Running economy: what it is, how to improve it, and how to track it from your watch
October 13, 2026
Paul Laursen
Learn what running economy is, how strength training and consistent running can improve it, and which watch metrics help you track progress.
When I was tested in the lab, my VO2max came back at 73 ml/kg/min. My best 10 km was in the high 33s, which is a decent time, but plenty of runners with the same engine go a lot faster, and people used to tell me they could hear me coming from a long way off. I was a plodder, and the reason I ran slower than my VO2max said I should has a name: running economy.
What is running economy?
Running economy is the oxygen, or energy, it costs you to hold a given submaximal speed. If VO2max is the size of the engine, economy is its fuel consumption, and lower is better. Two runners can share a VO2max, but the one who uses less oxygen at 14 km/h is working at a smaller fraction of their ceiling at that speed, and so can hold a faster pace for longer. That is why economy sits alongside VO2max and threshold as one of the classic determinants of distance running performance, and why the best runners in the world tend to be highly economical rather than simply having the biggest engines.
Figure 1. Two runners, same engine. The more economical runner sits further below the ceiling at race pace and reaches VO2max at a faster speed. Schematic.
Isn't that the same as efficiency?
No, although the two words get swapped all the time. Economy is the metabolic cost of moving at a speed, expressed as oxygen or energy per kilogram per kilometre. Efficiency is a mechanical ratio: the fraction of the chemical energy you burn that ends up as external work. It's hard to measure properly in running, and very few labs try. We're only around 20 to 25% efficient, with most of the rest released as heat, which is why you warm up so quickly once you start moving. That inefficiency is actually useful, since your cells need the warmth. But for training purposes, economy is the number that matters.
How is it measured?
The reference method is a lab test. You run several submaximal stages of four to five minutes on a treadmill, wearing the same mask and metabolic cart used for a VO2max test, and the oxygen cost is read off at steady state at each speed. Outside the lab you can't measure economy directly, but your watch gives you some reasonable proxies, which I'll come back to below.
How do you improve it?
The good news is that economy isn't fixed, and there are three main levers you can pull.
The first is simply running more, since economy improves with training volume and most of us have felt that intuitively. Some of it is metabolic (more mitochondria in the working fibres), but a lot of it is neuromuscular. You learn to recruit the right motor units at the right time, and the antagonist muscles that act as brakes on each stride relax a little. Low coactivation of the thigh muscles is one of the features consistently associated with better economy in Isabel Moore's 2016 review of running biomechanics.
The second is strength training, and this is the one I get most excited about. Heavy lifting, think five-repetition-maximum squats, deadlifts and lunges, and plyometrics such as drop jumps, box jumps and countermovement jumps both appear to improve economy. An umbrella review of 17 systematic reviews by Ramos-Campo and colleagues in 2025 found moderate to large effects on running economy across the board, with no loss of VO2max. Granted, the authors rated the confidence in most of those reviews as low, so the size of the effect is less certain than its direction. And here's my first correction: on the podcast I said all of these methods had also been shown to improve performance. The performance data are actually stronger for heavy and combined strength training than for plyometrics alone: in Llanos-Lagos and colleagues' 2024 meta-analysis, heavy-load and combined programmes improved time-trial performance, while the plyometric-only effect didn't reach significance. So lift heavy first, and add the jumping on top.
The third lever is fast running. Strides, hill sprints of around 10 seconds, and short intervals such as 30/30s, particularly uphill, all put the neuromuscular system to work at speeds above what you'd hold in a race. A hill sprint is really functional strength training. But the evidence here is thinner than for lifting. Still, it's a sensible way to recruit the larger motor units and make them fatigue resistant.
Why do all three work? The heart probably has little to do with it; those adaptations show up more in VO2max. The changes are mostly in recruitment, coordination and the springiness of the muscle-tendon unit, including elastic proteins such as titin. There is a fair bit here that we still don't fully understand.
Form: what to change and what to leave alone
This is where I need to walk a few things back.
Stride length. I said on the podcast that a longer stride is more economical. What I was getting at is that faster runners tend to cover more ground with each stride, and faster runners also tend to be more economical, so the two do travel together. But as advice that is probably misleading, because a longer stride is mostly a product of putting more force into the ground. Most runners self-select a stride length close to their economical optimum, and Moore's review found economy holds within a narrow band around preferred stride length. Reaching for a longer stride deliberately usually means overstriding, which can cost you.
Cadence. I said the jury is out, and I'll stand by that. Small changes may help some runners, but I wouldn't chase a target number.
Foot strike is the big one. I told Paul I'd moved from a loud heel strike to a midfoot landing in my Ironman years and that it helped. I'm sure it made me quieter. But the evidence doesn't support changing foot strike to improve economy. Gruber and colleagues tested 19 habitual rearfoot and 18 habitual forefoot runners on a treadmill in 2013. There was no difference in economy between the groups running their own way, and the rearfoot runners used more oxygen, not less, when asked to land on their forefoot at slow and moderate speeds. Anderson and colleagues' 2020 meta-analysis of 53 studies reached the same place: imposing a non-rearfoot strike on rearfoot runners made economy worse in the short term, and they concluded a change can't be recommended for an uninjured rearfoot runner.
What I'd keep is the cue to be a quieter runner, and the idea of not "running in the bucket". Pete Pfitzinger, my colleague at High Performance Sport New Zealand, watched me doing track intervals with Dan Plews one day and told me exactly that: I was sitting back, as if half seated, through every stride. I think it's worth getting yourself filmed and having a look. Just expect any change in form to make you less economical before it makes you more so.
Do super shoes help everyday runners?
Yes, and here's my second correction. The original work by Hoogkamer and colleagues in 2018 tested 18 high-calibre runners at 14 to 18 km/h, and the prototype shoes lowered the energetic cost of running by about 4% on average, in every single runner tested. On the podcast I suggested that slower, less economical runners might only get around 1%. But a 2026 crossover study by Bolliger and colleagues argues otherwise. They tested 14 moderately trained runners at 7.5 to 12 km/h and found the advanced shoes still saved about 5 ml of oxygen per kilogram per kilometre compared with a traditional trainer, with no sign that the benefit shrank at slower speeds. It's one small study, and individual responses vary, so try a pair before race day. But if performance matters to you, it seems the savings aren't reserved for elites. Whether a few percent is worth the price of a shoe that lasts a handful of races is your call.
Figure 2. What moves running economy, and what doesn't.
What happens when you get tired?
Economy drifts as fatigue builds in a long run or race. Your form collapses a little, the bounce gets less springy, and the oxygen cost of the same pace creeps up. That's the idea behind durability: the more durable you are, the less economy you lose in the second half. Guillaume Millet, who I had on the podcast, argues it's really just fatigability under another name, and he has a point. And either way, the same three levers above are what reduce the loss.
For masters runners, VO2max declines with age, but economy may hold up relatively well. What tends to go is the ability to recruit the large, fast motor units, and they disappear faster if you stop using them. That makes strength training more important as we age.
How to track economy from your watch
You can't measure oxygen cost on the road, but two numbers get you part of the way there.
Efficiency factor (EF) divides your normalised graded pace, or your running power, by your average heart rate. It's the output you produce per heartbeat. A rising EF across comparable sessions suggests you're becoming more economical, or fitter, or both. Ignore the absolute value, since it depends on the units and the terrain; the trend within the same kind of session is what matters.
Aerobic decoupling compares EF in the second half of a steady run with the first half, as a percentage. The closer it sits to 0%, the less your output has drifted relative to heart rate. Paul Warloski uses under 5% on long aerobic runs as a working target with his athletes, and some very fit runners even return negative values. Heat, dehydration, hills and a dodgy chest strap will all push the number around, so read it alongside the conditions.
Figure 3. A coupled run (left) and a decoupled run (right).
Your watch may also report vertical oscillation and ground contact time. Lower vertical oscillation has been associated with better economy, but I'd treat these as things to watch over months rather than targets to coach yourself toward. In Athletica we calculate EF and decoupling for every run, and you can ask the AI Coach how they're trending.
What I'd do
For me, as a coach, the plan is simple: run consistently, lift heavy twice a week with some jumping on top, and put strides, hill sprints or short intervals into the week. And unless you're injured, leave your foot strike alone. Just to be clear, I'm not saying technique doesn't matter; I'm saying the training does most of the work, and form tends to follow it. I had a V8 engine with poor fuel economy for years, so take it from me and train the economy, not just the engine.
FAQ
What is running economy?
Running economy is the oxygen or energy cost of running at a given submaximal speed, usually expressed per kilogram per kilometre. A lower cost is better, because the runner is working at a smaller fraction of VO2max at that speed.
What is the difference between running economy and running efficiency?
Economy is the metabolic cost of a given speed. Efficiency is the fraction of metabolic energy converted into external mechanical work, which is around 20 to 25% in humans and is rarely measured in running.
How can I measure running economy without a lab?
You can't measure it directly, but efficiency factor (normalised graded pace or running power divided by average heart rate) and aerobic decoupling (the drift in that ratio between the first and second half of a steady run) are practical proxies when tracked as trends.
Does strength training improve running economy?
Yes. Systematic reviews consistently report moderate to large improvements in running economy with heavy strength training and plyometrics, without a loss of VO2max. Performance gains are best supported for heavy-load and combined programmes.
Should I change my foot strike to improve running economy?
The evidence says no. Habitual rearfoot runners who switch to a forefoot strike become less economical in the short term, and a 2020 meta-analysis concluded a change cannot be recommended for uninjured rearfoot runners.
Do carbon-plated super shoes improve running economy for recreational runners?
They appear to. The original work found about a 4% lower energetic cost in high-calibre runners, and a 2026 study found meaningful oxygen savings in moderately trained runners at speeds as slow as 7.5 km/h. Individual responses vary.
What is a good aerobic decoupling percentage?
Closer to 0% is better. Under 5% on a long aerobic run is a common coaching target, and negative values are possible in very fit athletes or when conditions cool during a run.
Ready to run with a plan built around your data?
Athletica builds and adapts your running plan week by week — balancing volume, intensity, and recovery so you show up to race day ready.
Anderson LM, Bonanno DR, Hart HF, Barton CJ. What are the benefits and risks associated with changing foot strike pattern during running? A systematic review and meta-analysis of injury, running economy, and biomechanics. Sports Med. 2020;50(5):885-917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01238-y
Bolliger A, Spengler CM, Beltrami FG. Impact of advanced footwear technology on running economy at slower running speeds: a randomised, cross-over investigation. Sports Med Open. 2026;12(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-026-00977-3
Gruber AH, Umberger BR, Braun B, Hamill J. Economy and rate of carbohydrate oxidation during running with rearfoot and forefoot strike patterns. J Appl Physiol. 2013;115(2):194-201. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01437.2012
Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH, Farina EM, Luo G, Kram R. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):1009-1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2
Llanos-Lagos C, Ramirez-Campillo R, Moran J, Sáez de Villarreal E. The effect of strength training methods on middle-distance and long-distance runners' athletic performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2024;54(7):1801-1833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02018-z
Moore IS. Is there an economical running technique? A review of modifiable biomechanical factors affecting running economy. Sports Med. 2016;46(6):793-807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0474-4
Ramos-Campo DJ, Andreu-Caravaca L, Clemente-Suárez VJ, Rubio-Arias JÁ. The effect of strength training on endurance performance determinants in middle- and long-distance endurance athletes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2025;39(4):492-506. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000005056
