Leg workouts at the gym - Good idea?
Comments
-
I recall a few months back, having a chat with one of my coaches regarding core work and he seemed to be in favour of it. This particular coach just happens to be married to (and was the former coach of) Sarah Hammer - multiple World Champion on the track.
Now - with the greatest respect to Alex - but what makes Alex more qualified to say if core work (not talking about other gym work) is beneficial or not? It seems that (some) people think that whatever Alex says is gospel and he is never wrong. Whereas all the other coaches in the world that advocate anything different must be incorrect.0 -
Exactly why was he in favour. What were his reasons for it for cyclists in general, and for you in particular?Pokerface wrote:Now - with the greatest respect to Alex - but what makes Alex more qualified to say if core work (not talking about other gym work) is beneficial or not? It seems that (some) people think that whatever Alex says is gospel and he is never wrong. Whereas all the other coaches in the world that advocate anything different must be incorrect.
I don't think there is anything that makes Alex_Simmons better or worse than any other coach. Every coach must also back up what they do and how they do it, Alex does this using scientific hournals, other use their own results as 'proof'. Both methods are fallable as continuing improvements in knowledge show.
There are many things that are conducted in training for various sports that just arent necessary. Sometimes tradition holds sway over what is actually best. Also why do people suggest doing toher work? Is it for physiological gains, is it merely to give a rest from constant cycle training and do some crosstrain, Maybe it's psychological, if two people of equal endurance capabilities/capacity compete and both know that one can squat 100kg more, does that give the other any potential advantage?
Personally I think anyone who blindly follows what a coach says is a fool and I encourage people to challenge things that I may prescribe and suggest. Even suggesting what they'd prefer to do if it keeps them more interested and still provides results.0 -
Your turn to fight this one Colin! Good luck, I’m right behind you! 8)Pokerface wrote:I recall a few months back, having a chat with one of my coaches regarding core work and he seemed to be in favour of it. This particular coach just happens to be married to (and was the former coach of) Sarah Hammer - multiple World Champion on the track.
Now - with the greatest respect to Alex - but what makes Alex more qualified to say if core work (not talking about other gym work) is beneficial or not? It seems that (some) people think that whatever Alex says is gospel and he is never wrong. Whereas all the other coaches in the world that advocate anything different must be incorrect.
The thing is that your squad coaches and many other coaches are trying to train and coach an athlete not just parochially a cyclist. It goes back to the point made by ShockedSoShocked made – he understands – he’s studying this IIRC.
In your case, it’s an athlete that does kilo gate starts, team sprint starts, etc. Listen to your coaches
Many of the contributors here don’t seem to want to grasp that there are areas of cycling that “just ride the bike” does not cut it anymore. I’m a sprinter – I warmed up yesterday.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Eyon wrote:You can be as strong and as fit as you like but if you have no belief then you wont get anywhere. If you aren't so fit but see that hill in front of you, and put all belief into it, you will get there.
Nonsense. Doesn't even deserve a response other than utter contempt.
So you do not believe that willpower and mental strength will get you anywhere? I'm not a preacher but a lot of ability is in the mind just as much as the body. Knowing you can do something is just important as physically being able to do it.
Oh I do love an internet debate!0 -
I met Emma Johansson 18 months ago. (she got silver in ladies olympic road race, Peking) she was very open & chatty as was her boyfriend /trainer and got asked lots of questions from people who exercise on a bike or race at amatuer level. There were two things that came out of the discussions
1. most cyclist don't differentiate enough - they always ride hardish - don't rest when they should and can't give it thier all either.
2. Very heavy weight training (2-4 reps legs & back) during the winter had made the difference for Emma from being good in the front of the bunch to being really good in & in the mix for wins. And no she is no mountain of muscle. She was more comfortable on the bike and could work harder when she really needed to.
Bike riding is more than just endurance. Weight training won't help Cardiovascular development but it may well help with other aspects.0 -
irezumi wrote:Although an extreme viewpoint orginally posted there is a lot of psychology work that would go someway to backing up what Eyon said. At least to some extent.
Well, if an individual is daft enough to believe that doing "something" will help his performance without any supporting evidence (which core work may or may not have - spearate point), then you as his coach might as well tell him that a yellow ball of fire rising in the east is a sign from Thor that he will have the strength of ten Merck's. Saves wasting time doing that "something".0 -
ut_och_cykla wrote:I met Emma Johansson 18 months ago. (she got silver in ladies olympic road race, Peking) she was very open & chatty as was her boyfriend /trainer and got asked lots of questions from people who exercise on a bike or race at amatuer level. There were two things that came out of the discussions
1. most cyclist don't differentiate enough - they always ride hardish - don't rest when they should and can't give it thier all either.
2. Very heavy weight training (2-4 reps legs & back) during the winter had made the difference for Emma from being good in the front of the bunch to being really good in & in the mix for wins. And no she is no mountain of muscle. She was more comfortable on the bike and could work harder when she really needed to.
Bike riding is more than just endurance. Weight training won't help Cardiovascular development but it may well help with other aspects.
One athlete, no matter how good, saying "it works for me" is meaningless. A thousand things would have differed from the current season to the previous; most notably that she'd have 1 more season in the legs - and she has no way of knowing which difference, or combination of differences, improved her ability. This is why science experiments use large numbers of subjects and are double blinded - to rule out this kind of crap.0 -
0 -
Probably not a big enough sample size:
Core conditioning has become a staple of many workout programs in hopes that strength improvements will result in better overall function. What about cyclists? Scientists at the Neuromuscular Research Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh sought to determine the importance of core strength among a group of 15 competitive cyclists. They were tested on torque after participating in a “core fatigue workout” that sought to pre-exhaust area musculature prior to cycling. The exercises included seated upper-torso rotations with a medicine ball, static prone torso extension with a medicine ball, supine lower-torso rotations with a medicine ball, incline sit-ups with a weighted plate, lateral side-bends with a weighted plate, rotating lumbar extension with a weighted plate and standing torso rotations with weighted pulley resistance. Subjects then rode their bikes untethered on a treadmill at 25.8 kilometers per hour with a 1% increase in elevation until fatigue.
According to the study, which was printed in the November issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2007; 21 [4], 1300–1304), “a core fatigue workout altered the mechanics of the lower extremity,” increasing the risk of injury and indicating that core strength development might be a vital training component for cyclists. Study authors suggested that cyclists “integrate a year-round core conditioning program into current training to promote lower extremity alignment while cycling.” Not only might this help performance, the authors suggested, but it could also be essential for injury prevention.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:
You are talking "crap" and you know it. Put up or shut up.
Edit: I'll qualify that. You are expressing an opinion. It is of no more or no less worth that others expressing a different opinion, being as there seems to be no empirical evidence either way. Therefore to say they are talking crap tells me you are full of it.
a serious case of small cogs0 -
Pokerface wrote:Probably not a big enough sample size:
Core conditioning has become a staple of many workout programs in hopes that strength improvements will result in better overall function. What about cyclists? Scientists at the Neuromuscular Research Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh sought to determine the importance of core strength among a group of 15 competitive cyclists. They were tested on torque after participating in a “core fatigue workout” that sought to pre-exhaust area musculature prior to cycling. The exercises included seated upper-torso rotations with a medicine ball, static prone torso extension with a medicine ball, supine lower-torso rotations with a medicine ball, incline sit-ups with a weighted plate, lateral side-bends with a weighted plate, rotating lumbar extension with a weighted plate and standing torso rotations with weighted pulley resistance. Subjects then rode their bikes untethered on a treadmill at 25.8 kilometers per hour with a 1% increase in elevation until fatigue.
According to the study, which was printed in the November issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2007; 21 [4], 1300–1304), “a core fatigue workout altered the mechanics of the lower extremity,” increasing the risk of injury and indicating that core strength development might be a vital training component for cyclists. Study authors suggested that cyclists “integrate a year-round core conditioning program into current training to promote lower extremity alignment while cycling.” Not only might this help performance, the authors suggested, but it could also be essential for injury prevention.
Thats a pretty daft study. Is there any evidence that a cyclist, whilst cycling, tires his core muscles practically to failure? If not, whats the point of seeing what happens when he does?
CSB time - I'm sure everyone is familiar with lucozades claim that it boosts endurance by 33%? A schoolfriend of mine was involved in the study that they used to back up this bold claim. They made him (and others obv) run as hard as they could on a treadmill for two hours. Then they sent them to bed with nothing to eat/drink except water. The next day, still without any nutrition, they did their endurance test to exhaustion. So, lucozade DOES enable you to run 33% further - assuming you start from a completely glycogen depleted state.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Nothing wrong with doing gym work for many reasons, just don't go attributing increases in sustainable power to it.
So you're basically saying that someone like Michael Phelps, who did bunches of weight training in his quest to win bunches of swimming gold medals, was really just wasting his time? Didn't help him at all? Why do so many pro sports players in football, hockey, basketball, and even baseball lift weights? What's so special about cycling, as opposed to other sports, that a bit of added strength from pumping iron does no good?0 -
toontra wrote:
Sure. After you prove that you don't eat babies, I'll prove that weight training does nothing. Or shall we keep the burden of proof the right way round?toontra wrote:Edit: I'll qualify that. You are expressing an opinion. It is of no more or no less worth that others expressing a different opinion. To say they are talking crap tells me you are full of it.
Of course. I'm not the pope, I don't claim to be infallible. As I said, as I understand it the balance of scientific research points to the following:
1. Core training/weight training in general does very little to improve endurance cycling in reasonably trained cyclists
2. Training on your bike does improve endurance cycling in reasonably trained cyclists
From which I deduce that, for the vast majority of people, the best thing they could do to get better at riding a bike is to ride their bike. If anyone can contradict this with anything other than anecdotal evidence, I'm all ears.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Thats a pretty daft study. Is there any evidence that a cyclist, whilst cycling, tires his core muscles practically to failure? If not, whats the point of seeing what happens when he does?
No, it's actually quite clever because it gives you a paired before-and-after group where all the variables are the same except for a core musculature strength change - this allows you to measure the effect of a change in strength independently.
I don't have time to get stuck into this but proof of no effect is not the same as no proof of effect. There's only been a few decent studies done. They mostly show that strength training has no effect on endurance, but they also show that it doesn't have an adverse effect on endurance when you replace endurance elements with strength elements in a winter training plan. There's also the possiblity of an improvement in some power-based parameters. What this means is that you can happily go to the gym in the winter without having an impact on your training. For this you get all the benefits that strength work can bring - contrary to what Alex says, you don't train the correct musculature on the bike, I think that's a ridiculous position (or, more to the point, one that only holds if you're bio-mechanically in good shape - most people aren't). E.g. the guy on a recent thread about upper back pain, that's never going to resolve itself just by riding more. E.g. most cyclists have poor hip function because the glutes are not in a favourable position on the bike. Poor glute function is directly related to knee, hip, and lower back issues. Poor glute function is also related to poor hamstring flexibility, which directly affects the hips and lower back. There'd be far fewer cyclists with knee, hip and back issues if people had a go at weights every now and then, to work out where the bio-mechanical issues are. Some people would be absolutely fine, no point in the gym for them. Others would get quite a surprise! I know, I was one of them (hip injury), and two of my riding buddies are currently getting themselves sorted after a history of knee and lower back issues. That's where the benefit comes - it's not black and white, it's highly individual,. but cyclists as a group are not helped by a dogmatic "as a cyclist you should never do weights" position being advocated. It won't help endurance, it might well (significantly) help other aspects of cycling performance, and life in general. (not least runners, who get their knees in a horrible state! And quite a few cyclists dabble in other sports).Sorry, rant over, I'm off out!0 -
huuregeil wrote:P_Tucker wrote:Thats a pretty daft study. Is there any evidence that a cyclist, whilst cycling, tires his core muscles practically to failure? If not, whats the point of seeing what happens when he does?
No, it's actually quite clever because it gives you a paired before-and-after group where all the variables are the same except for a core musculature strength change - this allows you to measure the effect of a change in strength independently.
But the change in strength is from "normal" to "unnaturally weak", not "normal" to "slightly stronger than normal". The proposition is that your average healthy cyclist has sufficient core strength that it's not a limiting factor - this experiment doesn't address that.0 -
I don't see this going anywhere...
So to summarise the posts...
Most or almost all coaches and books written on the subject of core and leg training for cycling appear to conclude that it's beneficial. (and is highly recommended)
There have been studies that support the benefits of strength training for cycling, that have been linked in the posts. These studies appear to have had no commercial interest, so would have been conducted for proper research rather than to just sell a product.
A few coaches believe that it's not beneficial, but haven't been able to find any studies to support this.
Did I miss anything?Simon0 -
springtide9 wrote:I don't see this going anywhere...
So to summarise the posts...
Most or almost all coaches and books written on the subject of core and leg training for cycling appear to conclude that it's beneficial. (and is highly recommended)
There have been studies that support the benefits of strength training for cycling, that have been linked in the posts. These studies appear to have had no commercial interest, so would have been conducted for proper research rather than to just sell a product.
A few coaches believe that it's not beneficial, but haven't been able to find any studies to support this.
Did I miss anything?
Where are these linked scientific articles? I count one, which even I can pick holes in.
Also, you missed a load of anecdotal evidence and a bunch of people who have never read a book on training offering their personal opinions.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:
Where are these linked scientific articles? I count one, which even I can pick holes in.
Also, you missed a load of anecdotal evidence and a bunch of people who have never read a book on training offering their personal opinions.
arent most books based on personal opinion and personal interpretation of results?
How about we get this thread locked to stop the trolololing?0 -
Improving core strength doesn't improve endurance. It improves core strength. Which in turn leads to more sustainable power production via less wasted energy. Being able to hold your body in the correct position for longer and allowing the effective transfer of power from legs to pedals is what it is about.
This is my understanding.
It's not about being able to increase cardiovascular efficiency - which would be increasing endurance.
Just because I can't be bothered to find studies showing that core strength improves power production, does not mean they don't exist. And 'picking holes' in a study based on a quick and uneducated read of the study abstract doesn't make you clever.0 -
A strength and conditioning journal reports that you need strength and conditioning, no surprises there. Was there any improvement in actual performance reported and what were the controls?Pokerface wrote:Probably not a big enough sample size:
Core conditioning has become a staple of many workout programs in hopes that strength improvements will result in better overall function. What about cyclists? Scientists at the Neuromuscular Research Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh sought to determine the importance of core strength among a group of 15 competitive cyclists. They were tested on torque after participating in a “core fatigue workout” that sought to pre-exhaust area musculature prior to cycling. The exercises included seated upper-torso rotations with a medicine ball, static prone torso extension with a medicine ball, supine lower-torso rotations with a medicine ball, incline sit-ups with a weighted plate, lateral side-bends with a weighted plate, rotating lumbar extension with a weighted plate and standing torso rotations with weighted pulley resistance. Subjects then rode their bikes untethered on a treadmill at 25.8 kilometers per hour with a 1% increase in elevation until fatigue.
According to the study, which was printed in the November issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2007; 21 [4], 1300–1304), “a core fatigue workout altered the mechanics of the lower extremity,” increasing the risk of injury and indicating that core strength development might be a vital training component for cyclists. Study authors suggested that cyclists “integrate a year-round core conditioning program into current training to promote lower extremity alignment while cycling.” Not only might this help performance, the authors suggested, but it could also be essential for injury prevention.
You left out the bit that even after pre-fatiguing the core with an exercise routine, that no significant differences were demonstrated for pedaling forces compared to those that did not pre-fatigue.
As I've said already, the research into (non crash related) cycling injury has shown most is due to poor bike positioning and/or attempting to do too much acutely or chronically than you are ready for. There is scant evidence that weight work prevents injury in cyclists.
I make the point again, I am not saying don't do these things (weight, core etc). In context they are good for you as a human being.
All I am saying is that evidence they improve endurance cycling performance is exceptionally limited, and in the case of strength training (as opposed to weight/resistance work that may not be strength related), the balance of relevant studies indicates no or even detrimental impacts to performance.
As for Lance - his famous weight routines were in retirement and he needed to undo a lot of that when he decided to come out of retirement. All the rest referred to are simply anecdotes and not evidence.
A full time cyclist or pro, sure, no issue doing some regular work on top of what you already do. But if you are someone with time constraints, then the best core work for cycling will come from on the bike training. Sprints, hard efforts, threshold intervals, hill climbs, long tempo rides etc will give the core the stimulus it needs, as well as be specific to cycling performance.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:then the best core work for cycling will come from on the bike training. Sprints, hard efforts, threshold intervals, hill climbs, long tempo rides etc will give the core the stimulus it needs, as well as be specific to cycling performance.
Source please?0 -
Fundamental principle of specificity you'll find in any decent exercise physiology textbook.Pokerface wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:then the best core work for cycling will come from on the bike training. Sprints, hard efforts, threshold intervals, hill climbs, long tempo rides etc will give the core the stimulus it needs, as well as be specific to cycling performance.
Source please?0 -
Pokerface wrote:Improving core strength doesn't improve endurance. It improves core strength. Which in turn leads to more sustainable power production via less wasted energy.
Does it? Prove it. I'm genuinely interested.Pokerface wrote:Being able to hold your body in the correct position for longer and allowing the effective transfer of power from legs to pedals is what it is about.
Is your "core" really maxed out when you are doing endurance cycling? If so, then I'd agree that you need to work on it. I suspect that for most cyclists the legs give way long before the core - thus it's not a limiting factor. But again, give me a compelling reason to think otherwise and I'll change my mind in a second.Pokerface wrote:This is my understanding.
Based on little it would seem. Trawling the internet for studies that support your preconception doesn't make you clever - you'll always be able to find something to support practically anything. A dispassionate review of the available evidence would be a more sensible thing to do.Pokerface wrote:Just because I can't be bothered to find studies showing that core strength improves power production, does not mean they don't exist. And 'picking holes' in a study based on a quick and uneducated read of the study abstract doesn't make you clever.
Genius. "This is what I think, the evidence is probably out there, so I'll continue to think it". Picking holes in a fairly crap study doesn't make me clever I'll agree - I'm pretty sure a GCSE science student could have done the same - but what does it say about your belief, when apparently all you could find to support it was that load of tosh? And did you not read the bloody thing before you posted it? If not, no wonder you don't learn anything. And if yes, may I suggest retaking your science GCSE? 0 -
Eyon wrote:P_Tucker wrote:
Where are these linked scientific articles? I count one, which even I can pick holes in.
Also, you missed a load of anecdotal evidence and a bunch of people who have never read a book on training offering their personal opinions.
arent most books based on personal opinion and personal interpretation of results?
How about we get this thread locked to stop the trolololing?
Waaaah, people don't agree with me, lock the thread. Christ, act like you;ve got a pair FFS0 -
Christ, why do I get involved in this kind of thing? Other than I enjoy pointing out people's idiocy - not regarding who's right or wrong on this particular issue, more on the general way people react to things that challenge their assumptions.
Anyone who wants to learn a bit more from people who actually know what they are talking about (other than Alex obv) try here - http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... sc&start=0
And pray that CoachFerg doesn't get hold of this thread and tear you all a new one.
Ok, I'm out. Enjoy strength training, core training, forearm strength training (suspect there's a lot of this going on), balancing on rubber balls etc etc - I'm going to ride my bike. And for the record, I'm under 80kg, my FTP is >300w and I have a full time job - so I'd suggest that the Irish paralympic coaching team might not be all that.0 -
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:As I've said already, the research into (non crash related) cycling injury has shown most is due to poor bike positioning and/or attempting to do too much acutely or chronically than you are ready for. There is scant evidence that weight work prevents injury in cyclists.
If you're talking about papers by Callaghan, Asplund, Wanich, Korkia, etc., then you really can't draw that conclusion, for a few reasons:
1. a) They're generally based on self-reporting, which is fraught with difficulties when trying to draw any more detailed inferences.
b) it goes without saying that there are no objective measures used that relate to any functional differences between athletes.
2. Biomechanical issues are explicitly cited by a couple of those papers as intrinsic factors behind overuse injuries, and explicit factors such as flexibility, muscular imbalance are listed.
3. Some of the authors clearly have *no* clue about sports performance - they are doctors and epidemiologists. E.g. prescribing knee extensions and leg curls as rehab from knee injuries!
4. The conclusion that weight work is not helpful in addressing biomechanical issues is contrary to what is understood about e.g. the hip in relatiion to both lower limb and lower back injuries.
5. "Overuse" is a catch all term which describes anything that is not trauma and not no-cycling. It's not surprising that as workload goes up, injury incidence goes up.
Actually, what surprised me was the extremely high incidence of injuries among cyclists. E.g. 42% of 500 recreational cyclists reported knee injuries in one study!!. This is massive and, I'd suggest, sufficient justification for the view that more cyclists than not would be better served by seriously looking at how well they're put together, before they develop an "overuse" injury.0
