PURPOSE: Recently, core strength and stabilization exercises have been incorporated into a variety of athletic conditioning programs. To date, few studies have examined the relationship between core strength (CST) and core stability (CSB) and any benefits associated with running economy (RE). The purpose was to evaluate the relationships between CST, CSB, RE, and kinematic variables. METHODS: Twenty-three participants; men (N = 7) and women (N = 16) volunteered for the study (23.13 ± 2.83yrs, 65.43 ± 12.76kg, 168.36 ± 9.0cm). All participants were trained runners having run for at least one year, 3 times per week for at least 30 continuous minutes. Those who met these guidelines and had a V̇o2max of at least 40 ml·kg−1·min−1 took part in the study. Over the course of four assessment sessions, subjects completed CST and CSB testing, a maximal aerobic capacity running test, and three tests for RE to determine designated research variable relationships. Running speeds used during RE testing included 60% V̇o2max, ventilatory threshold (VT), and .5 mph above VT. Pearson product moment correlations and regression analysis were used to determine if significant relationships existed between CST, CSB, changes in trunk, hip, and knee angles and RE at each speed. RESULTS: Significant (≤.05) correlations existed between the following CSB measures prone bridge (PB) and RE (.490, .491, .431), right lateral bridge (RLB) and RE (.452, .532, .497), and left lateral bridge (LLB) and RE (.422, .551, .488) at all three running speeds respectively. No significance correlation (≥ .05) was found between RE and CST. A significant (≤.05) negative correlation (−.437) was found between CST and Torso Flexion (TF) while a direct correlation (.572) occurred between TF and Torso Extension (TE).Within CSB variables, significant (≤.05) correlations existed between PB and RLB (.712), PB and LLB (.690), RLB and LLB (.756). Both CST (−.556) and PB (.488) were significantly (≤.05) correlated to peak trunk angle (PTA) at a running speed of 60% V̇o2max while RLB (.495) and LLB (.434) correlated to minimum trunk angle (MTA) at a running speed of .5 mph above VT. Peak hip angle (PHA) was significantly (≤.05) and directly correlated to CST at a running speed of 60% V̇o2max (.481) and negatively at a running speed of .5 mph above VT (−.462). Significant (≤.05) negative correlations also existed between minimum hip angle (MHA) and PB (−.574), RLB (−.649), LLB (−.586) at a running speed of .5 mph above VT while minimum knee angle (MKA) was negatively correlated to RLB (−.525) and LLB (−.454) at running speeds .5 mph above VT. Regression analysis indicated that RE was significantly correlated to MKA and running speeds of 60% V̇o2max (.589) and PHA and running speeds at VT (.660). CONCLUSIONS: A moderate relationship appears to exist between the minimum knee angle and RE at speeds associated with 60% V̇o2max. In addition, strong relationships appear to exist between peak hip angle and RE at speeds associated with VT. However, future studies should include a larger sample for the type of data analysis used in the present study in order to verify the validity of these findings. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Within a runners training program, resistance training exercises that incorporate relevant musculature according to core strength and stability principles should be implemented within the athlete's conditioning regime. Further viable research is warranted on this popular but controversial training approach.