Originally Posted by
ZHVelo
I don't think bike training doesn't do this. I would like to know two things.
1) Strength training with no bike training can help, especially what I am talking about that your muscles catch up with your cardio if your cardio is better, and
2) that potentially strength training can do it better than bike training.
This latter is pure speculation on my part, would be interesting if experiments could determine this. And regarding 1), I wonder if, had I done gym instead of zero exercise for 6 weeks and then slowly starting cycling once I got my indoor trainer, that then I would already be a lot further than I am now.
I maintain that any fitness is better than no fitness. I don't think that's really an issue. When faced with anything versus nothing, I'd always choose something: strength training, running, swimming, anything. Just that general fitness is worth a lot. The blood plasma volume, the capillary density, lower body fat, stronger connective tissue, etc., etc.
And if you're talking about a low enough performance level, it really and truly just doesn't matter. There are simply too many other variables that come into play that affect mediocre performances (either general or specific to an individual). When you talk about higher levels of performance, however, cost-benefit has to be carefully weighed.
For 2, I think experiments have determined this. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of elite cyclists over the last 100 years were the experiment. Again, the higher levels of performance necessitate maximum efficiency and effectiveness.