REF-953 · Mutton et al., 1993 · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Effect of run vs combined cycle/run training on VO2max and running performance

Blimited evidenceMeasured on recreational to trained athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Moderately fit runners (19-35 yr old, mean VO2max 55.2 ml.kg-1.min-1) trained 4 d.wk-1 for 5 wk at the same intensity, 85-90% of maximum heart rate: one group only ran (N = 6), the other alternated running and cycling sessions (N = 5).

Treadmill VO2max, cycle-ergometer VO2peak and 5000-m and 1609-m run times all improved significantly in both groups, and the groups did not differ significantly. After training, both groups ran faster at submaximal treadmill effort for a similar heart rate, blood lactate and RQ.

The authors conclude that either form of training, done for 5 wk, can significantly raise aerobic capacity and running performance.

Participants

Runners of moderate fitness aged 19-35 yr, with VO2max averaging 55.2 ml.kg-1.min-1; N = 6 in the run-only group and N = 5 in the cycle/run group. Sex is not given in the abstract.

Protocol

5 wk, 4 d.wk-1, at 85-90% maximum heart rate: run-only, or alternating run and cycle training.
Tests: maximal tests on a treadmill (TM) and a cycle ergometer (CE), 5000-m and 1609-m runs, and submaximal measurements while running on the treadmill.

Key Results

In both groups, significant gains were seen in TM VO2max (P < 0.05) and CE VO2peak (P < 0.01) and in run times over 5000 m (P < 0.01) as well as 1609 m (P < 0.05); the groups did not differ significantly.
TM VO2max pre/post: 55.3 +/- 3.0 to 58.2 +/- 3.0 (run group) and 55.6 +/- 3.8 to 58.9 +/- 2.4 ml.kg-1.min-1 (cross-trained group).
After training, submaximal treadmill pace rose by 18.7 m.min-1 in the run group and 16.1 m.min-1 in the cycle/run group, at heart rate, blood lactate and RQ similar to before training.

Practical Application

"Can I swap some of my hard runs for hard bike sessions without losing running fitness?" In moderately fit runners (N = 6 run-only, N = 5 cycle/run) training 4 d.wk-1 at 85-90% of maximum heart rate for 5 wk, alternating run and cycle sessions improved treadmill VO2max (55.6 to 58.9 vs 55.3 to 58.2 ml.kg-1.min-1) and 5000-m and 1609-m times as much as running only. Over a few weeks, hard cycling can stand in for part of the hard running.
The groups are 6 and 5: "no significant difference" here means no difference was detected, not that the two are proven equal.
The sessions were hard (85-90% of maximum heart rate). Inference, not tested here: the result supports replacing intensity with intensity; it does not show that easy cycling replaces easy running or that run-specific durability is kept.
Useful for a runner limiting impact or in the off-season; not from this paper: cross-training in a non-similar mode (swimming) helped less than extra running in REF-952, and the season layout is in SYNTH-76.

Limitations

N = 6 and N = 5; underpowered to detect a between-group difference.
5 wk only; moderately fit runners; sex not given.
Half of the run sessions remained in the cross-trained group; full substitution was not tested.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

two small groups (N = 6 and N = 5); "no difference between groups" at this size cannot establish equivalence