How to get stronger over winter... I'm fit but weak!
Comments
-
As Alex has said, I am perfectly fine on the 2 bikes I spend 95% of the time on. Get on a different type of bike, and in a completely different position, and ride it at racing speed and yes I suffered some back pain. The riding 20 miles there and back on the same bike was fine.
If you do something with your body, that your body is not used to, it will complain and cause pain, like Alex has said no doubt after a few races there will be no pain, as adaptions will have taken place. I am not sure what sort of core work would have simulated riding a MTB at racing pace for a hour, if you can advise me accordingly of the exact core work that would stop this happening I will listen. But I doubt you or anyone else would be able to say what exact core work was needed, unless I was looked at by a phsyio at the time the pain was there. As soon as I stopped racing the pain went.0 -
If what Alex says is correct then you should be fine:
If you can stand up and walk around for longer than you intend to ride, then your core is strong enough to last on a bike.0 -
Do you think this is Jacster at home?
0 -
andyp,
That is scary. That's exactly what the wife says! 0 -
jacster wrote:If what Alex says is correct then you should be fine:
If you can stand up and walk around for longer than you intend to ride, then your core is strong enough to last on a bike.
Mine is strong enough, I didn't collapse in a heap unable to walk. I was using my back/core in a way isn't used to, and any muscle used in that way will hurt. I don't think doing static core work in a gym would have helped, as there is nothing I can think of that simulates 1 hour hard racing on a MTB, other than racing
Anyhow this doesn't really help the OP, I think specific bike work is the best way to increase performance, not gym work. That is is what has worked for me, and think it would help the majority of riders IMO.0 -
To the original poster, just ride your bike. Strangely enough you might find that this works.0
-
Adding some personal experience here:
I've started at uni recently and i'm recieving support from them with regards to my cycling as I've shown (some!) decent potential in testing etc. I went for a screening which analyzed my pedal stroke/flexibility/strength. I thought (and have recieved comments) that I have a very smooth pedalling style even in the big gears, and that my upper body remains static. After having a strength and conditioning coach analyze me, I'm not as good as I thought. My core is relatively weak, i'm not very flexible and my left leg is noticably stronger that my right. My right leg also doesn't track quite as well (slight wobble as opposed to my left leg which is spot on). My ankle flexibility is also crap which means my toes point down slightly when pedalling. My balance is also rubbish.
The coach has prescribed a few simple stretches and balancing exercises and says they're all typical cyclist problems and can be rectified within a few weeks.
I'm not wanting to get into an argument here (probably out of my depth at the moment anyway!), but if each one of the areas I have problems with can be sorted out, I should (and the coach claims I will) see benefits on the bike. I'm of the opinion that such exercises aren't going to turn me into an amazing bike rider overnight, but as part of an overall training regime I can understand the reasoning behind them."A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
Alex - you really aren't going to like this months C+
Cue a string of letters to the editor! :twisted:0 -
mackdaddy wrote:Alex - you really aren't going to like this months C+
Cue a string of letters to the editor! :twisted:
See here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 814642.ece
What's this article all about? Bike Fitting. And who is again being quoted (in very similar words that are used in the CP+ article)? - Dr Michael Lanning. (We'll forget the bit where chiropractor's still do not have the whole hearted support of other heatlhcare disciplines).
The thing I found most interesting about the CP+ article is that the conclusion seems to be that a proper bike fitting and some stretches (there are 2 which are not listed as stretches out of 6 exercises) would seem to be the solution to the problems presented in the research for most people.
I think any cyclist would be wise to follow those recommendations as the bike fit has to be paramount and I think there isn't really any dispute over stretching being a very useful post exercise routine.
Will there be people who don't conform to the norms? Well of course there will but that's a bit different from saying that most people would benefit from doing x, y or z in the gym.0 -
There was a recent article in CW recently about "beating the ageing process". The argument seems to be that as you grow older you tend to lose fast twitch muscle fibres and that weight training can counteract this loss.
It quotes Malcolm Elliott as an example of someone who would rather miss a road ride than weight work on his legs as someone who has preserved his fast twitch muscles and can outsprint most.
There is a caveat that states there is strong evidence that heavy lifting does not improve cycling performance because the limiter in cycling strength is getting oxygen to the working muscles. But it does however recommend working with weights for preserving fast twitch muscles.
There is certainly a lot of varied opinions out there and a lot of recommendations for gym work which make it difficult fo decide whether it is worth it or not.0 -
Why? I don't see/get C+mackdaddy wrote:Alex - you really aren't going to like this months C+
Cue a string of letters to the editor! :twisted:
It's a UK publication isn't it?0 -
It's something about back pain and there's pictures of some sheila in various contorted positions with and without a space hopper. It's bound to end up on here as a web article in a week or three.
I slipped a L4-L5 disc about 12 years ago. Now I find the more I cycle the more comfortable my back is. I also try to swim two lunchtimes a week so I don't end up looking like Rasmussen.0 -
Yes, will be interesting to see what Alex Simmons has to say about the article.
I suspect the various experts quoted won't have carried out sufficient scientific research for him.
:roll:0 -
keef66 wrote:It's something about back pain and there's pictures of some sheila in various contorted positions with and without a space hopper. It's bound to end up on here as a web article in a week or three.
I slipped a L4-L5 disc about 12 years ago. Now I find the more I cycle the more comfortable my back is. I also try to swim two lunchtimes a week so I don't end up looking like Rasmussen.
I reckon if they'd replaced the spacehopper with a bike then Alex would have been happy as then it might have fallen into the on-bike only remit!
If you had a steel framed bike and used that for weight training would that count as well?0 -
track standing and trials riding is great for core stability.0
-
Well hard to say since I can't see the item in question.jacster wrote:Yes, will be interesting to see what Alex Simmons has to say about the article.
I suspect the various experts quoted won't have carried out sufficient scientific research for him.
:roll:
But if claims are being made that aren't supported by a body of evidence, then one has to remain sceptical.
One thought for people to ponder. Muscular strength and muscular endurance are not related. So why do people suddenly think this applies in the case of core musculature?0 -
Apparently this is the research paper:
Wilber CA, Holland GJ, Madison RE, Loy SF. An epidemiological analysis of overuse injuries among recreational cyclists. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 1995 Apr;16(3):201-6.
Trust you have all read it?
Some seem to be confusing the remarks being made by Dr Lanning as conclusions made in the research. There is no such link stated in the article therefore it would be foolish to assume such a link 0 -
doyler78 wrote:Apparently this is the research paper:
Wilber CA, Holland GJ, Madison RE, Loy SF. An epidemiological analysis of overuse injuries among recreational cyclists. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 1995 Apr;16(3):201-6.
Trust you have all read it?
Some seem to be confusing the remarks being made by Dr Lanning as conclusions made in the research. There is no such link stated in the article therefore it would be foolish to assume such a link
No idea what that means. What I know is that if there is just one exception to a rule, then there may be a second. Is there a scientific body of evidence to prove that core training does not improve cycling performance.
The problem as I see it is that we know so little about the human body and mind that it is impossible to prove that what is true for one set of individuals is not true for one particular individual. Developments happen when someone breaks the barriers causing everyone to reassess their methods. Who would have thought 10 years ago that English soccer players would be using nutritionists?! (They will eventually catch up with other sports in many aspects )
Horror of horrors, once we have reached a plateau, the next step may be a stronger core. Maybe it isn't yet for the general peloton, or maybe it just is done but isn't really regarded as important. Maybe it isn't important physically but is psychologically.
My point is we don't know - but as I have said many times, there is logical points in Lannings quotes that suggest energy is lost through a weak core (regardless of the conclusions drawn) and if someone is limited by weakness there, then it will benefit by strengthening exercises as a supplement to cycing training. Once we break the 4 minute mile, we might all need to review our training methods.
ps there is much more in the article than pure bike fitting doyler78. Maybe you need to reread it. I've never suggested that correct bike fit isn't important. Only that it is not the only cause of back pain as some are suggesting.0 -
Sorry if that was confusing. I'll explain further. Nowhere in the article does it state what the conclusions, recommendations, etc of the research were. It merely states that lots of recreational cyclists suffer pain/injury of some sort. I would say that is not surprising as I would say most have never had a proper bike fitting therefore it is not surprising that they suffer. However some seem to confuse Dr Lanning's remarks with the actual research even though no such link is explicitily made in the article. So what I was saying was that if you link Dr Lanning's remarks to the initial research you are making a big assumption which may or may not be bourne in fact.
Furthemore above I linked to the Times article simply because Dr Lanning was again used as an expert and the same research was again mentioned in that article. That article was all about bike fitting. So clearly bike fitting is thought to be the most important aspect in minimising rider pain/injury.
Now back to the CP+ article, which I have now reread, and the first thing that the experts say is to check your bike setup so again clearly the message that I take from this is that bike setup is of primary concern. For the rest then they may need to look at other options through physio. However nowhere does it quantify the number of people where bike fitting has definitely been ruled out as a cause.
That is entirely consistent with what I said above:The thing I found most interesting about the CP+ article is that the conclusion seems to be that a proper bike fitting and some stretches (there are 2 which are not listed as stretches out of 6 exercises) would seem to be the solution to the problems presented in the research for most people.
As you can see I said for most people and I believe that the majority of problems are probably due to bike setup issues. That is nothing more than my belief however everything I ever see regarding pains, aches, injuries, etc are usually resolved when the person gets a good bike fitting done. A trawl of this forum will confirm that.
I never said that you don't think bike fitting is important however there are those in this thread that have sought to suggest that riders must do off the bike weight or core training in order to maximise their potential. They leap on the words of Dr Lanning who says that off the bike work is essential however he doesn't say that the research supports this therefore again you have those that jump on his word and then call it research. I'm merely pointing out that the article is nowhere near as clear as some would like us all to believe.
Of course science doesn't know everything however there is a clear difference between reserach into new areas of thinking and evidence to support it to the satisfaction of your peers. There will always be a gap between initial formation of an idea for research and its widespread acceptance. That's a good thing really as otherwise if we accept initial research without question or caution then things would become very, very confusing. Just look at the whole area of nutritional research and you will see just how contradictory many aspects of the research findings are however that is what research is for. It provides a platform for debate and further research however to believe in it unquestioningly is folly.0 -
No-one is jumping on Dr Lanning's words and calling it research. You seem to be drawing your own conclusions doyler78 of what other posters MAY think.
What I would say, though, is Dr Lanning is far from alone in his thinking/opinions. Talk to all the top cyclists and their trainers and they will tell you likewise.
As I mentioned in an earlier post..anyone would think that riding a bike is all cyclists do. To ignore that is, IMO, folly. We were not built to ride bikes..and if you ignore corrective exercises to improve posture, core strength etc..you will, IME, suffer problems.0 -
He we are, back to inventing problems again.jacster wrote:We were not built to ride bikes..and if you ignore corrective exercises to improve posture, core strength etc..you will, IME, suffer problems.0 -
I've been riding bikes of various kinds since I was 7 or 8 years old, and never had a bike fit till last year. I'm now 52, I don't do corrective exercises to improve posture, core strength etc. and I still don't have any problems.
Am I doing something wrong? 0 -
keef66 wrote:I've been riding bikes of various kinds since I was 7 or 8 years old, and never had a bike fit till last year. I'm now 52, I don't do corrective exercises to improve posture, core strength etc. and I still don't have any problems.
Am I doing something wrong?
According to the study quoted in C+ you're certainly in the minority.
44-45 years of riding and not a niggle. Incredible.0 -
I've had a problem with a slipped disc for the past few years. The osteopath treated the spasms with manipulation and then told me I needed to strengthen the other core muscles in order to take strain from the back. I used to have strong legs and stomach but a sedentary desk job and too little exercise has left them weak. As well as the various typical 'core' exercises you would expect he suggested using a bike as that strengthens most of the muscle groups in question.
If you read the OP the question is about strengthening the core to improve cycling strength. No-one, despite the hysteria aimed at Alex, has said that core exercises aren't a good thing in a general health and fitness point of view or worth doing as an extra if you are lucky enough to have the time. All Alex has said is that to improve core strength for cycling specifically then riding the bike more and, specifically, working on explosive efforts such as sprints, steep hills etc. is the most effective way of doing this. I am second guessing his opinion but I suspect he would agree that gym core work is better than nothing but that riding the bike is better than gym core work. If you can manage the gym as an extra on rest days of the bike all well and good.0 -
Everyone will make decisions on their regime based on experience/opinions/advice/scientific studies etc etc..
It's blatantly obvious I am in favour of core work. That is based on my own personal experiences, those of people I ride with, physios I know and the majority of 'top' trainers and cyclists.
I would just like to point out, though, that I have no interest in plugging any particular workout or training plan.
Alex Simmons, on the other hand, links to training plans (which cost money) every time he posts.
He links to plans which make no mention of core work.
In fact Ric Stern, the coach he links to, argues vehemently in favour of 'ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike'.
I just wish other coaches would come onto this forum and give their advice. And perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to link to ££ training plans every time they post.0 -
Then be quiet for 5 minutes and let some more people get a word in edgeways!jacster wrote:I would just like to point out, though, that I have no interest in plugging any particular workout or training plan.
And this, I think, is unfair. Whatever your disagreement about what type of training you should/shouldn't do, Alex has posted lots of useful stuff on this forum (well I found it useful) and has has also been upfront about what he does and how he makes his money. If you don't want to pay him, fine, don't click on his links.jacster wrote:I just wish other coaches would come onto this forum and give their advice. And perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to link to ££ training plans every time they post.
My 2p worth? About 6 pages ago Alex said something like "I am not against core work, I just think with a limited time to train if you want to ride your bike faster you should concentrate on the bike". (sorry for para-phrasing...) I'm pretty sure I agree, but then I am no sort of coach at all
0 -
My point is that he is quite happy to shoot down other posters...but we must remember he has a pecuniary interest. 0
-
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the exact core work needed to simulate a hour at threshold racing, no-one seems to have an answer, I guess I will just ride my bike some more and adapt 0
-
Pross. Hysteria, really?
I think we are proposing alternative methods. Can't rememeber getting hysterical but it has been a long thread. Op was discussing supplemental strenght training. I originally advised that cycling was the best training but
if there was a core strength weakness then specific off-bike core strenght training would be appropriate. Note, I did say as a supplement to regular bike training.
Jacster is an advocate of core training and he isn't suggesting ditching the bike either.
However, Alex is against any training that doesn't involve the bike. While I disagree I am sure his training programme is very effective for most people and that's fine.
All I've been saying all along, that not everyone's core problems come from bike fit (another generalisation) and that for some people core training will benefit.
For jacster - I am a coach but my primary discipline is athletics, sprinting, strength and conditioning. In athletics, we don't just run to make us run faster. We do all sorts of core and strength work because isolating exercises as long as they are done sympathetically to the sport add great benefit to the runners over and above running around a lot. I'm not aware of specific 'evidence and imperical research' to support this. I do know that every top level coach in athletics includes strength and conditioning work and treats the core as fundamentally important. I do coach cyclists as well as triathletes and I use this priniciple with them as well.
Diif'rent strokes.0
