I can't stay out the saddle for long
Comments
-
apreading wrote:I have thought it through and it is logical.
If you could only ride your bike for less than 30 seconds at a time without your heart and lungs stopping you going any further then you would struggle to use your bike to train to ride further. Walking or some other lower stress activity to improve general fitness would allow you to ride your bike more than 30 seconds and use it for training.
I think that I would have struggled to do even 30 seconds out of the saddle a couple of years ago, so was unable to use practice as a way of improving. Spinning sorted me out and now with further training I can go 30 minutes (or more) up the steepest inclines that I was able to find in Tuscany recently...
To a point - but not completely.
You can ride out of the saddle for any gradient - it doesn't have to be the steepest inclines - that's a slightly different skillset.
If you can't stand up for long without getting tired legs then training to do it on shallower slopes is a good method.
If it's heart & lungs that give up then you need to learn to push harder on the flats & shallow gradients either in or out of the saddle.0 -
Ok a few points.
When you ride out of the saddle try not to increase your power output. Standing up will naturally increase HR a few bmp as the heart has more work to do, don't compound this by also upping your speed. Use standing more to break up the ride.
Few hills are a constant gradient. Hair pins or steeper sections can be tackled en danseuse to keep up rpm but again try not to blast these. Yes, power will increase but try not to go too far too long into the red or too long at max HR.
I find starting a climb standing to be quite useful to warm up, get the breathing going and blood pumping and bring the HR up to cruising bpm. Again, care not to go into the red. I'm looking at 600 to 800 meter climbs whichever way I turn out of my front door though.
Shift down before you stand a cog.
Personally I have to agree that the best way to ride better standing is to ride better standing. A reasonbly fit rider like me should be able to cover a couple of hundred vertical meters or 10-12 minutes climbing.BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
Imposter wrote:Can you explain why it might be that simply riding out of the saddle is not sufficient to train the muscles you use when riding out of the saddle?
I didn't suggest it wouldn't. I said it will help. :roll:
Plenty of information about core strength and climbing out of the saddle on the internet if you care to educate yourself:
http://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/techniq ... t-six.html
Fitness factors to consider
Upper body strength is important if you want to maximise your out of the saddle climbing power. You can stand without it, but you will not really achieve the change of pace that is possible until you really work your arms and upper body. Core strength is what connects an active upper body with the working legs. Without it, it is difficult to develop optimal climbing technique too . The correct timing and co-ordination between upper and lower body are essential to integrate the two together to move you forwards.
If you find a standing climb difficult, it may be that you are not strong enough in your upper body or most likely in your core, so including some appropriate core exercise off the bike can help to activate and engage these muscles so that you have the potential to then use them effectively when you climb out of the saddle. Once you have some core potential getting the two ends of your body working well together is something that can only be practised on the bike, and as with any of the other skill elements it requires conscious practice.0 -
itsnotarace wrote:Imposter wrote:Can you explain why it might be that simply riding out of the saddle is not sufficient to train the muscles you use when riding out of the saddle?
I didn't suggest it wouldn't. I said it will help. :roll:
Plenty of information about core strength and climbing out of the saddle on the internet if you care to educate yourself:
http://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/techniq ... t-six.html
Fitness factors to consider
Upper body strength is important if you want to maximise your out of the saddle climbing power. You can stand without it, but you will not really achieve the change of pace that is possible until you really work your arms and upper body. Core strength is what connects an active upper body with the working legs. Without it, it is difficult to develop optimal climbing technique too . The correct timing and co-ordination between upper and lower body are essential to integrate the two together to move you forwards.
If you find a standing climb difficult, it may be that you are not strong enough in your upper body or most likely in your core, so including some appropriate core exercise off the bike can help to activate and engage these muscles so that you have the potential to then use them effectively when you climb out of the saddle. Once you have some core potential getting the two ends of your body working well together is something that can only be practised on the bike, and as with any of the other skill elements it requires conscious practice.
Seriously - if that's the standard of article you are linking to, then I think it may be you who needs to educate yourself. Nip over to the training forum and do a few searches. Nobody said you don't need 'core strength', by the way.0 -
Imposter wrote:Nobody said you don't need 'core strength', by the way.
So you are basically arguing for no reason whatsoever. If core strength is important then it doesn't really matter how it is gained does it?0 -
itsnotarace wrote:Imposter wrote:Nobody said you don't need 'core strength', by the way.
So you are basically arguing for no reason whatsoever. If core strength is important then it doesn't really matter how it is gained does it?
You need core strength for all kinds of things, like standing up, or walking down the street. The issue is whether you need any more core strength for cycling than can be gained by cycling - to which the answer is almost certainly 'no'. In which case, why not gain it by simply riding a bike? As I said before, let's not over-think it.0 -
Imposter wrote:itsnotarace wrote:Imposter wrote:Nobody said you don't need 'core strength', by the way.
So you are basically arguing for no reason whatsoever. If core strength is important then it doesn't really matter how it is gained does it?
You need core strength for all kinds of things, like standing up, or walking down the street. The issue is whether you need any more core strength for cycling than can be gained by cycling - to which the answer is almost certainly 'no'. In which case, why not gain it by simply riding a bike? As I said before, let's not over-think it.
It seems Pro cyclist Jonny Clarke had not gained the core strength he wanted by simply riding his bike.
http://www.bicycle.net/2011/shhh-jonny- ... t-to-share0 -
Imposter wrote:The issue is whether you need any more core strength for cycling than can be gained by cycling - to which the answer is almost certainly 'no'.
You think pro cyclists get all their training on the road, with no gym work at all? 0 -
itsnotarace wrote:Imposter wrote:The issue is whether you need any more core strength for cycling than can be gained by cycling - to which the answer is almost certainly 'no'.
You think pro cyclists get all their training on the road, with no gym work at all?
Lots of pros use the gym for all kinds of reasons, but just because a pro does something, does not make it the right thing to do for an average club rider, who may not have 20-25hrs per week to train. Like I asked you earlier - you need to exlpain to me why riding a bike is not sufficient training in order to ride a bike.0 -
vs wrote:
It seems Pro cyclist Jonny Clarke had not gained the core strength he wanted by simply riding his bike.
http://www.bicycle.net/2011/shhh-jonny- ... t-to-share
Once again - anecdotal evidence of the 'pros' doing something is not evidence that we should all do it. Nobody is arguing that doing core work will not strenghten your core. That might be a good thing for some people.0 -
Why would a pro waste time training in a less efficient manner?Imposter wrote:Lots of pros use the gym for all kinds of reasons, but just because a pro does something, does not make it the right thing to do for an average club rider, who may not have 20-25hrs per week to train. Like I asked you earlier - you need to exlpain to me why riding a bike is not sufficient training in order to ride a bike.
If they need to improve core strength then surely they would be better doing training specific to that? Whether amateurs should mimic that or not depends on the individual. If you're trying to improve core strength for out of the saddle hill climbing but live in a flat area then perhaps gym exercises could be a good way of achieving it. Or, as cycling can take quite some time - to get somewhere, warm up, do the training and put everything away again, in that time a time strapped rider could have been in the gym, done their exercises, cleaned up and got to work/home.
Riding your bike may be all you need to achieve the fitness required to ride the bike, but you may be able to exercise more time effectively using other methods.
Personally I can't stand the gym - so I'm just on my bike ...
0 -
Slowbike wrote:Why would a pro waste time training in a less efficient manner?
No idea - did anyone suggest that?0 -
Slowbike wrote:
Why would a pro waste time training in a less efficient manner?Imposter wrote:Lots of pros use the gym for all kinds of reasons, but just because a pro does something, does not make it the right thing to do for an average club rider, who may not have 20-25hrs per week to train. Like I asked you earlier - you need to exlpain to me why riding a bike is not sufficient training in order to ride a bike.
Maybe because one thing a pro does not have is a lack of time...Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
Imposter wrote:Lots of pros use the gym for all kinds of reasons, but just because a pro does something, does not make it the right thing to do for an average club rider, who may not have 20-25hrs per week to train. Like I asked you earlier - you need to exlpain to me why riding a bike is not sufficient training in order to ride a bike.
Well, personally I can do 10 or 15 minutes worth of situps, pushups and other core excercises before bed or first thing in the morning. Where as it takes me at least that long to even get changed and get out on my bike. Let alone ride to a hill and then start climbing out of the saddle, for what a couple of hours?
Your core training seems to take significantly longer than mine, your arguments are getting thinner by the minute old chap0 -
itsnotarace wrote:Well, personally I can do 10 or 15 minutes worth of situps, pushups and other core excercises before bed or first thing in the morning. Where as it takes me at least that long to even get changed and get out on my bike. Let alone ride to a hill and then start climbing out of the saddle, for what a couple of hours?
Your core training seems to take significantly longer than mine, your arguments are getting thinner by the minute old chap
But the difference is, on the bike you're exercising not just your core but all the other muscles used in cycling, so its a more efficient use of time overall...WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
itsnotarace wrote:Imposter wrote:Lots of pros use the gym for all kinds of reasons, but just because a pro does something, does not make it the right thing to do for an average club rider, who may not have 20-25hrs per week to train. Like I asked you earlier - you need to exlpain to me why riding a bike is not sufficient training in order to ride a bike.
Well, personally I can do 10 or 15 minutes worth of situps, pushups and other core excercises before bed or first thing in the morning. Where as it takes me at least that long to even get changed and get out on my bike. Let alone ride to a hill and then start climbing out of the saddle, for what a couple of hours?
Your core training seems to take significantly longer than mine, your arguments are getting thinner by the minute old chap
I don't know what you mean. Nobody is saying you shouldn't do situps or pushups etc, if you want to. But regardless of what you do in your bedroom, your core will get all the training it needs for cycling, through cycling. I train my core while I'm riding my bike - but if you want to train yours elsewhere, instead of riding, that's cool. On that basis though, it sounds like you're the one with the 'thinner' argument, given that this is a cycling forum.0 -
drlodge wrote:itsnotarace wrote:Well, personally I can do 10 or 15 minutes worth of situps, pushups and other core excercises before bed or first thing in the morning. Where as it takes me at least that long to even get changed and get out on my bike. Let alone ride to a hill and then start climbing out of the saddle, for what a couple of hours?
Your core training seems to take significantly longer than mine, your arguments are getting thinner by the minute old chap
But the difference is, on the bike you're exercising not just your core but all the other muscles used in cycling, so its a more efficient use of time overall...
That makes no sense. I am not saying replace riding with core work in the gym or at home. Core work is to supplement riding. Furthermore I don't need to get changed into lycra, fill a drinks bottle, put shoes, helmet, gloves on, pump tyres up just to do a few sit up or push ups do i?
How is all that faff a more efficient use of my time?0 -
drlodge wrote:But the difference is, on the bike you're exercising not just your core but all the other muscles used in cycling, so its a more efficient use of time overall...
Only if you could use that 10-15 minutes on the bike - if not and it's just fill in time then it's better than doing nothing during that time and hoping that your time on a bike will bring your fitness up.
Of course, the next argument would be is 10-15 minutes of situps etc etc really going to make a difference? No idea, I'm not a personal trainer (or boot) - but I can't see it making things worse.0 -
Imposter wrote:I train my core while I'm riding my bike - but if you want to train yours elsewhere, instead of riding that's cool. On that basis though, it sounds like you're the one with the 'thinner' argument, given that this is a cycling forum.
Who said instead, other than you?0 -
Imposter wrote:your core will get all the training it needs for cycling, through cycling.
Do you have any actual proof of that? You keep saying it, but you keep not backing it up with any kind of evidence?
Let me break this down for you-
Suppose I ride for 30 miles a day 5 times a week. I have a 200 mile cycling event coming up. I am doing plenty of training, because hey, I get all the training I need through cycling....
I bet that after 100 (never mind 200) miles my back (and core) would be hurting like a bastard.
If you want to train for an activity by doing that activity then you need to match both the duration and the intensity, which unfortunately isn't practical for most people with a lot of cycling goals in mind.
The core is not the 'primary' target of bicycle training - the benefit you get to your core strength will plateau once it hits a level sufficient to maintain your training, whereas your leg strength and cardiovascular system will continue to benefit, as they are the limiting factor during the training effort - you tend to pedal softer because your legs are hurting or you are out of breath, not because your core can't hold you in the position anymore.
If you want to ensure that your core is not just strong enough for your usual training efforts, but strong enough to survive longer rides or race conditions etc, then you need to do some supplemental exercise that targets it directly - that pushes your core muscles to their limit.
Literally any sports scientist/coach will be able to tell you this.0 -
If you maintain the riding only as your means of getting your self fit the muscle groups are going to plateau. Doing some additional core exercises and building up the muscle groups for the OP makes sense to progress further in his fitness and cycling ability. Cycling naturally favors a small set of muscles and leaves others unchanged or short changed. By strengthening the core group that cycling doesn't address you can improve your total cycling ability and experience. If additional exercises isn't you thing, then don't do them, telling someone that wants to improve things not to bother is counterproductive for them.Lets just got for a ride, the heck with all this stuff...0
-
TimothyW wrote:Do you have any actual proof of that? You keep saying it, but you keep not backing it up with any kind of evidence?
Let's turn it round - do you have any actual proof to the contrary?TimothyW wrote:I bet that after 100 (never mind 200) miles my back (and core) would be hurting like a bastard.
There's no reason why it should - although it may well be fatigued, in line with all of the other muscles that cycling utilises. Many people (myself included) ride for long distances without having back issues. If you are having back issues, then either your position needs looking at, or perhaps you do indeed have a weakness in your core that needs addressing. But that's not the same as saying that everyone should dive into the gym and start doing core exercises, regardless of whether they have a diagnosed weakness or not.TimothyW wrote:If you want to train for an activity by doing that activity then you need to match both the duration and the intensity, which unfortunately isn't practical for most people with a lot of cycling goals in mind.
I don't see why not. For instance, if you want to train to ride 100 miles, then long, multi-hour bike rides are usually advisable. If you train for a 100 by riding lots of 30s, then you will suffer - and deservedly so.TimothyW wrote:The core is not the 'primary' target of bicycle training - the benefit you get to your core strength will plateau once it hits a level sufficient to maintain your training, whereas your leg strength and cardiovascular system will continue to benefit, as they are the limiting factor during the training effort - you tend to pedal softer because your legs are hurting or you are out of breath, not because your core can't hold you in the position anymore.
Agreed. More or less. The core is targeted while cycling, but only in proportion to the amount it is used.TimothyW wrote:If you want to ensure that your core is not just strong enough for your usual training efforts, but strong enough to survive longer rides or race conditions etc, then you need to do some supplemental exercise that targets it directly - that pushes your core muscles to their limit.
This appears to contradict what you said above.TimothyW wrote:Literally any sports scientist/coach will be able to tell you this.
Literally, no sports coach has ever told me this (I'm a level 2 coach btw - not that it matters). If you can provide some links, that would be helpful. I don't want to get into a link-fest here, but here's a link to a thread in the training forum from a while back which might be useful reading for you...there are a few other threads just like it, too...
viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=127803200 -
I find that swimming and chainsawing (my 2 main off the bike activities) help keep my back, core and upper body reasonably toned and strong, which in turn helps me on the bike; good sprint power out of the saddle, no back ache, etc. etc.
I would say that an easy, spinny 100km ride does naff all for your core strength.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:I find that swimming and chainsawing (my 2 main off the bike activities) help keep my back, core and upper body reasonably toned and strong, which in turn helps me on the bike; good sprint power out of the saddle, no back ache, etc. etc.
I would say that an easy, spinny 100km ride does naff all for your core strength.
Not sure about the swimming but I'd love to take up chainsawing ... anyone got a facemask?! :twisted:0 -
bernithebiker wrote:I would say that an easy, spinny 100km ride does naff all for your core strength.
I disagree, after doing those kinds of distances (not exactly taking it all easy) I can often feel my chest/core muscles aching a bit as they've been working.WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
Slowbike wrote:bernithebiker wrote:I find that swimming and chainsawing (my 2 main off the bike activities) help keep my back, core and upper body reasonably toned and strong, which in turn helps me on the bike; good sprint power out of the saddle, no back ache, etc. etc.
I would say that an easy, spinny 100km ride does naff all for your core strength.
Not sure about the swimming but I'd love to take up chainsawing ... anyone got a facemask?! :twisted:
Try it; it's the closest thing you can get to a light saber.
Mine is 100cc and the bar is almost 1m long...!0 -
drlodge wrote:bernithebiker wrote:I would say that an easy, spinny 100km ride does naff all for your core strength.
I disagree, after doing those kinds of distances (not exactly taking it all easy) I can often feel my chest/core muscles aching a bit as they've been working.
Perhaps if you had done some proper core exercises then they wouldnt ache after those distances - mine dont...0 -
Imposter wrote:TimothyW wrote:I bet that after 100 (never mind 200) miles my back (and core) would be hurting like a bastard.
There's no reason why it should - although it may well be fatigued, in line with all of the other muscles that cycling utilises. Many people (myself included) ride for long distances without having back issues. If you are having back issues, then either your position needs looking at, or perhaps you do indeed have a weakness in your core that needs addressing. But that's not the same as saying that everyone should dive into the gym and start doing core exercises, regardless of whether they have a diagnosed weakness or not.
I don't think people should dive into the gym and waste hours doing core work either, but I do think that 5-10 minutes of it at home alongside a majority of bike based training will be beneficial and likely make the particularly long rides/exceptional efforts more pleasant, much as you have just conceded.Imposter wrote:TimothyW wrote:If you want to train for an activity by doing that activity then you need to match both the duration and the intensity, which unfortunately isn't practical for most people with a lot of cycling goals in mind.
I don't see why not. For instance, if you want to train to ride 100 miles, then long, multi-hour bike rides are usually advisable. If you train for a 100 by riding lots of 30s, then you will suffer - and deservedly so.
You don't see why not? I'm afraid that multi hour rides on a regular basis are often hampered by family, work and other commitments. If a rider can offset these by doing some supplementary training to target weak areas and fit a timetable then why shouldn't they?
And what if the target isn't a 100 mile ride but a 600k audax? All of a sudden riding an approximation of the distance becomes near impossible.Imposter wrote:TimothyW wrote:Literally any sports scientist/coach will be able to tell you this.
Literally, no sports coach has ever told me this (I'm a level 2 coach btw - not that it matters). If you can provide some links, that would be helpful. I don't want to get into a link-fest here, but here's a link to a thread in the training forum from a while back which might be useful reading for you...there are a few other threads just like it, too...
viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12780320
I'm confused. No coach has ever mentioned that core training can benefit your cycling? That a strong core will help you avoid discomfort during long/hard rides, or help you hold a more aero position? I'm not claiming to be an authority, but the hundreds of articles that a search finds suggest otherwise.
All that thread seems to give is a couple of people having the same argument.
Once again - no cyclist needs to undertake special core exercises.
The OP in this thread will almost certainly notice no difference to their standing climb ability from undertaking core exercises, and they probably would be better advised to simply ride their bike more, particularly out of the saddle.
But the fact remains that a lot of riders have relatively week cores because being on the bike for the average ride simply doesn't stress the core enough - so if they have an abnormally long ride or effort they can suffer as a result.
It's also the case that just cycling can actually lead to you having relatively weak/brittle bones, so you are well advised to supplement the cycling with some kind of impact (ie running) or resistance training, so as to offset this.
Still, if you want to endlessly repeat that cycling is all the training you need for cycling, then you won't be wrong, but it might not be very helpful either.0 -
TimothyW wrote:
The OP in this thread will almost certainly notice no difference to their standing climb ability from undertaking core exercises, and they probably would be better advised to simply ride their bike more, particularly out of the saddle.
"Being able to stabilize your bike and body when you're out of the saddle has more benefits than keeping you upright. Most people would agree that when they get out of the saddle their heart rate jumps. In my case, however, I'm able to get out of the saddle without it having it affect my heart rate too much because I'm able to stabilize my core.
When you're climbing out of the saddle, you want to be able to use both your upper and lower body to create a rhythmic bounce. If you don't have an efficient core, you won't maintain that bounce for long periods of time, because your arms will be working to hold your upper body up and your legs will be working the pedals, but they will be working independently. Having a strong core helps establish a good neuromuscular relationship between the arms and legs, and that relationship will help keep your heart rate down, because they will waste less energy. The stronger the core, the longer you can stay out of the saddle without having your heart rate skyrocket."
Tom Danielson - Danielson/Westfal: Core Advantage p.220 -
TimothyW wrote:
I'm confused. No coach has ever mentioned that core training can benefit your cycling? That a strong core will help you avoid discomfort during long/hard rides, or help you hold a more aero position? I'm not claiming to be an authority, but the hundreds of articles that a search finds suggest otherwise.
Genuinely, no coach I have ever spoken to has suggested that core training can benefit my cycling. The reason they have never done so is because there is nothing actually wrong with my core, as its function is perfectly normal. If, on the other hand, I had some kind of ongoing back issue or other core weakeness, the answer could be different. The only scientific study that seems to be available on the specific matter of core training for performance cyclists (linked in that thread, which you appear to have glossed over) seems to suggest that the benefits are unclear, at best.
But, if you like the idea of core training, then it certainly isn't going to hinder your cycling - unless of course you spend so much time training your core that you neglect to actually ride your bike. But unless you have some kind of physiological issue within your core, it probably won't actually help it much, either.
Tom Danielson, incidentally, didn't have an 'efficient' core - which is why he started core training. Hence the book.0
