Core Strength

dennisn

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Fitness instructors are obsessed about core strength... it's a fact of life.

Very well put.

My question is "What exactly IS core strength"? Other than just feel good buzz words?

markwb79

dennisn wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Fitness instructors are obsessed about core strength... it's a fact of life.

Very well put.

My question is "What exactly IS core strength"? Other than just feel good buzz words?

A way to make money?

dennisn

Markwb79 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Fitness instructors are obsessed about core strength... it's a fact of life.

Very well put.

My question is "What exactly IS core strength"? Other than just feel good buzz words?

A way to make money?

Heh heh. Could be. You hear it in all the fitness advertisements. Core this, core that.

buckles

Core, blimey.

pipipi

I think my fitness instructor fancies me.

Whenever she sees me exercising she shouts "Cor"

ai_1

dennisn wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Fitness instructors are obsessed about core strength... it's a fact of life.

Very well put.

My question is "What exactly IS core strength"? Other than just feel good buzz words?

There may be some variation in use due to the term getting popular and people who don't really know what they're talking about throwing it in where it doesn't belong (hopefully I'm not one of these!). However my understanding of the term "core muscles" is that it refers to postural muscles of the torso which should always be engaged at a low level to maintain good posture (i.e. good alignment of spine, pelvis, shoulders, etc.) and at a higher level when needed to stabilise the body during strenuous activity.
As I understand it, those of us with fairly sedentary lifestyles, like myself, who spend large portions of the day sitting down (driving, work at a desk, watching TV, etc) tend to lose core strength because we spend so much time with our posture supported. The fact that we may spend several hours a week cycling does not compensate for this although it's undoubtedly better than nothing.
So, to say core strength is only for people with pre-existing back injury or similar misses the point in my opinion. The point is that most of us have a pre-existing problem, even if we don't have an injury....yet.

imposter2.0

Ai_1 wrote:

The fact that we may spend several hours a week cycling does not compensate for this although it's undoubtedly better than nothing.

This is the bit I don't understand. Nobody is saying cycling gives you a 'strong core' - or that it compensates for a 'sedentary lifestyle'. Cycling will bring about adaptions in the core in line with the amount you cycle - just like any other muscle, or group of muscles. Not sure what else anyone would expect.

ai_1

Imposter wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

The fact that we may spend several hours a week cycling does not compensate for this although it's undoubtedly better than nothing.

This is the bit I don't understand. Nobody is saying cycling gives you a 'strong core' - or that it compensates for a 'sedentary lifestyle'. Cycling will bring about adaptions in the core in line with the amount you cycle - just like any other muscle, or group of muscles. Not sure what else anyone would expect.

It may not.
If I understand correctly there are other muscles that can be recruited to compensate for a weak core and thereby allow you engage in activities like cycling without major problems, however they are muscles less suited to the job of stabilisation and will be less effective, tire quicker and may lead to muscle imbalances over time. Furthermore if these muscles also have work to do that does not involve stabilisation then they are weakened by the double-role and performance may suffer. Also the fact that these can be recruited for specific jobs means the optimum core muscles do not necessarily adapt as you may expect and you can remain in a less efficient and less comfortable state.
Again, to be clear, I'm not claiming to be an expert, the above is a summary of my understanding of this but it may contain errors.

diy

I wouldn't say I have a particularly weak core. But I have a legacy of upper body strength from body building days in my 20s, nothing like it used to be but still better than it would be. Being a keen cyclists I'm pretty strong in the quads and calves, so I can do squats and lunges etc. So the bit in my middle is the bit that I don't exercise.

I do a few classes which focus on this area we do some fairly hard abs, and side muscles e.g.


Its 45 minute spin + 30 mins of Core - Most of the cyclists who do both struggle with the core.

She also pointed out I have hyper lordosis (curved back) which she is helping me fix. Not about money - she is a mate so its free. I just wondered why nobody ever talks about core strength, yet almost every pro trainer (and cycle trainer) says its important.

ai_1

diy wrote:

....I just wondered why nobody ever talks about core strength, yet almost every pro trainer (and cycle trainer) says its important.

Plenty people do... but probably the majority don't. I think cycling is overly traditional, compared to say running, swimming, triathlon or most other sports. There's a strong prevailing attitude that anything that hasn't been considered important for the last 10, 20, 50 or 100 years mustn't be important. Anything new must be a gimmick. Some popular new phenomena are gimmicks, but plenty others are perfectly rational, often evidence based and deserve consideration.

imposter2.0

diy wrote:

Being a keen cyclists I'm pretty strong in the quads and calves, so I can do squats and lunges etc. So the bit in my middle is the bit that I don't exercise.

While you are cycling, your core is being exercised, in line with the demands that cycling places on it (which isn't very much). If you need to exercise your core for other reasons then fine, but cycling will exercise it as much as it needs to for cycling.

ai_1

Imposter wrote:

diy wrote:

Being a keen cyclists I'm pretty strong in the quads and calves, so I can do squats and lunges etc. So the bit in my middle is the bit that I don't exercise.

While you are cycling, your core is being exercised, in line with the demands that cycling places on it (which isn't very much). If you need to exercise your core for other reasons then fine, but cycling will exercise it as much as it needs to for cycling.

Are you quite certain that this is not a potential compromise to cycling performance as per my previous post (compensation by non-core muscles)?

It's a recurring theme that cyclists insist riding is the only training you need or should bother with. Under some circumstances it may be true, or perhaps it's just most convenient or most enjoyable. I think there's plenty reason to question that "wisdom".

dennisn

Ai_1 wrote:

It's a recurring theme that cyclists insist riding is the only training you need or should bother with. Under some circumstances it may be true, or perhaps it's just most convenient or most enjoyable. I think there's plenty reason to question that "wisdom".

I think this "recurring theme" is what some cyclist's want to believe or think that the pro's do. Therefore they must do it. Sort of a "the pro's ride deep wheels therefore I must ride deep wheels". I understand their reasoning but as you say I would question their "wisdom" in thinking that way.
I would say that I do tend to believe that for the average rider(most of us - sorry but it's true) simply riding and not much else will give us all we need to ride the events, races, tours, etc. that we have on our schedule. Plus there is that time factor in that you just don't have time for everything - family, riding, friends, work, home.

imposter2.0

Ai_1 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

diy wrote:

Being a keen cyclists I'm pretty strong in the quads and calves, so I can do squats and lunges etc. So the bit in my middle is the bit that I don't exercise.

While you are cycling, your core is being exercised, in line with the demands that cycling places on it (which isn't very much). If you need to exercise your core for other reasons then fine, but cycling will exercise it as much as it needs to for cycling.

Are you quite certain that this is not a potential compromise to cycling performance as per my previous post (compensation by non-core muscles)?

It's a recurring theme that cyclists insist riding is the only training you need or should bother with. Under some circumstances it may be true, or perhaps it's just most convenient or most enjoyable. I think there's plenty reason to question that "wisdom".

ok, for the sake of logic, tell me why - for cycling purposes - you think the core does not get a sufficient work out for cycling, while you are cycling?

mikenetic

Look at the question another way. Does cycling provide exercise that keeps different muscle groups in balance?

Although the core may get some improvement, the muscles through the legs get the majority of the activity. Over time, you're developing one set of muscles more than another. If they need to work together as a system, which they do, then things are out of balance and problems occur.

You need to have sufficient pelvic and spinal stability to handle the power developed through the legs. Cycling on it's own doesn't do that. It's like you've spent all your cash tuning your engine without reinforcing the chassis to handle the extra power. So things get wobbly.

You see similar problems with hamstrings and hip flexors. The highly repetitive, restricted range of motion movement of cycling affects the muscles - over time you can get progressively tighter.

I've been through it myself. Since incorporating core and flexibility work into my general health routine I've got rid of the lower back pain that started to develop after cycling relatively seriously for a couple of years. It didn't even take that much time to correct it, but it's improved the quality of my riding experience substantially.

ai_1

Imposter wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

diy wrote:

Being a keen cyclists I'm pretty strong in the quads and calves, so I can do squats and lunges etc. So the bit in my middle is the bit that I don't exercise.

While you are cycling, your core is being exercised, in line with the demands that cycling places on it (which isn't very much). If you need to exercise your core for other reasons then fine, but cycling will exercise it as much as it needs to for cycling.

Are you quite certain that this is not a potential compromise to cycling performance as per my previous post (compensation by non-core muscles)?

It's a recurring theme that cyclists insist riding is the only training you need or should bother with. Under some circumstances it may be true, or perhaps it's just most convenient or most enjoyable. I think there's plenty reason to question that "wisdom".

ok, for the sake of logic, tell me why - for cycling purposes - you think the core does not get a sufficient work out for cycling, while you are cycling?

I've already done so in earlier posts. I'd also agree with miknetic's response above which mirrors some of my experience. I used to o suffer back pain after a few hours on the bike especially if pushing hard. This was primarily because hamstring tension was forcing my pelvis into a poor position which a stronger core could have prevented. A combination of core work and working on hamstring flexibility has pretty much eliminated the problem. Cycling alone was only strengthening my legs and making the problem worse. Under these sorts of circumstances your body acts primarily to adapt to the problem not to fix it. So cycling does not provide all the core strength you need for cycling. Nor is this particular to pre existing non cycling related problems.

hypster

Imposter wrote:

While you are cycling, your core is being exercised, in line with the demands that cycling places on it (which isn't very much). If you need to exercise your core for other reasons then fine, but cycling will exercise it as much as it needs to for cycling.

+1

I also wonder how long Eddy Merckx spent doing the plank each week?

ai_1

hypster wrote:

Imposter wrote:

While you are cycling, your core is being exercised, in line with the demands that cycling places on it (which isn't very much). If you need to exercise your core for other reasons then fine, but cycling will exercise it as much as it needs to for cycling.

+1

I also wonder how long Eddy Merckx spent doing the plank each week?

Yawn....

It's like the cycling version of reduction to Hitler

imposter2.0

Ai_1 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

ok, for the sake of logic, tell me why - for cycling purposes - you think the core does not get a sufficient work out for cycling, while you are cycling?

I've already done so in earlier posts. I'd also agree with miknetic's response above which mirrors some of my experience. I used to o suffer back pain after a few hours on the bike especially if pushing hard. This was primarily because hamstring tension was forcing my pelvis into a poor position which a stronger core could have prevented. A combination of core work and working on hamstring flexibility has pretty much eliminated the problem. Cycling alone was only strengthening my legs and making the problem worse. Under these sorts of circumstances your body acts primarily to adapt to the problem not to fix it. So cycling does not provide all the core strength you need for cycling. Nor is this particular to pre existing non cycling related problems.

I think you are confusing a poor position on the bike with a weak core. The two are not the same. The other thing is, cycling does not actually make your legs stronger (as you mentioned), but that's another issue.

Obviously if you have back problems - which it sounds like you have - then core exercises may possibly help, as might a bike fit. But for those with normal function, I don't see that any further work on the core is needed.

ai_1

Imposter wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

ok, for the sake of logic, tell me why - for cycling purposes - you think the core does not get a sufficient work out for cycling, while you are cycling?

I've already done so in earlier posts. I'd also agree with miknetic's response above which mirrors some of my experience. I used to o suffer back pain after a few hours on the bike especially if pushing hard. This was primarily because hamstring tension was forcing my pelvis into a poor position which a stronger core could have prevented. A combination of core work and working on hamstring flexibility has pretty much eliminated the problem. Cycling alone was only strengthening my legs and making the problem worse. Under these sorts of circumstances your body acts primarily to adapt to the problem not to fix it. So cycling does not provide all the core strength you need for cycling. Nor is this particular to pre existing non cycling related problems.

I think you are confusing a poor position on the bike with a weak core. The two are not the same. The other thing is, cycling does not actually make your legs stronger (as you mentioned), but that's another issue.

No. I don't think I am.
As for whether cycling makes your legs stronger... depends what your legs were like before you started, what sort of riding you do and most importantly - your definition of "stronger"
In my comment I am not referring to max instantaneous force but rather ability to of legs to sustain high work rate for long periods which I'm sure you'll agree does increase with cycling.

imposter2.0

mikenetic wrote:

Look at the question another way. Does cycling provide exercise that keeps different muscle groups in balance?

The muscle groups used by cycling are 'balanced' according to the demands placed on them. Not sure what else there is to say on that.

Ai_1 wrote:

As for whether cycling makes your legs stronger... depends what your legs were like before you started, what sort of riding you do and most importantly - your definition of "stronger"

I'm just using the standard dictionary definition of the word - and on that basis, cycling aerobically does practically nothing to develop strength, regardless of what your legs were like previously.

Ai_1 wrote:

In my comment I am not referring to max instantaneous force but rather ability to of legs to sustain high work rate for long periods which I'm sure you'll agree does increase with cycling.

Well, if you mean 'sustainable power' (which is the conventional definition of what you are referring to), then the higher or longer you make the power, the more your core will adapt to the forces placed upon it. In that sense, it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect the core to behave any differently to any other muscle group in the human body. But in any case, the forces concerned are not that high (as has already been pointed out earlier) - and are certainly no higher than those that the core would have to sustain if you were simply standing up, or walking along the street.

But, if you can demonstrate that the core of a healthy and able human being is not up to the task of riding a bike at a level commensurate with their training or riding history, then I'll be first in the queue for the gym tomorrow morning.

diy

I don't buy that you need core strength to cope with the power produced by the legs. We are after all taking a position where our legs are connected to a very stable tripod like structure. Of course the lower down we get and the more relaxed our grip the more we might rely on core strength.

I also have found non-cycling activity has made a big difference to my shorter distance performance. I have yet to find if its impacted my longer distance performance as my biggies are not until later in the season.

One thing I would say, is spinning (indoor cycling) totally screws up the neck muscles unless you condition yourself to stay low and keep your head and eyes up. The down side to indoor cycling (even turboing) is its all too easy to take our eyes off the "road".

vs

hypster wrote:

Imposter wrote:

While you are cycling, your core is being exercised, in line with the demands that cycling places on it (which isn't very much). If you need to exercise your core for other reasons then fine, but cycling will exercise it as much as it needs to for cycling.

+1

I also wonder how long Eddy Merckx spent doing the plank each week?

Obviously not as long as he spent fiddling with his position trying to get comfortable on his bike

http://www.sportstechlab.com/what-is-bi ... s/1921.htm

JayKosta

Yes, cycling probably does adequately condition the 'core muscles' for 'the type of cycling done in training'.
But when cycling in a manner that hasn't been regularly used in training - e.g. long hills, time-trials, rough off-road, etc., the 'core muscles' might not be up-to-the-task.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

imposter2.0

JayKosta wrote:

Yes, cycling probably does adequately condition the 'core muscles' for 'the type of cycling done in training'.
But when cycling in a manner that hasn't been regularly used in training - e.g. long hills, time-trials, rough off-road, etc., the 'core muscles' might not be up-to-the-task.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Its a good attempt at a 'cover-all' answer - but all you had to say was that the core simply responds to the stimuli placed upon it.

chrisw12

JayKosta wrote:

Yes, cycling probably does adequately condition the 'core muscles' for 'the type of cycling done in training'.
But when cycling in a manner that hasn't been regularly used in training - e.g. long hills, time-trials, rough off-road, etc., the 'core muscles' might not be up-to-the-task.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Yes you've got a point here but do you really think that doing some off bike core work is going to be any better than doing some specific bike work to address the issues?

I'll give an example, I've just done the cobbles of Flanders and suffered bad arm pump which nearly had me stopping. Now before the next trip am I better off doing some made up arm exercises or finding some rough off road and training on it?

top_bhoy

Most of us don't cycle for a living therefore the demands placed on the body varies between each and every one of us. It is the demands away from the bike which needs to be catered for and for many. I'd suggest for many, solely riding a bike as a development for 'core strength' is insufficient preparation for general living and in turn, can lead to injury and time off the bike. As I've found out, when an injury is diagnosed, it is often too late to do anything other than manage it. Prevention is better than cure and if I could turn the clock back 20 years, I'd have done core exercises as part of a weekly 'general living' routine, irrespective of any cycling which I did.

As far as leg strength and cycling goes, a lot of power on the bike is generated from the quads and the glutes. From previous threads, if weight training isn't considered as making a discernible difference to cycling and its now being said that cycling doesn't actually make the legs stronger. I appreciate increasing the aerobic engine is a factor in improving performance but the body doesn't work in isolation and the body will eventually break down if muscle development is overlooked. If its not weight training nor cycling, what training is required to increase the power generated by the glutes and quads?

imposter2.0

Top_Bhoy wrote:

If its not weight training nor cycling, what training is required to increase the power generated by the glutes and quads?

Not entirely sure what you mean. If you want stronger legs for purposes other than cycling, then go to the gym and push some big weights. If you want to ride faster (ie more/higher sustainable power), then training your aerobic system on a bike is difficult to beat.

top_bhoy

chrisw12 wrote:

JayKosta wrote:

Yes, cycling probably does adequately condition the 'core muscles' for 'the type of cycling done in training'.
But when cycling in a manner that hasn't been regularly used in training - e.g. long hills, time-trials, rough off-road, etc., the 'core muscles' might not be up-to-the-task.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Yes you've got a point here but do you really think that doing some off bike core work is going to be any better than doing some specific bike work to address the issues?

I'll give an example, I've just done the cobbles of Flanders and suffered bad arm pump which nearly had me stopping. Now before the next trip am I better off doing some made up arm exercises or finding some rough off road and training on it?

I'm not sure what bad arm pump is but what if the arm isn't actually the problem. Hypothetically, what if the problem is a weakness in the shoulder/top of back area? A strong core and back/shoulder area will support the arms and no amount of arm training will rectify that weakness. However, do specific back/shoulder and core training and you'll resolve it.

That's why I have been attending pilates over the last few months. It strengthens and conditions all areas of the body and it has improved both my posture and flexibility/suppleness on the bike (agreed though its from a low starting point ).

top_bhoy

Imposter wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

If its not weight training nor cycling, what training is required to increase the power generated by the glutes and quads?

Not entirely sure what you mean. If you want stronger legs for purposes other than cycling, then go to the gym and push some big weights. If you want to ride faster (ie more/higher sustainable power), then training your aerobic system on a bike is difficult to beat.

There is no disputing increased aerobic capability improves cycling.

How is improved aerobic capability transfer into increased power at the pedals if the legs aren't being strengthened by cycling? Maybe its my perception because there are times I don't feel completely out of breathe but my legs feel like they could hardly turn another stroke and feel fatigued. I put it down to my legs not matching my improved aerobic capability (admittedly from a low starting point) hence need to be strengthened.