How to get stronger over winter... I'm fit but weak!
Comments
-
jacster wrote:Murr X,
What you say is interesting.
My knowledge of what the pros do comes from reading/speaking to pros.
Look at some of the big names in the TDF..
Lance Armstrong - we all know he does weights and core work.
Cavendish and Colombia - They have a dedicated 'core' specialist, Pedro Gonzales, who works with every rider;
Bradley Wiggins. He trains his core religiously. His advice to wannabes:
"In the gym you should focus on strengthening your core for 30 minutes each day, mixing up Pilates and yoga moves and using exercise balls. You need to focus on working muscles at their extremes, under tension, for as long as possible. Without a solid core you can't transfer power efficiently, and you'll be left with dust in your eyes, however strong your legs are."
Frank and Andy Schleck lift weights and do other core work.
Fabian Cancellara has said increased flexibility and core strength has helped his positioning on the bike.
A quick call to most, if not all top pro teams will reveal they have a dedicated strength and conditioning coach and/or core specialist.
I would be stunned if Armstrong or any top GC condenders did any weight training at all for cycling, not worth it if they put on any weight at all. Good ol Lance is famous for misleading people and does a good job of it.
Carmichael is often billed as his coach which is often disputed, he is however making millions from making people think that he is and I 'm sure Armstrong gets some comission. 8)
It is imperative not to take on board a single word of what pros say they are doing regarding training, I am not kidding. They have for many years muttered nonsense about what way they are doing and can be delibrately misleading training wise so you can not take a word of what they or their coaches tell Joe Public, honestly.
Thanks
MurrX0 -
Murr X wrote:
It is imperative not to take on board a single word of what pros say they are doing regarding training, I am not kidding. They have for many years muttered nonsense about what way they are doing and can be delibrately misleading training wise so you can not take a word of what they or their coaches tell Joe Public, honestly.
It seems if someone says something contrary to what you believe then they are lying.
It would be pointless to try and prove you wrong, because you will believe what you want to believe.
But, as I say, I could make a few calls next week and find out the strength and conditioning coaches for all the pro teams and request interviews.
But they'd be lying, so I won't waste my time! :roll:0 -
Take a look at You Tube, Lance training. He's doing side steps/squats with a weight held to his chest, about 20kgs. There's a few films of him doing stuff like this.
He's "buff" too, like a skinnier Jason Statham!
Must be off-season training, before his severe diet sets in.
Does he train with weights? Well...Yes he does!0 -
0
-
jacster wrote:It seems if someone says something contrary to what you believe then they are lying.
It would be pointless to try and prove you wrong, because you will believe what you want to believe.
Have to say you have my sympathies jacster.
I've read most of this thread with a fair bit of interest and one thing is for sure. You're banging your head against a brick wall.
Sadly there is so much contradictory info floating about and lay people like me don't have a clue what to think. As someone that does a lot of weights I believe core strength is good for almost everything sports related. However cycling seems to reside in an exclusive bubble of isolation where nothing except riding helps.
Having worked in a research environment before (not sports related) I've found that noone agrees on anything so find it a little harsh that because research has little/no evidence to support the benefits of core work, it categorically is of no benefit at all. There's always a possiblilty and from what I can gather sports research is no way near as conclusive as most other forms due to limited numbers of sample sizes (I don't think it's feasible to run tests based on hundreds of participants).0 -
Methods: Twenty-one endurance-trained, female cyclists, aged 18-42 yr
My point exactly. A sample size of 21 participants :? The fact they were aged between 12-42 years of age makes it incredibly difficult to get any meaningful results in my book.
With regard to weight training though I'm a firm believer that upper body strength assists with cycling. Maybe core strength helps with this but as I said I'm no expert.
Given an out of the saddle sprint i.e. a break away from an opponent, you have to exert a massive amount of force on the pedals. Due to the pedals being located away from the C of G position then any large downward/upward forces will produce moments about the centre. If the bike is allowed to sway sideways then it is clear that not all the power will be converted to acceleration as the downward force is then split into horizontal/vertical components. To maximise the power application you need to use your upper body to stabilize the bike. In essence to do this effectively you need to apply equal force with your upper body as you are with your legs, otherwise you're not maximising the power delivery.
Not wanting to criticise Mr. Cavendish but I believe he'd go faster if he had the upper body strength to stabilise his bike during the final mile or so. Not that he needs it though
0 -
Escargot wrote:To maximise the power application you need to use your upper body to stabilize the bike. In essence to do this effectively you need to apply equal force with your upper body as you are with your legs, otherwise you're not maximising the power delivery.
Remember that the handlebars are much wider than the relatively narrow Q factor of the pedals position. The narrower the handlebars the more upperbody force required.
Not necessarily as most of the upper body bulk track sprinters carry is only used for starting from slow speeds where cadences are low and forces to the pedals are high. In a road sprint the forces to the pedals are relatively low but the cadance is high and therefore not a great deal of upper body strength is needed and may even slow you down due to increased weight and drag.Escargot wrote:Not wanting to criticise Mr. Cavendish but I believe he'd go faster if he had the upper body strength to stabilise his bike during the final mile or so. Not that he needs it though :wink
There is no need to have over developed muscles which can not be used for cycling when a lighter less developed muscle is every bit as capable and will be of no detriment to power output, end of matter.
Murr X0 -
jacster wrote:it seems if someone says something contrary to what you believe then they are lying.
It would be pointless to try and prove you wrong, because you will believe what you want to believe.
But, as I say, I could make a few calls next week and find out the strength and conditioning coaches for all the pro teams and request interviews.
But they'd be lying, so I won't waste my time! :roll:
Not at all, its just what happens when highly technical matters are brought to the attention of those incapable or unwilling of understand them.
I am a very factually orientated and technical person who likes to get to the bottom of matters, always have been.
Its best to stick to the topic here if we can. I have done my bit as somebody with knowledge on this topic to try to explain things the best I can do.
Thanks
Murr X0 -
Murr X wrote:
I am a very factually orientated and technical person who likes to get to the bottom of matters, always have been.
Its best to stick to the topic here if we can. I have done my bit as somebody with knowledge on this topic to try to explain things the best I can do.
What constitutes fact to some, clearly doesn't to others.
My point being that I could dig out quote after quote or even interview the subjects you are talking about but because of what YOU believe you would contest the truth of what they are saying.
Saying 'believe me I know very well how to train' doesn't really cut it, because what you are saying about pros is, in FACT, totally wrong.
Or perhaps you have experience of pros from yesteryear?
We're in 2009 and I would suggest things have moved on somewhat from your experience.0 -
0
-
Murr X wrote:Escargot wrote:To maximise the power application you need to use your upper body to stabilize the bike. In essence to do this effectively you need to apply equal force with your upper body as you are with your legs, otherwise you're not maximising the power delivery.
Remember that the handlebars are much wider than the relatively narrow Q factor of the pedals position. The narrower the handlebars the more upperbody force required.
Not necessarily as most of the upper body bulk track sprinters carry is only used for starting from slow speeds where cadences are low and forces to the pedals are high. In a road sprint the forces to the pedals are relatively low but the cadance is high and therefore not a great deal of upper body strength is needed and may even slow you down due to increased weight and drag.Escargot wrote:Not wanting to criticise Mr. Cavendish but I believe he'd go faster if he had the upper body strength to stabilise his bike during the final mile or so. Not that he needs it though :wink
There is no need to have over developed muscles which can not be used for cycling when a lighter less developed muscle is every bit as capable and will be of no detriment to power output, end of matter.
Murr X
Ok I should have written an *equivalent* force to maintain equilibrium but I'm sure you know what I was getting at
I wasn't suggesting that you need over developed muscles but need the upper body *strength* to stabilise the bike when sprinting. The common misconception is that strength = big muscles but this is not so as you can be strong and not have a muscular physique and associated mass.
The example I was using with Mark Cavendish (and common with nearly all cyclists I've seen on TV) is the trademark swaying of bikes in the final sprint. The respective magnitudes of forces are in my mind irrelevant as it's the ability to stabilise that is the important factor. But I accept that if you're a track sprinter then it may be more necessary to develop some upper body strength. Given your explanation though I'd have thought it logical that it should be easier for Cavendish to maintain more of an upright position (even after 100 miles at 30mph )
But going back to us mere mortals.......ultimately if you are not capable of maintaining a vertical position when applying large pedal forces (could even be when climbing) then you will not work efficiently. Fact. Thus it stands to reason that if you do not have the upper body strength to facilitate this then you will be at less an advantage over someone that has the necessary strength (all things being equal in the leg/lung department).
Being someone that has obviously trained at a decent level I'd be interested to hear if there is there any emphasis on bike stabilisation for climbing/sprinting etc and if so how you deal with it.0 -
If you are going to quote me, then at least use the full quote rather than chopping out salient points and then claiming I said something I clearly did not. This what I actually said:jacster wrote:Actually Pokerface you're right.
Just looking back over the debate I've found this from Alexsimmons:
Core work is certainly not detrimental to ECP and there are many good reasons to do such work.
He agrees!Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Core work is certainly not detrimental to ECP (unless it is preventing you from getting an optimal training load on the bike) and there are many good reasons to do such work. Just a claim that it improves ECP is not one of them. Strength work however can be detrimental to ECP, even if you do enough on bike work.
I suggest you take a course in debating and start with an understanding of logical fallacies, which you seem to be quite good at coming up with.0 -
That brick wall has a big sign painted on it that says "lack of supporting evidence". Especially when the "evidence" that is presented actually doesn't support his claims at all!Escargot wrote:Have to say you have my sympathies jacster.
I've read most of this thread with a fair bit of interest and one thing is for sure. You're banging your head against a brick wall.0 -
Still playing the ball Alexsimmons?
I would suggest your arrogance will be a huge limiting factor in the rest of your career/coaching days. But I'm sure most of the posters on here can work that out for themselves.
If you put yourself out there as a parapet of knowledge/excellence prepare to be challenged.
:roll:0 -
Yes.jacster wrote:Still playing the ball Alexsimmons?
Arrogance? LOL. I don't think I'll be limited by applying the science. Presumably that qualifies as being arrogant.jacster wrote:I would suggest your arrogance will be a huge limiting factor in the rest of your career/coaching days.
Agreed that they can work it out for themselves.jacster wrote:But I'm sure most of the posters on here can work that out for themselves.
I don't.jacster wrote:If you put yourself out there as a parapet of knowledge/excellence
With some evidence and arguments based on sounds principles of exercise physiology, yes.jacster wrote:prepare to be challenged.
Belief /based propositions, much less so.0 -
The thing is Alex you stand behind a wall of scientific evidence, but then make comments like 'if you can stand for an hour you have all the core strength you need to ride a bike'.
Where is the scientific evidence for this statement?0 -
Well once again you misquote me. Seems to be habitual on your part. This is what I actually said:jacster wrote:The thing is Alex you stand behind a wall of scientific evidence, but then make comments like 'if you can stand for an hour you have all the core strength you need to ride a bike'.
Where is the scientific evidence for this statement?
What wall? The only wall is a lack of evidence to support your claim.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:There really isn't much core strength needed. 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. Unless bike fit is poor.
But we are not talking about untrained individuals when just about any exercise will help.
Nevertheless, it is self evident. If you can do what I suggest, you can do it with your backside on a saddle.
What is not self evident is that dedicated off-the-bike core work to "strengthen" core musculature will lead to an improvement in endurance cycling performance. So far the only evidence provided (by you) demonstrates this not to be the case.0 -
Alex,
There simply is no scientific evidence to back up your above claim.
What are the 'good reasons' for doing core work you refer to?0 -
The question was to Alex, doyler78.0
-
Principle of specificity:jacster wrote:Alex,
There simply is no scientific evidence to back up your above claim.
What are the 'good reasons' for doing core work you refer to?
You might need to improve core for the purposes of improving activities that heavily rely on core (e.g. you want to get better at doing certain yoga poses for instance). Or you are entering a core strength competition.
Perhaps one needs some rehab from a long sedentary period due to illness or injury, so that you can do normal things that require some core strength, like getting up out of bed*.
But then the following needs no scientific evidence:
You might do it because you enjoy it. Enjoyment has it's own benefits.
You do however need evidence to demonstrate that dedicated core work improves endurance cycling performance.
* Doing such rehab work probably wouldn't be restricted or focussed to core of course but more likely more general exercise activities that will naturally impact the core anyway. (e.g. me after a very long sedentary period due to leg amputation, even then my core work consisted of riding my bike, walking and general life about my home, which given that I am now producing sustainable aerobic power almost at parity to my pre-amputation state, suggests once more that whatever core strength I need to ride my bike, I'm getting from riding my bike).0 -
I would say that riding a bike relies on core, but you may disagree with that.
Nevertheless I stand by my original statement in this thread - and the one that you dismissed to kick off this whole debate..
"My sustainable power has increased thanks to core work.
That's where squats, step-ups and to a degree leg press is useful. Done correctly they are all compound moves which work more than one muscle group, particularly your core.
If you can't get out on your bike 4/5 times a week then hit the gym. Done correctly a good full body workout will not be wasted.
It will also help prevent injuries and imbalances, which in turn lead to less productive or lost training hours."
That is my experience or you could say it is 'self-evident' to me.
Just like 'standing for longer than you can bike' gives all you core strength you need for cycling is 'self-evident' to YOU. There is no scientific evidence for this.
You can't be a bastion for science, knock down others who might support something which hasn't been scientifically proven and then support something which hasn't been scientifically proven. It is totally contradictory.
I am all for applying science to help us learn more. I am all for riding a bike more to help improvements. But I am also open to the methods used by other sports, this sport's top pros and coaches to find improvements. And core work, I believe, is fundamental to those improvements.0 -
I have never said it doesn't.jacster wrote:I would say that riding a bike relies on core, but you may disagree with that.
Can you post some verifiable numbers on your improvement in sustainable power output from doing this core work, and also account for any differences in on bike training that might have influenced the outcome?jacster wrote:Nevertheless I stand by my original statement in this thread - and the one that you dismissed to kick off this whole debate..
"My sustainable power has increased thanks to core work.
That's where squats, step-ups and to a degree leg press is useful. Done correctly they are all compound moves which work more than one muscle group, particularly your core.
And perhaps some numbers from a few dozen others as well, controlling for variances in training.
I have always said some exercise is better than nothing.jacster wrote:If you can't get out on your bike 4/5 times a week then hit the gym. Done correctly a good full body workout will not be wasted.
It will also help prevent injuries and imbalances, which in turn lead to less productive or lost training hours."
But if I was asked on what would be a better alternative if you can't ride your bike, it would be exercise that uses major muscle groups in an aerobically meaningful manner, such as brisk walking, running , stair machine, ellipitcal machines, rowing etc etc. Way way way before weights would have a beneficial impact on sustainble aerobic condition (unless you are untrained when almost anything will help improve performance). And such exercise will also work your core (since as you have pointed out, it does require some core).
Nevertheless, if you can't ride you bike, but have the time to get to the gym 4/5 times per week, then you'd be far better off (if it's bike performance that you are interested in) in riding an indoor bike when you go to the gym.0
