Originally Posted by hhnngg1

It's not even a matter of time limitations.

After a low level of performance, the x-over from other sports to cycling is very small. At moderate levels and above, it's pretty near negligible. Running perhaps has the best xover based upon most triathlete experience but even there, once you're a moderately decent cyclist (not even road racing level), the x-over drops off steeply, and once you're better than that, there's pretty much near no x-over.

You can weightlift all you want, and even if you have enough time to train as hard as you can on the bike, your performance will be pretty much 100% dictated by your cycling training.

If you want to become a faster and stronger cyclist, you gotta bike. All the other stuff is other stuff. Strength training is good for quality of life issues, run training is good for running, but don't fool yourself - you wanna get better on the bike, gotta bike.

You can cite all the pubmed articles you want or make as many false rationalizations as you want - there's a reason why good riders spend so much time in the saddle and so little time on anything else (particularly weightlifting.)

Core strength is also a friggin' joke for cycling (it's great for other things.) You do NOT need core strenght on the bike. What a bunch of bull this one is - if core strength training comes out of your mouth in making yourself a better cyclist, you have no clue what it takes to get better on the bike and your results will show it. Even that dreaded back pain from long rides has zero to do with core strength (you aren't stiffening any muscles for that position and certainly aren't using strength to maintain it) and everything to do with just acclimating to that position for long periods of time.