Pilates recommendation for cycling

cougie

So some people do it. Some don't. Some riders swear by it. Some don't.
If you think you might have a poor core - then what's the harm in a few lessons.
If you think your core is fine- then don't bother.
If your core strength is good then you should be using less energy to hold yourself and this could translate into less fatigue and hence improved speed over distance.

It's the kind of marginal gain that would be very hard to prove - but a healthy back is very useful whoever to are and whatever your sport is.

I'd not do it expecting to see a massive improvement in speed - but what harm would it do ?
Overall conditioning is important for a lot of athletes.

If you are giving it a go - ask around to find a good teacher and give it a few weeks to get the hang of it. It's very different from cycling and if done correctly can be very intense.

imposter2.0

cougie wrote:

If you think you might have a poor core - then what's the harm in a few lessons.
If you think your core is fine- then don't bother.

So, pretty much what I said on page 1 then ?? If that's what you think, I'm a bit confused as to why you called me a troll earlier ? Unless you were just jumping on the bandwagon.

cougie

I CBA reading all of your points - you did seem to be very argumentative for the sake of it.
Maybe I read you wrong. Apologies if that was the case.

danlikesbikes

Imposter wrote:

We haven't got very far in five pages. Nobody is disputing that an unstable core would benefit from some additional core exercises. That is pretty obvious. But if your core is 'normal' or 'stable' (as most healthy people's cores already are - refer to the definition of a stable core given earlier), then why would additional core exercise be needed beyond the stimulus it already gets from your chosen sport?

Can't give you proof as I don't know of any specific studies, but if we take a sport at random lets say........ urm....... I don't know...... hold on I've got it....... Tennis, that will do.

Tennis must exercise you and you would get fit playing tennis, I don't think you could say that it does not. But does doing none specific tennis exercised such as specific core, stretching, weight lifting exercised help you grow (perhaps not the best word), strengthen, increase power, possibly reduce injury (by taking care of nature imbalances that the sport itself when playing might not address) make you a strong, more balanced & possibly helping you to (sorry fad phrase coming) "injury proof" oneself.

You could also express it as a form of overtraining, not the bad type which leads to illness and injury. But breaking the movements down from the whole game into their parts and focusing in on them specifically and working at those specific parts harder than you could do in sport itself.

We after all do something similar in cycling when we do work at above threshold levels, interval sprints not just to mimic what we would do in a racing situation but to also work ourselves to be able to be "comfortable" at that race pace because we have trained at high speed/pace etc.

Having said that you could put it the other way round that specific bike training (to the type of riding your looking to do) is the best way to go. If your a 1 hour crit racer then get out on your bike and train specifically for that type of scenario, put some time into the maths and work backwards from the estimated time you want to do and then work your training out towards that point.

Personally I agree that your core does get a work out when riding, though perhaps not at enough of a rate to increase but to maintain any fitness specifically in the core. Therefore if you can supplement your training by working that area (or any other you care too) and you can increase the core strength/power above the level you can achieve whilst on the bike then it would be a benefit. So in this case I think that you would get a benefit in terms of cycling however doing a scientific test to prove either way would be quite hard indeed to prove/disprove.

Only my opinion & I offer no scientific proof either way, so believe what you will or not I am after all bloke at a computer.

imposter2.0

cougie wrote:

I CBA reading all of your points - you did seem to be very argumentative for the sake of it.
Maybe I read you wrong. Apologies if that was the case.

Cougie - thanks. I probably am being argumentative, but that is sometimes necessary (especially so in this case, given some of the monkeys on here) in order to establish a proposition.

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Can't give you proof as I don't know of any specific studies, but if we take a sport at random lets say........ urm....... I don't know...... hold on I've got it....... Tennis, that will do.

Tennis must exercise you and you would get fit playing tennis, I don't think you could say that it does not. But does doing none specific tennis exercised such as specific core, stretching, weight lifting exercised help you grow (perhaps not the best word), strengthen, increase power, possibly reduce injury (by taking care of nature imbalances that the sport itself when playing might not address) make you a strong, more balanced & possibly helping you to (sorry fad phrase coming) "injury proof" oneself.

Tennis, boxing (mentioned earlier) and other sports - they are what I would call 'whole body' sports, where there is lots of movement in the core and a strong core is crucial for stability, agility, power delivery etc. No argument there. I can fully understand how a strong core would be of benefit in those situations. On a bike, all your core has to do is keep you still while working against some pretty low forces..

laurentian

Imposter wrote:

laurentian wrote:

I remember reading a while ago about the importance of core stability to running. The article basically said that a stable core means that the upper body does not rock from side to side whilst running. If the upper body does move from side to side, energy is used to "pull it back" into line with each stride and this uses energy that would otherwise be used for running. Therefore running with an insufficiently stable core was either less efficient or slower, or probably both.

It seems reasonable to assume that this would translate to cycling.

We haven't got very far in five pages. Nobody is disputing that an unstable core would benefit from some additional core exercises. That is pretty obvious. But if your core is 'normal' or 'stable' (as most healthy people's cores already are - refer to the definition of a stable core given earlier), then why would additional core exercise be needed beyond the stimulus it already gets from your chosen sport?

laurentian wrote:

I guess if you are looking for "proof" that it is beneficial, you need only to look at the training regimes of any elite athletes and sportsmen. I believe most, including those of cyclists, include core strength training. I doubt it would be used at the highest level if it were not beneficial.

Anecdote is not the same as proof. Anecdotally, I know plenty of 'elite' cyclists who do no core work at all.

"why would additional core exercise be needed beyond the stimulus it already gets from your chosen sport?"

Doesn't that kind of answer your question? If it "receives stimulus from your chosen sport" it seems reasonable to assume it is needed for that sport. If it's needed for the sport, having a stronger one can only be beneficial.

"Anecdote is not the same as proof. Anecdotally, I know plenty of 'elite' cyclists who do no core work at all"

Name four.

danlikesbikes

Imposter wrote:

On a bike, all your core has to do is keep you still while working against some pretty low forces..

Yeah agree with you that in others sports it can do a lot more work, however those forces are only low if you are static on a flat straight course and never get out of the saddle.

You may, again not saying I'm right or wrong I'll let others decide for themselves, look to train specific parts of their body including their core to be stronger than required for the forces required i.e. overtrain and strengthen them over what might be required. In order to reduce the likelihood of injury, improve flexibility etc.

Though doing so to other parts of the body i.e. increased muscle mass may be good for a sprinter but not a climber so it could work both ways in part.

imposter2.0

laurentian wrote:

Doesn't that kind of answer your question? If it "receives stimulus from your chosen sport" it seems reasonable to assume it is needed for that sport. If it's needed for the sport, having a stronger one can only be beneficial.

Do you understand what 'stimulus' means? If it already receives stimulus from doing that sport - why would it need more than is required by simply doing that sport.

laurentian wrote:

Name four.

I don't need to name any at all - it was an anecdote.

MartinB2444

Well done Imposter! So it seems you are a troll for asking insightful questions and probing the validity of the answers. As far as I can see you haven't been argumentative but challenging, there's a big difference. You've given measured responses to abusive replies. I've learnt a lot

Beastwooduk

Hi all...I'm kinda regretting posting this in the first place..I didnt want to do Pilates to make me a pro as by all intents I'm a beginner..but I've been advised to try it to help with my lower back issues..I do a lot of weight training and tennis..but cycling is taking over really so thought if i was going to try it to ease my back i would try some cycle specific exercises..it seems that general core exercises are he key anyway..thx all for the replies

laurentian

Imposter wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Doesn't that kind of answer your question? If it "receives stimulus from your chosen sport" it seems reasonable to assume it is needed for that sport. If it's needed for the sport, having a stronger one can only be beneficial.

Do you understand what 'stimulus' means? If it already receives stimulus from doing that sport - why would it need more than is required by simply doing that sport.

laurentian wrote:

Name four.

I don't need to name any at all - it was an anecdote.

I think you mean it was a lie

imposter2.0

laurentian wrote:

I think you mean it was a lie

Lies and anecdotes are equally ineffective, I think you'll find - especially where sports science is concerned. Which is why I (and others) have been repeatedly asking for proof, without success.