T Menges, C Dindorf, E Bartaguiz, M Fröhlich
Cross-training between running and cycling was not perceived as a simple one-to-one replacement strategy, but rather as a direction-dependent and duration-dependent modification of training load. The findings suggest that perceived equivalence between modalities may not be adequately represented by fixed conversion ratios and that cross-training may be perceived as particularly suitable for low-intensity endurance training and high-volume load management.
BACKGROUND: Cross-training between running and cycling is widely used in endurance sports to maintain performance while managing training load and injury risk. However, experimental evidence regarding transfer effects between modalities remains inconsistent, and little is known about how athletes and coaches perceive and implement cross-training in practice.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated how cross-training between running and cycling is perceived and applied by endurance athletes and coaches, with particular focus on direction-dependent transferability, training intensity, training frequency, and perceived equivalence durations.
METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 55 endurance athletes and coaches. Participants evaluated their perceptions of cross-training in both directions (running vs. cycling; cycling vs. running) using Likert-scale ratings and provided estimates of equivalent replacement durations between modalities. Differences between directions, intensities, and groups were analyzed using non-parametric procedures for ordinal single-item data and parametric analyses for reliable composite scores.
RESULTS: Participants perceived transferability between running and cycling to be direction-dependent, with a significant difference between substitution directions (p < 0.001). Participants estimated that replacing a running session with a cycling session would require substantially longer training durations (mean factor = 1.76; SD = 0.12), whereas shorter running sessions were considered sufficient to replace a cycling session (mean factor = 0.54; SD = 0.16). Participants estimates of equivalent replacement durations varied systematically across training durations and were not adequately represented by a constant conversion factor. Low-intensity training was perceived as significantly more transferable than threshold- or VO2max-oriented training (p < 0.001). Perceived training frequency adjustments also differed by direction, with cycling substitutions more often associated with maintained or increased training frequency. Overall, only minor differences between athletes, coaches, and individuals fulfilling both roles were observed.
CONCLUSION: Cross-training between running and cycling was not perceived as a simple one-to-one replacement strategy, but rather as a direction-dependent and duration-dependent modification of training load. The findings suggest that perceived equivalence between modalities may not be adequately represented by fixed conversion ratios and that cross-training may be perceived as particularly suitable for low-intensity endurance training and high-volume load management.