Intuitively, the idea that a given amount of time at a given HR should equally improve cardiovascular fitness/aerobic base, regardless of the activity, seems to make sense. But this discussion makes it all the more clear that cardiovascular fitness/aerobic base is *not* just based on conditioning the heart as a muscle (analogous to doing bicep curls!). I love swimming, and it is wonderful exercise but, unless you need to lose bodyfat or are are a completely unconditioned non-athlete, watch how little this helps running, even if you do it at a high HR. (Makes me think of my old masters group, in which many male swimmers in the fast lane were incredibly fast, yet many had big bellies and could hardly run at all.) As others have posted, there are many physiological adaptations to training that contribute to running aerobic base, and all cross fitness activities are not "equal" in contributing to it. Cross-country skiing is an example of one that translates very well (see Ingrid Kristiansen's training); cycling some, but less so; and swimming hardly at all. Interestingly, it is not even equal in both directions - I remember there were studies that found that cycling (and especially doing running-like standing sprint intervals on the bike) translated pretty well to running fitness, but running translated *much* less to cycling fitness. As others have pointed out, none of the alternatives to running will be as time efficient for you. If you must cross-train in order to reduce risk of running injuries, and although much less time-efficient, cycling indoors on a trainer, elliptical machine, water running, cross country skiing or crosscountry ski machine, and perhaps even high volume of fast walking (especially up hills) could help some to supplement the running. But prioritize running as much as you can w/out getting injured.