Ok guys,
Once again, Andy has provided a rather convincing argument against weight training. The things Andy has touched upon by reference and quote, are good basic observations. But, this also where there's much confusion and misinformation on the science & practice of strength training.
First off gents, we are talking about weight training solely for the maximum performance of athletics. (In this particular case, cycling.) Not, I repeat, not to be confused with bodybuilding or body sculpting. The athletes we are talking of, ARE not the guys & girls you see in Muscle & Fitness or some other mass media publications.
The science of strength training is much more then how big can I get, or good I look. What we as cyclists and athletes want to accomplish is the ability to turn a 100+ in gear at over 120 RPM's, or to jump over a bar at 7 + feet in the air, or to run the 100m in under 10s. In other words to be in the 100th percentile in our chosen sport.
Scientific strength training is a means to that end.
Let me be specific, or give some examples. The prime ideas of doing weight training are to, one: maximize your ability to recruit all available muscle fibers for work, i.e., explosive power or starting strength. Two: inhibiting the neurological response of the Golgi tendon organs to work, i.e., max strength or limit strength. Three: the increased ability to perform work at higher or longer levels, i.e., power or strength endurance. There are other types or ways that strength training can be used & incorporated into an overall training program, but those touch on just a few.
The main goal in strength training with weights is just the same as it is with riding a bike. First and foremost is neurological training. Training your body to use and recruit motor units asymmetrically for endurance and efficiency, as you sit in the field or in a paceline. Then to fully and symmetrically recruit all muscle fibers for the last burst to the line at 40+ mph.
To do this doesn't require big muscles, it requires a fully trained cardiovascular systems and neuromuscular development, which weight training can help you accomplish. A couple points to touch on, in the quote Andy put up on the "non differences" of free weights vs. machines. The magazine that you're quoting from is a "industry mag" for gym owners. The main point of magazine itself is to promote your basic gym needs & equipment.
The article itself is kind of interesting and makes some points in very simple way. But I would refer you to publications and articles from places like ACSM (American College of Sport Medicine) or NSCA (National Strength Coach Association) and see what they have to say about the "non differences" of free weight vs. machines. They'll get quite bit more in detail and have something much different to say…
See you must remember, specificity is extremely important. But also remember the old adage, " a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link". That's why you need to have a good basic or core of not just strength, but overall fitness.
So many good cyclists out there are dealing with injuries do to weak stomach muscle, leg strength imbalances, and tight hamstring & lower backs. Which can't be fixed, by "just riding your bike". THE KEY to good overall performance, is good overall fitness!
To use one other sport, all most solely effected by conditioning is swimming. If you do your research you'll find out that from the 1960 Olympic Games to present, the overall VO2's of swimmers has not increased. But, the times over the years are dropping quite dramatically. Now those of us in the know, would think the specter of drugs may have something to do with this. But even drugs can't account for the size of drops in times. I would suggest (being a former swimmer, and all) that increased dry land training, (weights) have played a huge factor in the drops in time overall.
So, without turning this into a much longer post then it needs to be, I hope that this gives some of you some idea on how you might spice up your training.
