Running in earbuds is the norm, not the exception. On Yandex (Russia's main search engine), the query “running with music” got 1058 searches in September 2026 — almost four times as many as in July (286). Almost everything we know about music in training concerns mood and perceived effort. How it affects breathing and the stride itself has been tested far less often.

On 13 October 2026 Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism published a randomised crossover study from the University of Sassari (Italy), with David Behm of Memorial University of Newfoundland among the co-authors. The answer came with a catch.

How it was tested

32 physically active participants — 15 women and 17 men, mean age 22.7 years — each ran twice for 20 minutes on a treadmill at 8 km/h (7:30 per kilometre). Once in silence, once with music through in-ear earbuds: a tempo of 128 beats per minute at 85 dB, i.e. moderate to loud. The order of the sessions was randomised.

Gas exchange was measured breath by breath, and spatiotemporal stride parameters and perceived effort on the Borg scale were recorded at the same time.

What changed

Breathing became rapid and shallow:

breathing rate rose by 10.0%;
tidal volume fell by 4.6%;
minute ventilation rose by 5.5% (all p ≤ 0.001).

Ventilatory efficiency fell: the ratio of ventilation to CO₂ output (V̇E/V̇CO₂) was 4.3% higher, and to oxygen uptake (V̇E/V̇O₂) 4.5% higher (both p < 0.001). Put simply, for the same amount of gas exchange the body was moving more air through the lungs.

The stride became bouncier:

step time and step length increased by 1.3% and 1.0%;
vertical oscillation by 30% (p = 0.015);
flight time by 16% (p = 0.002);
the share of ground contact in the stride cycle (duty factor) fell by 1.3%.

In women the shift towards a more “airborne” stride was stronger than in men.

Energy expenditure rose by 1.1% (p = 0.009) — running at the same speed with music became slightly more costly.

Yet it felt the other way round — easier: the Borg rating was 12.7 with music versus 13.4 without (p < 0.001). The authors call this a “paradoxical dissociation” between subjective effort and objective load.

How this fits with music being helpful

There is less of a contradiction here than it seems. The largest meta-analysis on the subject is by Terry, Karageorghis and colleagues (Psychological Bulletin, 2020): 139 studies, 3,599 participants. Music improved affect (g = 0.48) and physical performance (g = 0.31) and reduced perceived exertion (g = 0.22); fast music had a bigger effect than slow or medium-tempo music.

The new study does not contradict this: the effort felt easier here too. What it adds to the picture is the cost. When people can choose their own speed, the “easiness” turns into running faster. When the speed is fixed, as on a treadmill, you see the flip side — less economical breathing and stride.

What not to believe too firmly here

This is one 20-minute treadmill session at 8 km/h. For many runners that is an easy pace. At threshold intensity, outdoors or over a long distance, the result may be different.

The participants were physically active young people of about 23, not experienced runners. In people who have been running in earbuds for years, the response may be weaker.

Only one combination was tested: 128 beats per minute and 85 dB. That is below a typical running cadence (usually 160–180 steps per minute), so the music and the stride were not synchronised. Quieter, slower or exactly matched to cadence — unknown.

The percentage changes are small. 1.1% in energy expenditure is at the edge of what is noticeable in running at all. The largest change — vertical oscillation +30% — sounds impressive, but in absolute terms it is a matter of centimetres.

The authors did not prove why breathing changes. Possible explanations are breathing rhythm locking on to the music or arousal from loud sound, but the experiment did not separate them.

How to apply this

On easy runs, go by heart rate, not by feel. If music makes a pace feel easier, it is easy to drift out of the right zone without noticing. Find your boundaries in the zones generator.
Turn the volume down. The 85 dB in the study is already the level at which occupational noise guidelines start limiting exposure time. Quieter is better for your hearing and, possibly, for your breathing.
For tempo runs and races, music is a tool, not a hindrance. The meta-analysis shows a performance gain, especially with fast music. Just be aware that part of the “easiness” is perception, not economy.
Working on technique or breathing? Run without earbuds. If the goal is steady diaphragmatic breathing or less vertical oscillation, music in this experiment pushed both in the wrong direction.
Check the race rules. Some races ban or discourage headphones — for safety reasons and so runners can hear officials' instructions.
Heart rate in earbuds is a separate topic. If your earbuds also measure heart rate, see our look at AirPods Pro 3.

The bottom line

A randomised crossover trial: 32 participants, 20 minutes on a treadmill at 8 km/h, with music at 128 beats per minute and 85 dB and without it.
With music, breathing rate rose by 10%, tidal volume fell by 4.6% and ventilatory efficiency dropped by 4.3–4.5%.
Vertical oscillation rose by 30%, flight time by 16% and energy expenditure by 1.1%; the stride shift was stronger in women.
Yet the run felt easier (12.7 versus 13.4 on the Borg scale) — music lowers the sense of effort, not the load itself.

Sources: Morrone M., Natale D., Ventura L., Boi A., Martinez G., Behm D.G., Dvir Z., Bandiera P., Cugusi L., Deriu F., Manca A. “Moderate-to-loud in-ear music worsens ventilatory efficiency and running biomechanics during fixed-speed treadmill running: a sex-stratified randomized crossover study”. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2026. DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2026-0174 · Terry P.C., Karageorghis C.I., Curran M.L., Martin O.V., Parsons-Smith R.L. “Effects of music in exercise and sport: A meta-analytic review”. Psychological Bulletin, 2020;146(2):91-117. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000216