Based upon your first reference, your $1 is in grave risk. One the other hand, maybe I owe you something
for the laughter this first reference provokes.
"<the 1978 study> examined the effects of either arm training
only, or leg training
only on the retention of training effects originally induced by leg exercise
(cycling)" <=Pure genius-level experiment design! They may as well have...
"examined the effects of playing chess
only, or leg training only on the retention of training effects originally induced by leg exercise (cycling)"
Perhaps unsurprisingly, their definition of cross-training is, uh, unorthodox: "cross-training (that is, training another body part from that which is used in the athletes primary activity or event)..." Can there be anyone else on Earth who uses that as a definition of cross-training?
The first reference then notes the conclusions of the 1993 study supporting "... the use of cross-training as an alternative to increasing performance", but opines
that it is difficult to draw that conclusion based upon that study's data (I agree). Yet your reference then asserts "... the principles of specificity of training are likely
to have greater significance" and "Both scientific evidence and anecdotal reports overwhelmingly indicate
that the best way... " but makes no attempt to present or cite such evidence.
Which brings up an important question. What is easier: (1) becoming an "elite" cyclist in Australia or (2) getting past peer-review at the Sports Science Institute of South Africa?
On to the next reference...
Some light reading for you. Relevant studies mentioned in the papers. Yet to see the study which has usurped the principal of specificity. Some have come close, but even then their gains are not immediately evident.http://www.sportsci.org/news/traingain/cross.htmlhttp://physiotherapy.curtin.edu.au/reso ... ncycle.cfmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741870