How to get stronger over winter... I'm fit but weak!
Comments
-
I agree core work may benefit some people but purely in terms of performance it isn't necessarily going to help. I knew a physio who reckoned flexibility was a far greater issue with injuries than weak core muscles - and flexibility has the added benefit of helping get aero. If you want to spend a limited amount of time training I think good old fashioned stretching is probably the first thing to do apart from actually riding the bike.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Please reread the thread.
First in my case, my back slowed me down quicker than my legs. Assumptions here are around bike fit (not the case) and imbalance (was the case). Did I see a physio in my case - yes. How long did I train on the bike for before core training and still got back pain - many years. Did I resolve the back pain with core training on advice of physio - yes I did. Great improvements in TT times and managed to start entering sportives.
I also said originally that gym work wasn't the best thing to do to ride a bike and agreed with Alex regarding all the power you need can be trained on the bike - exceopt core strength if it is a specific weakness. There are studies the support this and like everything in sport science there will be studies that support not doing it.
People stating that they got faster without core work, whether that is Alex or the other posters doesn't actually contradict what I stated back in the day.It actually supports it.
I did say that if the OP thinks core is a weakness. If they don't then great of they do, they could go to a physio, or they could supplement their on bike training with core work - for free :shock:
If you can walk around for 4 hours then your core is storong enough ?! In marathon runners,I would assume they can walk around for 3 hours, however, it is very frequent that their core is the first to give out which in this case is visibly evident based on their posture towards the end of the run - this is not as evident on a bike but may be just as common if people didn't write it off so quickly.0 -
An interesting article from the Washington Post...
"We hear a lot from cyclists who wonder why they experience pain--typically in their knees and/or back--during long bike rides. For some, the answer is simple: "Sit on the seat," we say, "not the handlebars."
For others, the solution might require a little more work. Assuming you've already confirmed that your bike fits properly (poor bike fit can contribute to back and knee pain, as we've discussed in the May 24 column, "Before Riding, Match Your Bike to Your Body"), you might take a lesson from a study presented at the American College of Sports Medicine's annual conference in early June. That research shows that core strength--that is, strength of the abdominal, oblique and back muscles--is key for cyclists who want to pedal strong for long distances.
The study examined 15 competitive cyclists ages 23 to 45 who completed a series of cycling exercises at a University of Pittsburgh research facility, then returned a week later for a regimen of core-fatiguing exercises followed by another cycling workout. The results: Core fatigue resulted in altered cycling mechanics -- namely, adjustments in knee and ankle position -- as the participants tried to maintain pedal force.
Those adjustments, which recreational and competitive cyclists make automatically in response to core fatigue, could be at the root of many riders' complaints, said John Abt, the study's lead researcher and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Sports Medicine. "If you are continually fatigued or weak, you are setting yourself up for the potential for injury."
Abt said his findings apply to recreational cyclists--especially weekend warriors, "people who ride 20 or 30 minutes on an exercise cycle a couple days a week [and] then go out on a Saturday and try to go for four hours with their friends."
The core is the powerhouse for all of your extremities, Abt explained, and cyclists with weak or tired cores tend to "flap their legs," introducing a sideways, semicircular motion instead of the more efficient up-and-down motion. "This results in abnormal tracking of the patella on the femur," Abt said. Over time, that could cause knee injury.
Back pain occurs usually after significant distance -- precisely how long depends on the rider's conditioning -- when the core is too exhausted to power the legs and keep the rest of the body in proper alignment.
To be SCIENTIFICALLY precise. I don't think this study can be relied upon to inform the debate.
1) No control group.
2) Insufficient numbers to be extrapolated to the wider cycling population.
3) It didnt assess an important performance measure (velocity/power output).
It raises an interesting hypothesis regarding fatigue and knee / back pain but nothing more.
The 'core' revolution has been happening for a while in sports rehab and transposed to athletic performance.
The only PROVEN benefit so far has been in a specially selected group of non-athletes with LBP (spodylolsthesis) and women suffering with post-partum pelvic girdle pain. These "sub-groups" of people in pain represent one end of a scale with an obvious stability deficit and thus respond well to 'core' work. So far the evidence for other populations in pain (normal LBP) has not been as encouraging (One hypothetical explanation is that these other groups do not have such a stability deficit in the first place and therefore do not respond as well to the exercises).
To my knowledge no-one has ever scientifically PROVEN the athletic performance benefits of core work.
Thats not to say that it might not have a protective effect, prophalactically, for LBP or even knee pain, as this study suggests. But it is not proven.
It MAY also assist athletic performance, but Ive not seen any rigorous evidence of this.
I have seen rigorous evidence for FTP training effectiveness and the specificity principle being supported by evidence.
The problem with all scientific research is that it regresses results to the mean (i.e. lots of subjects and compare the means of two groups). Athletes (especially top class ones) are freaks of nature who do not conform to these means.
Bottom line: if you are an "average joe": look for research involving people like you (anateur cyclists) because it applies to you best. If you have a specific injury proven to be helped my core work: it is definitely the best option for you. If you are an top class athlete: go with what YOU feel works for YOU. The rest of us are all guessing too.
If you want to hear a argument against 'core' work have a look at this:
http://healthskills.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/the-myth-of-core-stability/
http://healthskills.wordpress.com/2009/ ... ty-part-2/
(it is a commentary deliberately designed to spark critique of the core stability literature, but it is just another persons OPINION as well!)
References:
O'Sullivan PB, Twomey LT and Allison GT (1997) Evaluation of Specific Stabilizing Exercise in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain With Radiologic Diagnosis of Spondylolysis or Spondylolisthesis. Spine, Volume 22(24). December 15, 1997.2959-2967
Abstract
Study Design. A randomized, controlled trial, test-retest design, with a 3-, 6-, and 30-month postal questionnaire follow-up.
Objective. To determine the efficacy of a specific exercise intervention in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain
and a radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis.
Summary of Background Data. A recent focus in the physiotherapy management of patients with back pain has been the specific training of muscles surrounding the spine (deep abdominal muscles and lumbar multifidus), considered to provide dynamic stability and fine control to the lumbar spine. In no study have researchers evaluated the efficacy of this intervention in a population with chronic low back pain where the anatomic stability of the spine was compromised.
Methods. Forty-four patients with this condition were assigned randomly to two treatment groups. The first group underwent a 10-week specific exercise treatment program involving the specific training of the deep abdominal muscles, with co-activation of the lumbar multifidus proximal to the pars defects. The activation of these muscles was incorporated into previously aggravating static postures and functional tasks. The control group underwent treatment as directed by their treating practitioner.
Results. After intervention, the specific exercise group showed a statistically significant reduction in pain intensity and functional disability levels, which was maintained at a 30-month follow-up. The control group showed no significant change in these parameters after intervention or at follow-up.
Summary. A "specific exercise" treatment approach appears more effective than other commonly prescribed conservative treatment programs in patients with chronically symptomatic spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis.
Stuge et al. The efficacy of a treatment program focusing on specific stabilizing exercises for pelvic girdle pain after pregnancy. A randomized controlled trial. Spine 2004a;29(10):351–9)Ca roule ma poule?0 -
A guy at school once said: 'I don't need to brush my teeth. They've survived 15 years, so why brush them?' He said he could find no evidence to support brushing.
I saw him a few weeks ago and he had a couple of stumps at the front of his mouth, nothing more.0 -
Just realised of you google: "the myth of core stability" you can get a word file of the complete critique of core stability literature by Prof Earl lederman, and also a powerpoint presentation of his lecture.
Enjoy.Ca roule ma poule?0 -
lol Ha, Ha!
So what we SCARE everyone into doing core exercises JUST IN CASE that might get back pain?
The evidence for tooth decay and its prevention by good dental hygiene is pretty solid (or so I assume!?!).
The suggestion that we will all get LBP if we dont do core work is utter tosh!Ca roule ma poule?0 -
The symptoms on which Alex commented are actually similar to those which I had. 3 different courses of physio and 2 basic bike fittings never sorted me. I was given 1/2 hours worth of physio to do including core exercises. Did it make a difference? No, not in the slightest. Indeed during the last session of physio I went for I was left with worse injuries than I presented with to start with. So bad indeed that I went from being able to do my commute several times a week to not being able to turn a pedal at all.
What sorted me - a hugely costly bike fitting in London. I came back and I was immediately able to increase my amount of cycling I could do and have now done far more miles in the last 6 months than I had done in the previous year. I would get to about 50-60 miles and then start to injure in the past.
Best of all I can confirm it was definitely bike fit because the bike that I didn't get it done on I have been using for the last few weeks and this week I have started to suffer like a dog again. My shoulders, triceps, mid back, right back of knee and left front of knee and I was only on the bike for 16 miles. That's what I get for not spending the time setting it up as per my other bike.
So the question is surely that when someone presents with aches and pains where do you start. Well for me it has to be with the bike fit because even if you have the most fantastic body in the world the fact is that the bike still does not fit properly then you are probably going to suffer at some stage. In contrast by strengthening your body in response to aches you may actually just be masking fit problems and therefore are only treating the symptoms and not the cause. Not saying that is the case for you mackdaddy it is just another experience to put out there.0 -
goldsmith_robert wrote:
The suggestion that we will all get LBP if we dont do core work is utter tosh!
Who said that?
To add to the debate anyone would think that all cyclists do is ride a bike.0 -
Sorry Jcaster, I thought that it what you meant by your toothpaste analogy!
I work as a physio and get quite amused by how many athletes I see assume that "fixing their core" will be the holy grail to a pain-free, optimal performance. It does work, but only for a select few. The problem we have is identifying who will respond to 'core' work and who will not. There have been some attempts at developing clinical prediction rules (signs to spot 'responders') but they are a bit rubbish at the moment. One day we will be able to accurately predict response to treatment and therefore provide a bespoke rehab for people with confidence, but not currently im afraid.
Until then its either trial and error or guesswork!
Good luck!Ca roule ma poule?0 -
You did, maybe not directly, but certainly inferred with statements like the following:jacster wrote:
Who said that?goldsmith_robert wrote:The suggestion that we will all get LBP if we dont do core work is utter tosh!
To add to the debate anyone would think that all cyclists do is ride a bike.
Which is a classic "let's create an imaginary problem to solve" scenario.jacster wrote:Neglect core work at your peril.0 -
Somewhat better than a coach telling folk they're being DUMB!
That's really constructive. :roll:
Let's face it each coach has their own methods. Some work, some don't.
If you have included off-bike core and strength work into your regime and have found results one way or the other fair enough.
I've looked at the advice of many eminent coaches, along with my own experience, to decide that core work is beneficial to cycling, along with everything else one does in life.
As mentioned, anyone would think that all cyclists do is ride a bike.
I think it was Mike Kolin who said : Too many cyclists just ride a bike.
People who knock down the principle of off-bike core and strength work without undertaking a programme for themselves are not really worth listening to.0 -
The only difference in my opinion and yours is that I wouldn't prioritise core work as much as perhaps you do Jcaster.
If an athlete had problems with LBP and this was affecting performance then core work is one of many options to look at. Even then I is unlikely to be the 1st one I would look at.
In the scenario of a pain-free athlete looking for performance gains, I think the evidence is stronger for looking at optimising training programmes and biomechanics than for the effectivness of adding in off-bike core work. It MAY be worthwhile, especially if you can observe a biomechanical / positional change on the bike that happens during high loads or fatigue. Even then I would be inclined to look at improving the athletes ability to cope with fatigue through training adjustments alongside core work. Core work is time consuming, in my experience, and I need a good reason to spend this time on an unproven approach.
Just my opinion and Im guessing like everyone else.Ca roule ma poule?0 -
I believe the principles of building a stronger body through off-bike core and strength work are sound, as do many eminent coaches.
I've been particularly interested by the work Pedro Gonzales has carried out with Cavendish et al at Colombia HTC.
His opinions, which include that such work can be beneficial to amateurs, are certainly worth reading.
The argument that core work is time consuming is not accurate, in my experience.0 -
Jcaster,
Opinions are interesting but I don't rate them as highly as published evidence.
I'm interested in your quicker version of a 'core' workout - are you willing to share what you do?
Also do you have any references (scientific or otherwise) for the work by HTC / Pedro Gonzales?
Ps. These q's are genuine- im not looking to catch you out here!Ca roule ma poule?0 -
I have a hard copy of Pedro's work and opinions on core and strength regimes. I'll try and bash it out later.
Opinions are interesting - and in my view weight of opinion carries weight!
I'm more than happy to share my regime.
However I would also be interested to hear of your experiences of core work - and your time consuming regime...0 -
you have mail.Ca roule ma poule?0
-
Evidence is much better than pseudoscience or opinions.jacster wrote:I have a hard copy of Pedro's work and opinions on core and strength regimes. I'll try and bash it out later.
Opinions are interesting - and in my view weight of opinion carries weight!0 -
Doesn't all scientific research start with hypothesized opinion?0
-
It's incredible how most at the top of the sport listen to opinions then.0
-
I have never called anyone dumb. Certainly not here.jacster wrote:Somewhat better than a coach telling folk they're being DUMB!
That's really constructive. :roll:
In this thread, I referred to an expectation to not hurt after a hard 4 hour ride when you are untrained (for such riding) as being dumb (as such a scenario was referred to by that newspaper refereance you mentioned).
But I have not accused anyone here of being dumb.
Well people can make their own judgement as to who is worth listening to.jacster wrote:People who knock down the principle of off-bike core and strength work without undertaking a programme for themselves are not really worth listening to.
I base my coaching on scientific and evidence based principles and professionalism.
You on the other hand seem to be from the belief based coaching school. I don't know that of course, it just appears that way.
There is quite a difference:
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/thermo/thermo.htm
Now of course science is never complete but there are sound principles upon which to base matters of judgement where the science is equivocal or lacking to some degree.
There simply has been no science presented or evidence to support what you claim.
Hence, I may be wrong on occasions but by basing my coaching on these principles, I'll be wrong far less often than a belief based coach will.0 -
It's the end that matters though. Anecdotes can also be a catalyst for research, but they are, per se, not evidence.mackdaddy wrote:Doesn't all scientific research start with hypothesized opinion?0 -
You have evidence of that?jacster wrote:It's incredible how most at the top of the sport listen to opinions then.
(that's a joke by the way)
Of course people listen to opinion. They are fun, entertaining, interesting, and can be revealing (mostly about the person rather than the topic). But they are opinion, that's all.0 -
jacster wrote:Somewhat better than a coach telling folk they're being DUMB!
That's really constructive. :roll:
Let's face it each coach has their own methods. Some work, some don't.
If you have included off-bike core and strength work into your regime and have found results one way or the other fair enough.
I've looked at the advice of many eminent coaches, along with my own experience, to decide that core work is beneficial to cycling, along with everything else one does in life.
As mentioned, anyone would think that all cyclists do is ride a bike.
I think it was Mike Kolin who said : Too many cyclists just ride a bike.
People who knock down the principle of off-bike core and strength work without undertaking a programme for themselves are not really worth listening to.
You have to look at the performance limiters of the sport and where the priorities of training should be. I train both a cyclist and a tennis player which as you can imagine require significantly different training regimes regarding core. I can't really see why a cyclist should do a great deal of core training anymore than the general public should. If you train someone for performance then that should be the focus of every training session. 10-20mins of different core exercises should be enough IMO.0 -
NJK wrote: 10-20mins of different core exercises should be enough IMO.
I agree with you. A few minutes spent on core exercises can make a big difference, in my experience.0 -
The best coaches, in my book, are those willing to embrace new ideas, having tried them themselves.
In the quest for excellence you simply cannot rely solely on scientific "evidence", much of which is either out-dated or inexact. IMO.0 -
Core work is a new idea? You are kidding me right?jacster wrote:The best coaches, in my book, are those willing to embrace new ideas, having tried them themselves.
In the quest for excellence you simply cannot rely solely on scientific "evidence", much of which is either out-dated or inexact. IMO.
If all this core stuff is so phenomenal for enhancing threshold/TT power (which is the primary physiological determinant of success in endurance cycling), then why isn't there a body of evidence to support the assertion?
Is there a body of evidence that it reduces the incidence of lower back pain in athletes?
I was unaware that data had a use by date.
I certainly do embrace new ideas, and I try things for myself where it makes sense to. Suggesting I don't is ill informed speculation. But I also make sensible judgements based on the available evidence and sound principles of exercise physiology.
For example, one relatively new* idea I have embraced (even though it's efficacy is yet to be proven scientifically) is the Performance Manager (an impulse response model of training which uses power meter data). I can assure that this is one cool aid worth drinking and an effective understanding and use of the PM will have a direct impact on endurance cycling performance. But then it is based on sound principles to start with.
* not new in terms of conceptual, but certainly new in terms of the use of power meter data as the only direct input
and how new was I to use it? Well I was a beta tester for it. That might give you some clue about willingness to embrace new ideas.0 -
Just to add some other points.
I went for a 4 hour ride on my road bike the other day, no back pain at all (very used to the position). I did a cyclocross race on my MTB 3 days later, and was suffering back pain from about 30 mins, now the only difference is that I don't usually race/ride on my MTB, so the position is one I am not used to.
Now would core work have helped with this, and if so what exact core work would need to be done, as on my road bike I am totally pain free.
Could it be that as my body was being worked extremely hard in a not normal position, my back muscles were working alot harder than normal, and that given time they will respond and build up where they are needed. Likewise, my legs hurt alot more than normal, again just from the change of position, do I need to do leg work to help here as well.0 -
SBezza,
Thought you didn't need any core work?
"don't need core work, my core is perfectly fine ., and to be honest most peoples core is probably perfectly fine as well. My legs hurt after hard riding not my core."0 -
He doesn't. He just needs to:jacster wrote:SBezza,
Thought you didn't need any core work?
"don't need core work, my core is perfectly fine ., and to be honest most peoples core is probably perfectly fine as well. My legs hurt after hard riding not my core."
i. make sure the other bike is properly fitted for him
ii. ride it more to ensure necessary adaptations occur
Same with TT bikes - you have to ride them to an adapt to the new position.0
