= 0.01). Traditional strength training (TST) was the predominant type of ST included (78.5%), with most participants performing 2–4 sets and 8–12 repetitions per set at a frequency of 3–4 sessions per week. The importance of ST was primarily attributed to performance improvement (85%). The results suggest that recreational runners incorporate different types of ST into their training routines, with TST being the predominant type perceived by runners as a valuable asset for improving running performance. Keywords:endurance; resistance training; strength training; training practices; recre- ational runners 1. Introduction In recent decades, endurance running has gained significant popularity among non- professional runners, becoming one of the most commonly practiced sports during leisure time [1]. At the same time, interest in understanding contemporary trends and the specific demands of this subgroup of runners has grown [2–4]. Typically, recreational runners aim to improve their physical capacity and performance through structured training programs [5,6]. However, much of the scientific knowledge on sports training is based on studies with elite athletes, underscoring the need for greater focus on recreational runners. Sports2025,13, 3 https://doi.org/10.3390/sports13010003
Sports2025,13, 3 2 of 9 In addition to running-specific training, strength training (ST) has been identified by sports and exercise scientists as an effective strategy for enhancing running economy and performance in middle- and long-distance runners [7,8] while also reducing injury risk [9–16]. ST can be defined as the systematic and organized use of exercises in which the body, through muscular actions, works against a certain resistance with the goal of maintaining or optimizing muscular strength. To achieve this, various means and meth- ods can be employed, ranging from the traditional use of weights and machines to other types of resistance, including exercises that utilize the body’s own weight. For instance, García-Pinillos et al. [17] examined the relationship between ST habits and performance levels among amateur runners, finding that those with higher performance levels were less likely to exclude ST from their training routines. Furthermore, ST was typically per- formed at light to moderate intensities (21.5% to 52.2% of 1RM) with high volume (6–12 to 13–20 repetitions) by the majority of athletes. Despite the potential of ST to induce neuromuscular adaptations—such as optimizing muscle elasticity and increasing muscle–tendon stiffness—and mechanical improvements, such as reducing energy cost through enhanced stride frequency, stance time, and stride length [8,18–21], many recreational runners still do not incorporate ST into their training. Blagrove et al. [5] reported that 23.1% of 667 middle- and long-distance runners did not include ST in their routines. Similarly, a study on the training habits of 93 Olympic marathon runners (elite and national level) found that nearly half of the participants did not perform ST throughout the year [22]. Research on the training habits of recreational runners, particularly regarding ST, remains scarce. Understanding how recreational runners integrate ST into their routines could assist coaches and scientists in developing optimal training prescriptions and improving performance outcomes. Additionally, this knowledge is crucial for fostering dialogue among coaches about training strategies, improving professional practices, and raising awareness among recreational runners about the benefits of ST for performance enhancement. Therefore, this study aims to examine the presence of ST in the training practices of recreational
could assist coaches and scientists in developing optimal training prescriptions and improving performance outcomes. Additionally, this knowledge is crucial for fostering dialogue among coaches about training strategies, improving professional practices, and raising awareness among recreational runners about the benefits of ST for performance enhancement. Therefore, this study aims to examine the presence of ST in the training practices of recreational runners, with a focus on understanding its characteristics and the motivations of recreational athletes for including ST in their routines. Based on the authors’ theoretical and practical experiences, we hypothesize that there is a high prevalence of ST among recreational runners, especially in the form of machine-based exercises and free weights (traditional strength training—TST), following classical non-athlete training prescriptions. 2. Methods 2.1. Ethical Aspects Participants were informed of their voluntary participation and their right to decline answering specific items. All participants received detailed information about the study’s objectives and scope and provided informed consent before participation. The study was approved by the local ethics committee (protocol number: 4.682.96). 2.2. Study Design and Sample Characteristics This cross-sectional, internet-based study included a sample of 801 recreational runners of both sexes (308 women and 493 men). The participants had a mean age of 39.05±9.63 years,a mean height of 170±0.91 cm, and a mean body mass of 74.53±13.64 kg. The participants were recruited from the nine capitals of northeastern Brazil. Eligibility criteria included being over 18 years old, having a minimum of 12 months of running experience, training regularly for at least the six months prior to data collection, and running at least twice a week with a minimum weekly volume of 20 km. Participants who did not meet these
Sports2025,13, 3 3 of 9 criteria, failed to complete all questionnaire items, or submitted duplicate responses were excluded from the study. 2.3. Questionnaire and Data Collection Procedures The questionnaire “Training Habits of Runners in the Capitals of Northeastern Brazil” was developed specifically for this study. Before its application, the questionnaire under- went a content validation process [23–25]. 2.3.1. Questionnaire Content Validation Process The expert panel consisted of two groups: seven physical education academics with doctoral degrees and seven running coaches. These experts were asked to independently evaluate the questionnaire items. The panel’s role was to assess each item based on three criteria: clarity of language, theoretical relevance, and alignment with the study objectives. These criteria were adopted to ensure the appropriateness of the questions and to modify or eliminate any items that were ambiguous, unclear, duplicative, or used jargon with subjective interpretations [23,24]. Due to their familiarity with the technical terms used in running, the coaches only assessed the items for clarity of language. Both groups used a Likert-type scale to rate each item from 1 to 4, where 1 indicated the item did not meet the criterion at all and 4 indicated that it fully met the criterion. After the expert evaluation, the Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated for each item (CVIi) and for the overall questionnaire (CVIt), as proposed by Polit and Beck [24,26]. The CVIi is the proportion of experts who rated the item as “3” or “4”, divided by the total number of experts. The CVIt represents the average of all item CVIs, divided by the total number of items, considering clarity of language, practical relevance, and theoretical relevance. A minimum CVI of 0.78 was deemed acceptable for both individual items and the overall instrument [25]. The final version of the questionnaire was composed of a total of 34 questions, with both open-ended and closed-ended questions divided into four domains: demographic information (i.e., age, gender, capital of residence, and education); technical information of the last six months (running practice time and their personal best time in a 5 km trial); characteristics of running training of
[25]. The final version of the questionnaire was composed of a total of 34 questions, with both open-ended and closed-ended questions divided into four domains: demographic information (i.e., age, gender, capital of residence, and education); technical information of the last six months (running practice time and their personal best time in a 5 km trial); characteristics of running training of the last six months (frequency and weekly training volume) and the characteristics of strength training (type, timing of ST sessions, and range of repetition per set performed). In the present study, strength training was considered as resistance exercises with one’s body weight, with machines or free weights, or with any specific resource that can increase the resistance of the exercise. 2.3.2. Procedures for Data Collection The questionnaire was transcribed for an online platform (Google Forms) and sent to runners through a link. The strategy used to spread the instrument was to contact groups of runners and clubs. It was also disseminated through social media platforms (e.g., Instagram and WhatsApp 2.22.8). To avoid potential selection bias based on strength training habits, participants were invited to respond about their general training routines, including their running habits, without an emphasis on strength training initially. Questions related to strength training practices were only introduced later in the questionnaire, beginning at question 19, in the final section of the survey. This design allowed all participants—whether they practiced strength training or not—to complete the main portion of the survey, including all questions on running and general training habits. By the time they reached the strength training section, participants who did not engage in strength training simply responded accordingly, without any need to discontinue the survey.
Sports2025,13, 3 4 of 9 2.4. Statistical Analysis Frequency analysis, percentages, and descriptive statistics (mean and standard devia- tion) were used to summarize the data. The chi-square (χ 2) test was applied to compare differences in proportions. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 20.0 with statistical signifi- cance set atp< 0.05. 3. Results The participants’ characteristics, including sex, age, height, body mass, and weekly running training volume, are presented in Table. When analyzed by sex, men reported an average of 6.2±6.47 years of running experience, while women reported 4.0±3.73 years; in terms of their best 5 km times, men recorded an average of 25.3±5.58 min, whereas women averaged 29.6±5.37 min. Among the men, 20.48% covered up to 15 km per week; 24.34% covered between 15 and 25 km; 24.35% covered between 25 and 35 km; and 30.83% covered more than 35 km. Regarding the women, 23.37% covered up to 15 km per week; 38.31% covered between 15 and 25 km; 19.8% covered between 25 and 35 km; and 18.5% covered more than 35 km per week. In terms of frequency, men ran 3.81±1.20 times per week, while women ran 3.37±0.73 times per week. Additionally, 602 participants (75.0%) reported training with running groups. Table 1.Participants’ characteristics. Male (n= 493) Female (n= 308) Total (n= 801) Mean±SD Mean ±SD Mean ±SD Height (cm) 175 ±0.07 163 ±0.07 170 ±1.91 Body mass (kg) 81.2 ±33.42 63.9 ±8.87 74.63 ±13.08 Age (y) 39.3 ±10.00 38.6 ±8.87 39.05 ±9.63 Average weekly running trainingFreq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Up to 3 h 117 (14.6) 89 (11.1) 206 (25.7) 3–4 h 136 (17.0) 105 (13.1) 241 (30.1) 4–6 h 155 (19.4) 84 (10.5) 239 (29.8) >6 h 85 (10.6) 30 (3.7) 115 (14.4) Inclusion of ST Yes 362 (73.5) 263 (85.4) 625 (78.1) No 131 (26.5) 45 (14.6) 176 (21.9) ST: strength training. 3.1. Strength Training Characteristics A total of 625 runners (78.1%) reported including ST in their training routines. Com- parisons revealed significant differences between sexes (χ 2= 14.09,p= 0.01), with men reporting higher participation in ST (58.1%,n= 362) compared to women (41.9%,n= 263). Among
Yes 362 (73.5) 263 (85.4) 625 (78.1) No 131 (26.5) 45 (14.6) 176 (21.9) ST: strength training. 3.1. Strength Training Characteristics A total of 625 runners (78.1%) reported including ST in their training routines. Com- parisons revealed significant differences between sexes (χ 2= 14.09,p= 0.01), with men reporting higher participation in ST (58.1%,n= 362) compared to women (41.9%,n= 263). Among the types of ST performed, TST was the most commonly reported (78.5%,n= 491), followed by bodyweight exercises (49.4%,n= 309) and functional training (21.1%,n= 130) (Table).
Sports2025,13, 3 5 of 9 Table 2.Reported different types of exercises included in participants’ strength training program. Male (n= 362) Female (n= 263) Total (n= 625) Sex Differences TYPE OF EXERCISE Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%) X 2 p Traditional strength training 280 (57.0) 211(43.0) 491 (78.5) 0.750 0.386 Bodyweight 169 (54.7) 140 (45.3) 309 (49.4) 2.612 0.106 Functional training 75 (57.7) 55 (42.3) 130 (21.1) 0.003 0.953 Plyometric 51 (56.7) 39 (43.3) 90 (14.4) 0.068 0.795 Uphill runs 53 (71.6) 21 (28.4) 74 (11.8) 6.45 0.011 * Pilates 14 (58.4) 15 (51.7) 29 (4.6) 1.16 0.281 Resisted elastic band 9 (50.0) 9 (50.0) 18 (2.9) 0.477 0.490 * Statistical difference. A smaller proportion of runners engaged in plyometric exercises (14.4%,n= 90), uphill running (11.8%,n= 74), Pilates (4.6%,n= 29), and resistance band training (2.9%, n= 18). Among participants who included ST in their routines, approximately half (47.2%) performed at least one type of ST, 45.9% reported engaging in two or three types, and a small percentage (6.9%) practiced at least four different types of ST. Only 5.5% of men and 4.6% of women did not perform strength training for the lower limbs. Table per set, only 8.8% of runners performed sets with 4–6 repetitions and 6.1% performed sets with more than 15 repetitions. A total of 32.4% completed sets of 1–3 repetitions, while the majority (46.3%) performed 8–12 repetitions per set. Table 3.Characteristics of strength training. Male (n= 362) Female (n= 263) Total (n= 625) Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%) X 2 p PRACTICE EXPERIENCE OF ST Up to 1 year 118 (32.4) 91 (34.7) 209 (33.4) 9.181 0.010 * 1–3 year 121 (33.2) 59 (22.5) 180 (28.8) 3+ 123 (34.3) 112 (42.7) 235 (37.9) WEEKLY FREQUENCY Up to 2 sessions 149 (41.5) 77 (29.3) 226 (36.4) 11.634 0.003 * 3–4 sessions 171 (47.0) 139 (52.9) 310 (49.4) 5+ sessions 42 (11.5) 47 (17.9) 89 (14.2) NUMBER OF SETS FOR EXERCISE 1 to 2 sets 24 (6.6) 17 (6.5) 41 (6.5) 4.319 0.504 2 to 3 sets 156 (43.1) 106 (39.6) 262 (39.6) 3 to 4 sets 141
to 2 sessions 149 (41.5) 77 (29.3) 226 (36.4) 11.634 0.003 * 3–4 sessions 171 (47.0) 139 (52.9) 310 (49.4) 5+ sessions 42 (11.5) 47 (17.9) 89 (14.2) NUMBER OF SETS FOR EXERCISE 1 to 2 sets 24 (6.6) 17 (6.5) 41 (6.5) 4.319 0.504 2 to 3 sets 156 (43.1) 106 (39.6) 262 (39.6) 3 to 4 sets 141 (39.2) 109 (42.1) 250 (38.6) 4 to 5 sets 23 (6.2) 24 (9.1) 47 (7.5) 5+ sets 18 (4.9) 7 (2.7) 25 (2.9) REPETITION FOR SET 1 to 3 reps 118 (32.4) 85 (32.3) 203 (32.4) 10.716 0.030 * 4 to 6 reps 43 (11.8) 12 (4.6) 55 (8.8) 8 to 12 reps 157 (43.7) 131 (49.8) 288 (46.3) 15+ reps 22 (6.0) 16 (6.1) 38 (6.1) Reps: repetitions * Statistical difference.
Sports2025,13, 3 6 of 9 3.2. Motive and Importance Level of ST The primary reasons for including strength ST in runners’ routines are presented in Table. Among those who incorporated ST, 85% considered it very important for improving performance. The most commonly cited reason for ST inclusion among both sexes was “reducing the risk of injury” (78.1%,n= 488), followed by “improving running performance” (72.2%,n= 451). A significantly greater proportion of women compared to men cited “improving aesthetics” (χ 2= 10.1,p= 0.001), “improving running technique” (χ 2= 5.03,p= 0.025), and “improving health” (χ 2= 11.7,p= 0.001) as key reasons for including ST in their training. When asked why they did not include ST in their routine, 176 participants (21.9%) indicated they performed no form of strength training. The most frequently reported reason was a “lack of time” (58.1%). Additionally, a significant difference was found between men and women regarding the reason “lack of knowledge”, with a greater proportion of men (20.8%) compared to women (7.5%) citing this as a factor preventing them from including ST (χ 2 = 3.86,p= 0.049). Table 4.Motive for runners to include ST, comparative between the genders. VARIABLES TOTAL (n= 625) MEN (n= 362) WOMEN (n= 263) Frequency (%) p-Value Reduce the risk of injury 488 (78.1%) 278 (76.8%) 210 (79.8%) 0.362 Performance 451 (72.2%) 265 (73.2%) 186 (70.7%) 0.494 Improvement health 323 (51.7%) 166 (45.9%) 157 (59.7%) 0.001 * Body esthetics 256 (41.0%) 129 (35.6%) 127 (48.3%) 0.001 * Running technique 232 (37.1%) 121 (33.4%) 111 (42.2%) 0.025 * Injury rehabilitation 78 (12.5%) 44 (12.2%) 34 (12.9%) 0.077 p-value <0.001 # <0.001 # <0.001 # * Significant difference compared by gender (p< 0.05); # Significant difference regarding the motive (p< 0.05). 4. Discussion The objective of this study was to investigate the presence of ST among recreational runners, examining its characteristics and the motivations of recreational athletes for including ST in their routines. The findings reveal that a majority of recreational runners (78.1%) included ST in their routines, with resistance training being the most commonly adopted form. The main motivators for incorporating ST were injury prevention
this study was to investigate the presence of ST among recreational runners, examining its characteristics and the motivations of recreational athletes for including ST in their routines. The findings reveal that a majority of recreational runners (78.1%) included ST in their routines, with resistance training being the most commonly adopted form. The main motivators for incorporating ST were injury prevention (78.1%) and performance improvement (72.2%). Among the 21.9% who did not include ST in their training, the primary reason cited was “lack of time”. The frequency of ST reported in this study aligns with previous research by Blagrove et al. [5], Loudonet et al. [27], and Griffinet et al. [28], which found a prevalence of ST among runners (76.9%, 77.9%, and 88.0%, respectively). However, those studies focused on competitive athletes, while our study involved recreational runners. A higher prevalence of ST (91.6%) was reported by Garcia-Pinillos et al. [17] among amateur runners, suggesting that ST is a common auxiliary training method regardless of competitive level. No significant differences were found between men and women regarding the im- portance of ST for performance, with 84.8% of men and 87.5% of women considering it highly important (p= 0.072). This highlights the relevance of ST for endurance sports across various runner profiles. As hypothesized, TST was the most common form of ST (78.5%). Although literature suggests that plyometric training is effective for performance improvement [12,29,30], only a small percentage (14.4%) of runners in this study included plyometric exercises. This
Description
The study explores strength training habits among Brazilian recreational runners.