Core Strength
Comments
-
Top_Bhoy wrote: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.
Cycling involves repeated application of relatively low forces over a long period - the actual physical strength demand is very low. You should do a search for a few of the many 'leg strength' threads, some are very entertaining. It's not really the subject of this thread though, so I don't want to be accused to going off topic. Simpler just to look it up.0 -
Weight training isn't just conventional body building approaches where you would lift high weight for low reps. I found very high rep moderate to low weight gives your upper body a little extra strength for the rigours of very long distance cycling. Though I say that as more of an endurance MTBer than big distance roadie. I tend not to do much over 100k regularly on the road bike, but for the MTB I'll train for greater distance and higher overall climb.
For me Its always the arms and shoulders that give out first, never the legs.0 -
I think it's true that cycling will make you fit for THAT type of cycling but the points above regarding other types of riding are spot on. Since I've been based in NL and done most of my riding on the flat, my lower back on each side suffers when I go back to substantially hilly rides (despite the fact I'm putting out precisely the same power). Same for when I did the Strathpuffer 24hr MTB race - my legs were tired but my arms and shoulders were killing me. IF it were true that all you needed to do for a sport was more of that sport, you'd hardly see athletes in gyms at all - you'd never see a hockey player going for a run either, for instance. Maybe it's the word "strength" that is causing the problem here - core exercises might be a better term. Now, I could do a 5-hour round trip drive to Limburg to train on real hills or I could just do exercises for my lower back. It might even help me in other aspects of my life too, god forbid.
Part of the trouble with these debates is that the experts are totally unable to explain their points in simple terms and fall into jargon, technicalities and scientific papers far too easily. Their communication skills let them down. Scientists like Richard Dawkins and others are able to put across some complex ideas in very simple terms.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
I did a twice-weekly Pilates class for a couple of years because I bought into the idea that a strong core would help me as a cyclist and be beneficial in general. The problem with this sort of class is that because it has a range of exercises each person will naturally find that they are good at some, average at others and bad at yet others depending on where their natural strengths lie.
You might think that the whole point of a class like this is to work on areas of weakness but despite trying very hard I never found this to be the case. I just found I got better at doing a Pilates class. I never really found that the exercises really translated into anything tangible in other activities and in fact where cycling was concerned actually aggravated areas of weakness like my hip flexors which eventually caused me to give up the class altogether.
I can't say either that the class actually helped ward off any of the aches and pains you naturally get in the Spring say when you start to increase mileage on the bike such as lower back, neck, triceps etc. That only comes I find by just spending more time on the bike.
I have tried various weight training regimes in the past as well but don't really find that helps very much either. I just ride my bike now (on and off road) and try and do a bit of walking which seems to aid recovery somewhat. I've also saved quite a bit in gym membership.
I'm not saying that any of these things won't benefit other people depending on what they are trying to achieve on a bike. It's just for me that cycling four times a week and riding recreational sportives like the Marmotte, I have found just riding the bike is all I need. Dragging yourself to the gym to do a boring weight workout or a Pilates class may not be the best use of your time though if cycling is your main interest.0 -
I've had very similar experience with doing exercises to specifically "ward off" certain lower pack pains and I've found that the twinges have got worse not better. In fact I don't recall having any back specific pain before starting classes like body bump (low weights/high reps) and Core Strength.
The one thing I have found helpful is learning to stretch properly after a ride and also the use of a roller to "release" tension in the back muscles..
e.g. this ...
http://blog.exertools.com/index.php/rum ... echniques/0 -
http://www.menshealth.co.uk/fitness/cyc ... ey-wiggins
"In the gym you should focus on strengthening your core for 30 minutes each day, mixing up Pilates and yoga moves and using exercise balls. You need to focus on working muscles at their extremes, under tension, for as long as possible. Without a solid core you can't transfer power efficiently, and you'll be left with dust in your eyes, however strong your legs are."
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/fitness/ ... ning-40924
"So Wiggins went back to the gym this winter and did a strength and conditioning programme building the muscles in his core that cycling can’t reach, to the depth he needed. "
http://www.mensfitness.co.uk/exercises/ ... ey-wiggins
http://www.shortlist.com/instant-improv ... ey-wiggins0 -
mmacavity wrote:http://www.menshealth.co.uk/fitness/cycling/how-to-win-the-tour-de-france-bradley-wiggins
"In the gym you should focus on strengthening your core for 30 minutes each day, mixing up Pilates and yoga moves and using exercise balls. You need to focus on working muscles at their extremes, under tension, for as long as possible. Without a solid core you can't transfer power efficiently, and you'll be left with dust in your eyes, however strong your legs are."
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/fitness/ ... ning-40924
"So Wiggins went back to the gym this winter and did a strength and conditioning programme building the muscles in his core that cycling can’t reach, to the depth he needed. "
http://www.mensfitness.co.uk/exercises/ ... ey-wiggins
http://www.shortlist.com/instant-improv ... ey-wiggins
I could also add a quote from the book I recommended here: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12968926
"Core strength is very important not only for cycling performance, but also for injury prevention and the longevity of your cycling career. This is the one area where I would urge any rider to do some form of training off the bike". Coming from someone who transformed themselves into one of the best riders in the country in his 40s capable of doing short 19 10s and win BBAR 2 years running I'd say that this may be an opinion worth listening to
However if history is any guide there will still be some folks who will sneer at trying to learn from elite riders.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/ind ... e=&ver=swf
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gallery ... in-tuscany
http://www.velouk.net/2011/12/13/team-n ... -sardinia/
http://www.humanpush.com/cycling-news/6 ... scany.html
http://www.menshealth.co.uk/living/men/ ... -cavendish
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... -best.html
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/t ... ike-28320/
http://www.mensfitness.com/training/end ... for-biking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXOvz2MzpPc0 -
http://www.mensfitness.co.uk/exercises/ ... ng-workout
http://www.shape.com/fitness/workouts/c ... list-needs
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... h-training
http://www.bicycling.com/training-nutri ... th-workout
http://www.bicycling.com/training-nutri ... tness/core
http://www.bicycling.com/tags/core-exercises0 -
Blimey - anecdote city. A lot of work has gone into producing a lot of meaningless HTML links there...0
-
Can someone save me the effort, cos I'm lazy that way, and tell me which of those links are to scientifically valid studies?
I'm sure the vast majority of them are.0 -
Research into this specific issue is pretty limited. There's only been one study AFAIK that measured impact on cycling performance of core fatigue, published in JCSR (so suggest a greater level of scrutiny be applied than you perhaps might with a higher quality journal):
http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/abstr ... re.56.aspx
During the experiment, competitive cyclists did two performance tests on cycling treadmill. Before the second test the cyclists did a core fatiguing workout. It didn't impact the cyclist's ability to generate power/forces in the second test but there were changes reported in the cyclist's mechanics. The authors made a pretty big leap in their conclusions regarding injury potential IMO.
I think all you could infer from that study is that perhaps you shouldn't do a core fatiguing workout right before a maximal effort cycling performance test, but if you do, it probably won't affect your ability to generate power anyway.
A much broader overview on the topic in general is discussed in this item which includes reference to the above study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109894/
Stuff written in mags etc is mostly just physical trainer's opinion and hearsay, various anecdotes or selling something.
Now of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it also means most claims are just that.
Still, doing "core" work (properly) won't hurt or hinder most people, and has benefits in general life, so by all means include such work in your exercise regime if you like. Just don't expect a cycling performance miracle. Keep in mind that various cycling efforts work the muscles needed, and these muscles adapt to the strain induced by training just like all the rest do.0 -
bompington wrote:Can someone save me the effort, cos I'm lazy that way, and tell me which of those links are to scientifically valid studies?
I'm sure the vast majority of them are.
As Alex's reply indicates the issue with this area and others where we have heated disputes is defining exactly what "scientifically valid" actually is.
All too often it is naively assumed to just be what people with white coats do in laboratories.It actually requires far more than this.
This is especially the case in anything involving human beings. Designing experiments that can meaningfully distinguish between the huge number of variables involved in anything to do with us is extremely difficult. Further this is confounded by the placebo effect and experimenter bias (conscious or unconscious).
As a result the vast majority of sports science studies provide only tenuous evidence of anything at best. They do not bear comparison in terms of rigour with experiments in other areas such as physics where it is much easier to isolate and focus on specific variables.
Which is why, if you look across the past 30 years sports science has come up with very little in terms of significant discoveries. The biggest advances in cycling have come, not from sports science direct but rather by importing learnings from other more robust sciences such as aerodynamics, materials science and medicine.
Nothing illustrates this clearer than the current state of dispute regarding interval training. This was familiar as an idea before sports science came along and is probably the biggest and most important single piece of knowledge specific to training. Still there is no clear agreement about what intervals work best.
See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/wattage/Xr_PgQLRh9c[1-25-false
Given this it's just daft to rely on sports science to advise you on what is good or bad. The information it provides should, certainly, be taken into account, albeit with a fair degree of caution.
However equally important should be looking at what elite athletes do. It is very likely that by trial/error and experience they have come with discoveries at least as useful. Dismissing this as "anecdote" simply demonstrates a naive grasp of what science is and, I would predict, is typically associated with low performing individuals.
(Just my opinion ofc but as a scientific hypothesis I would be willing to bet that if you took a group of cyclists and told them to listen to/observe elite cyclists and apply what they said/did they would perform significantly better over time compared to a control made up of folks like some above)Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
bahzob wrote:However equally important should be looking at what elite athletes do. It is very likely that by trial/error and experience they have come with discoveries at least as useful.
It is also fallacious to do something simply because 'the pros do it'. There's probably a big difference between the priorities of a salaried, full-time athlete with unlimited training time - and your average 9-5 3rd cat, who may have to make the most use of only 7-8hrs a week (ie me, for example).0 -
Imposter wrote:bahzob wrote:However equally important should be looking at what elite athletes do. It is very likely that by trial/error and experience they have come with discoveries at least as useful.
It is also fallacious to do something simply because 'the pros do it'. There's probably a big difference between the priorities of a salaried, full-time athlete with unlimited training time - and your average 9-5 3rd cat, who may have to make the most use of only 7-8hrs a week (ie me, for example).
Fail again. The book I quoted from was written by someone who trains the same number of hours a week as you do.
Bottom line is who do I listen to and suggest others do? Folk like him who and Bradley Wiggins who have achieved something and aspire to emulate??
Or folk like you, who by your own admission is just a 3rd cat and seems content to remain oneMartin S. Newbury RC0 -
bahzob wrote:Imposter wrote:bahzob wrote:However equally important should be looking at what elite athletes do. It is very likely that by trial/error and experience they have come with discoveries at least as useful.
It is also fallacious to do something simply because 'the pros do it'. There's probably a big difference between the priorities of a salaried, full-time athlete with unlimited training time - and your average 9-5 3rd cat, who may have to make the most use of only 7-8hrs a week (ie me, for example).
Fail again. The book I quoted from was written by someone who trains the same number of hours a week as you do.
Bottom line is who do I listen to and suggest others do? Folk like him who and Bradley Wiggins who have achieved something and aspire to emulate??
Or folk like you, who by your own admission is just a 3rd cat and seems content to remain one
Fail yourself, fella - I wasn't talking about your book, and it wasn't clear that you were, either. Evidence of someone doing something is not evidence that we should all do it. I have no ambitions beyond 3rd cat because I am an amateur vet racer with a job and a family and have no real aspirations beyond enjoyment of racing and being able to 'compete' at that level.
You talk a good race Bahzob, but I suspect you've never even pinned a number on your back (sportive numbers don't count, by the way).0 -
I wholeheartedly agree. The vast majority of sports "science" studies that I've come across seem highly dubious in terms of experiment design. Now, that may sometimes be due to reading reports of the studies in non-scientific publications where the reporting may be at fault rather than the science. But I don't think that's really the main issue. There does not seem to be the same level of rigor applied that would be expected in other fields and the difficulty of defining, controlling and measuring all relevant variables is surely the biggest reason for this.bahzob wrote:......Designing experiments that can meaningfully distinguish between the huge number of variables involved in anything to do with us is extremely difficult. Further this is confounded by the placebo effect and experimenter bias (conscious or unconscious).
As a result the vast majority of sports science studies provide only tenuous evidence of anything at best. They do not bear comparison in terms of rigour with experiments in other areas such as physics where it is much easier to isolate and focus on specific variables.
Which is why, if you look across the past 30 years sports science has come up with very little in terms of significant discoveries. The biggest advances in cycling have come, not from sports science direct but rather by importing learnings from other more robust sciences such as aerodynamics, materials science and medicine....
However I disagree to some extent with your suggestion that we should therefore turn to professional athletes for guidance. In some respects this may be useful but in others I suspect it will be very inappropriate.
Incidentally, careful calling aerodynamics a science. Engineers usually call it science and scientists tend to refer to it as engineering. We're mongrels :?0 -
Just because science doesn't support your beliefs, does not mean that the studies are all 'dubious' in terms of design or objective. If you don't agree with the content of peer-reviewed science, then get yourself on the review panel and put them straight.0
-
Who suggested that?Imposter wrote:Just because science doesn't support your beliefs, does not mean that the studies are all 'dubious' in terms of design or objective....
I didn't.
I'm not convinced of the rigor of much sports science experiment design and data analysis. This is not based on my not liking results because of pre-existing beliefs. It's based on an engineering/scientific background and a observations of shortcomings in many studies I've encountered.0 -
So you think that being an engineer in an un-related discipline somehow validates your view that these studies are in some way inadequate? They are what they are - and until someone comes up with something better (assuming they are deficient, which I don't necessarily accept), then that's all there is. Do you feel that the 'peer-review' process is not adequate?0
-
No. I think being familiar with scientific method, testing and analysis in any field constitutes relevant background to critique experimental design at a high level.Imposter wrote:So you think that being an engineer in an un-related discipline somehow validates your view that these studies are in some way inadequate?
But what is that?Imposter wrote:...They are what they are.....
I'm sure the standard of analysis in sports science varies dramatically as it does in many fields. I'm certainly not going to take every result and every claim at face value.
Where the science is not robust, or I'm not confident that it is, I'll make my decisions based on whatever studies I do think are robust, ideas that seem logical and somewhat supported, and whatever takes my fancy. After all this is my hobby, not my job!
You may do as you wish.0 -
Imposter wrote:It is also fallacious to do something simply because 'the pros do it'. There's probably a big difference between the priorities of a salaried, full-time athlete with unlimited training time - and your average 9-5 3rd cat, who may have to make the most use of only 7-8hrs a week (ie me, for example).
Out of genuine interest, how do you spend your 7-8hrs training and which studies do you rely upon to be confident that this is the most productive use of your available training time?Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0 -
City Boy wrote:Imposter wrote:It is also fallacious to do something simply because 'the pros do it'. There's probably a big difference between the priorities of a salaried, full-time athlete with unlimited training time - and your average 9-5 3rd cat, who may have to make the most use of only 7-8hrs a week (ie me, for example).
Out of genuine interest, how do you spend your 7-8hrs training and which studies do you rely upon to be confident that this is the most productive use of your available training time?
I don't train my core off the bike at all, so the question doesn't really apply in that sense. As for training on the bike, there are numerous studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that the best and most appropriate training for cycling is cycling (at varying intensity/duration, obviously). So that's what I do - but that's not really the topic of discussion here.0 -
But what about weight training?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
0 -
Weight training is okay, but I think you should wear a helmet.Giant TCR2 and lovin it!
http://www.trainerroad.com/career/pipipi0 -
Imposter wrote:City Boy wrote:Imposter wrote:It is also fallacious to do something simply because 'the pros do it'. There's probably a big difference between the priorities of a salaried, full-time athlete with unlimited training time - and your average 9-5 3rd cat, who may have to make the most use of only 7-8hrs a week (ie me, for example).
Out of genuine interest, how do you spend your 7-8hrs training and which studies do you rely upon to be confident that this is the most productive use of your available training time?
I don't train my core off the bike at all, so the question doesn't really apply in that sense. As for training on the bike, there are numerous studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that the best and most appropriate training for cycling is cycling (at varying intensity/duration, obviously). So that's what I do - but that's not really the topic of discussion here.
I tend to agree with this. Millions and millions of people simply ride their bikes and don't do anything else(so to speak).
I do believe that IF you want to improve your cycling abilities that you must do what you discover is necessary FOR YOU to improve. Simply saying I'll just keep riding most likely will only take you so far. You may discover that you need this, so called, core training or that stretching is something not to be ignored or maybe running or weights or nutrition or any combination of the above. I don't think anyone can tell you what you need to do. They can only steer you toward finding out for yourself what works for you.0 -
Are there any comments, or just some random links? At least give some explanation as to what they are, why they are linked and why one might bother clicking on them.0
-
+1Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Are there any comments, or just some random links? At least give some explanation as to what they are, why they are linked and why one might bother clicking on them.
I'm not about to go looking at your links to try and figure out what, if any, point you're trying to make.0
