Core/Weight training & Bradley Wiggins

bahzob

One hoary old topic is it worth spending any time in gym if you are a cyclist?

Well both Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton have separately highlighted gym work, especially building core strength, as one factor behind his success this year.

Enough said one would hope.

TheEnglishman

I stand at the back of the Pilates class and firm up.

Works for me.

amaferanga

Well there you have it - conclusive annecdotal proof that gym work works :roll:

dw300

amaferanga wrote:

Well there you have it - conclusive annecdotal proof that gym work works :roll:

Are you saying having a stronger core won't improve your performance? It holds your pelvis and spine in place so more of your energy from your leg muscles which are attached to those goes into the pedals rather than wobbling your body and the bike about. It's like having a stiffer bike and wheels. It might not add much to your cycle to the newspaper shop, but it's gona make a small difference when you're at the edge of performance.

People on here can poo-poo stuff like this all they want, but it's like Sir Jens says .. a 1% difference you probably won't notice, but 10 1% differences separate you from the rest.

cougie

I know Levi Leipheimer spends hours doing Pilates in the off season too. And he's not winning the tour.

FWIW my wife teaches Pilates and I'm MUCH better on the bike than her....


I'm sure it will help but only if the cycling training is good.

t.m.h.n.e.t

dw300 wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

Well there you have it - conclusive annecdotal proof that gym work works :roll:

Are you saying having a stronger core won't improve your performance? It holds your pelvis and spine in place so more of your energy from your leg muscles which are attached to those goes into the pedals rather than wobbling your body and the bike about. It's like having a stiffer bike and wheels. It might not add much to your cycle to the newspaper shop, but it's gona make a small difference when you're at the edge of performance.

People on here can poo-poo stuff like this all they want, but it's like Sir Jens says .. a 1% difference you probably won't notice, but 10 1% differences separate you from the rest.

I could be said that your core will get as strong as it needs to be by doing the sport. Unless there is an underlying issue or you have spare time over an off-season. Why bother?

I'm going to assume that Bahzob is attempting to troll though

dw300

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

I could be said that your core will get as strong as it needs to be by doing the sport. Unless there is an underlying issue or you have spare time over an off-season. Why bother?

I'm going to assume that Bahzob is attempting to troll though

Well in that case you can console yourself from having wasted time in the gym, by having better off the bike functional strength and posture, and that you look like Zeus on a bike.

t.m.h.n.e.t

dw300 wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

I could be said that your core will get as strong as it needs to be by doing the sport. Unless there is an underlying issue or you have spare time over an off-season. Why bother?

I'm going to assume that Bahzob is attempting to troll though

Well in that case you can console yourself from having wasted time in the gym, by having better off the bike functional strength and posture, and that you look like Zeus on a bike.

I'm not sure you got the point. And uh, I didn't waste time in the gym:?: I train specifically for the 3 sports I do by doing those sports :shock:

dw300

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

dw300 wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

I could be said that your core will get as strong as it needs to be by doing the sport. Unless there is an underlying issue or you have spare time over an off-season. Why bother?

I'm going to assume that Bahzob is attempting to troll though

Well in that case you can console yourself from having wasted time in the gym, by having better off the bike functional strength and posture, and that you look like Zeus on a bike.

I'm not sure you got the point. And uh, I didn't waste time in the gym:?: I train specifically for the 3 sports I do by doing those sports :shock:

Not 'you' specifically, I mean the Royal 'you' ..

I mean that if people do train stuff that doesn't actually make them go faster on a bike, that it isn't necessarily a waste, as it can be an advantage in other areas of life or sports, so there may still be reasons to do it. If all people care about is training to cycle fast, then don't bother if you think it's not an advantage. But if you want generally better health, strength and looks and think it might possibly make you faster, then go ahead and do it.

t.m.h.n.e.t

dw300 wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

dw300 wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

I could be said that your core will get as strong as it needs to be by doing the sport. Unless there is an underlying issue or you have spare time over an off-season. Why bother?

I'm going to assume that Bahzob is attempting to troll though

Well in that case you can console yourself from having wasted time in the gym, by having better off the bike functional strength and posture, and that you look like Zeus on a bike.

I'm not sure you got the point. And uh, I didn't waste time in the gym:?: I train specifically for the 3 sports I do by doing those sports :shock:

Not 'you' specifically, I mean the Royal 'you' ..

I mean that if people do train stuff that doesn't actually make them go faster on a bike, that it isn't necessarily a waste, as it can be an advantage in other areas of life or sports, so there may still be reasons to do it. If all people care about is training to cycle fast, then don't bother if you think it's not an advantage. But if you want generally better health, strength and looks and think it might possibly make you faster, then go ahead and do it.

This subject which has always and forever will divide opinion

bahzob

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

I'm going to assume that Bahzob is attempting to troll though

Only a little bit...

I have long been a believer that there is no obvious reason why cycling should be unique, when for every other sport time spent doing non-specific activities (such as core work) results in better performance.

So, yes, I was pleased when I heard both Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton endorse this opinion in very clear terms. Both, independently, mentioned it not just as a minor thing but an exemplar of how Wiggins has made a step change in his training for this year's tour even wrt the high levels he had previously done to get Olympic gold.

Afraid I just can't understand what makes folks who disagree with them think they know better.

sungod

gym work is part of the training program for british cycling's elite

presumably it works for them

Tom Dean

ergo middle aged 4th cats should follow the same training program as Bradley Wiggins.

t.m.h.n.e.t

bahzob wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

I'm going to assume that Bahzob is attempting to troll though

Only a little bit..

I have long been a believer that there is no obvious reason why cycling should be unique, when for every other sport time spent doing non-specific activities (such as core work) results in better performance.

Posture - stability and balance are all directly affected by the core, even with your weight on the sitbones there is still engagement of the core group,for that reason extra curricular core work is probably worthy of a reprive. Strength training is one subject which tends to garner attention rapidly, I'm 50/50 on that one(I realise you weren't particularly referring to that)

So, yes, I was pleased when I heard both Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton endorse this opinion in very clear terms. Both, independently, mentioned it not just as a minor thing but an exemplar of how Wiggins has made a step change in his training for this year's tour even wrt the high levels he had previously done to get Olympic gold.

Was this not in relation to rehab post TDF'11 crash though? It would be expected that with little use and probable tissue wastage that some work on the shoulder area would be beneficial in that case,especially for such a strong TT'er. I'm attempting to rewatch the documentary but iplayer is broken currently.

Afraid I just can't understand what makes folks who disagree with them think they know better.

Sometimes I think terminology used only confuses the discussion.

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

I have long been a believer that there is no obvious reason why cycling should be unique, when for every other sport time spent doing non-specific activities (such as core work) results in better performance.

Please provide examples of aerobic sports where non-specific training provides greater training benefit than specific training.

dw300

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I have long been a believer that there is no obvious reason why cycling should be unique, when for every other sport time spent doing non-specific activities (such as core work) results in better performance.

Please provide examples of aerobic sports where non-specific training provides greater training benefit than specific training.

Arguments like this are just semantics .. if non-specific training helps, then it is specific training. Isn't this a question of does it actually help.

d87heaven

Maybe Wiggins had an issue that the core work helped with.

RST....you used the word 'greater' , I don't see anyone claiming it can replace bike work.

bahzob

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I have long been a believer that there is no obvious reason why cycling should be unique, when for every other sport time spent doing non-specific activities (such as core work) results in better performance.

Please provide examples of aerobic sports where non-specific training provides greater training benefit than specific training.

Just to be clear what I was saying was that
Specific training + Non Specific training (like core work/focused weights/skill development/flexibility) results in better performance than solely Specific training.

It's quite straightforward to combine these two without compromising time on specific training.

As to your question, most every top runner/swimmer will allocate training time non specific activities. Here is just one example (also showing straight forward to do both)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jan/06/features.sport3

And coming back to OP cycling now has a clear and unambiguous example. Wiggins/Sutton did not mention core work as an optional extra. They highlighted it as an exemplar of the step change that had to be made to Wiggins' training for him to win the tour.

Anybody disputing this puts themselves on the opposite side of the argument from a team that, arguably, is the most professional and science focused/evidence based team ever to take part in the tour with results to match. Not really a tenable position tbh.

alihisgreat

dw300 wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

Well there you have it - conclusive annecdotal proof that gym work works :roll:

Are you saying having a stronger core won't improve your performance? It holds your pelvis and spine in place so more of your energy from your leg muscles which are attached to those goes into the pedals rather than wobbling your body and the bike about. It's like having a stiffer bike and wheels. It might not add much to your cycle to the newspaper shop, but it's gona make a small difference when you're at the edge of performance.

People on here can poo-poo stuff like this all they want, but it's like Sir Jens says .. a 1% difference you probably won't notice, but 10 1% differences separate you from the rest.

Maybe panorama should do a program on it then? "The Truth About Core strength workouts"

... they don't make a difference unless you plan to do any sort of high intensity exercise :roll:

dennisn

Wow, I'm really enjoying this debate and am not even a part of it. Oh what the hell.
I cast my vote FOR weight training.

Bristow

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I have long been a believer that there is no obvious reason why cycling should be unique, when for every other sport time spent doing non-specific activities (such as core work) results in better performance.

Please provide examples of aerobic sports where non-specific training provides greater training benefit than specific training.

Rowing.

dennisn

Bristow wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I have long been a believer that there is no obvious reason why cycling should be unique, when for every other sport time spent doing non-specific activities (such as core work) results in better performance.

Please provide examples of aerobic sports where non-specific training provides greater training benefit than specific training.

Rowing.

I'm with ya "bahzob". I can't see why cycling is a "special" sport and all ya need to do is ride to become great. Problem is that you're up against people who, for whatever reasons, can't accept that getting a little stronger, i.e. weight training, is anything you need to do. They will cite studies galore that "prove" this. Still, in the end, they must be confronted with the reality that top athletes in many, many sports weight train. Yet cycling is different and if not different then all weight training is useless. At least that's what I see them saying. It's almost as if they are saying that nothing else matters. Just ride and eat pizza. Why bother with anything else? Why stretch? Why watch what you eat? Why rest? If having stronger muscles doesn't help, what possible reasons do we have for doing anthing physical?

Alex_Simmons/RST

dennisn wrote:

Bristow wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I have long been a believer that there is no obvious reason why cycling should be unique, when for every other sport time spent doing non-specific activities (such as core work) results in better performance.

Please provide examples of aerobic sports where non-specific training provides greater training benefit than specific training.

Rowing.

I'm with ya "bahzob". I can't see why cycling is a "special" sport and all ya need to do is ride to become great. Problem is that you're up against people who, for whatever reasons, can't accept that getting a little stronger, i.e. weight training, is anything you need to do. They will cite studies galore that "prove" this. Still, in the end, they must be confronted with the reality that top athletes in many, many sports weight train. Yet cycling is different and if not different then all weight training is useless. At least that's what I see them saying. It's almost as if they are saying that nothing else matters. Just ride and eat pizza. Why bother with anything else? Why stretch? Why watch what you eat? Why rest? If having stronger muscles doesn't help, what possible reasons do we have for doing anthing physical?

Let us know when you're done with the logical fallacies.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Bristow wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I have long been a believer that there is no obvious reason why cycling should be unique, when for every other sport time spent doing non-specific activities (such as core work) results in better performance.

Please provide examples of aerobic sports where non-specific training provides greater training benefit than specific training.

Rowing.

Which non specific training would that be, and can you demonstrate the evidence for its efficacy over and above specific training?

amaferanga

dennisn wrote:

I'm with ya "bahzob". I can't see why cycling is a "special" sport and all ya need to do is ride to become great. Problem is that you're up against people who, for whatever reasons, can't accept that getting a little stronger, i.e. weight training, is anything you need to do. They will cite studies galore that "prove" this. Still, in the end, they must be confronted with the reality that top athletes in many, many sports weight train. Yet cycling is different and if not different then all weight training is useless. At least that's what I see them saying. It's almost as if they are saying that nothing else matters. Just ride and eat pizza. Why bother with anything else? Why stretch? Why watch what you eat? Why rest? If having stronger muscles doesn't help, what possible reasons do we have for doing anthing physical?

Some folk on here are scientists as well as cyclists and that means when someone makes a claim they like to see the evidence. If there was evidence to "prove" that weights work or don't work then that'd be fine, but as it is such evidence doesn't exist. So you have people that take the view that since there's no compelling evidence to suggest they make much difference at all to your regular amateur cyclist (or Pro?) then they won't do any and will spend the time riding their bike instead (much more enjoyable). Then you have others that say that because the Pros do weights then it's got to be right for everyone and so they choose to do some kind of weights programme. Good for them.

Who is right? No-one knows. It's just unfortunate when people like you Dennis try to make out that you're really smart cos you do weights and everyone who doesn't is just an idiot.

markwb79

For armatures, if you have a spare hour to do core training each week. You are probably better doing an extra hours worth of specific training.

If you are a pro and already at your maximum hours for riding a bike, and still have an hour spare. I can see where there is an advantage of core training.

alihisgreat

Markwb79 wrote:

For armatures, if you have a spare hour to do core training each week. You are probably better doing an extra hours worth of specific training.

If you are a pro and already at your maximum hours for riding a bike, and still have an hour spare. I can see where there is an advantage of core training.

Pre-core training... I had lower back pain when putting out higher levels of power... and long periods in the drops.

Post-core training... I have no lower back pain and feel more stable when putting out higher levels of power.

Seems like there is advantages for amateur riders?

(and I wasn't doing significant amounts of cycling whilst I was doing the core training as the weather was crap.. so I can isolate the core training as the cause of improvement)

sassse

My tuppence worth is that I think there are definate benefits to core tarining. Unfortunately they are not evident straight away, it takes time 12 - 18 motnhs to really see the benfits.

I was off the bike for the best part of 9 months due to a serious fracture of the lower leg requiring a couple fo operations and which took a long-time to heal. During this period I was able to swim and do a bit of low impact training, one of which was pilates.

Now back on the bike I am able to climb for much longer seated than previously and overall have a much stronger position on the bike, allowing me to lay down more power than before. Now I just need some more base miles and am looking forward to seeing some god times later in the year.

So based on my personal experiemce I am all for pilates/core training I plan to keep it up going forwards.

Alex_Simmons/RST

I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from doing core work.

However I can think of probably a dozens things that are proven performance enhancers and hence have a much higher priority. The vast majority of people haven't tapped those yet, let alone spending time on stuff that has no strong evidence one way or another for its efficacy (e.g. weights / core work).

As for anecdotes, I had a leg amputation, did nothing but on-bike training once I could walk/ride again and ended up producing more sustainable power than I did before amputation. What does that say? Nothing, just like all anecdotes - they are not evidence of anything much.

BTW - there are plenty of good core workouts one can do on the bike. Sprints, standing starts, hard hill efforts, seated sprints and accelerations, hard tempo, threshold and VO2 max intervals, hillclimbs all work the core.

sassse

Alex , I agree most of could focus on a whole host of areas to improve their performance including being more scientific in their training.

I was actually introduced to core training by one of the GB Rowing Squad coaches as part of a balanced training program for rowing ( I am not a GB Rower and never was not even close ....), in rowing it seems one of the limiting factors on power transmission is the leg to back connection... therefore improving the core improves this connection and should make you faster and less prone to injury... or that seems to be the theory and it is something that has stuck in the back of my mind over time.

I think people need to individually look at theior strengths and weaknesses and target those. So when forced by injury to do something different, I tried pilates and a few other items. Improving my core does seem to have helped my transfer power better without wasting energy moving around on the bike all the time.

It won't necessarily be the same for everyone, which is why I think people need to look at their weaknesses and strengths and plan from there... horses for courses as they say... one size does not fit all..... and every other cliche I can think of.

dennisn

amaferanga wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I'm with ya "bahzob". I can't see why cycling is a "special" sport and all ya need to do is ride to become great. Problem is that you're up against people who, for whatever reasons, can't accept that getting a little stronger, i.e. weight training, is anything you need to do. They will cite studies galore that "prove" this. Still, in the end, they must be confronted with the reality that top athletes in many, many sports weight train. Yet cycling is different and if not different then all weight training is useless. At least that's what I see them saying. It's almost as if they are saying that nothing else matters. Just ride and eat pizza. Why bother with anything else? Why stretch? Why watch what you eat? Why rest? If having stronger muscles doesn't help, what possible reasons do we have for doing anthing physical?

If there was evidence to "prove" that weights work or don't work then that'd be fine, but as it is such evidence doesn't exist.
Who is right? No-one knows. It's just unfortunate when people like you Dennis try to make out that you're really smart cos you do weights and everyone who doesn't is just an idiot.

I'm thinking that you can't prove that weights DON'T work. Key word thinking. Sort of in the vein of trying to prove that something doesn't exist. Can't be done.
Anyway, as for me being or acting smart, isn't that what everyone is doing when they post, on just about anything? They give you their opinion and they think it's right. Same thing for everyone.