Catch up with Coach M - Edition 70 - Non-Impact Training for Runners

If you have been around me for a while, you will know I have made myself a little promise when it comes to my coaching and my blogs:

I don't want to share information just because I saw it on Instagram.

If I haven't tested it myself, coached it, experienced it, or found credible science to support it, I'm not going to tell you it is fact.

And today's blog is one of those topics where I think there is a LOT of confusion.

So let's talk about non-impact training.

Cycling.

Spin.

Watt bike.

Elliptical.

Stair climber.

Swimming.

All of these forms of exercise can be incredibly useful for runners and endurance athletes.

But there is one very important distinction:

Non-impact training absolutely counts as training.

But it is NOT running.

And understanding the difference can completely change how you structure your training.

First Things First: Non-Impact Training DOES Count

Let's get this out of the way.

If you spend 60 minutes on a bike, you trained.

If you spend 45 minutes on the elliptical, you trained.

If you spend 30 minutes swimming, you trained.

If you spend 40 minutes climbing stairs, you trained.

Your body doesn't simply say:

“Oh... you weren't running. Never mind.”

Your cardiovascular system still worked.

Your muscles still worked.

You still created physiological stress.

You still accumulated training time.

You still stimulated adaptations.

The mistake is thinking that because it wasn't running, it somehow doesn't count.

It counts.

But it counts in a different way.

And that difference is important.

Yes, I've Tested This Myself

I have used non-impact training for the last couple of years

I've used cycling, spin, elliptical and other forms of cross-training during different phases of training — including ultra-distance preparation.

And there is a reason I keep coming back to it.

Sometimes you need more aerobic work.

But you don't necessarily need more running impact.

Those are two very different things.

And this becomes particularly important when training volume starts getting high.

What Does The Science Say About Cross-Training?

There is actually some interesting research around this.

A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis comparing running and cycling cross-training looked at seven randomised controlled trials.

The researchers did not find statistically significant differences in the VO₂ max and running-performance outcomes studied between the groups.

But — and this is important — the evidence is still limited.

It does not mean cycling and running are interchangeable.

It means that certain forms of cross-training can produce meaningful cardiovascular and performance adaptations.

And that makes sense.

Your heart doesn't know whether the resistance is coming from a running surface or a bike pedal.

Your cardiovascular system responds to the demand being placed on it.

But your musculoskeletal system absolutely knows the difference.

And that's where specificity comes in.

The Big Question: “How Many Kilometres Is This Worth?”

This is probably the question I get asked the most.

“If I cycle for an hour, how many running kilometres is that?”

Or:

“If I do 45 minutes on the elliptical, what is that equivalent to in running?”

And unfortunately, there isn't a universal scientific formula.

There is no accurate equation that says:

10 km cycling = 5 km running

or

10 km elliptical = 8 km running.

It doesn't work like that.

Because distance alone doesn't tell us the training stimulus.

An easy 20 km bike ride and a hard 20 km bike ride are two completely different training sessions.

The same applies to running.

A 10 km easy run is not the same training stimulus as a 10 km race effort.

So instead of obsessing over kilometres, I want you to start looking at training load.

Stop Obsessing Over Kilometres

Running is relatively easy to quantify:

• Distance

• Pace

• Heart rate

• Elevation

• Time

• Effort

But cycling gives us other useful measurements:

• Time

• Watts

• Average power

• Normalised power

• % FTP

• Heart rate

• Effort

The stair climber gives us:

• Time

• Level

• Floors/flights

• Vertical metres

• Heart rate

• Effort

The elliptical gives us:

• Time

• Resistance

• Speed/cadence

• Heart rate

• Effort

Swimming gives us:

• Time

• Distance

• Intervals

• Pace

• Effort

So when you tell me:

“I cycled 25 km.”

My next question is:

“For how long, and at what intensity?”

Because that tells me much more.

Watt Bike Example: FTP Matters

Let's use cycling because this is where people often get caught up in the numbers.

Let's say your FTP is 175 watts.

FTP is essentially the highest average power you can sustain for approximately an hour under standard testing conditions.

Your training zones might look roughly like this:

50–60% FTP

88–105 watts

Recovery / very easy aerobic work.

60–75% FTP

105–131 watts

Aerobic endurance.

76–90% FTP

133–158 watts

Tempo work.

91–105% FTP

159–184 watts

Threshold territory.

105%+

184+ watts

VO₂ / very hard work.

These are approximate zones, and individual zone systems can differ, but they illustrate the point.

Now look at the difference:

60 minutes at 120 watts

That's approximately 69% of FTP.

That's an aerobic endurance session.

Compare that with:

60 minutes at 150 watts

That's approximately 86% of FTP.

That's getting into tempo territory.

And then:

20 minutes at 170–175 watts

That's approximately 97–100% FTP.

That's threshold work.

Same bike.

Same athlete.

Same 20–60 minutes.

Completely different training stimulus.

That's why simply converting cycling kilometres into running kilometres doesn't really tell us much.

So Tell Me More Than “I Cycled 20 km”

If you're training with me and you tell me:

“I did 20 km on the bike.”

I'm going to ask:

How long did it take?

What was your average power?

What was your heart rate?

What was your effort?

Because those numbers help me understand what you actually did.

And that is far more useful than trying to turn your bike kilometres into imaginary running kilometres.

So How Do I Convert Cycling Into Running?

You don't.

At least not in the way many people want you to.

Instead, ask:

What was the purpose of the session?

Was it recovery?

Aerobic endurance?

Tempo?

Threshold?

Intervals?

Long-duration conditioning?

Once we know that, we can decide where the session fits into your training programme.

That's much more useful than saying:

“My bike session was worth 12 km of running.”

Because it wasn't.

It was a bike session that provided a particular training stimulus.

And that is enough.

What About Stair Climber Training?...

Now let's talk about one of my favourites.

The Stair Climber.

This is where things get particularly interesting because the machine gives you another metric that runners often overlook:

Vertical metres.

If your machine works on approximately 3 metres of vertical gain per flight, then:

• 100 flights ≈ 300 m vertical

• 150 flights ≈ 450 m

• 200 flights ≈ 600 m

• 300 flights ≈ 900 m

• 500 flights ≈ 1,500 m

But please check your machine.

Not every machine defines a flight in exactly the same way.

So again, don't treat these numbers as a universal scientific conversion.

Use them as a way of understanding the work you have done.

Stair Climber Training: Think Vertical Metres

For a trail runner or ultra runner, vertical metres can be particularly useful.

Imagine you're preparing for an event with a lot of climbing.

You can't necessarily go outside and run hills every single day.

But you can use the stair climber to accumulate climbing-specific muscular work and cardiovascular stress without necessarily adding another high-impact running session.

That doesn't make the stair climber a replacement for hill running.

It makes it a tool.

And that's how I want you to think about cross-training.

Tools, not replacements.

Stair Climbing Is Real Training

Research has also shown that stair-climbing programmes can improve aerobic fitness and running-related performance.

One study comparing stair training with running over nine weeks found improvements in VO₂ max and running time in both groups.

The running group showed somewhat larger improvements, which makes sense because they were training specifically through running.

But the stair group still improved significantly.

That's the point.

Different modality. Meaningful training effect.

The Elliptical

The elliptical is another one that gets unfairly dismissed.

I've heard people say:

“But you're not actually running.”

Correct.

That's the point.

The elliptical allows you to create a significant cardiovascular stimulus without the same repetitive impact of running.

For example:

Easy aerobic

30–60 minutes.

Moderate resistance.

Conversational effort.

Controlled heart rate.

Think Zone 2.

Moderate / Tempo

30–45 minutes.

Higher resistance.

Harder breathing.

Higher aerobic or tempo heart rate.

Intervals

Something like:

10-minute warm-up

5 × 4 minutes hard

2 minutes easy recovery between intervals

10-minute cool-down

That's a proper training session.

Not fake training.

Not “just cardio.”

Training.

What Does Elliptical Resistance Actually Mean?

This is another place where people can get caught up in numbers.

Resistance level 10 on one machine isn't necessarily the same as resistance level 10 on another.

So instead of saying:

“Level 8 equals X kilometres of running.”

Look at:

• Duration

• Resistance

• Cadence/speed

• Heart rate

• Perceived effort

• Session structure

Again, we're looking at training stimulus, not imaginary running kilometres.

Different Exercise. Similar Cardiovascular Challenge.

There is evidence that different exercise modalities can produce similar cardiovascular adaptations.

Research in trained runners comparing treadmill, elliptical and stepper exercise has shown relatively similar VO₂ max values.

Another 12-week study involving moderately active women found similar physiological improvements across treadmill, elliptical and stair-climber training when exercise intensity was controlled.

That doesn't mean all three activities are identical.

They aren't.

It means your cardiovascular system can respond very well to different forms of aerobic exercise.

And this is where I think endurance athletes can start thinking differently.

Fitness vs Specificity: They Are NOT The Same Thing

This is probably the most important section in this entire blog.

Fitness and specificity are not the same thing.

Non-impact training can improve your:

• Aerobic fitness

• Cardiovascular capacity

• Muscular endurance

• Training volume

• Work capacity

• Fatigue resistance

But it cannot completely replace the specific adaptations you get from running.

Running teaches your body to:

• Absorb impact

• Produce force against the ground

• Handle repeated ground contact

• Improve running economy

• Strengthen the feet and ankles

• Tolerate eccentric loading

• Manage running-specific fatigue

• Run efficiently when tired

You don't get all of that from cycling.

Or swimming.

Or the elliptical.

And that's why I will never tell a runner:

“Just stop running and cycle instead.”

Specificity matters.

But so does total training.

And this is where things get REALLY interesting.

Training For Ultra-Distance And Multisport Is About The TOTAL Load

When you're training for an ultra-long-distance event or a multisport event, training is about much more than simply doing the hours on the specific modality.

You need to start looking at the whole training week.

Not just:

How many kilometres did I run?

But:

How many total hours did I train?

What was the total training load?

What was the intensity?

What is the demand of the event?

And most importantly:

Can I absorb and recover from the work I'm doing?

If you're training for a 50 km ultra, your body doesn't only need to learn how to run 50 km.

It needs to learn how to keep working for several hours.

Your cardiovascular system needs to handle prolonged effort.

Your muscles need to continue producing force when they're tired.

You need to practise fuelling and hydration.

You need to learn pacing.

You need to manage fatigue.

And you need to recover well enough to do it all again.

That means the total amount of work you do during the week matters.

Think About Total Training Hours

Let's say an athlete has a week that looks something like this:

• 4 hours running

• 2 hours cycling

• 1 hour elliptical

• 1 hour swimming

• 1–2 hours strength and mobility

If we only look at running, we might say:

“I only trained for four hours.”

But that's not what happened.

The athlete completed 8–10 hours of total training.

The cardiovascular system doesn't simply erase the other four to six hours because they weren't running.

Those sessions contribute to:

• Aerobic development

• Muscular endurance

• Work capacity

• Fatigue resistance

• Recovery between efforts

• Overall training load

That is particularly important in ultra-distance training.

And it is even more obvious in multisport.

A triathlete doesn't look at their week and say:

“Well, only my running counts.”

They look at the total training picture.

Swimming + cycling + running + strength.

Because the event itself demands the ability to keep producing work for a long period of time.

But Here Comes The Important BUT...

Before someone reads this and thinks:

“Brilliant! I can stop running!”

No.

Absolutely not.

If you are training for a running ultra, you still need to run.

Specificity matters.

You need to expose your body to:

• Running impact

• Ground contact

• Running economy

• Foot and ankle loading

• Downhill running

• Climbing

• Running when fatigued

• The specific demands of your race

Non-impact training cannot completely prepare you for those things.

So the goal isn't:

Replace running with cycling.

The goal is:

Use cycling, swimming, elliptical and stair climbing intelligently alongside running.

That's a completely different approach.

Why I Love Non-Impact Training For Ultra Training

This is where I personally see enormous value.

When you're preparing for an ultra, you need volume.

But your body also needs recovery.

Let's say you've already done:

• A long run

• A speed session

• Another run

• Strength training

And your legs are telling you:

“Coach... maybe not another 90 minutes of pounding.”

That doesn't necessarily mean you have to sit on the couch.

You might be able to do an aerobic bike session.

Or an elliptical session.

Or swim.

Or use the stair climber.

You can continue developing your aerobic system without necessarily adding the same amount of running impact.

And that can help you accumulate more useful training hours.

Non-Impact Training Isn't The Easy Way Out

I really want to make this clear.

Non-impact training is not:

Cheating.

It's not:

Taking the easy option.

And it certainly isn't:

Not real training.

Try doing 45 minutes of hard intervals on an elliptical.

Or 60 minutes at a solid aerobic power on the bike.

Or 40 minutes of climbing stairs.

Then tell me it wasn't training. 😂

The difference is simply the type of stress you're placing on your body.

And as a coach, I want to use the right stress at the right time.

How I Track Different Types Of Training

I don't try to force every session into kilometres.

For running, I look at:

Distance + pace + HR + elevation + effort

For cycling:

Time + watts + % FTP + HR + effort

For stair climbing:

Time + level + flights + vertical metres + HR + effort

For elliptical:

Time + resistance + cadence + HR + effort

For swimming:

Time + distance + intervals + effort

And then I look at the whole week.

Because one session doesn't exist in isolation.

Your Tuesday session affects your Wednesday.

Your Wednesday affects Thursday.

Your long run affects the following week.

Your total training load affects your ability to recover.

Training is a system.

Not a collection of individual workouts.

So... Does Non-Impact Training Count?

YES.

It absolutely counts.

But it counts as what it actually is.

Cycling is cycling.

Swimming is swimming.

Elliptical is elliptical.

Stair climbing is stair climbing.

And running is running.

We don't need to pretend they're the same thing for one to be valuable.

That is the mistake.

You don't have to call a bike session “equivalent to 10 km running” to make it worthwhile.

It is worthwhile because it produced a useful training stimulus.

And This Is Where The Coach Comes In

Good coaching isn't about finding a magic conversion formula.

It's about understanding:

What are we training?

Why are we training it?

What does the athlete need?

What can they handle?

What do they need to recover from?

And:

What is the event asking them to do?

If you're training for a marathon, the programme needs running specificity.

If you're training for a 50 km ultra, we need to think about long-duration work, running specificity, fatigue resistance and total training load.

If you're training for a triathlon, we're looking at the combined demands of swimming, cycling and running.

And if you're training for a really long multisport event?

Then total training hours become incredibly important.

The question isn't just:

“How many kilometres did I do?”

It's:

“How much useful work did I accumulate, and can my body recover from it?”

Be Careful With Those “Running Equivalent” Equations

You'll see plenty of posts online telling you:

30 minutes cycling = X km running

or

60 minutes elliptical = X km running.

Be careful.

These equations can be useful as very rough motivational comparisons, but they aren't precise measurements of physiological training load.

There are simply too many variables.

Fitness.

Intensity.

Body weight.

Terrain.

Resistance.

Heart rate.

Power.

Experience.

Exercise economy.

Fatigue.

Training history.

And individual response.

So don't build your training programme around a random internet conversion chart.

Build it around purpose, intensity, duration, specificity and recovery.

So Yes... I Practise What I Preach

And this is probably the biggest reason I wanted to write this blog.

I don't believe in doing more just for the sake of doing more.

I believe in doing the right amount of the right type of training at the right time.

Sometimes that means running.

Sometimes it means cycling.

Sometimes it means getting on the elliptical.

Sometimes it means climbing stairs.

Sometimes it means swimming.

And sometimes it means doing absolutely nothing because recovery is the training you need that day.

Especially when you're preparing for ultra-distance and multisport events, don't get trapped in the mindset that only the kilometres on your watch count.

Look at the bigger picture.

Total hours matter.

Total training load matters.

Specificity matters.

Recovery matters.

And when you get those things working together, you can build an incredibly strong endurance athlete.

So the next time someone asks:

“But how many running kilometres is that worth?”

Maybe ask a better question:

“What was the purpose of the session, how much useful work did I do, and how does it fit into my total training week?”

Because sometimes the goal isn't to run MORE.

Sometimes the goal is to build the capacity to do more total work while still being able to recover and train consistently.

And that's where smart cross-training earns its place.

Less impact doesn't mean less training.

Sometimes it means more smart training.

And I'll take smart over more every single time.