ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Cross-training between running and cycling: practitioner perspectives on transferability and exercise substitution.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 ( 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.