Core/Weight training & Bradley Wiggins

springtide9

del

technique

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

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).

You are forgetting about the bone structure of cyclists ?

dw300

If anyone (or we as a group) wants to develop a scientific training plan that will test whether weight training works or not, i'll be the guinea-pig.

I have my own power-cage at home and enjoy squats and deadlifts as much as riding my bike.

dennisn

dw300 wrote:

I have my own power-cage at home and enjoy squats and deadlifts as much as riding my bike.

You must be that one in a billion person. I didn't think anyone out there ENJOYS
squats.

dw300

dennisn wrote:

dw300 wrote:

I have my own power-cage at home and enjoy squats and deadlifts as much as riding my bike.

You must be that one in a billion person. I didn't think anyone out there ENJOYS
squats.

Aw, they're not bad as long as you don't blackout. It's the 72 hours of DOMS afterwards thats not so enjoyable!

t.m.h.n.e.t

dw300 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

dw300 wrote:

I have my own power-cage at home and enjoy squats and deadlifts as much as riding my bike.

You must be that one in a billion person. I didn't think anyone out there ENJOYS
squats.

Aw, they're not bad as long as you don't blackout. It's the 72 hours of DOMS afterwards thats not so enjoyable!

It's only weakness leaving the body.

dennisn

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

dw300 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

dw300 wrote:

I have my own power-cage at home and enjoy squats and deadlifts as much as riding my bike.

You must be that one in a billion person. I didn't think anyone out there ENJOYS
squats.

Aw, they're not bad as long as you don't blackout. It's the 72 hours of DOMS afterwards thats not so enjoyable!

It's only weakness leaving the body.

Well, it's something leaving the body. Let's hope it's weakness. For me it was always brains leaving the body, because I always asked myself "What the hell am I doing, I must be nuts".

dw300

If you don't clench your butthole hard enough it could be poop leaving the body.

Alex_Simmons/RST

technique wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

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).

You are forgetting about the bone structure of cyclists ?

In what sense? Bone density? If that was an issue (and it is for some people), then I would recommend exercises that are known to be *most* effective at helping with that. Core and weights don't make the grade. Jogging and similar jarring type exercises are most effective.

Alex_Simmons/RST

sassse wrote:

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.

Here's another theory to consider:

If your core is a limiter when rowing, is it not then taxed in a specific manner such that it will improve to meet the demands placed on it (like every other muscle/muscle group in the body)? Why is not rowing itself a great core workout for rowing?

dennisn

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

sassse wrote:

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.

Here's another theory to consider:

If your core is a limiter when rowing, is it not then taxed in a specific manner such that it will improve to meet the demands placed on it (like every other muscle/muscle group in the body)? Why is not rowing itself a great core workout for rowing?

I think we have all bought into this word called "core". For my money it's just a buzz word to sell workout routines. Just exactly what is this "core"? If it's muscles, ligaments, or tendons then why call it "core"? Is there some inner thing in us that only "core" workouts can bring out? Something other than our muscles, tendons, and ligaments? Where is the anatomy chart showing this "core"? All kidding aside, I know they are talking about ab's, back, chest, hip muscles, and maybe a few others but can't we take a break from this "core" thing? They are muscles, like all the other muscles in the body. They respond to work, but no, we must have them named something special and therefore be able to try and somehow sell them as unique and with special needs.

cookiemonster

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Here's another theory to consider:

If your core is a limiter when rowing, is it not then taxed in a specific manner such that it will improve to meet the demands placed on it (like every other muscle/muscle group in the body)? Why is not rowing itself a great core workout for rowing?

Because people generally find a way to compensate for poor stability or strength through some other means, leading to muscle imbalances and the like. The physio books are filled with this; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stability-Sport-Performance-Movement-Technique/dp/1905367090 is a good read on the subject with decent academic credentials if you're interested.

IMO

1. There's a fairly strong case for core stability work being beneficial to cyclists from a health and injury avoidance perspective

2. There is also an extremely strong case that if you have limited training time then you will see far greater improvements in your cycling from cycle-specific training.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive!

Alex - historically you've been very dismissive of any core stability work; whereas now you seem to be taking the line that cycle-specific training is more important than core work, leaving open the possibility that there may be benefit (if time allows, etc) in such work.

Is this the case? Or do you still remain of the opinion that there is no value whatsoever in core work?


jon

Alex_Simmons/RST

cookiemonster wrote:

Alex - historically you've been very dismissive of any core stability work; whereas now you seem to be taking the line that cycle-specific training is more important than core work, leaving open the possibility that there may be benefit (if time allows, etc) in such work.

Is this the case? Or do you still remain of the opinion that there is no value whatsoever in core work?

I think people have misinterpreted what I've always said (as somehow being "anti-core"). What I have said is that core strength is not a limiter to endurance cycling performance. But then neither is leg strength. I've also said that we get core training when we ride the bike. I would argue that bike fit is way more important to get right as a means to correct problems with stability/control.

I've never sought to dissuade anyone from doing it. There are many reasons why one might do it. Just don't have unrealistic expectations about its efficacy as a way to perform better on a bike, especially when I'll bet London to a brick that the vast majority are not doing all the other things that would rate as a much higher priority for improving endurance cycling performance.

Of course there are always specific cases where someone needs special help to do anything, let alone cycling. And of course doing stuff you enjoy doing is usually good for motivation, so if you are motivated to train hard, that's always a consideration.

cookiemonster

Thanks Alex - I havent see you state this as clearly before (though likely just that I dont read ever post on BR). I think its difficult to disagree with core strength not being the limiter to performance in the majority of cases.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I've also said that we get core training when we ride the bike. I would argue that bike fit is way more important to get right as a means to correct problems with stability/control.

I'll do "a bit of an Alex" though, and ask what evidence you have for the statements above?

I'm interested in this stuff but by no means an expert; however my limited reading of physio texts suggests that if you have a weak core you are likely to compensate; instead of using the large global stability muscles, you may attempt to hold yourself with a general rigidity. On the bike this is someone who tenses their arms, neck, shoulders and upper back muscles to hold themselves in place, leading to tiredness and pain in their upper body, rather than relying on the central control zone (tra, multifidus) to keep themselves upright. This compensating behaviour means that their core is never "trained" and the situation only improves to the extent that the upper body muscles may increase in strength, assuming injury is avoided.

Interestingly (I've never thought of this before!) a bike fit may "solve" the problem by recognising that too much is being asked of the shoulders, arms and neck, and a new position with raised and closer handlebars being prescribed.

Additionally the most common physio treatment for knee injuries are exercises to correct muscle imbalances, again where the big global stabiliser muscles like the glutes are not being fully used, and too much is being asked of the knee and ITB. In these cases a bike fit can again "solve" the problem by masking it - a stack of wedges to force the knee outwards and avoid it falling inwards for example - but will not address the underlying issues that a physio would look for.

jon

bahzob

Mo Farah training - using weights. Guess he knows what he's doing.,

Watch the whole thing or just skip to 3:30 for the section thats especially relevant here.

http://www.flotrack.org/video/522539

bahzob

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Alex - historically you've been very dismissive of any core stability work; whereas now you seem to be taking the line that cycle-specific training is more important than core work, leaving open the possibility that there may be benefit (if time allows, etc) in such work.

Is this the case? Or do you still remain of the opinion that there is no value whatsoever in core work?

I think people have misinterpreted what I've always said (as somehow being "anti-core"). What I have said is that core strength is not a limiter to endurance cycling performance. But then neither is leg strength. I've also said that we get core training when we ride the bike. I would argue that bike fit is way more important to get right as a means to correct problems with stability/control.

.

I think we can assume that Bradley Wiggins spends quite a lot of time riding his bike. And that he is has taken the trouble to get a proper bike fit.

Nonetheless both he and his coach highlighted his work on core strength as being a significant factor in his success.

IOW they disagree with you. It was a limiter, you don't get enough core training when riding a bike and by addressing this they made him a better rider.

bahzob

http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/32874

Haile Gebrselassie

“Normally, I am training for about three hours, and when it’s two months before a competition, I will be doing about 35k in that morning slot.

“In the early evening, I spend most of my time in the gym doing strength work.


“But even if I am in the gym, I will still do 10k on the treadmill and another 10k on the bike.

“Then I will do some strength training. That is seven days a week, except for Sunday, when I only do the morning session.

Tom Dean

So should I be running as well as training my core? This is getting confusing

alihisgreat

Tom Dean wrote:

So should I be running as well as training my core? This is getting confusing

yes.

Running is good for cycling. Not only from a fitness point of view.. but cross discipline training ensures all your muscles get a workout and maintains balance... so you don't end up hurting yourself by overdeveloping certain muscle groups.

NJK

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

So should I be running as well as training my core? This is getting confusing

yes.

Running is good for cycling. Not only from a fitness point of view.. but cross discipline training ensures all your muscles get a workout and maintains balance... so you don't end up hurting yourself by overdeveloping certain muscle groups.

Really? I must tell Bradley's coach!

NJK

My advice is do a little bit of trunk work for general health (not crunches), get a good bike fit and get cycling! Also you can do pretty much all trunk that is related too cycling on the bike. Remain seated during steepish climbs, maintain threshold power or above and maybe fractionally lower cadence.

Tom Dean

haha ok I wouldn't want to overdevelop certain muscle groups by cycling too much!

NJK

You have to look at the performance limiters of the sport, i've worked with Tennis players, they require a lot more work in this area, if you are a endurance cyclist who is spending a considerable time working out in a gym you simply won't achieve your potential! Concentrate on the performance limiters of the sport!! Not what other sports do!

t.m.h.n.e.t

NJK wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

So should I be running as well as training my core? This is getting confusing

yes.

Running is good for cycling. Not only from a fitness point of view.. but cross discipline training ensures all your muscles get a workout and maintains balance... so you don't end up hurting yourself by overdeveloping certain muscle groups.

Really? I must tell Bradley's coach!

Stretches your hamstrings which cycling shortens apparantly. I run and see no particular difference on or off the bike.

alihisgreat

NJK wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

So should I be running as well as training my core? This is getting confusing

yes.

Running is good for cycling. Not only from a fitness point of view.. but cross discipline training ensures all your muscles get a workout and maintains balance... so you don't end up hurting yourself by overdeveloping certain muscle groups.

Really? I must tell Bradley's coach!

oh sorry. i didn't realise we we're all pro athletes on this forum...

in that case i retract my previous statement about cross training being good... because we've all got physios and coaches to give us tailored cycling specific training plans... so no need to do anything else. :roll:

NJK

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

NJK wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

So should I be running as well as training my core? This is getting confusing

yes.

Running is good for cycling. Not only from a fitness point of view.. but cross discipline training ensures all your muscles get a workout and maintains balance... so you don't end up hurting yourself by overdeveloping certain muscle groups.

Really? I must tell Bradley's coach!

oh sorry. i didn't realise we we're all pro athletes on this forum...

in that case i retract my previous statement about cross training being good... because we've all got physios and coaches to give us tailored cycling specific training plans... so no need to do anything else. :roll:

I'm giving my professional opinion, i don't believe running to be good for cycling. And most probably for a cyclist, running could lead to injury. If you have time for running and your a cyclist why aren't you cycling?!

t.m.h.n.e.t

NJK wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

NJK wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

So should I be running as well as training my core? This is getting confusing

yes.

Running is good for cycling. Not only from a fitness point of view.. but cross discipline training ensures all your muscles get a workout and maintains balance... so you don't end up hurting yourself by overdeveloping certain muscle groups.

Really? I must tell Bradley's coach!

oh sorry. i didn't realise we we're all pro athletes on this forum...

in that case i retract my previous statement about cross training being good... because we've all got physios and coaches to give us tailored cycling specific training plans... so no need to do anything else. :roll:

I'm giving my professional opinion, i don't believe running to be good for cycling. And most probably for a cyclist, running could lead to injury. If you have time for running and your a cyclist why aren't you cycling?!

Triathlete

ric/rstsport

triathlon isn't cycling!

t.m.h.n.e.t

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

triathlon isn't cycling!

1/3rd of it is though,I was a cyclist first

P_Tucker

This thread has gone full retard. Hilario