Each week, I comb through the latest endurance, sports science, psychology, and coaching research. So you don’t have to. Don’t worry, this is a nerdy passion. I try to distill it into plain language, practical takeaways, and reflections on what it means for the kind of running I do here at Waybound: thoughtful, purposeful, human. No hype, no clickbait. Just notes, honest questions, and my usual healthy dose of criticism and skepticism. Perfect for trail runners and overthinkers.
This week’s research roundup August 18 – Aug 25, 2025
Another week in the journals, stretching from injury risk and gear habits, to fueling strategies, biomechanics, and even how time of day tilts our sprint power. Reaching for braces, tape, or compression often signals underlying load issues more than it prevents them. Two complementary glycogen studies unpack the art of depletion and supercompensation. Cross-training research parses how EMOM, AMRAP, and RFT stress the body differently, offering lessons in pacing strength work around mileage. A chronotype study finds evening-leaning athletes pop harder later in the day. Super shoes don’t bless everyone equally. Finally, a sweeping meta-analysis confirms what hot-day runners know intuitively: heat and dehydration accelerate carb burn and glycogen drawdown.
This week’s research titles
– Use of Running Equipment Predicts Running‑Related Injury in Adult Runners: A Cohort Study of 7,347 Runners From the Garmin‑RUNSAFE Running Health Study
– Glycogen supercompensation in skeletal muscle after cycling or running followed by a high‑carbohydrate intake the following days: a systematic review and meta‑analysis
– Exercise‑ and diet‑induced glycogen depletion impairs performance during one‑legged constant‑load, high‑intensity exercise in humans
– Acute neuromuscular and cardiovascular effects of varying relative loads in cross‑training modalities
– The effect of time of day on anaerobic performance and blood lactate response in trained men: assessment in relation to chronotype
– Physical Training of Female Students for Trail Running
– Exploring interindividual running economy responses to advanced footwear technology shoes across a range of variables: A quantitative study
– Quantifying Running Economy in Amateur Runners: Evaluating VO₂ and Energy Cost with Model‑based Normalization
– The Influence of Running Cadence on Biomechanics and Injury Prevention: A Systematic Review
– The Effect of Heat Stress and Dehydration on Carbohydrate Use During Endurance Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
See also 7 other worthy footnotes and essays of trail and ultra related science.
Use of Running Equipment Predicts Running‑Related Injury in Adult Runners: A Cohort Study of 7,347 Runners From the Garmin‑RUNSAFE Running Health Study
This 18‑month cohort tracked 7,347 adult runners from 87 countries. At baseline, participants reported whether they used specific gear while running (insoles, compression socks, braces, tape, jogging stroller, backpack, or multiple items). Injuries were self‑reported weekly using a validated overuse‑injury framework and analyzed with Cox models using cumulative kilometers as the time scale. Runners using certain items, insoles, compression socks, knee braces, and ankle/knee tape—or multiple types of gear had higher injury hazard than runners using no gear. Jogging‑stroller users had lower injury hazard. Backpacks showed no difference. Authors stress that gear use likely proxies for prior problems and training‑load dynamics; causality cannot be inferred.
Practical takeaways
– If you’re reaching for insoles/brace/tape during runs, treat it as a risk signal to audit load progressions, sleep, and niggles, not a green light to push harder.
– Using multiple items at once correlated with higher injury risk. Simplify: one intervention at a time + monitor response.
– Compression socks ≠ force field. Any benefit for comfort or swelling didn’t translate to lower injury risk here. Prioritize load management and strength before accessories.
– The lower hazard in jogging‑stroller users hints that enforced pacing / moderation and more frequent micro‑breaks could be protective. Borrow the principle on long runs: steady, tempered pacing > surging.
– Packs didn’t move risk much, focus on fit and packing (stable load) and keep climbs/descents smooth to avoid form drift.
Observational data: people who use gear often have a history of issues. Don’t ditch medically indicated devices abruptly; phase and test changes thoughtfully. Adaptability > add‑ons. This study nudges us away from gear‑first thinking toward mindset‑first training: body awareness, conservative progressions, and curiosity about why pain patterns show up. My coaching north star is restoring capacity through progressive loading, skillful pacing, and consistent recovery, not accumulating gadgets.
If an athlete uses braces/tape/insoles/compression during runs, log it as a “yellow flag” and review the last 30 days for spikes, terrain changes, shoe changes, and life stress. Progress 2x/week lower‑limb strength (calf/soleus, hip abductors/extensors, quads) before adding more gear. If we trial gear removal or swap, do it in low‑stakes runs over 2–3 weeks with symptom tracking (0–10).Allow for comfort/travel; don’t message them as injury prevention. Gear adoption is shaped by marketing and self‑efficacy; future work should examine how commercial claims steer behavior and risk perception, especially among novice vs. experienced runners.
Glycogen supercompensation in skeletal muscle after cycling or running followed by a high‑carbohydrate intake the following days: a systematic review and meta‑analysis
Across 30 studies (319 participants), authors show that classic “glycogen supercompensation” happens after a depleting workout plus 3–5 days of high‑carb eating. On average, cycling primed a much larger glycogen bump (+~270 mmol·kg⁻¹ dry weight) than running (+~156 mmol·kg⁻¹), and higher carb % in the diet predicted bigger gains after cycling. Lower starting (basal) glycogen and lower post‑exercise glycogen also predicted greater supercompensation, which fits the “deplete to reload” logic. Overall, the review clarifies that the magnitude, and not just the existence, of supercompensation depends on sport modality and diet composition.
Practical takeaways
– For big back‑to‑back trail efforts, front‑load carbs (3–5 days) after a true glycogen‑depleting session to bank more muscle fuel: 8–12 g/kg/day range depending on context (% carbs; higher % → more gain).
– Cycling depletes “cleaner” (less muscle damage), so a depleting bike session may set up a bigger glycogen rebound than a run, useful in taper weeks where you want fuel without extra pounding.
– If you’re trying to supercompensate, a session that truly lowers glycogen (long + steady with work, or long climbs) followed by very high‑carb intake is key. Starting fuller means a smaller bump.
– Running may under‑deplete, so if your goal is max carb‑loading, consider a strategic bike‑based depleter (or extend the run) before your high‑carb phase. Evidence for runners exists but is more variable.
– Supercompensated glycogen commonly lands around ~700 mmol·kg⁻¹ dw (with some >800); the mythical 1,000 seems out of reach in humans. Translation: there’s a practical cap, more carbs past a point don’t equal infinite storage.
The running data are smaller and noisier; effects likely depend on how depleted you actually get (terrain, duration, intensity) and on muscle damage that can blunt storage. Don’t copy‑paste cycling results onto hilly ultras unquestioned. Fuel is a skill and supercompensation is a strategy, not a superstition. For athletes juggling life stress or niggles, we can use the bike to engineer a safe depletion stimulus, then practice high‑carb living, not just race‑day gels. It supports our emphasis on purposeful experiments: plan the deplete → reload micro‑cycle, observe energy/mood/HRV/legs on climbs, and refine without chasing perfection.
In the final 10–14 days before an A‑race, schedule one carefully‑dosed depletion session (preferably cycling if impact tolerance is low), then 3–5 days of high‑carb eating to top up. Pair with sleep and light activation. Use this as a dress rehearsal for race fueling: match carb types/timing you’ll use on course. For rugged ultras where running damage is inevitable, consider a bike‑based depletion to avoid adding soreness while still triggering the storage bump. Educate athletes that starting very full = smaller bump; the goal is strategic depletion, not crushing fatigue.
Exercise‑ and diet‑induced glycogen depletion impairs performance during one‑legged constant‑load, high‑intensity exercise in humans
Following the above article, this study tested whether starting high-intensity work with low muscle glycogen makes you fade faster. Ten young men did repeated ~5 min efforts with one leg depleted of glycogen (through diet + prior exercise) and the other leg fully fueled. The glycogen-depleted legs gave out about 40% sooner, even though basic muscle strength and twitch responses at rest were the same. In other words: low fuel tanks didn’t change how strong the legs were, but they couldn’t hold hard effort for as long.
Practical takeaways
– Don’t show up to VO₂max type intervals under‑fueled: start hard sessions with topped‑up glycogen (carb‑rich meals 3–4 hr prior + small top‑up 30–60 min pre‑workout).
– For back‑to‑back training days, prioritize carb re‑feeding after day 1; low glycogen going into day 2’s intensity will likely shorten quality time and mechanical output window.
– Kee- “train‑low” methods away from key high‑intensity or quality hill sessions; use them on easy aerobic days only, and sparingly.
The task was a one‑leg model, not running; transfer the principle (don’t start hard work glycogen‑depleted) rather than the exact numbers. For runners, the practical point is simple: don’t start quality sessions or key climbs on empty. High-intensity intervals, VO₂max work, and surges in long runs all need glycogen topped up from carbs eaten the day before and again pre-run. Post-workout, re-feed with carbs plus protein so you’re ready for the next day’s training. “Train low” strategies might have their place for easy aerobic runs, but using them before hard workouts is asking for cut-short sessions and reduced adaptation. Fueling is part of performance.
Acute neuromuscular and cardiovascular effects of varying relative loads in cross‑training modalities
I tried translating this article for everyone to understand. Researchers asked 25 experienced athletes to do three types of workouts with squats, pull-ups, and shoulder presses:
RFT (“rounds for time”): finish a set number of rounds as fast as possible.
EMOM (“every minute on the minute”): do your reps, rest until the next minute starts.
AMRAP (“as many rounds as possible”): keep going steadily for a set amount of time.
The weight used was the same for everyone. Of course that weight felt “light” for some and “heavy” for others. The study tracked HR, pacing, and how much athletes slowed down as they got tired. Athletes lifting weights that were “light” for them had more room to pace themselves and showed bigger swings between formats. For those lifting “heavier,” the format didn’t matter as much, the load itself was the limiter.
– EMOM kept heart rates lowest and fatigue more controlled.
– RFT drove heart rates highest, especially at lighter weights.
– AMRAP made people slow down the most within sets (bigger fatigue drop-off).
Practical takeaways
– If you’re mid-season or coming off a big mileage week: EMOM is your friend. Built-in rest = less extra fatigue.
– If you want a tough, grindy challenge: AMRAP brings the burn, but expect more fatigue and slower reps over time.
– If you want a cardio-boosting power hit: RFT cranks the HR but can leave your legs trashed; don’t pair it with back-to-back hill sessions.
– Think of EMOM as “steady climbing,” AMRAP as “a long grind,” and RFT as “going for the Strava crown.”
The study didn’t measure deeper recovery markers (like muscle damage), so don’t assume one format is “safe” for unlimited use. Choose the workout style based on what else your training and life are throwing at you. When miles pile up, EMOM keeps gym work efficient without draining the tank. If we want to practice mental toughness and pacing, an AMRAP can simulate a long climb under fatigue. The point isn’t to worship one style; it’s to use the right tool for the right day. Teach pacing: EMOM = regulate like aid station breaks, AMRAP = settle into a grind, RFT = surge-and-recover racing. Prescribe gym work by relative strength (what’s light or heavy for the athlete), not by a one-size weight. Pick format to match training phase:
– EMOM → strength maintenance in race build.
– AMRAP → offseason grind, mental toughness.
– RFT → power & intensity, but separate from key run workouts.
The effect of time of day on anaerobic performance and blood lactate response in trained men: assessment in relation to chronotype
Twenty strength-trained men performed vertical jumps and a 6×20 m repeated-sprint test at 07:00–08:00, 13:00–14:00, and 18:00–19:00. Across the board, afternoon/evening produced higher jump and sprint power than morning. Peak blood lactate 3 min post‑sprints was also higher later in the day. Notably, close‑to‑evening athletes cleared lactate better by 33 min in the evening, while intermediates showed no time‑of‑day difference in recovery. Authors conclude time‑of‑day and chronotype meaningfully shape anaerobic output and metabolic response.
Practical takeaways
– If you’re an “evening-ish” runner, schedule high‑power work (hills, strides, short VO₂/anaerobic reps) later in the day for a performance bump, and possibly faster post‑session lactate clearance.
– If you’re an “in‑between” chronotype, your sweet spot for pop might be early afternoon; plan jump/stride sessions or short, snappy workouts then.
– Morning workouts are still fine. Expect slightly less peak power. Adjust the warm‑up (longer and more progressive) to offset lower morning neuromuscular readiness.
– Rehearse key sessions at that exact time a few times in the build to reduce the “body clock” mismatch.
– Consider athlete chronotype when placing anaerobic days: better compliance and better pop when the clock agrees with the body.
Results are from trained young men doing very short, high‑intensity efforts in the lab; don’t over‑apply to long trail climbs or mixed‑terrain ultras without testing. For athletes who can’t control timing (parents, shift workers): we respect reality, extend warm‑ups on early mornings, sprinkle a few “race‑time rehearsals” so the nervous system learns the cue.
– Evening‑type athletes: place strides/short hill sprints after work; keep long aerobic or technique runs where life fits.
– Intermediate types: target early afternoon for neuromuscular pop when possible; if not, simulate race‑time occasionally.
– Morning sessions: add 10–15’ extra ramp, a few fast buildups, and mobility to “raise” body temp before quality.
– Periodize by clock: in peaking phases, align key sessions with expected race start windows (even if just every 7–10 days).
Physical Training of Female Students for Trail Running
This Russian study developed and tested a two-year physical education program designed to introduce female university students to trail running. The program combined seminars, practical sessions, and progressive training blocks that focused on coordination, aerobic capacity, running technique, and race preparation. 80 students were split into control and experimental groups: the latter trained with the trail running–based program, including weekly classes and independent practice. By the end of the experiment, students in the trail group showed significantly higher improvements in aerobic fitness, running economy, coordination, and motivation compared to the control group. Importantly, 61% of participants wanted to continue trail running after the study.
Practical takeaways:
– Trail running can be an effective tool to increase motivation for physical activity among Gen Z students, who often struggle with focus and long-term discipline.
– Mixing theoretical seminars (education on sport and training) with practice sessions helps anchor interest and improve adherence.
– Progressive training (from coordination basics to running technique to full race preparation) keeps engagement high and builds sustainable fitness.
– Trail-specific demands develop coordination and durability beyond what road running offers.
This study shows that when training is framed as an adventure (trails, novelty, nature) rather than a grind (laps on a track), motivation blooms; even in populations initially disinterested in sport. It reinforces the principle that fun, variety, and meaning drive consistency more than discipline alone. For coaching, it’s a reminder that introducing athletes to new terrains or playful approaches (hill sprints, nature exploration, technical drills) can unlock both joy and physiological adaptation. The takeaway is : trail-specific drills (plyometrics, stability, technical running) and progressive exposure to trail environments can be introduced even at beginner levels to increase both competence and enthusiasm. Gamify training where possible to sustain engagement. Motivation is not a “given,” it can be cultivated.
Exploring interindividual running economy responses to advanced footwear technology shoes across a range of variables: A quantitative study
This thesis is a nice follow up on the research I discussed last week: do super shoes work for everyone? The student tested 64 runners in two different shoes: a “super shoe” (with carbon plate and bouncy foam; Salomon S/Lab Phantasm 2) and a normal trainer (Salomon Aero Glide 2). On average, runners were about 4% more efficient in the super shoe. But the range was huge: some got up to 11% better, others actually got worse. The runners who benefited most had two things in common: stiffer calf muscles (which act like strong springs) and feet that let the arch flatten a bit more before springing back. Strength in the calves also mattered, but not as much. In the end, these factors explained only about a quarter of the differences between runners.
Practical takeaways
– Most runners will likely see a boost, but not everyone. If your calves are strong and springy, you might get more out of super shoes.
– Feet that “deform and return” help: If your arch can flatten and rebound (not super stiff, not super floppy), the shoes may “work with” your feet better.
– Strength ≠ everything: don’t assume strength alone equals a better shoe response.
– Try at race pace: Foot‑strike and speed likely modulate effects; do 10–20 min at intended race intensity in both shoes and compare HR/VO₂ proxy and RPE.
Pair short economy checks (strides, controlled threshold) with calf‑strength and foot‑function work, then decide if the shoe helps you. When trying super shoes, we should test you at your race pace in both pairs to see if they help, and also keep working on calf and foot strength (like hill strides, springy plyos, and calf raises) so you build your own springiness. But remember: if a shoe doesn’t feel right for you, there’s no shame in racing in what works. If your body already has some spring, they’ll boost it. If not, they might not help much. The only way to know is to try them out.
Quantifying Running Economy in Amateur Runners: Evaluating VO₂ and Energy Cost with Model‑based Normalization
This study compared two ways to quantify running economy (RE) across three submax intensities (55/65/75% VO₂max): classic ratio‑scaled VO₂ (ml/kg/min) and energy cost (kcal/min) with allometric scaling to body mass. RE rose with intensity regardless of metric, supporting VO₂ as a valid but imperfect proxy; however, allometric‑scaled energy cost tracked the physiology more cleanly. The authors show that ratio scaling (per‑kg) leaves a body‑mass bias, while allometric scaling (≈ body mass^⅔) removes it better. Among recreational runners, correlations with 1,000 m performance were strongest at ~65% VO₂max, and women displayed better economy than men across measures. The authors recommend using allometric‑scaled energy cost and testing near 65% VO₂max for amateurs.
Practical takeaway
– If you test RE, aim for ~65% VO₂max. It gave the tightest links to performance in this cohort; going higher (75%) likely drifts from steady‑state, especially for women.
– Ditch simple “per‑kg” scaling. Ratio scaling (ml/kg/min) still favors lighter runners; use allometric scaling (~mass^⅔) to compare athletes fairly.
– Energy cost (kcal) > VO₂-alone for precision. If you have VO₂ and VCO₂, compute energy cost; it mapped performance slightly better than VO₂.
– Women showed better RE in this sample; don’t assume male advantage in RE. Program by response, not stereotype.
Findings are from college‑aged recreational runners; protocols may need tweaking for masters, elites, or trail‑specific terrain. Anyways, meet athletes where steady‑state physiology is reliable, then progress. Focus on equity in metrics: use scaling that respects different bodies, not scaling that flatters the lightest runner by default.
The Influence of Running Cadence on Biomechanics and Injury Prevention: A Systematic Review
This systematic review included 18 studies on how increasing running cadence (typically +5–10%) affects mechanics, economy, and injury risk. Across studies, higher cadence consistently shortened stride length, reduced vertical loading rates and peak ground reaction forces, and improved lower-limb alignment (less hip adduction and dynamic knee valgus). These changes are linked to lower stress at the tibia, knee, and hip; in one year-long RCT with novices, gait retraining (incl. cadence cues) cut injuries by ~60%. Importantly, moderate cadence increases generally did not worsen running economy and may provide small benefits, esp. when pace is held constant. Adherence improves with metronomes or beat-matched music, though benefits can regress without feedback. Overall: cadence retraining is a low-cost, accessible lever with promising preventive value, pending more robust, long-term trials.
Practical takeaways:
– Start small: bump cadence by +5% (max +10%) at the same pace to reduce overstriding, loading rate, and knee/hip stress.
– Metronome or beat-matched music helps “lock in” the new step rate and improves adherence.
– Keep speed the same while increasing steps/min so stride simply shortens (mechanical benefit without “cheating” via slowing).
– Practice 1–2x/week for 6–8 weeks in short segments (e.g., 4–8 × 2–3 min at higher cadence) before extending to longer runs.
– Add hip abductors, calves, and core stability work to support new mechanics and reduce relapse when cues are removed.
– Most runners won’t see a metabolic penalty; monitor RPE/HR to confirm your “new normal” is sustainable.
Don’t rush to +10% in one go; abrupt changes can shift loads to the calves/Achilles. Build gradually and back off if niggles appear. Cadence work emphasizes feel, short feedback loops, body awareness over grinding volume. It also plays easy to test during commutes or short windows. Monitoring: track RPE, HR, niggles (tibia, knee, Achilles) and back off if symptoms emerge; keep pace stable during cadence drills.
– Baseline: measure natural cadence over 5–10 min at easy pace.
– Introduce +3–5% cadence blocks (4–6 × 2–3 min) with metronome/music; progress to +5–8% over 4–6 weeks if tolerated.
– Place cadence blocks after strides or during flat segments; avoid steep downhills initially (calf/Achilles load).
– Pair with simple S&C (hip abductors, soleus-heavy calf raises, trunk stability) and regular cue “off-ramps” (remove feedback and test retention).
This review pooled 51 studies (502 participants; 31 women(!)) to test how heat and dehydration shift fuel use during endurance exercise. Compared with temperate conditions, hot environments increased both carbohydrate oxidation (SMD 0.29) and muscle glycogen use (SMD 0.78). Being dehydrated (vs hydrated) also increased carbohydrate oxidation (SMD 0.31) and glycogen use (SMD 0.62), with the dehydration effect clearly present in the heat but not consistently in temperate conditions. Mechanistically, the authors point to higher epinephrine in the heat (pushing glycogen breakdown) and the catabolic effects of reduced cell water content during dehydration. Net‑net: heat and low fluids nudge you toward burning carbs faster and dipping into glycogen sooner, especially when combined.
Practical takeaways:
– Fuel earlier and more aggressively in the heat. Expect faster glycogen drawdown; plan higher carb intake (and practice gut training) when temps rise.
– Guard your fluids before the damage is done. Even mild dehydration pushes you toward higher carb burn, particularly in the heat. Sip to plan, not to thirst alone.
– Pace with “glycogen math.” On long hot climbs, ease early to spare glycogen and keep late‑race running possible.
– Heat‑block training ≠ dehydration training. You can build heat tolerance without practicing large fluid deficits; chasing hypohydration is a bad adaptation strategy.
Most data are from controlled lab bouts, not rugged 6–20‑hour mountain races; female data are limited. Translate with care for ultras and for women‑specific fueling or hydration planning.
– Hot‑day playbook: start 10–15% easier than cool‑day pacing for the first third; layer cooling (ice, dousing, shade) and maintain planned intake.
– Hydration cues: schedule sips (e.g., every 10–12 min) and use sodium to support drinking; don’t “train dehydration.”
– Training: include controlled heat sessions/week while keeping hydration adequate; log RPE, GI, and carb tolerance.
– Race rehearsal: simulate a hot climb with full kit, fueling, and fluids to test GI and pacing drift.
Worthy footnotes
Durability of the Major Determinants of Endurance Performance Is Not Different After 15 kJ·kg⁻¹ of Moderate or Heavy Exercise
Evans G, Chorley A, Highton J. European Journal of Sport Science, 2025.
This study looked at how much our “engine” fades after about 60–90 min. of steady exercise, whether you go at a moderate pace or push a bit harder. The researchers found that your top-end power (that final kick or surge) and your “W′” (think of it as your limited reserve for bursts above your usual pace) both dropped by about half. But the big endurance markers, VO₂max, threshold, economy, and critical power, didn’t really change. In other words, after an hour or so of cycling (and likely running too), you probably won’t lose much of your steady cruising ability, but your sprint or surge capacity will already be compromised, no matter if you ran easy or somewhat harder. Cyclists, lab bikes, and ~70–80 min., don’t over‑generalize to mountainous ultras or 3–6 h long runs. Expect bigger durability hits with heat, technical terrain, and sleep debt.
For trail/ultra runners, the lesson is clear: don’t expect to have the same snap in your legs late in a run, even if the early miles felt manageable. Pacing evenly in the first hour won’t magically save your finishing kick, but it will help you keep your steady pace and decision-making sharp. The real durability hits show up in longer outings (2+ hours, or with heat and terrain stress), so fueling well and training your ability to “move smoothly when the pop is gone” become essential. Translation: bank on steadiness, not fireworks, and practice being strong when your sprint legs have already checked out.
Remote Running Gait Analysis Using Smartphone Video and Monocular Pose Estimation: A Feasibility Study
Luke VanKeersbilck, Master’s Thesis (Brigham Young University), 2025
A cycling study yes, still interesting for runners. They compared 8 weeks of high-intensity interval eccentric cycling (EC) and concentric cycling (CC) in healthy men (n=17) to see how each affected aerobic capacity, muscle size, and muscle function. Both groups trained twice weekly with similar perceived effort, progressing in intensity and volume. Results showed that EC produced much greater gains in concentric sprint peak power output (+27% vs. +9%), squat jump height, and quadriceps cross-sectional area, while aerobic improvements (VO₂peak, incremental peak power output, 6-min walk distance) were similar between EC and CC. Fascicle length and pennation angle didn’t change significantly in either group.
Practical takeaways:
– EC HIIT can build strength/power and aerobic capacity in just two sessions/week.
– Expect bigger jumps in sprint power and explosive leg function from EC than CC.
– EC stimulates more hypertrophy in the quads than CC, useful for strength and injury resilience.
– Both EC and CC deliver similar VO₂peak and endurance gains; no aerobic disadvantage to going eccentric.
EC may require more coordination; results may vary depending on skill with eccentric pedaling. For trail and ultra athletes, this study suggests a way to add potent strength stimulus without sacrificing aerobic development. For runners, EC HIIT could replace some traditional hill sprints or plyo sessions, delivering both muscular and aerobic benefit with lower perceived joint strain. On-bike eccentric training in the gym or with specialized ergometers could be especially valuable in injury return-to-play or as an alternative high-power stimulus for athletes prone to overuse from running.
Ultra-endurance race performance and muscle mass as predictors of cognitive capacity
Vilite D., Lismane D., et al. — Frontiers in Cognition, 2025
This new study looked at 43 ultra-cyclists racing ~341 km over 18 hours and tested their thinking skills before, right after, and 24 hours later. The results showed that those with higher average race speed had quicker reaction times, while those with more muscle mass performed better on tasks requiring attention and memory. Interestingly, slower finishers sometimes showed stronger inhibitory control (the ability to “brake” impulsive responses). Other factors, like age, training volume, or heart rate reserve, didn’t matter much. For runners, the take-home is pretty practical: keep up regular strength training (2x/week) because muscle mass seems to protect your brain under fatigue. Treat pacing as a mental skill, you can practice steady pacing, fueling decisions, even “decision-points” in long runs to mimic race-day cognitive load. Don’t stress over HR numbers or mileage when it comes to mental sharpness; what matters most is how you manage effort and strategy on race day.
Development and validation of a new simulator of running impacts
Gassier R., Hintzy F., Malisoux L., Hautier C. — Journal of Biomechanics, 2025
This methods paper validates a pendulum-style “impact ergometer” that cleanly reproduces the first ~50 ms of foot-strike and isolates the true, high-frequency impact signal (separate from push-off), closely matching real running but tending toward slightly steeper loading rates. For runners and coaches, the practical move isn’t to chase a prettier force-curve “bump,” but to manage loading rate with small, repeatable progressions: build downhill/speed work like strength (short bouts, full recovery), keep cadence quick and land softly (“quiet feet”), use poles and more compliant shoes on steep/rocky days, and log next-day tibia/foot/quad soreness to find an individual tolerance band. Pair this with low-dose plyos and eccentric strength for calves/quads/tibias, and protect coordination with adequate carbs (esp. late) so impacts stay controlled when fatigue sets in.
Amateur Rowers to Transatlantic Trio Race Winners: A Case Study Describing the Physiological and Psychological Characteristics, Training Adaptations and Race Responses to Ultra-Endurance Rowing
Liu C, Zhang Z, Mao R, Xia L, Xie Y. PLOS ONE, 2025
For runners and coaches, the big takeaway from this case study of three amateur rowers who won a 38-day Atlantic crossing is to build durable threshold and strength rather than chasing VO₂peak: lactate threshold improved with prep while VO₂peak dipped, and ~31% of training was strength work alongside mostly low-intensity erg sessions; translate that to tempo/threshold durability, hill strength, and year-round lifting in trail plans. Expect multi-day efforts to boost mental toughness yet leave deep fatigue, so schedule a conservative return with 2–4+ weeks of deload before quality workouts. Fuel proactively: these athletes lost ~14% body mass, so “eat early, eat often” to protect performance and recovery. Finally, anticipate and prevent skin and musculoskeletal issues with foot care, anti-chafe, pack/strap fit checks, and early problem-solving, and keep a simple sRPE + wellness diary to catch overload early.
More than a healthy habit! The motivations to start and to maintain running practice: a mixed‑methods study
Caio Sain Vallio, Pamela Marinelli, Gustavo Nakaoka, Luiz Hespanhol — Sport Sciences for Health, 2025
This study looked at 106 recreational runners in São Paulo and asked why they first started running and why they continue today. At the start, “weight loss” and “general health” topped the list, but as people kept running, motivations shifted. Health stayed important, but an “emotional connection to running” became equally central. Almost 40% of runners said their reasons had changed, most moving away from external drivers (like weight loss) toward intrinsic ones (like joy, well-being, or challenge). For coaching and everyday runners, this means: lean into extrinsic goals early to get someone moving (health, fitness, even body goals), but actively build pathways to intrinsic motivation. That could mean highlighting small wins, encouraging journaling about how runs feel, picking routes that inspire, or connecting athletes with community. If you want people to stick with running for years, it’s not enough to program workouts, they need to build a relationship with running itself.
Investigation of core endurance, performance and functional activities in CrossFit participants
Songül Bağlan Yentür, Muhammet Şahin Elbastı, Nesih Kanan, İrem Sıla Boyrazlı — Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies, 2025
This study compared 20 CrossFit athletes, 20 gym-trained people, and 20 sedentary folks on core endurance, performance (sprint, jumps, step test), and movement screens, finding that CrossFitters had stronger cores, better jumps, faster sprints than the other groups. But their core strength didn’t directly line up with movement quality or performance measures. For runners, the lesson is simple: building trunk endurance (side bridges, planks, back holds) can help you stay tall and efficient late in races, but don’t expect a longer plank to instantly shave minutes off your marathon. Treat core work as a durability booster: 2–3 short sessions per week of holds, carries, and anti-rotation drills, so your body holds form on climbs, descents, and under a pack, while the real performance gains still come from consistent running.
About Waybound 