Core Training
Comments
-
A lot of research has been done on exercise as you age so the information is out their, for me it works very well how much it transfers to performance on the bike though is hard to say. It's not like you can measure it really I suspect it's not a huge difference compared to natural ability or time spent actually training out on the road0
-
reacher wrote:A lot of research has been done on exercise as you age so the information is out their, for me it works very well how much it transfers to performance on the bike though is hard to say. It's not like you can measure it really I suspect it's not a huge difference compared to natural ability or time spent actually training out on the road
As far as I can recall, in other 'core' discussions on here, nobody has been able to specifically link core training to improved performance on the bike. There may be lots of reasons to do it, but going faster probably isn't one of them.0 -
"performance on the bike" should really look at recovery too. The problem with linking one specific thing to an improvement is that it generally requires a fairly extensive study. The avg. amateur hobby road racer, isn't likely to fall in to any popular research group being neither a top athlete or a diabetic fatty.
I personally think body composition makes a big difference, If you have the body of a TdF rider, you simply don't need to support the kg, with extra work. Just my view. A typical athletic male with good all round fitness and some muscle above the waste probably does.0 -
I think your both probably right, personally although I have done a lot of this type of training and the benifets are for me worth it in other ways as i get older, I can say that I think the transfer of it to the performance on a bike as regards improvement in performance seem to be marginal at best. Saying that it may well have more effect as I get older I won't know obviously because you can't really measure it. The health benifets are in my view what make it worth doing for older people, but I do other stuff as well as core work. One thing I have noticed is that climbing out of he saddle comes very easily but that could be just a coincidence, I definitely don't think being able to squat heavy weights or bench press has any effect on performance going on the girls that I have seen going up hill at rapid speeds0
-
One thing I have noticed is that if you push bigger gears like I do then you do see a difference their definitely, I'm not saying it makes you any faster than spinning smaller gears but seems to work for me0
-
Imposter wrote:As far as I can recall, in other 'core' discussions on here, nobody has been able to specifically link core training to improved performance on the bike. There may be lots of reasons to do it, but going faster probably isn't one of them.
The way I've read it strengthening certain aspects of the core will allow you to ride longer without discomfort which IMO means faster for longer.
It is possible that cycling alone will build the core strength required for cycling. But then again, if you have some sort of deficit it may have the opposite, or no effect.
Also a stronger core (and increased flexibility) will allow you to hold a better position for longer. Then again holding a better position for longer may allow you to do this...0 -
Imposter wrote:reacher wrote:A lot of research has been done on exercise as you age so the information is out their, for me it works very well how much it transfers to performance on the bike though is hard to say. It's not like you can measure it really I suspect it's not a huge difference compared to natural ability or time spent actually training out on the road
As far as I can recall, in other 'core' discussions on here, nobody has been able to specifically link core training to improved performance on the bike. There may be lots of reasons to do it, but going faster probably isn't one of them.
Strange really, if it were nt for core or strength , we d probably agree on pretty much everything else!
i just listen to the BC coaches i ve met on numerous RSR's and they say that our sedentary life style compared to even 20 years ago, is the reason for core work, cycling puts the body in a relatively unusual position, for a long time, stronger core mean a more aggressive position, yet not lose power = improved aerodynamics = go faster.
Dont get me wrong, i d not suggest you miss a bike session for core work but whilst dinner is on the go, do some planks for example instead of just vegging ? or if you do 2 hrs on the turbo instead of that planned 3 hr road ride (weather) then do a bit of gym as well?0 -
mamba80 wrote:i just listen to the BC coaches i ve met on numerous RSR's and they say that our sedentary life style compared to even 20 years ago, is the reason for core work,
They might have a point if RSRs were for 40+ dads - but they are for kids, none of whom were around 20 years ago and who have been cycling for most of their lives already. I reckon their cores are probably fine.
I came into cycling in my early 20s following on from youth motocross, karate and squash, so I've never really been sedentary and I guess my core has never been that bad. It's certainly never given me any issues in 20+ years of competitive cycling, despite never doing any core specific work.
Either way, a previously sedentary mamil who jumps on a bike for the first time will still be working all the muscles involved in cycling when he goes for a ride, including the core. I suspect the reason that a lot of cyclists don't have a strong core is that you don't particularly need a strong core to ride a bike. It just needs to be 'strong enough', which if you ride a bike enough times, it will become.0 -
I'm relatively new to cycling came into it at a late age 3/4 years ago so my interest is academic I have no experience to base anything on as regards the effect it has other than anything that could help me improve I'm interested in, one thing I noticed is that they talk about a riders core being so strong that he sits like a statue on the bike zero movement yet when I watch films of old riders like Merckx they move around a lot0
-
reacher wrote:I'm relatively new to cycling came into it at a late age 3/4 years ago so my interest is academic I have no experience to base anything on as regards the effect it has other than anything that could help me improve I'm interested in, one thing I noticed is that they talk about a riders core being so strong that he sits like a statue on the bike zero movement yet when I watch films of old riders like Merckx they move around a lot
I suspect that's more down to technique and/or riding style than the core. Just because a rider is moving about on the bike doesn't mean his core is weak. For example, Voeckler's upper body tends to move around a lot while riding - and if he has a weak core (which is unlikely) then that would be evidence that a weak core is not a disadvantage.0 -
ok, that makes sense i never thought of it like that. My guess is that your probably correct in that riding a bike for long enough will develop the required muscles to ride that bike better if you ride hard enough especially at certain ages Personally i think the advantages of doing gym work are more relevant to older cyclists than younger ones. My guess is that only cyclists who are older could answer that question in regards to actual strength ie have they noticed a decline in that they have to use smaller gears or swap to semi compacts/compacts as they age, get old enough then its inevitable that this will happen i would think, i dont know perhaps older cyclists on here can answer that better than i can, so the question is will doing core/gym work delay this or work better on older people perhaps who are relatively new to cycling, certainly the older people i see in gyms and i'm saying guys who are age as young as 40 upwards who don't train or do very little are really quite weak as regards any form of strength related exercise. I do know that the argument remains that you don't need strength to ride a bike but somewhere along the line of decline into old age their has to be a point where the lines cross if you don't train the overall condition of the body0
-
Imposter wrote:mamba80 wrote:i just listen to the BC coaches i ve met on numerous RSR's and they say that our sedentary life style compared to even 20 years ago, is the reason for core work,
They might have a point if RSRs were for 40+ dads - but they are for kids, none of whom were around 20 years ago and who have been cycling for most of their lives already. I reckon their cores are probably fine.
I came into cycling in my early 20s following on from youth motocross, karate and squash, so I've never really been sedentary and I guess my core has never been that bad. It's certainly never given me any issues in 20+ years of competitive cycling, despite never doing any core specific work.
Either way, a previously sedentary mamil who jumps on a bike for the first time will still be working all the muscles involved in cycling when he goes for a ride, including the core. I suspect the reason that a lot of cyclists don't have a strong core is that you don't particularly need a strong core to ride a bike. It just needs to be 'strong enough', which if you ride a bike enough times, it will become.
You reckon? well. the Q is that seeing as these BC coaches know full well, they are class of 15/16yo all of whom are super fit and come from a background of sports, why do they spec core and gym work?
One of these coaches was also Danni Kings BC coach, so not an idiot.0 -
mamba80 wrote:why do they spec core and gym work?
Presume you were there - did you ask them?0 -
Imposter wrote:mamba80 wrote:why do they spec core and gym work?
Presume you were there - did you ask them?
i told you and as i also said, many come from different sports, sports that embrace the gym.......
But as i said, its not the be all and end all either, an avg 3rd cat wont become a 1st cat solely by "some" core work
But BC do these sessions to identify (and help) the very best....... so, anecdotally, at one track RSR, the BC guy got everyone to do a plank, one by one they dropped out, by en large, the people who dropped out quickly, were also the ones who lacked endurance and tired sooner as the session went on, they were also the ones who had poor riding positions (that worsened as time went by) and found holding a line harder, the riders were videoed and could see the outcomes,
its not rocket science, Sport has moved on.... we old timers need to be a bit more open minded and not so blinkered and that btw isnt aimed at you.0 -
My guess is that if you have talent then you have it no matter what else you do, seems to me that if your gifted as a cyclist then you are streets ahead anyway for everyone else then doing supplementary gym work can help to a degree but thats as far as it goes, in all my time in sport the outstanding performers are born with it, no amount of training beats natural ability it only adds to it and that's what their doing, I'm at a loss to see how testing someone on a plank relates to riding a bike, as a test it's at best testing that what it tests can you do a plank, same as can you squat with 200 kilos I really don't see how this defines the best cyclists, I'm no expert but my guess is that some of the stars of the 70s never did anything but ride a bike0
-
Time in gym = time not spent on a bike training specifically.And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0
-
NeXXus wrote:Time in gym = time not spent on a bike training specifically.
no it doesn't :? ... you are allowed to do more than one type of exercise .. I train on the bike 4 days a week on top of commuting ..... any more and I don't recover
that leaves 3 days where my cycling legs can rest .... ooooh, I know, upper body and core gym work.
100% cycling doesn't make you a better rider, training the correct amount on the bike makes you a better rider, and using your time off the bike for other things can give you the edge/help you recover/etc etc.
gym does take up time though so there are other equations
Time in gym = time not spent sat watching TV
Time in gym = time not spent posting on the internet
Time in gym = time not spent washing the car0 -
I tend to agree, training as a full time athlete is very differant to training at amateur level I'm not sure you can just say the pros do it so we should and then throw age, years spent training, body weight, ability, plus available time to train etc theirs too many other factors to say that doing one type of training or another is right or a waste of time0
-
-
Imposter wrote:
sigh, ok, well if it makes you happy allow me to rework that equation
time doing anything except spending it on the bike training specifically = time not spent on a bike training specifically0 -
Is their anyone on here that has spent time doing all this stuff in a gym properly for a decant time period that actually says it was a complete waste of time or is it I've never done it but it's a waste of time so theirs no point in doing it0
-
reacher wrote:Is their anyone on here that has spent time doing all this stuff in a gym properly for a decant time period that actually says it was a complete waste of time or is it I've never done it but it's a waste of time so theirs no point in doing it
Found this - worth a read. viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=127803200 -
Imposter wrote:Isn't that what nexxus said?
I dunno ... my point being though is that doing other things can be done in conjunction with actually riding a bike ... it isn't a case of 1 or the other, ie I cant go to the gym, its taking away my time that could be spent on the bike.
you can infact, structure your training so you do the full requirement that you would do on the bike and then miss something else out to fit in supplementary work0 -
Thanks I found that extremely informative especially the stuff by some one called Alex Simmons he actually explains it in a very concise way, the part about the strength required/force to turn the pedals was very interesting, you may have changed my mind about a lot of this and my approach to training as regards strength versus powerImposter wrote:reacher wrote:Is their anyone on here that has spent time doing all this stuff in a gym properly for a decant time period that actually says it was a complete waste of time or is it I've never done it but it's a waste of time so theirs no point in doing it
Found this - worth a read. viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=127803200 -
I think the argument being made about time in the gym isn't time on the bike is that you can work other muscle groups while resting and recovering others. Its mainly why bodybuilders back to back different groups. Your biceps can recover while your triceps are working for example. There is also a strange benefit where training one muscle improves the development of another, because all muscle training releases "builder" hormones.
Someone mentioned Karate earlier - I used to teach years ago.. Martial arts are great way to screw up your body. I look at the training methods used 20 years ago and fortunately instructors are much better educated to protect the body from injury. Back in the day - warmups were poor, stretches forced and joints pounded with lines air punches and kicks.0 -
Core training should be seen more of a preventative activity to strengthen the body muscle groups instead of one which is only undertaken after the damage or weakness has been identified.Imposter wrote:That's not to say core training is not useful if you have a functional issue or previously diagnosed weakness or injury.0 -
Top_Bhoy wrote:
Core training should be seen more of a preventative activity to strengthen the body muscle groups instead of one which is only undertaken after the damage or weakness has been identified.Imposter wrote:That's not to say core training is not useful if you have a functional issue or previously diagnosed weakness or injury.
Both in my experience0 -
Top_Bhoy wrote:
Core training should be seen more of a preventative activity to strengthen the body muscle groups instead of one which is only undertaken after the damage or weakness has been identified.Imposter wrote:That's not to say core training is not useful if you have a functional issue or previously diagnosed weakness or injury.
You could say that about any muscle or muscle group in the body though. Where do you draw the line?0 -
Now I know that we all want to be known as athletes and TRAIN. How many of us are actually training? Oh sure we are out riding lots but that's not training. Bunches of people want to train for and DO a triathlon. Tons of people want to train to DO a marathon. I'm betting this training thing is way overstated. Most people don't, can't, won't, or are unable to put in the training required to do anything more than DO(survive) and possibly finish any of these kind of events. I think a better and more descriptive word is in order but can't think what it would be. Training involves knowing what you're doing, how to do it, when to do it, when to rest, what to eat, and discipline. All things most of us don't pay attention to. Most people ride, eat, buy expensive bike parts, and wonder why they don't go faster. Then along comes core training. And of course you've got to do it. After all, it's why you're not going fast.0
