What core strength/non bike exercises do you do?

13»

Comments

  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    No, you have produced some graphs to illustrate power output in cycling, nothing to do with counterbalancing that power with strong core muscles. Nothing has been "debunked"... Admittedly I need to produce evidence but the onus is equally on you as you have stated that the only exercise necessary to improve cycling is cycling. I disagree and believe that all round strengthening of the body helps.
    1. I have demonstrated with both physics and evidence that the forces in endurance cycling are low, and as such strength is not a limiter.

    2. I have provided a link to a scientific review of the available evidence of core strength work and it does not support the notion that it is an aid to endurance performance

    3. I have never said the only exercise necessary to improve cycling, is cycling. I have said that by far the best exercise for improving cycling is cycling.

    1 - You have provided graphs illustrating power output in cycling - as I have said, that proves nothing in isolation

    2. The link you provided is on the fence. It basically says there is little evidence to prove it either way...

    3. OK perhaps I misunderstood. You still havn't provided convincving evidence that "the best exercise for cycling is cycling"....

    I fail to be convinced and will carry on with my overally body workouts in addition to cycling....
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Headhuunter wrote:
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    No, you have produced some graphs to illustrate power output in cycling, nothing to do with counterbalancing that power with strong core muscles. Nothing has been "debunked"... Admittedly I need to produce evidence but the onus is equally on you as you have stated that the only exercise necessary to improve cycling is cycling. I disagree and believe that all round strengthening of the body helps.
    1. I have demonstrated with both physics and evidence that the forces in endurance cycling are low, and as such strength is not a limiter.

    2. I have provided a link to a scientific review of the available evidence of core strength work and it does not support the notion that it is an aid to endurance performance

    3. I have never said the only exercise necessary to improve cycling, is cycling. I have said that by far the best exercise for improving cycling is cycling.

    1 - You have provided graphs illustrating power output in cycling - as I have said, that proves nothing in isolation

    2. The link you provided is on the fence. It basically says there is little evidence to prove it either way...

    3. OK perhaps I misunderstood. You still havn't provided convincving evidence that "the best exercise for cycling is cycling"....

    I fail to be convinced and will carry on with my overally body workouts in addition to cycling....
    Are you a climate change denier as well? :lol:

    Since when have I been trying to dissuade anyone from doing off-bike core workouts?
    A: Never.

    I'm just pointing out that claims they will improve endurance cycling performance are fallacious.
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • Chinley Churner
    Chinley Churner Posts: 313
    I think you guys are going round and round in circles.

    Core strengthening work will not directly improve cycling performance.

    The best training for improving cycling performance is cycling.

    However......

    Any form of cross training, including core strengthening work, will improve overall strength and conditioning levels and could potentially make you less prone to injury.

    Proving the injury prevention worth of any training intervention is very difficult to do in a controlled study... there's still no 100% consensus about stretching but common sense and anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that some additional off the bike strength training is a good idea for cyclists.
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    No, you have produced some graphs to illustrate power output in cycling, nothing to do with counterbalancing that power with strong core muscles. Nothing has been "debunked"... Admittedly I need to produce evidence but the onus is equally on you as you have stated that the only exercise necessary to improve cycling is cycling. I disagree and believe that all round strengthening of the body helps.
    1. I have demonstrated with both physics and evidence that the forces in endurance cycling are low, and as such strength is not a limiter.

    2. I have provided a link to a scientific review of the available evidence of core strength work and it does not support the notion that it is an aid to endurance performance

    3. I have never said the only exercise necessary to improve cycling, is cycling. I have said that by far the best exercise for improving cycling is cycling.

    1 - You have provided graphs illustrating power output in cycling - as I have said, that proves nothing in isolation

    2. The link you provided is on the fence. It basically says there is little evidence to prove it either way...

    3. OK perhaps I misunderstood. You still havn't provided convincving evidence that "the best exercise for cycling is cycling"....

    I fail to be convinced and will carry on with my overally body workouts in addition to cycling....
    Are you a climate change denier as well? :lol:

    Since when have I been trying to dissuade anyone from doing off-bike core workouts?
    A: Never.

    I'm just pointing out that claims they will improve endurance cycling performance are fallacious.

    I'm not the one denying anything! You are!

    I have never claimed that they will improve cycling endurance either, I have simply said that a strong core will help counterbalance power output from the legs, preventing injury and keeping the body stable over long periods, which may help power output from the legs go directly to the drive train rather than in rocking the body (however slightly) from side to side....
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Headhuunter wrote:
    3. OK perhaps I misunderstood. You still havn't provided convincving evidence that "the best exercise for cycling is cycling"....
    So what exercise is better for improving cycling than cycling?
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    3. OK perhaps I misunderstood. You still havn't provided convincving evidence that "the best exercise for cycling is cycling"..../quote]
    So what exercise is better for improving cycling than cycling?

    Of course to improve overall cycling ability and strength in the legs, cycling is optimum, I have never claimed that core exercises will somehow improve endurance or leg strength, I have claimed that core exercise as part of a wider strengthening of the body offsets the very specific strengthening of the legs that cycling provides and prevents injury as well as counterbalancing forces from the legs. Of course cycling implements the core as well but it will not significantly strengthen it to the degree to which the legs are strengthened...
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • P_Tucker
    P_Tucker Posts: 1,878
    Headhuunter wrote:
    I have never claimed that they will improve cycling endurance either, I have simply said that a strong core will help counterbalance power output from the legs, preventing injury and keeping the body stable over long periods, which may help power output from the legs go directly to the drive train rather than in rocking the body (however slightly) from side to side....

    Even if we accept the hypothesis that keeping the body stable improves power output (which I'm not sure we do), you have singularly failed to do is to show:

    1. That the core of a normal person in good health isn't up to the task. A cyclist has to hold the handlebars too; would you advocate forearm strengthening - or can a normal person hold the bars adequately?

    2. That, assuming 1 is not true, that riding yer bike isn't sufficient training for your core and such that additional training off the bike is required.

    I predict that you will fail to do so, miserably.
  • rock_hopper
    rock_hopper Posts: 129
    EightOhEight, see what you started!! :wink:
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    P_Tucker wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    I have never claimed that they will improve cycling endurance either, I have simply said that a strong core will help counterbalance power output from the legs, preventing injury and keeping the body stable over long periods, which may help power output from the legs go directly to the drive train rather than in rocking the body (however slightly) from side to side....

    Even if we accept the hypothesis that keeping the body stable improves power output (which I'm not sure we do), you have singularly failed to do is to show:

    1. That the core of a normal person in good health isn't up to the task. A cyclist has to hold the handlebars too; would you advocate forearm strengthening - or can a normal person hold the bars adequately?

    2. That, assuming 1 is not true, that riding yer bike isn't sufficient training for your core and such that additional training off the bike is required.

    I predict that you will fail to do so, miserably.

    I advocate general all round strengthening so yes, why not strengthen the forearms, however the core is generally more important in balancing the power pushed through the pedals and is likely to be weak in relation to the average cyclists legs which get a lot of training. The forearms are stabilised by the bars themselves. THe core not only provides a bridge between 2 points of contact with the bike - the seat and the bars but also counteracts the forces of the legs...
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Murr X
    Murr X Posts: 258
    Headhuunter wrote:
    I have simply said that a strong core will help counterbalance power output from the legs, preventing injury and keeping the body stable over long periods, which may help power output from the legs go directly to the drive train rather than in rocking the body (however slightly) from side to side....
    No.

    The forces (as Alex has kindly tried to explain as best he can) are far too low in all scenarios other than perhaps very briefly in a track standing start effort to require significant strength.

    There is absolutely NO reason that an athlete requires strength training when forces demanded by the sport do not begin to approach sub-maximal levels just like with road cycling.

    I suggest you become familiar with power training and how to increase it, particularly aerobic power production. There is much to be learned by training intelligently with a progress orientation in this manner and the proof is in the pudding - more power = faster, which is the only thing a competitive cyclist is concerned about.

    Strong muscles won't help you at all when the hammer drops in a race if you can not produce the power that is required. Many pro cyclists are surprising weak in terms of muscular strength and it would not be unreasonable to assume that many "couch potatoes" would have more strength than some of them. However the only important thing to realize is that these "couch potatoes" will crucially not be able to generate anything like the power that a professional cyclist will.

    In cycling power is everything and strength is irrelevant. Many do not realize that more strength does absolutely not mean more power. Period.


    Murr X
  • P_Tucker
    P_Tucker Posts: 1,878
    Headhuunter wrote:
    P_Tucker wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    I have never claimed that they will improve cycling endurance either, I have simply said that a strong core will help counterbalance power output from the legs, preventing injury and keeping the body stable over long periods, which may help power output from the legs go directly to the drive train rather than in rocking the body (however slightly) from side to side....

    Even if we accept the hypothesis that keeping the body stable improves power output (which I'm not sure we do), you have singularly failed to do is to show:

    1. That the core of a normal person in good health isn't up to the task. A cyclist has to hold the handlebars too; would you advocate forearm strengthening - or can a normal person hold the bars adequately?

    2. That, assuming 1 is not true, that riding yer bike isn't sufficient training for your core and such that additional training off the bike is required.

    I predict that you will fail to do so, miserably.

    I advocate general all round strengthening so yes, why not strengthen the forearms, however the core is generally more important in balancing the power pushed through the pedals and is likely to be weak in relation to the average cyclists legs which get a lot of training. The forearms are stabilised by the bars themselves. THe core not only provides a bridge between 2 points of contact with the bike - the seat and the bars but also counteracts the forces of the legs...

    It appears that I was correct in my prediction.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Headhuunter wrote:
    I advocate general all round strengthening so yes, why not strengthen the forearms, however the core is generally more important in balancing the power pushed through the pedals and is likely to be weak in relation to the average cyclists legs which get a lot of training.
    This is the bit that always gets me with these arguments. That when riding a bike it's only the legs that are being exercised and responding to training and somehow magically all the other musculature required (core or otherwise) is never taxed in proportion to it's need.

    It is of course a fallacious argument.
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Headhuunter wrote:
    Of course to improve overall cycling ability and strength in the legs, cycling is optimum,
    Cycling is not a strength sport and cycling will not increase strength. It is far from an optimum exercise for that purpose.
    Headhuunter wrote:
    Of course cycling implements the core as well but it will not significantly strengthen it to the degree to which the legs are strengthened...
    The core will adapt in proportion to the stimulus and demands placed upon it.
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • coombsfh
    coombsfh Posts: 186
    When not recovering from meningitis I weight lift and do kettlebell and core exercises up to 5 days a week (alternating of course).

    I do Deadlifts, squats, weighted chins and pullups, circuits on the kettlebell with no rest unless I am feeling genuinely ill, leg raises, planks, pressups and stretches at least once a week.

    I also train grip specifically but that is a fairly unusual habit that not many people understand.

    Best wishes and there are some nice routines detailed here (can't wait to be fixed).

    Fred.
  • Zachariah
    Zachariah Posts: 782
    Murr X wrote:
    In cycling power is everything and strength is irrelevant. Many do not realize that more strength does absolutely not mean more power. Period.

    Murr X
    QFT. Even more specifically, it's power-to-weight that counts in cycling, over your preferred distance (explaining the differing body types for track sprinters vs Grand Tour winners)
  • 1_reaper
    1_reaper Posts: 322
    i was thinking of giving the Kettle bell weights a shot over the winter. This site gives you an idea on the benefits of it

    http://www.dragondoor.com/shop-by-depar ... ttlebells/
  • P_Tucker
    P_Tucker Posts: 1,878
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    The core will adapt in proportion to the stimulus and demands placed upon it.

    As an aside, I've recently been wondering if this principle really holds true (not in the context of core strength). Lets take a road racer - if you apply this principle, then the best training for a road racer is to road race as much as he can, subject to recovery of course. The road racer's body will adapt in proportion to the stimulus and demands placed upon it.

    But, of course, this is not true. If it was true, you'd be out of a job. Apparently the best way to train for road races is a carefully crafted diet of racing and specific intervals (the like of which almost never occur in actual racing), which bring about higher levels of fitness than the old fashioned "race into shape".

    I don't really know where this is going. I think I'm going to go and make a cup of tea.
  • doyler78
    doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    Zachariah wrote:
    Murr X wrote:
    In cycling power is everything and strength is irrelevant. Many do not realize that more strength does absolutely not mean more power. Period.

    Murr X
    QFT. Even more specifically, it's power-to-weight that counts in cycling, over your preferred distance (explaining the differing body types for track sprinters vs Grand Tour winners)

    So if you assume two riders are exactly the same weight and have exactly the same equipment and they ride exactly the same flatish (no long steep hills) course in exactly the same conditions yet one is more aero than the other. Who do you think will win? Bear in mind they will have exactly the same power to weight ratio.
  • Zachariah
    Zachariah Posts: 782
    Of course two otherwise identical riders will be made different by changing one of their attributes. But you could say that about any parameter - bike weight, optimal tyre pressure/rolling resistance - the list is endless.

    What I suppose I'm saying is, the power-to-weight aspect is probably the most important of these attributes, and the one most personal to each rider. Every aero trick can be copied by any rider with sufficient means, everyone can ride the lightest bike on the fastest tyres, so eventually the equipment and aero advantages become unimportant (we can see this in the Pro Tour, at least, where results follow the rider rather than the equipment, compared to Formula 1). It's also the cheapest one to improve!
  • doyler78
    doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    Zachariah wrote:
    Of course two otherwise identical riders will be made different by changing one of their attributes. But you could say that about any parameter - bike weight, optimal tyre pressure/rolling resistance - the list is endless.

    What I suppose I'm saying is, the power-to-weight aspect is probably the most important of these attributes, and the one most personal to each rider. Every aero trick can be copied by any rider with sufficient means, everyone can ride the lightest bike on the fastest tyres, so eventually the equipment and aero advantages become unimportant (we can see this in the Pro Tour, at least, where results follow the rider rather than the equipment, compared to Formula 1). It's also the cheapest one to improve!

    That's actually two attributes - power and weight :wink:

    My example was another two attributes - power and drag so it was a like for like comparison designed to show you that power to weight is not the most important attribute combo in cycling.

    It is the most important combo in hilly road races, hill climbs, etc. For a flat tt it's not that important. The skinniest guy in the world who has fantastic power but who can't hold an aero position will never beat the heavier guy with the same or slightly less power who can hold a more aero position. If all you wanna do is ride tt and you don't live is a very hilly part of the country or if you ride road races in a flat or shallow rolling terrain then they would be better concentrating on getting the power numbers up (as getting weight down can cause you to lose power which would counter productive in these circumstances).
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    P_Tucker wrote:
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    The core will adapt in proportion to the stimulus and demands placed upon it.

    As an aside, I've recently been wondering if this principle really holds true (not in the context of core strength). Lets take a road racer - if you apply this principle, then the best training for a road racer is to road race as much as he can, subject to recovery of course. The road racer's body will adapt in proportion to the stimulus and demands placed upon it.

    But, of course, this is not true. If it was true, you'd be out of a job. Apparently the best way to train for road races is a carefully crafted diet of racing and specific intervals (the like of which almost never occur in actual racing), which bring about higher levels of fitness than the old fashioned "race into shape".

    I don't really know where this is going. I think I'm going to go and make a cup of tea.
    What sort of tea?
    "Unemployed of Sydney"
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia

Categories