confused about core training...

tis

slowsider wrote:

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.

No.
You're quoting the abstract, in the conclusions they state:

there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of having good balance and stability in athletic performance

followed by:

it also seemed that the CST did not significantly influence running kinetics

and finally:

Because previous studies using low training volumes (2 sessions per week for 6 weeks) did not show significant effects, this study might prove that a higher training volume is needed to showa significant effect.

Who would have thought that more training would lead the slightly improved performance... :roll:

t.m.h.n.e.t

Wrongly quoting an article about running to make an argument about cycling.

*gets popcorn*

P_Tucker

huuregeil wrote:

With respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Great start to a post. Anyway, I'll accept that my sphere of knowledge RE fintess/exercise is small, patchy and encompasses primarily cycling (and, as others seem to be struggling with, this is a cycling forum).

huuregeil wrote:

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.

Does it? And why is that something "core" strength? Might it not also be posture or something to do with the chairs they sit on for 8 hours a day? As you've written it above, thats a leap so astonishing that I expect to see you in the long jump final in August.

Finally, I'll agree that if you wish to strengthen your core, then proper manly weights like squats/deadlifts etc are far better than flapping about on an inflatable ball like something from Seaworld. I just remain to be convinced (not that I've looked into it other than from a cycling POV) that the whole concept that core training is important is anything more than the latest gym fad, on the basis that these things usually are.

napoleond

So yoga is a pretty recent development? A while ago people scoffed at interval training.

TrainIng of the core muscles (and the prime movers) helps with posture, increases metabolism and generally improves all round strength. That's not a bad thing.

As someone who likes to do (and in the case of work, has to do) other things as well as cycle I find that a 30 minute bout of exercising the 'core' when i get up every other morning is very beneficial. Whether another person wants to do that or not is up to them. Being noodle armed in my job is not an option.

huuregeil

P_Tucker wrote:

Does it? And why is that something "core" strength? Might it not also be posture or something to do with the chairs they sit on for 8 hours a day?

Yes. And this is why "core strength" is problematic as a term, because it doesn't accurately reflect what having good e.g. spine stability, hip/shoulder function, encompasses. If you did know more about this area, rather than just coming at it from a cycling point of view, this would be way more obvious. (Hence my original observation ;-))

I just remain to be convinced (not that I've looked into it other than from a cycling POV) that the whole concept that core training is important is anything more than the latest gym fad, on the basis that these things usually are.

Unfortunately there is a fad, and many of the faddy things that have derived from it have not a lot of worth, but that's not to say that whole concept has no value, far from it!

Matchstick Man

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.

I used to be a cyclist (22min '10', 59min '25', av 3rd cat) before turning to running a few years ago (now at 36-56 for 10k). I still keep my eye in with the odd ride but nothing like I used to do. I now do 50mpw running and I go to the gym regularly 4 times a week and do compound moves (deadlifts, squats, benchpress, overhead presses,etc) and have a solid core (and some tasty abs as well).
However, for a laugh I did the Wiggle MTB Enduro 6 last weekend and on my last couple of laps my lower back was in AGONY. Surely all this gym work (and having KILLER abs) would be helping me if I wanted to just hop back onto the bike?

Was it because I wasn't doing enough cycling I wonder?

slowsider

tis wrote:

slowsider wrote:

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.

No.
You're quoting the abstract, in the conclusions they state:

there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of having good balance and stability in athletic performance

followed by:

it also seemed that the CST did not significantly influence running kinetics

and finally:

Because previous studies using low training volumes (2 sessions per week for 6 weeks) did not show significant effects, this study might prove that a higher training volume is needed to showa significant effect.

Who would have thought that more training would lead the slightly improved performance... :roll:

Welcome. First post ?

Did you read the results?

However, there was a significant interaction in 5000-m run time, indicating that CST significantly improved running times in the CST group during 6 weeks.

and the sentence directly before one of your quotes

this study shows a significant effect on running performance from performing CST.

Running times are presumably related to muscle performance.

We can prolly agree that running kinetics are not directly relevant to cycling. I'd say that good balance and stability would be useful in cycling, because falling off is a hindrance, but I'm not about to go looking for a study that proves it.

Still waiting for Pot Noodle boy to come up with some evidence supporting his assertion that

core strength training will in no way make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, including (but not limited to) your cycling.

or for ricRST to contribute a bit more. Presumably he knows more than he's letting-on.

NJK

Personally i wouldn't get too excited about doing so-called core training. As far as i aware cycling isn't a sport where a transfer of weight is required i.e Golf, tennis etc and stabilisation if you have a correct bike fit shouldn't be an issue. By all means do so-called core exercises such as the plank, side-plank etc but if performance improvements are you aim then i wouldn't spend more than 5mins 2-3 times a week doing such exercises.

ric/rstsport

slowsider wrote:

tis wrote:

slowsider wrote:

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.

No.
You're quoting the abstract, in the conclusions they state:

there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of having good balance and stability in athletic performance

followed by:

it also seemed that the CST did not significantly influence running kinetics

and finally:

Because previous studies using low training volumes (2 sessions per week for 6 weeks) did not show significant effects, this study might prove that a higher training volume is needed to showa significant effect.

Who would have thought that more training would lead the slightly improved performance... :roll:

Welcome. First post ?

Did you read the results?

However, there was a significant interaction in 5000-m run time, indicating that CST significantly improved running times in the CST group during 6 weeks.

and the sentence directly before one of your quotes

this study shows a significant effect on running performance from performing CST.

Running times are presumably related to muscle performance.

We can prolly agree that running kinetics are not directly relevant to cycling. I'd say that good balance and stability would be useful in cycling, because falling off is a hindrance, but I'm not about to go looking for a study that proves it.

Still waiting for Pot Noodle boy to come up with some evidence supporting his assertion that

core strength training will in no way make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, including (but not limited to) your cycling.

or for ricRST to contribute a bit more. Presumably he knows more than he's letting-on.

seen as someone has summoned me!

i'd say that core training etc is a complete waste of time for endurance cycling performance, unless there's something wrong with that person (i think p tucker *did* mention that). the majority of people mentioning that core in someway helped there cycling is in my experience usually down to poor bike fit or lack of cycling fitness.

note i'm not saying that some supplemental exercises aren't beneficial to people's lives (they may or may not). i'm merely saying that in terms of ECP they're probably a waste of time.

And, people shouldn't use running as an example of e.g. supplemental exercises such as weights helping cycling. in terms of running there does appear to be a benefit from weight training, but it's not necessarily the obvious reason why (i.e., it is NOT to do with becoming stronger). i'll leave people to sift through the research as to why it may help running.

Matchstick Man

slowsider wrote:

I'd say that good balance and stability would be useful in cycling, because falling off is a hindrance, but I'm not about to go looking for a study that proves it.

Er, am I really right in surmising that bouncing around on a spacehopper (aka Swiss Ball) is actually going to make you MORE stable on a bike and LESS likely to fall off? :shock:

Not being funny but my eldest (7) can ride a bike no problems and my 2.5 yr old can use a balance bike quite easily. Should I get them doing core work and plank exercises to aid them in their cycling or should I just press on with getting them to ride more?

napoleond

Some very varied and some very blinkered responses here.

I don't personally think that core work would benefit my cycling performance per se (although the increased weight loss does help I suppose) but it has a big impact on the rest of my life. When I say core i mean working the major muscle groups in a structured session that takes about 30 mins. Not just going into the plank and side plank.

alihisgreat

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.

I had two abdominal ops last year so that destroyed my core syrength... so I can also confirm that a stronger core is better for everything

slowsider

Matchstick Man wrote:

slowsider wrote:

I'd say that good balance and stability would be useful in cycling, because falling off is a hindrance, but I'm not about to go looking for a study that proves it.

Er, am I really right in surmising that bouncing around on a spacehopper (aka Swiss Ball) is actually going to make you MORE stable on a bike and LESS likely to fall off? :shock:

Not being funny but my eldest (7) can ride a bike no problems and my 2.5 yr old can use a balance bike quite easily. Should I get them doing core work and plank exercises to aid them in their cycling or should I just press on with getting them to ride more?

Whooosh ! :roll:

jgsi

I'm surprised noone (again) has actually mentioned that core training is possible the most tedious workout ever...
half the people doing yoga or pilates need waking up after 60 minutes of lying on the mat...

okgo

What usually causes back ache in riders?

Its something I tend to get when properly going for it. I don't get it on a steady to hard 100 mile ride, but I will get it in a 50 mile road race where the average effort is probably a bit higher...

I'm not unfit or new to cycling, just at a loss as to what it could be as I feel quite comfy on the bike...

jgsi

Ask the other riders you know about your positioning and setup as someone might have a good eye to see if you need to change something.
I was told yesterday about my seat needing to go back 1 cm... dont normally get setup advice in the middle of a race, but thought about it and back home made the change and tested on the turbo.
Moral is, we can never assume things are hunky dory 100% all the time and once set never need altering.
This is your first season.. I doubt very much pro riders suffer back ache despite the huge mileage, so allow things to settle down as well.. race effort will always put out stress... not a lot you can do about that.. but having niggles after each race would indicate something amiss.

okgo

Its not after the race, just during. The pain is totally gone after being off the bike for a minute or so...I thought I had a decent core, so I think maybe its bike related, but don't really want to spend a fortune to find out it could be my seat position or something.

P_Tucker

slowsider wrote:

Still waiting for Pot Noodle boy to come up with some evidence supporting his assertion that

core strength training will in no way make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, including (but not limited to) your cycling.

I think you'll find the burden of proof is on you, given that you've been shot down by a proper cycling coach. Top tip - articles on running don't count.

P_Tucker

NapoleonD wrote:

Some very varied and some very blinkered responses here.

I don't personally think that core work would benefit my cycling performance per se (although the increased weight loss does help I suppose) but it has a big impact on the rest of my life. When I say core i mean working the major muscle groups in a structured session that takes about 30 mins. Not just going into the plank and side plank.

Aside from your work, whatever it is that you do, what effect has it had on your life? I ask because I started doing weights last year, not for cycling performance but simply to look awesome on the beach (which I can confirm that I do), and I've increased my strength in every major compund lift that I do (benchpress, pulldown, deadlift, overhead press, dumbbell rows, leg press) by at least 50%, some by 100% and I can report that its made no difference to my life whatsoever (other than the beach, obv).

Anyway, theres an n=1 anecdote to cancel out yours, now lets get back to science.

napoleond

My overall strength is indeed important in my job. Hence I train outside of cycling too. My example applies to me, yours applies to you. Everyone is different. I'm surprised you wasted all your time down the gym when you werent going to get any benefit from it. You should have just stuck to riding your bike.

P_Tucker

NapoleonD wrote:

My overall strength is indeed important in my job. Hence I train outside of cycling too. My example applies to me, yours applies to you. Everyone is different. I'm surprised you wasted all your time down the gym when you werent going to get any benefit from it. You should have just stuck to riding your bike.

What part of "looking awesome on the beach" did you fail to understand?

On the plus side, you've now realised how pointless personal anecdotes are to determining the efficacy of a method of training. Shame it took so long.

napoleond

What part of 'it works for me' do you fail to understand?

P_Tucker

NapoleonD wrote:

What part of 'it works for me' do you fail to understand?

The part where you rely on human perception, which is about the least reliable indicator of whether anything works yet conceived. With a few simple tricks you can convince people that flour pills offer pain relief or rubber wristbands increase core strength. Christ, my uncle swears blind that he regularly converses with god, and in all other aspects of life he's scrupulously honest.

In short, if science can't prove something works, it doesn't work. The end.

slowsider

P_Tucker wrote:

slowsider wrote:

Still waiting for Pot Noodle boy to come up with some evidence supporting his assertion that

core strength training will in no way make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, including (but not limited to) your cycling.

I think you'll find the burden of proof is on you, given that you've been shot down by a proper cycling coach. Top tip - articles on running don't count.

You made the assertion, you back it up. Surely you can.... ? If it's just your opinion, say so.
If it doesn't make any measurable difference to any aspect of your life, how can articles on running not count?

Must be distracting, the way you keep trotting about moving the goal posts.


And so far, the 'proper cycling coach' hasn't actually offered very much.
Perhaps you have to sign-up and pay for the best bits.
I'd be curious how as a certified Association of British Cycling Coaches Level 3 cycle coach, Ric compares the British Cycling web site assertion that

Riders can usually improve their training and performance on the bike by including Core Stability exercises as part of their programme. ..... Core Stability training may improve a rider's performance and riding comfort as well as reducing the risk of injury by improving balance and co-ordination.

and

Core Stability is important in all cycling disciplines and at all levels. Coaches should therefore aim to understand how poor Core Stability can adversely affect their rider's performances.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/coachi ... -Stability

with his opinion that

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i'd say that core training etc is a complete waste of time for endurance cycling performance, unless there's something wrong with that person

ric/rstsport

if you want to see the science of why things such as core or weights etc don't (generally) work for ECP then you can do a search for said items. I, on the other hand, have written all i want to about this subject (and i've written a fair bit). this article is about weights http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/ ... engthstern

i'm sure you can also do a search on Andrew Coggan as well. And Hamish Ferguson, and Alex Simmons.

I only replied because someone asked me to.
Cheers
Ric

P_Tucker

slowsider wrote:

You made the assertion, you back it up. Surely you can.... ? If it's just your opinion, say so.

I've already stated that, do try to keep up. Its practically impossible to prove a negative - if you doubt that try proving that you don't murder babies. Since you won't be able to, why don't we simply assume that you don't until we find some evidence that you do. Deal?

Now, according to the principle of training specificity flapping about on a beach ball in a gym will make you better at flapping around on a beach ball in a gym. Your one link has already been rebutted by others, and indeed even if it had not been, one study vs the tens/hundreds of studies that failed to show a benefit (that the same study references in its own introduction FFS) should probably tell you all you need to know. Scientists make mistakes, conceive flawed methodologies and conduct experiments poorly - which is why in general we rely on the weight of scientific opinion rather than the one study we find that fits with our preconceptions.

So, again, the burden of proof lies with you. Lets see what you can come up with other than a rubbish study, a terrible analogy and some rather obvious anger at anyone who disagrees with you.

mustol

I don't think that core training will have a direct impact on cycling performance, but in the long-term, it can only be a good thing. As someone with a long term lower back problem, I can confirm that regular core work (I attended a pilates course and do core exercises on a regular basis) has made a massive improvement, to the point where I am starting to increase the distances I am riding without any aggravation. If you have a weak core, then you will be more susceptible to back problems in the future and if that ends up meaning time off the bike, then it will affect your cycling performance. I do a half-hour session in the gym at work most lunchtimes (after sitting in front of a computer screen all morning) and I feel much better in the afternoon, it also helps me clear me mind. So - core training can make a measurable difference - I feel fitter and happier, what better measure could there be?

huuregeil

P_Tucker wrote:

In short, if science can't prove something works, it doesn't work. The end.

Unfortunately, science doesn't quite work like that (and I know, it's what I do as a job!) - science provides you with a set of observations that are invariably "wrong" (or neither right nor wrong, if that makes sense!) but that are helpful under certain circumstances. The trick with "science" is working out whether those set of circumstances are valid and helpful in making predictions when those circumstances change.

The big issue with research in this area is that it necessarily trys to generate general observations through relatively limited testing of a group of people who have been exposed to the same thing. The issue with this is that this kind of exercise is necessarily and absolutely personal - there's no magic set of "core" exercises that will solve all ills. For some people it may well be a waste of time, for others it may be extremely helpful and what's helpful may well be different from person to person (e.g. the things I do to keep my body in check are completely different from my girlfriend). Factoring that out and devising a protocol that could test that would be very difficult and expensive/time consuming, hence no-one has done it.*

An analogous situation with something more relevant would be cycle coaching where, if you asked a number of coaches for a pre-event training plan, their responses would almost certainly be: different from coach to coach; personal to the athletes involved; drawn from personal experience of the coach. Yes, science informs the general principles, but the detailed response and hence the effectiveness is ultimately personal. Determining what works in detail under these circumstances is relatively hard (due to being able to standardise the protocol and getting a large enought sample size).

*PS there is quite a lot of science on e.g. back issues and biomechanics. Have a search from Stuart McGill as a good example off the top of my head.

mamba80

P Tucker : This is meant in the nicest possible way but you do come across as a conceited xxxx

Matchstick Man

mustol wrote:

I do I do a half-hour session in the gym at work most lunchtimes (after sitting in front of a computer screen all morning) and I feel much better in the afternoon, it also helps me clear me mind. So - core training can make a measurable difference - I feel fitter and happier, what better measure could there be?

I do 30mins 4 lunchtimes a week and I too sit in front of a computer screen all morning. I too feel much better in the afternoon afterwards but that has more to do with the production/release of hormones due to lifting heavy weights and looking at young (18-21 yr old) fitties in the gym than something as vague as working my core