confused about core training...

mog812

This might not be the right place for this, but wasn't sure where else I should put it...

Have seen some talk about core strength training, also (the name I forget now; shame on me I know) there was an interview with a Brit Olympic cyclist, who was quoted as saying if there was only one exercise he could choose, it would be squats, though now, I'm not sure if he said squats, or squat thrusts...
Hence my confusion...
Does core strength training use squats, squat thrusts, or perhaps both?
I am new to this, and would like to improve my core strengths, and am a little uncertain on where and how to begin.

Many thanks for you time, thoughts and opinions.

Mog.

singleton

In training terms, your 'core' is your main muscles in your abdonimal area - not just the '6 pack' bit at the front, but all round your pelvis and waist region. Keeping this strong will give a whole range of benefits and should help protect you against getting back trouble.

There's lots of exercises for the core that you can find online - planks, use of training balls etc. Most exercises will use your core muscles to some extent as long as you're not on an exercise machine in a gym 'isoltaing' a muscle group.

Doing squats properly will use your core muscles but it's not primarily an exercise aimed at your core.
Squat thrusts are different and again will use your core muscles but if you specifically wanted to train your core - there would probably be better exercises.

P_Tucker

NB unless you have some specific need identified by a medical professional of your national team track coach, core strength training will in no way make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, including (but not limited to) your cycling.

mog812

Thanks Singleton

P_Tucker wrote:

NB unless you have some specific need identified by a medical professional of your national team track coach, core strength training will in no way make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, including (but not limited to) your cycling.

ok, let me try asking this in a different way perhaps...
are there any specific exercises/training, that could help me to enhance pelvic stability and core endurance?
I did find a web site: http://lavamagazine.com/training/three- ... z1ufRh2HcK that seems interesting, and wondered what your thoughts might be on this?

P_Tucker

I repeat: NB unless you have some specific need identified by a medical professional of your national team track coach, core strength training will in no way make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, including (but not limited to) your cycling.

If you insist, you might as well buy one of those holographic wristbands that increases your core strength by 500%. I can supply you with one for only £120.

ShutUpLegs

P_Tucker wrote:

If you insist, you might as well buy one of those holographic wristbands that increases your core strength by 500%. I can supply you with one for only £120.

What colour do they come in :?:

slowsider

P_Tucker wrote:

NB unless you have some specific need identified by a medical professional of your national team track coach, core strength training will in no way make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, including (but not limited to) your cycling.

Huh? What's your basis for saying that ?

Like saying the foundation of your house makes no measurable difference to the rest of the house :?

Here's Lance's coach
http://youtu.be/jMkoS2QOb5E

Plus a few other random articles:

http://www.active.com/cycling/Articles/ ... clists.htm.

Although a cyclist's legs provide the most tangible source of power, the abs and lower back are the vital foundation from which all movement, including the pedal stroke, stems. "You can have all the leg strength in the world, but without a stable core you won't be able to use it efficiently,"

http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2010/04/c ... -cyclists/

Over the summer I neglected part of my training regime that I've learned is extremely important - my core. It's one of those things that only takes a couple sessions a week, but is so easy let go and forget about. You don't notice the benefits of having a strong core until you've let a couple months slide by and you've lost it.

http://lavamagazine.com/training/three- ... z1ufsTBZBo

A few years ago, a study was published that outlined the importance of core training for cyclists. The purpose was to determine whether cycling mechanics are affected by core stability. The study concluded that core fatigue resulted in altered cycling mechanics—and end result that might increase the risk of injury by exposing the knee joint to greater stress. If your core is more stable, the rest of you will be better aligned and more resistant to fatigue.

http://www.howtobefit.com/cycling-core-strength.htm

"Strong core muscles make you a better cyclist, but cycling doesn't keep your core muscles strong."

P_Tucker

I can post an article stating that w*nking into a pot noodle will make you a better cyclist, that doesn't make it so. Lets have a link to a well conceived scientific study showing normal, healthy adults undertaking core training and producing a measurable increase in power output. AFAIK, there aren't any. Happy to be proven wrong though.

P_Tucker

ShutUpLegs wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

If you insist, you might as well buy one of those holographic wristbands that increases your core strength by 500%. I can supply you with one for only £120.

What colour do they come in :?:

Lime green, which channels the power of cosmic rays into your calves; or hot pink, which uses quantum tunnelling to provide extra oxygen to your quads.

mog812

P_Tucker wrote:

I can post an article stating that w*nking into a pot noodle will make you a better cyclist, that doesn't make it so. Lets have a link to a well conceived scientific study showing normal, healthy adults undertaking core training and producing a measurable increase in power output. AFAIK, there aren't any. Happy to be proven wrong though.

please... link us in

P_Tucker

There's enough training bolleaux out there without me adding to it. But if I did, in 2 months someone would read it and start a thread on here asking if the pot noodle should have hot water added before or after the w*nking, or whether you have to eat it afterwards for the benefits to be had.

napoleond

I started training my core last year when I realised how crap it was, not because of any percieved benefits for riding a bike, but for general health and work reasons.
I am feeling better because of it, it's helping me lose more weight (which, funnily enough does help cycling) and I'm enjoying it. It has helped me workwise to use the door opening equipment more effectively and public order training too.

jgsi

NapoleonD wrote:

I started training my core last year when I realised how crap it was, not because of any percieved benefits for riding a bike, but for general health and work reasons.
I am feeling better because of it, it's helping me lose more weight (which, funnily enough does help cycling) and I'm enjoying it. It has helped me workwise to use the door opening equipment more effectively and public order training too.

will you stop losing your keys, Nap

twotyred

I repeat: NB unless you have some specific need identified by a medical professional of your national team track coach, core strength training will in no way make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, including (but not limited to) your cycling.

P_Tucker

slowsider wrote:

Like saying the foundation of your house makes no measurable difference to the rest of the house :?

Crap analogy. The correct one would be saying that the foundations of my house are completely adequate for their current purpose, and strengthening them wouldn't make my house any less likely to fall down. If there was something wrong with said foundations, as identified by a professional, then of course strengthening them would be wise.

I bet you think strength training will make you faster on the hills too?

ric/rstsport

P_Tucker wrote:

slowsider wrote:

Like saying the foundation of your house makes no measurable difference to the rest of the house :?

Crap analogy. The correct one would be saying that the foundations of my house are completely adequate for their current purpose, and strengthening them wouldn't make my house any less likely to fall down. If there was something wrong with said foundations, as identified by a professional, then of course strengthening them would be wise.

I bet you think strength training will make you faster on the hills too?

+1

slowsider

P_Tucker wrote:

I can post an article stating that w*nking into a pot noodle will make you a better cyclist, that doesn't make it so. Lets have a link to a well conceived scientific study showing normal, healthy adults undertaking core training and producing a measurable increase in power output. AFAIK, there aren't any. Happy to be proven wrong though.

http://www.castonline.ilstu.edu/lagally ... _adam2.pdf

Now, go back to your pot-noodle.

Davey C

Ah I can see where you've gone wrong here. You've confused cycling with running. Different sports. Easily done.

napoleond

The OP doesn't mention about wanting to improve core strength to improve cycling.

As mentioned previously I get a tremendous benefit from it in my day to day life/work. Which I spend a lot more time doing than cycling.

fish156

The back ache I used to experience in hilly races stopped after I started regular core exercises - obviously this is just an n=1 anecdotal observation.

Davey C

NapoleonD wrote:

The OP doesn't mention about wanting to improve core strength to improve cycling.

As mentioned previously I get a tremendous benefit from it in my day to day life/work. Which I spend a lot more time doing than cycling.

True. I guess he just wants KILLER ABS. In which case it should take (according to a Men's Health cover I saw once) 3 weeks.

P_Tucker

NapoleonD wrote:

The OP doesn't mention about wanting to improve core strength to improve cycling.

Its a cycling forum. If he'd posted it on dartsradar, I'd have told him it won't help his darts either.

P_Tucker

Davey C wrote:

Ah I can see where you've gone wrong here. You've confused cycling with running. Different sports. Easily done.

I find the best way to remember is that you need a biCYCLE to do CYCLling. Easy when you know how.

ric/rstsport

fish156 wrote:

The back ache I used to experience in hilly races stopped after I started regular core exercises - obviously this is just an n=1 anecdotal observation.

thats more to do with poor set up, and/or lack of fitness

napoleond

P_Tucker wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

The OP doesn't mention about wanting to improve core strength to improve cycling.

Its a cycling forum. If he'd posted it on dartsradar, I'd have told him it won't help his darts either.

Why, do you demean everyone with sarcastic put-downs on that forum too?

P_Tucker

No, only those that say silly things

Cleat Eastwood

P_Tucker wrote:

No, only those that say silly things

Which judging by your responses would include your good self - as the original question was this

"Does core strength training use squats, squat thrusts, or perhaps both?
I am new to this, and would like to improve my core strengths, and am a little uncertain on where and how to begin"

Come on P_Tucker you're better than that and some of the answers you give genuinely help others.

To answer the OP I've never done any training for core strength, not really sure what it is, however, I have a friend who was in a collision with a car last year and as part of the insurance claim visited a physio who had him doing core strengthening at the gym using squats and a gym ball (which answers one of your questions) - but when he went to see a specialist before xmas he was told to sack the gym work off as the best for core strength training in his case was to do more miles on the bike - he was gutted as he'd just paid out for gym membership. There are probably a myriad of exercises to do for strengthening the core - but as with my friend and to some extent NapD, i guess its benefits are all down to circumstance and situation.

slowsider

Davey C wrote:

Ah I can see where you've gone wrong here. You've confused cycling with running. Different sports. Easily done.

No, I've shown "a well conceived scientific study showing normal, healthy adults undertaking core training and producing a measurable increase in power output. " as challenged.

Have you something to add to the discussion?

P_Tucker

slowsider wrote:

Davey C wrote:

Ah I can see where you've gone wrong here. You've confused cycling with running. Different sports. Easily done.

No, I've shown "a well conceived scientific study showing normal, healthy adults undertaking core training and producing a measurable increase in power output. " as challenged.

Have you something to add to the discussion?

A study about a different sport by the National STRENGTH and Conditioning Association, which wasn't even single blinded and contains the following in the introduction:

Despite the strong belief in these
purported positive effects, limited scientific studies have
shown no direct relationship between stronger core muscles
and better athletic performance (3,16,17). Significant improvement
in core strength has been documented as a result
of CST, but the same research has failed to show significant
changes in the athletic performance from CST (3,16,17). This
type of research indicates that CST is a useful tool for
strengthening core muscles, but the carryover to mechanics
and performance needs further investigation. Core-related
exercises such as Swiss ball training, balance training, weight
training, and yoga have become popular physical activities
even among general populations in recent years. Even
though scientific studies have not shown any links to prove
performance enhancement, CST is becoming common for all
levels of athletes.

Stunning. My pot noodle is going to be lonely tonight.

slowsider

I suspect your pot noodle often is.

The bit you quote is the justification for doing the study, not the result of it. But you knew that.

Did you manage to read as far as the bit that said

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of 6 weeks of CST on ground reaction forces (GRFs), stability of the lower extremity, and overall running performance in recreational and competitive runners......... A significant interaction occurred, with the CST group showing faster times in the 5000-m run after 6 weeks.

and if faster times indicate an increase in power, that answers your request, which wasn't sport-specific.

huuregeil

P_Tucker,

With respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. While some of your points are valid (namely core/weight training with respect to endurance cycling performance, and exercise specificity), you miss the general point that e.g. squat-like exercises are extremely beneficial for many people, if only because the lack of the ability to do a decent squat highlights some quite fundamental bio-mechanical deficiencies. Looking at the UK as a whole, statistics like 8 out of 10 people experience back pain and chronic lower back pain is the biggest cause of absence from work, suggest that something is amiss. (In the office I work in, 12 or so people, 3 have problem backs)

If you had any understanding of what "core" (a term which I dislike, btw) means in this context, then you wouldn't be so dismissive. Yes, the issues that an individual may experience are personal and varied (why core is not useful as a term, as it masks a number of aspects of performance complexities), but observing what may be amiss through the inability to perform certain exercises is an extremely helpful diagnostic tool. The medical profession is seriously behind the curve in its general understanding of bio-mechanical fitness.

To the OP, yes, certain squat variants are great "core" exercises, far more useful than swiss-ball or pilates rubbish. My desert island exercise would be an overhead squat or a walking overhead lunge.