Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Health & Fitness => Topic started by: Julian on 16 December, 2008, 09:35:17 pm
-
Just idly wondering about this training plan I'm going to
start resume in January, and how necessary core strength is.
I'm not a gym bunny, and no amount of coveting toned biceps is going to turn me into one. So far I've concentrated on increasing distance, which has just been a question of putting miles in legs. But 2009, with TRAT and possibly another crack at the Mersey Roads (without being hospitalised this time plz) on the cards, I want to increase my speed significantly. I can currently ride for ages at 20kph, and by June I want to be able to do the same at 20mph.
Do I need to improve my core strength to get faster, or is it just a matter of general fitness and practice?
And if I do need to, what should I be doing, bearing in mind that I'm more Ewok than Stormtrooper by build?
-
Don't worry about strength if it's speed you're after.
Join a club, go on club runs and survive. After a week or two start joining the sprints for signposts and the mad dash at the finish. Then go on weekday evening training rides.
If you can keep up with the chain gang as the season gets underway you're in business.
It'll hurt, mind.
-
Core Strength provides a platform from which you can do Big Things.
Long spells on a bike. Pushing big gears for long hours. These are aided by a stable core.
So I'm told.
Some options:
1. Join the 100 Push up Challenge.
2. Practice The Plank until you are really good. At least five minutes is deemed Good.
3. Good form Situps.
4. Ditch the office chair, and sit on a Swiss Ball. This may not be compatible with client facing situations.
-
I can keep up with the club run! on the tandem
Club runs on a solo are my first call. I was tentatively wondering whether spending a couple of evenings for a month in the gym would make it hurt less. I suspect not. :-\
-
Totally un-scientific, but I have been doing some core exercises on and off for the last few months and I do feel that they are helping out on the bike. I seem to be able to push a bigger gear and I seem to have more power when I am climbing. Been doing some of the exercises from the article below
Core - bicycling.com (http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s-4-20-15681-1,00.html)
-
One 2x20 intervals session a week has added a few km/hr to my average.
-
Some cross training maybe, go swimming or maybe something like rock-climbing? I have been rock-climbing for 10 years and find it really helps on climbs or the hard fast stuff. You can also appear to be quite relaxed with a stable upper body even if you are struggling.
-
Hi Liz,
A cautionary tale from someone who's not been able to run for 6 months or cycle in the last three. I went from half marathon to marathon running and from 50 cycling miles in a day to 100 over a year or so - all based on leg strength and lots of practice. It all went well, I met all my goals set at new year - then ping. Ouch and hobble home one day - and I've not been right since
Since then all doctors, physios, podiatrists I have been to see just keep saying 'core strength' as a mantra.
So I am sure you probably oould get faster and fitter on riding alone, but I think it would be best to do all the core work as an insurance policy.
Good Luck
-
Just idly wondering about this training plan I'm going to start resume in January, and how necessary core strength is.
I want to increase my speed significantly. I can currently ride for ages at 20kph, and by June I want to be able to do the same at 20mph.
Do I need to improve my core strength to get faster, or is it just a matter of general fitness and practice?
You don't say if you are riding in a group or alone and at what level of effort 20kph is for you at the moment but it is quite a big ask to go from 20 to 32 kph average speed for an extended period. It is a 50% speed increase but will require a lot more than 50% power increase. It depends on what your core strength is like now as to whether spending time developing it will bring any noticeable benefit. You will need to adopt a more aero position the higher the speed which in turn means more work for your back, arms, shoulder,neck and abdominal muscles. You will also need to have some sort of a structured training plan to make those sort of gains in six months it just won't happen going out for a ride.
-
Core strength will help, but a couple of evenings a month at a gym wont help, not efrequent enough.
Try pilates, or te more athletic yogas, say once a week, and then repeat the evening later that week at home. The worse thing with pilates/yoga is if you get the exercise out of shape it wont work/do harm.
Failing that, try some general fitness books, again it needs to be done regularly.
Good luck with it
SF
-
I would think you should spend most of your time simply riding at below your ventilation threshold, putting away a lot of mileage for three months. I.e. easy riding, starting with distances you can manage at the moment, and slowly increasing them. When you've done that, then you can start to think about the higher intensity involved with club rides, intervals, etc.
The core strength you need will still be built by just going out and cycling, but not as quickly. To avoid injury, most of all you need to make small increments in workload at a time, never large jumps in intensity or duration.
If you're really keen on getting better, then get a coach. Just ask Gonzo how effective a coach is.
-
Another vote for pilates. I combine a session twice or three times a week with my gym visits, after doing fixed weights and before sweating away on power intervals on the cycle trainer.
You can be fairly fit (or think you are) but a thorough pilates session will leave you begging for mercy as the core muscles are stretched to their limit. I've heard good things about the benefits of pilates for cyclists, especially speeding up the recovery time after injury. I can't say I've noticed any direct effect yet (a few months) but it may be a subtle benefit. I've certainly had far fewer physical niggles on multi-day long trips.
BTW the women always put the men to shame (me anyway), having far greater "bendability" in the hips and neck.
-
The core strength you need will still be built by just going out and cycling, but not as quickly. To avoid injury, most of all you need to make small increments in workload at a time, never large jumps in intensity or duration.
I don't think just cycling will do much for core strength specifically, certainly in the short term. It's amazing how specific various activities are in their development of certain muscle groups. You can be fantastically strong in a certain discipline but useless at another, even if it seems to use the same general body parts.
If Liz is wanting to be sure her body holds up over several gruelling days (something that can't be replicated in training), then a quick way of developing core strength is specific exercise IMO.
-
Yes, cycling probably doesn't use or train a great deal of core strength, but that's because you don't need much for cycling.
My point is that if Liz just wants to get faster and do her events, she'll do better by focusing all her training and recovery capacity on cycling, and not cross training. If, OTOH, her goals include more rounded fitness and health, and less focus on the performance, then cross training should assume a higher importance. This sort of thing is why a coach is the right choice, because he or she will be able to tweak a massive improvement from anyone, and in the right direction for the particular student.
-
My view is that developing core strength certainly can't hurt, and is good for general well-being and posture. Cycling long distances day after day is a totally un-natural activity and can lead to all sorts of physical problems. Why not try an alleviate this in advance?
If it's a question of time, I'd say a 1-hour power interval session on the cycle trainer and a 1-hour pilates session is of far more benefit than an un-structured 2 hours on the road, both for developing strength and endurance.
-
Intervals/power sessions before building base miles? ::-)
-
One 2x20 intervals session a week has added a few km/hr to my average.
Any straightforward websites on this 2x20 business?
-
Intervals/power sessions before building base miles? ::-)
Not before, alongside. Any problems with that?
PS Leave off with the rolley eyes.
-
One 2x20 intervals session a week has added a few km/hr to my average.
Any straightforward websites on this 2x20 business?
the training page on Timetrialling Forum (Powered by Invision Power Board) (http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk) is quite good. One of the links goes to this:
Understanding Intervals (http://home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm)
I've got a lot quicker since starting doing 2 x 20s. I'm doing other stuff as well which should be helping, but the main hard sessions are either 2 x 20 at about 95% of flat out or (occasionally) 6-10 x 3 minutes at over 110%.
-
One 2x20 intervals session a week has added a few km/hr to my average.
Any straightforward websites on this 2x20 business?
Nothing straighforward that I know of. My motivation was this thread - http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-314849-15-1.html (http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-314849-15-1.html)
It follows a 64 year old as he moves from being left behind on road runs to developing enough power to blast his friend away on hilly routes and having the capacity of a cat 3/4 racer. There's a lot to wade through and I'm sure the basics are available elsewhere in a more succinct form, but I found this really inspiring. the first 50 pages are the most useful!
EDIT: Cross posting - see above. Thanks for that Mike!
-
Not before, alongside. Any problems with that?
Isn't that rather like building the 2nd and 3rd floors of a building at the same time as the ground floor?
-
My view is that developing core strength certainly can't hurt, and is good for general well-being and posture. Cycling long distances day after day is a totally un-natural activity and can lead to all sorts of physical problems. Why not try an alleviate this in advance?
It can't hurt general all-round fitness, but it's not necessarily going to do anything to prevent "physical problems", and it probably won't do much for the performance Liz is looking for. In training terms, injury prevention is mostly about not doing too much too soon. Things like not doing intervals until you have sufficient base training, not increasing volume/intensity by more than 5-10% per week, proper recovery, learning to listen to your body, etc.
-
Liz, this book is pretty good: Joe Friel - the Cyclist's Training Bible
The Cyclist's Training Bible: Joe Friel, Tudor Bompa: Amazon.co.uk: Books (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cyclists-Training-Bible-Joe-Friel/dp/1931382212/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229512082&sr=8-3)
There's apparently a new one out in January. Personally, I'd go with a personal online coach for the sort of performance improvement you're looking for. They don't seem to be that expensive, and you'll learn a tremendous amount about training and about your body's reaction to it.
-
Cheers guys (and those who have PMd me) - lots to think about. :)
I'm aiming for a 20mph average within a group, not by myself, so it's not quite as mad as it sounds. I'm going to try to get lots of miles in over January and then look at working on speed a bit more. I'm also going to try to get to yoga a bit more often, and have a look at coaching. :)
-
I have to say that I disagree with you, BentMikey - given the problems Crystal Tips has been having, and just from my own PT training, core is essential and really will help performance massively -- and prevent a lot of 'physical problems'.
-
In my case core strength overcomes problems with backache especially on longer hilly rides.
I make a plea for non-specific exercise: manual work such as gardening, and general stuff such as always using the stairs rather than the lift. In concert with regimes like pilates it should give a good all round fitness. Any 'Green Gyms' nearby?
-
I have to say that I disagree with you, BentMikey - given the problems Crystal Tips has been having, and just from my own PT training, core is essential and really will help performance massively -- and prevent a lot of 'physical problems'.
Exactly. People have been crippled by extreme cycling with no other remedial exercise. Sitting on a bike all day is unnatural and potentially very damaging, even if you build up to it gradually. Humans just weren't designed to be exerting themselves in that position for long periods of time. Developing core strength is a way of ameliorating that.
Relating specifically to Liz's OP, I did the equivalent of her TRAT this year - a solo 6-day LEJoG - http://6-daylejog.blogspot.com/ (http://6-daylejog.blogspot.com/) I had no physical problems of any kind (apart from a self-inflicted one) and I'm sure that pilates and other gym work was partly to thank for that.
-
I will be doing some cross-training, partly because otherwise I will get bored and partly because I'm also aiming for a (sprint distance) triathlon in August. However, that's going to be for fun rather than for serious training.
Can I get core strength from yoga and swimming, or should it be weights / gym stuff?
-
We'll have to agree to disagree then. You'll get plenty of core strength for whatever exercise you're doing, just by doing it with proper progression. What you guys are really saying is that it's good to have more all round fitness, not for performance, but for general life health outside of cycling, and that's true enough. It's not going to help Liz's performance as well as a structured cycle training programme would.
(There is the caveat that a relatively untrained person will benefit from just about any non-specific cross training).
-
Relating specifically to Liz's OP, I did the equivalent of her TRAT this year - a solo 6-day LEJoG - http://6-daylejog.blogspot.com/ (http://6-daylejog.blogspot.com/) I had no physical problems of any kind (apart from a self-inflicted one) and I'm sure that pilates and other gym work was partly to thank for that.
And hundreds rode the Tour De France (faster than I ever will) powered by brandy and steak. (which sounds more fun than core exercises). A dilemma ...
-
Relating specifically to Liz's OP, I did the equivalent of her TRAT this year - a solo 6-day LEJoG - http://6-daylejog.blogspot.com/ (http://6-daylejog.blogspot.com/) I had no physical problems of any kind (apart from a self-inflicted one) and I'm sure that pilates and other gym work was partly to thank for that.
And hundreds rode the Tour De France (faster than I ever will) powered by brandy and steak. (which sounds more fun than core exercises). A dilemma ...
I foresee a... retro training plan! :D
-
The swiss ball suggestion should be taken seriously.
Sitting on one all day will help an awful lot with exercising the hundreds of small muscles in your spine.
-
I really do recommend these guys as a fab alternative to the gym
British Military Fitness (http://www.britmilfit.com/index.aspx)
A mixture of running around outdoors and exercises like the plank, pressups, burpees, etc.
I did it for a good few months a while back before pinging something in my knee (they intersperse the exercises with little team games, you see, and I came over strangely competitive in one of them and got a bit overenthusiastic and dived for a ball and...ping :-[). So I suspended my membership before it got worse and let it rest a bit...
I am considering starting again though becaue I think the knee is ok now...and it really was fantastic fun, and this is coming from someone who, each week before PE at school, would construct various excuses as to why I couldn't possibly do it that week. There is a good camaraderie between the other members, and the instructors are not as scary as you might think.
You get your trial class for free - try one!
-
Wow, that looks like fun!
-
It kind of appeals here too (what's happening to me ::-).
How much running is involved?
Just that my hips cant handle more than about 10 mins running at the moment!
-
Quite a few of my friends do BMF. It looks well hardcore to me, having watched them in the park. There's a good range, they have different groups for super fit, average, and the big round wobbly lot. Going by my pushups performance, I'm sure I'd be in the bottom group, LOL!
-
I don't know much about anything but I can say that when I took things seriously after I got a HRM a couple of years ago, my average sustainable speed went from 12mph to 20mph in months. I used the HRM to to work my way up the bpm so that I got more and more comfortable with a higher bpm, the higher my bpm the faster the speed, but then it started going down, so for 20mph I used to get 192bpm when I first started which in a few months dropped to 150ish bpm for 20mph average and then I worked on core muscles cos I got into fixie and Beatrix, made me a stronger cyclist but my cruising speed went down but I could do more miles or pull bigger loads.
-
I really do recommend these guys as a fab alternative to the gym
British Military Fitness (http://www.britmilfit.com/index.aspx)
I've just looked at that and I don't know whether I'm interested or terrified.
-
+ 1 for Pilates. I have been doing it for about a year now and it has proved invaluable. I rarely have back problems out riding any more.
Can't agree with BentMikey. One of the problems with cycling (as in other sports) is that there are muscle groups that get overdeveloped and others that don't get developed at all. All the famous coaches will tell up that core strength is a valuable aid to improveing performance.
-
By that logic, we would also all improve in normal cycling performance by riding a handcycle regularly, or doing other arm exercise, when that clearly isn't the case. Cross training is great for all-around fitness and health[1], but it's poor for sport specific performance. Since everybody has limited recovery capacity, if you use up too much of that cross training, your sport specific performance will suffer.
As for the "all the famous coaches" quote - perhaps you could be specific and quote exactly who. Eddy Merckx has a quite different famous quote.
[1] This is a very valid goal for anyone. Which side you should choose will depend on your own goals of course.
-
Re BMF: You don't run for more than 10 mins at a time - at least not in the bottom group, which I was in. It's all 'run here, do this, run there, do that'. And it's all on grass.
Those of you who have met me will know I am not remotely 'hardcore' - I'm a big soft wimp, but I know those guys pushed me harder than I would ever have pushed myself in a million years, and the encouragement of the other members really spurs you on.
You know we can get group membership (the cheapest kind) if ten or more of us sign up as a 'YACF' group... ;D
-
I suppose the point is that there is not much use having world beating thighs and enormously developed cardio-vascular systems if put your back out every month.
There's no harm doing a short 20 minute session every other evening focusing on core strength.
Unless you're spending a lot of time out of the saddle, you are really neglecting major muscle groups and it is a good idea to devote some time to redressing the balance a little. Few here are going to be challenging the pro ranks any time soon so overall well being should rank pretty highly among our goals.
-
Since everybody has limited recovery capacity, if you use up too much of that cross training, your sport specific performance will suffer.
But that's not true of pilates, which is what many are suggesting. I actually feel energised after a session and fit it in between doing fixed weights and a cycle trainer workout. There is no noticeable recovery period in the conventional sense.
As for sport-specific training suffering, the fact that none of us are Olympians means we probably don't have much to worry about there. However, I suspect (though have no proof) that many top cyclists probably do follow an element of core strength exercise. I would be very surprised, for example, if the GB team followed your advice to train solely on a bike, to the exclusion of any other muscular development.
-
The original question was
Do I need to improve my core strength to get faster
The answer is you do not NEED to specifically work on core strength. The principal of training is overload and adaption, this includes all the muscle groups involved in (by) cycling, , the adaption takes place mostly during rest, if you are riding ( training) four times a week the days off are needed for recovery not more stress doing core strength training. This frequency is thought to produce optimum gains. Liz is trying to increase her power output significantly. Do core strength training by all means but it won't make you faster or increase your cycling endurance only riding your bike ( or turbo) to a proper plan will do that. Cross training has been recommended a lot in the past but just in winter and mostly to give elite riders a mental and physical break without loosing too much fitness over winter not as a way to improve cycling performance.
-
I suppose the point is that there is not much use having world beating thighs and enormously developed cardio-vascular systems if put your back out every month.
This is probably the most important point BUT i'm not convinced that 2hours/week of core exercises is the right answer.
Unless you're spending a lot of time out of the saddle, you are really neglecting major muscle groups and it is a good idea to devote some time to redressing the balance a little.
A few points about this:
- Firstly, the research shows that SOME cross-training etc reduces injuries. But the benefit levels off very quickly.
- Generic core exercises are not designed for cyclists. How do you know you are improving your personal 'balance'.
- If you do 'core' exercises that work the core muscles used by cyclists, then will they not need recovery before the next training ride?
- All this time doing core stuff is time you could be spending on the bike - specificity rules. Gentle base miles will build up the relevant core.
But that's not true of pilates, which is what many are suggesting. I actually feel energised after a session and fit it in between doing fixed weights and a cycle trainer workout. There is no noticeable recovery period in the conventional sense.
ANY beneficial exercise MUST have some recovery period. It must either stress muscles (to build them) or your CV system. If not, it can't be of benefit. Stretching, however, is a no-brainer - I'm all for stretches that combat the typical cycling problems (although most instructors won't know what these are!).
Obligatory Personal Anecdote:
The only 'sports' injuries I have ever suffered were due to one of:
- sprinting without decent warm-up (not on a bike),
- bad tackles, or
- bones broken in a car crash (the bloody things rarely mend straight).
In Conclusion:
I believe in a little cross-training, lots of stretching, and lots of base miles to balance the high-intensity stuff year-round. But I'm no expert, so you've probably wasted your time reading this far ... :)
(this is for optimum performance - to enjoy life I recommend doing Lots of Fun Stuff)
-
Do core strength training by all means but it won't make you faster or increase your cycling endurance only riding your bike ( or turbo) to a proper plan will do that.
I don't think anyone was suggesting core strength training on its own! We're talking about it as a compliment to regular cycle training (i.e. overload and adaption) and as a way of correcting any imbalances that may arise.
-
Do core strength training by all means but it won't make you faster or increase your cycling endurance only riding your bike ( or turbo) to a proper plan will do that.
I don't think anyone was suggesting core strength training on its own! We're talking about it as a compliment to regular cycle training (i.e. overload and adaption) and as a way of correcting any imbalances that may arise.
I didn't say they were, I was only answering the OP's question. However since most people have limited time any time spent core strength training would be better spent doing specific cycle training, in that respect you you could say core strength training might make you slower.
-
Sure, it's a question of balance and priorities. If I had to give up one of my 3 main forms of training (road riding, power trainer sessions or pilates) it would be the pilates, and I often do, as you say, though lack of time.
However, in an ideal world I combine all three, and when I do I notice improvements, not of speed, but of a reduction in niggles, especially in the back and neck, which if untreated can themselves lead to a reduction in quality of training and spoil the enjoyment of riding itself.
-
And those niggles are more apparent on longstuff than on shorter rides. Since Liz is aiming at great epic multi-day stuff, I'd judge that the niggles are worth attending to.
My 2p: Cross-training has value as well, whatever it is, for its cross-ness. You can't run with a saggy core or swim with one and it's not too hard to work some loadbearing whole-body stuff into a regular gym programme. None of these are core-specific, but all help.
-
And those niggles are more apparent on longstuff than on shorter rides. Since Liz is aiming at great epic multi-day stuff, I'd judge that the niggles are worth attending to.
Exactly. If you're doing the odd sportive every couple of weeks then it's maybe not so important, but for the TRAT or (in my case this year) the LEL, you really don't want to realise you've got a bad back on day 2 of a 5-6 day intensive ride, and you're not necessarily going to find that out during routine training.
-
I do a lot of core work which I think is great for posture. After a few pilates sessions you soon notice when you are slouching at work or in front of the telly, etc. I also think that it can be good for cycling but depends a lot on your pedalling style. If you just push, stamp or press on the pedals then the benefits are limited. If, on the other hand, you pedal your pedals and turn the cranks in circles then a stronger core is most beneficial. You will be using your legs to turn the cranks for a complete revolution so a strong core will help to anchor and stabilise the legs.
-
Bad back stuff on long rides sounds like a training/preparation deficiency, at least in terms of cycling.
-
There is no simple answer, everyone is different and so is their base core fitness. Niggles on a bike almost always are caused by poor position, overtraining or lack of training, yes gym work may help eliminate the symptoms but are not treating the cause.
-
Hi Liz, only just seen this thread, well done for being so motivated and for wanting to improve your overall fitness.
I must give a big :thumbsup: to incorporating core strength work into a training programme, not as a standalone though but as part of an overall programme. I will happily send you some books I have that show lots of exercises that you can pick and choose from. When I come to visit I will gladly run through some of the ones I use.
Core strength training certainly has helped me in both my running and cycling. Yoga and regular visits to the gym ensure this continues. I use a swiss ball at home and it is now a part of the furniture.
Do not underestimate the importance of core strength, I am sure that you don't. I am not sure it will make you faster but it will enable you to divert your energy elsewhere. The muscles used in core strength training are often overlooked but do make a huge difference in everything you do, from walking and running to cycling and swimming.
It's early, the above might not make any sense at all :-[
Remember that good technique is more important than duration when performing exercises for the core, you can build on the duration but ensure that good technique is used from the off.
Good luck :-* :-*
-
I joined the gym 2 years ago, hooked up with a trainer with the specific purpose of improving my core strength. Partly to improve my chronic back problems (frequent muscle spasms), but also to help my kendo.
What I quickly learned the first lesson, is that due to cycling and kendo, I was very good at linear exercises, but the moment it when the slightest lateral, I was weak as a little girl.
Focusing on core exercises not only increased my overall ability with regards to kendo and cycling, but much more importantly, greatly improved the recovery time.
From being stiff and sore after each semi-hard kendo session, I was now jumping out of bed in the morning, ready to go again. A lot of it has to do with a stable core lets you do more for less, but also overall improvement of fitness helped a lot.
Pilates or work with trainer in the gym who knows what he's doing. You wont regret it. (Ok, so you will regret it for the first few weeks, but the pain will go away...)
-
Excellent testimony Jakob. As said before, you could be trained to the highest standard in one sport and still be pathetically weak in the majority of your muscle groups. This can lead to imbalance and potentially serious physical problems.
To exercise in one discipline to the exclusion of general physical toning is not healthy IMO.
BTW, I don't think there is any way that I could have progressed from 30 to 100 push ups in 5 weeks using the Challenge without having a reasonably developed core strength. It helps with every aspect of training, as well as just making you feel better, having better posture, etc.
-
Bad back stuff on long rides sounds like a training/preparation deficiency, at least in terms of cycling.
Yep, it's a deficiency in core strength ;D
-
Bad back stuff on long rides sounds like a training/preparation deficiency, at least in terms of cycling.
Yep, it's a deficiency in core strength ;D
LOL, but wrong.
-
The thing is that you are not using the core muscles that supports your back when you're cycling, so if your back aches when cycling, more cycling is not the answer.The back muscles will try to take up the slack and get more sore, whilst the core muscles becomes weaker.
Core training is not about becoming buff and building a 6 pack. It's about having a solid foundation, that will give you a base to train from and greatly help your recovery time. Yes, the first 2-4 weeks, it will have an impact on the amount of energy you got available for your regular training and if you ramp up the exercises as your core gets strong, you can still feel it, but the overall benefits far outweigh it.
The main problem I have with it, is that it's boring. It's gym work (never with heavy weights, but loads of lateral movements, with relatively light weights, variety of sit-ups, planks, etc) and that I've always found boring. (Which is why I only do it in the winter).
However, doing that for 2-3 months will benefit me for the rest of the year...
-
Do I need to improve my core strength to get faster
I totally agree with all the pro-core-strength comments in this thread by Jakob, Toontra et al. No, it won't get you faster, Liz, but it will reduce your risk of injury, improve your recovery, and without a doubt it will help to avoid back problems during long rides.
The degree of benefit to be obtained from improving core strength depends on where you are starting from. BentMikey, I suspect that due to your skating and so on your core strength may be excellent compared to someone who is primarily a (non-recumbent) cyclist.
In my own case, having had lumbar problems and surgery some years ago, I am certain that it has helped me immensely and I wish I had been more aware of core strength and how to improve it in the past. Everything we do depends on the core.
Recumbent riding excepted ;)
-
Don't worry about strength if it's speed you're after.
Join a club, go on club runs and survive. After a week or two start joining the sprints for signposts and the mad dash at the finish. Then go on weekday evening training rides.
If you can keep up with the chain gang as the season gets underway you're in business.
It'll hurt, mind.
The Volio is spot on.
This approach increased my riding speed considerably and made a big difference on PBP as despite the faffing, I was fast enough to build a sleep budget up.
In practice, it meant not just going out trying to keep up with Paul Whitehead and Dave Young on the weekend and mid-week traning rides but being determined to be faster than them - despite me being the weight of two Tuggos on the trike.
Think 'red mist' and valve bounce but the saying goes 'what does not kill me makes me stronger' comes to mind.
You'll bloody do it. :thumbsup:
H
-
Although, be careful - I have discovered a Side Effect.
I have been having some pain in my Hip Flexors on recent Audax rides. It comes on at about 75km, and wears off again after about 150km.
This has only started happening since I did about four months of concerted effort on my Core - including the 100 Push Up Challenge.
What I think has happened is this. My core (which as a 30-year desk jockey, has become weak and flabby) has become much stronger, which in turn has said "I am now a stable platform from which you can do great things" to the other muscles, and they are complaining - claiming they are not ready.
So - Core Strength is Good - but it might temporarily cause stress elsewhere.
-
Everything that we do that depends on the core also works the core, specifically for that sort of exercise. That's why if you cycle lots, your core will get stronger for the purpose of cycling.
-
Even if you "cycle lots", that will not improve your core strength as much as specific training for that purpose - and for some people that is of benefit.
-
Even if you "cycle lots", that will not improve your core strength as much as specific training for that purpose - and for some people that is of benefit.
The problem with that is that what you call specific training isn't specific to cycling. It's generalist training, and it's therefore largely ineffective. Cycling itself is specific core training, specific to cycling.
You're right that my core might be quite reasonable for skating, and it's another case where lots of skating will train it up quite effectively. You don't need to do any more than that.
-
I can only go on my own experiences.
-
Bad back stuff on long rides sounds like a training/preparation deficiency, at least in terms of cycling.
Yep, it's a deficiency in core strength ;D
LOL, but wrong.
Why wrong? Seems to follow quite logically,
-
Because it might not be core strength, it might be bike setup, or poor body position, for example.
-
Even if you "cycle lots", that will not improve your core strength as much as specific training for that purpose - and for some people that is of benefit.
The problem with that is that what you call specific training isn't specific to cycling. It's generalist training, and it's therefore largely ineffective. Cycling itself is specific core training, specific to cycling.
You're right that my core might be quite reasonable for skating, and it's another case where lots of skating will train it up quite effectively. You don't need to do any more than that.
I think you got the term wrong.
Core conditioning and abdominal conditioning have become synonymous in recent years but the abdominal muscles alone are over-rated when it comes to real core strength or conditioning. In reality, the abdominal muscles have very limited and specific action. The "core" actually consists of many different muscles that stabilize the spine and pelvis and run the entire length of the torso. These muscles stabilize the spine, pelvis and shoulder and provide a solid foundation for movement in the extremities. Core conditioning exercise programs need to target all these muscle groups to be effective. The muscles of the core make it possible to stand upright and move on two feet. These muscles help control movements, transfer energy, shift body weight and move in any direction. A strong core distributes the stresses of weight-bearing and protects the back.
Core Training - Good Core Training Takes More Than Ab Exercises (http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/abdominalcorestrength1/a/NewCore.htm)
-
No, although I see why you misunderstood. What I meant is that doing sport specific training will also train your core for that particular sport. Your body will adapt as a whole.
-
No, although I see why you misunderstood. What I meant is that doing sport specific training will also train your core for that particular sport. Your body will adapt as a whole.
No it wont. Cycling, specifically, will underuse the core muscles used to support your spine, putting more strain on the back muscles and spine. It will, in the long run, make your body as a whole weaker, increasing recovery time and risk of injury.
From skating, due to a lot of lateral movements, you most likely don't have that issue.
-
No, although I see why you misunderstood. What I meant is that doing sport specific training will also train your core for that particular sport. Your body will adapt as a whole.
And in general that's fine, riding will make you fit for riding. But the problem arises when you push to your limit, when things start to fail.
So if you are wanting to ride faster, or longer, what happens is that unobvious parts of your body start to fail under the strain - your back starts to hurt becos' your core can't cope with the workload, your triceps hurts, or your neck gets wobbly.
If you regularly ride 100K them your general riding will equip you fine for 120K, but odd things might fail above 200K (they might not, you might have gained a lot of transeferable strength to carry you through).
-
Forgot to say - many thanks to Jakob for the link - a really good reference source.
-
Cycling, specifically, will underuse the core muscles used to support your spine
Definitely true.
IME.
-
This, it has to be said, is a very very useful thread :thumbsup:.
-
In addition to the benefits mentioned above, strengthening the muscles that surround the spine helps to support and reduce strain on the intervertebral discs. If you have existing or potential lumbar disc problems this is important and it has, so far, been very helpful for me.
I've tried the "cycle lots" method: no amount of cycling strengthens the back muscles in the way that my gym work does. Cycling only uses a small proportion of the many muscles involved in supporting the spine.
-
In addition to the benefits mentioned above, strengthening the muscles that surround the spine helps to support and reduce strain on the intervertebral discs. If you have existing or potential lumbar disc problems this is important and it has, so far, been very helpful for me.
I've tried the "cycle lots" method: no amount of cycling strengthens the back muscles in the way that my gym work does. Cycling only uses a small proportion of the many muscles involved in supporting the spine.
Exactly. The theory seems very straight forward and intuitive, as well as actually working in practice for me.
A question for Bent Mickey? I'm finding it hard to understand why you have so little time for core strength work - have you ever tried a core strength exercise regime? On what basis you you have such a low opinion of it?
-
Toontra, I don't have anything against core strength programmes. In this specific case, they don't meet with Liz's stated goals, which is why I'm arguing against them.
No it wont. Cycling, specifically, will underuse the core muscles used to support your spine, putting more strain on the back muscles and spine. It will, in the long run, make your body as a whole weaker, increasing recovery time and risk of injury.
From skating, due to a lot of lateral movements, you most likely don't have that issue.
I have to disagree, I think your view is wrong. It might be correct if you were trying to rely on cycling to build core strength for skating, for example, but that's not the case here.
-
Toontra, I don't have anything against core strength programmes. In this specific case, they don't meet with Liz's stated goals, which is why I'm arguing against them.
In your opinion! I would disagree, and I'm in the majority here it would seem, and these are people who've actually tried it and it's worked for them. By the way, you didn't answer my question - have you tried core strength training yourself? Also, have you cycled 150 miles a day for 6 days on the trot?
In this specific case I think Liz, or anyone, would benefit. I understand you are a skating instructor - are you sure this isn't professional rivalry on your part?
-
Yes, I have tried core strength training, and I'm glad to see there is a little balance from others on my point of view, so it's not as one sided as you might like to make out. I also think the last part of your post is perhaps beneath your usual good nature.
-
As I mentioned above, I do think the value of core strength training depends to some extent on your starting point. I'd hazard a guess that for many people that starting point is such that it would help avoid problems and improve general posture and overall well-being. BM, I suspect that your fitness level and overall condition including core strength are considerably better than average.
The answer as to whether such training will itself make Liz go faster is no. But I think it could help her immensely during the other cycling specific training that would enable that.
To put it another way: could Liz achieve what she wants without core strength training? Quite possibly. But the risk of derailment due to injury and problems due to lack of training of non-cycling muscles would be much greater.
IMO.
-
I also think the last part of your post is perhaps beneath your usual good nature.
It wasn't intended to be offensive BM - apologies if it appeared so. :) I'm just struggling to understand your antipathy for something as benign as pilates which has proven so useful for many in the specific discipline of long-distance cycling.
-
Sorry Mikey if you think this is becoming personal - there's obviously a bunch of core-zealots out there (me included) that really don't understand your antipathy. So, apologies.
But to return to Liz's original question !
Firstly restating the requirement - to become significantly faster riding, and be able to maintain that level of performance over distances longer than previoulsy ridden (ie 1000 miles in 6 days or whatever). And to achieve this in time for the good weather in the spring
IMHO you would be very unlikely to achieve that performance increase by just riding your bike, it needs a solid strength training program, and that has to be supplemented by a core training. One without the other is unwise.
So, couple of weeks getting used to weights in the gym, then 2/3 sessions a week of big weights/low reps, "whole body" exercises like squats, lunges, pull-ups (or lat pull downs), cleans etc, and 2-3 core sessions, where you can do a lot of work in 15 mins.
That's my plan for the New Year anyway ;D
-
But to return to Liz's original question !
Firstly restating the requirement - to become significantly faster riding, and be able to maintain that level of performance over distances longer than previoulsy ridden (ie 1000 miles in 6 days or whatever). And to achieve this in time for the good weather in the spring
IMHO you would be very unlikely to achieve that performance increase by just riding your bike, it needs a solid strength training program, and that has to be supplemented by a core training. One without the other is unwise.
So, couple of weeks getting used to weights in the gym, then 2/3 sessions a week of big weights/low reps, "whole body" exercises like squats, lunges, pull-ups (or lat pull downs), cleans etc, and 2-3 core sessions, where you can do a lot of work in 15 mins.
Training is like diet and weight loss, there are many experts with some new trendy ideas with accompanying book and DVD. So now we have core training, which just seems to coincide with the growth in gyms. Just to comment on what you have written above. Cycling is primarily an endurance activity which requires training of the cardiovascular system, the Op has 12 weeks or so to make any improvement and you recommend spending the first two weeks weight training and also suggesting some usable strength can be gained in a 15 min session ( not possible) how will this help the OP achieve their objective. A tailored training plan will be bike or turbo based, this will bring about any strength requirements in ALL the muscles used to perform this activity, but more importantly the improvements in fueling those working muscles. Others have mentioned back problems, this will be almost certainly down to position and or overtraining, which is too much load, either intensity or duration, for their level of fitness, .When you start increasing load it is always the weakest point where the problems occur usual the back or knees but also often the neck wrists or shoulders. Training is about specificity and measured progression that is the same for any sport. I have training diaries going back to 1980 and can see what has worked or not over the years, I have done a lot of gym and weights work and can say for me it has had no measurable effect on my cycling performance.
-
Do I need to improve my core strength to get faster,
No. Embark on an interval training program on the bike and/or hang on the the back wheels of faster riders for as long as you can and learn how to suffer.
-
Sorry Inc, you just don't get it.
No amount of cardiovascular work will make you go faster - it will help you go longer, but not faster.
To go faster you need to be stronger. You can achieve that by hanging on to faster wheels/interval training etc but the quickest way to get stronger is a tailored weight-lifting program.
And if your weights/gym efforts haven't paid dividends then I would respectfully suggest your prgrams havebeen either badly designed or badly executed (or both).
-
Others have mentioned back problems, this will be almost certainly down to position and or overtraining, which is too much load, either intensity or duration, for their level of fitness.
Not in my case. I've back woes for many years, and I had had surgery before I returned to cycling 5 years ago or so. Wear and tear and a lot of ill-advised heavy lifting in the past.
Position: agreed. I took me quite a long time to get right - but I am sure Liz has that one cracked long ago.
I agree, obviously, that progressive structured training on the bike would be the mainstay of the programme - but what some posters are just not getting is that that will be a lot less prone to disruption and will progress faster if some time is spent on the muscles supporting the spine and all the muscles involved in posture etc.
Re gyms: aside from the one I go to now, no gym I've ever attended (i.e. the big-name chains and the local authority gym) has effectively addressed core strength. They seemed to be all about aiming for aesthetic improvements.
Is Liz reading any of this? ;D
-
I'm reading; I'm just too intimidated by all this training stuff to comment! ;D
I'm reading and absorbing. This is a really fascinating discussion for someone like me who has never really thought about it before.
-
I believe that core strength should be included in any fitness regime. It is often the bits that cannot be seen that are ignored, yet are crucial to the rest of our bodies.
We all pick up bad habits in terms of posture, walking etc and often compensate for weaknesses, injuries or pain, these can all lead to further problems.
Core strength training alone will not make you go faster but it will encourage a better posture and a stronger starting position. Let it be something that you do gradually and aim to improve in the longer term.
Surely comfort is the number one factor here. It doesn't matter how fast one is, if discomfort causes pain then speed is surely irrelevant?
-
I'm reading; I'm just too intimidated by all this training stuff to comment! ;D
I'm reading and absorbing. This is a really fascinating discussion for someone like me who has never really thought about it before.
That's great- if it's helpful to have all us self-opinionated so-&-so's sounding of, pleased to be of assistance ;D
I think it's a great thread, too, some good opinions and useful links too.
All the best for a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
-
Sorry Inc, you just don't get it.
No amount of cardiovascular work will make you go faster - it will help you go longer, but not faster.
To go faster you need to be stronger. You can achieve that by hanging on to faster wheels/interval training etc but the quickest way to get stronger is a tailored weight-lifting program.
And if your weights/gym efforts haven't paid dividends then I would respectfully suggest your prgrams havebeen either badly designed or badly executed (or both).
Please, don't be sorry for me, :) but it would help if you read what I am saying. A structured bike based training plan will develop both cardiovascular and muscular aspects of improvement at a rate for maximum gains. The two systems need to be matched, there is no point being stronger if your cardiovascular system can't supply it with fuel.
Do you understand what happens to muscle when you train with weights, you may get stronger ie you can lift more weight but it is not going to help with cycling speed or endurance you may be able to sprint faster but that is not much use on a 1000 mile multi day event.
Suggesting hanging on to faster wheels to make you faster is an unlikely outcome, most probability you will be training at a level too high and delay the required adaption. It is not structured or tailored for the individual.
When I was doing weights ( a while ago) it was a programme for cycling developed by a friend who was also a national coach who I trained with.
The plain truth is training to go faster requires a lot of motivation, more than most people have, it can be boring sitting on a turbo in your garage ( AC/DC helps) or going out for three hours on your own in crap weather but the Peter Keen ( architect of our current national success) developed system works for anyone, is free, and is individual.
Being in a nice cosy gym with all those fit lycra clad people :demon: or sitting in your garage on a turbo ???, tough call, one will make you a fitter faster cyclist, we just disagree which one.
-
erm, shouldn;t this trhead be in "Further and Faster " by the way. To inc. I guess I was lucky then, following faster wheels DID make me faster.
-
To inc. I guess I was lucky then, following faster wheels DID make me faster.
The thread is about Liz wanting to go from 20kph to 20 mph and asked would core training help. All my post have had that in mind. If following wheels made you faster great but I doubt you were riding at 20kph when you started following wheels and there is no knowing how much faster you may had gone with a structured plan.
-
Personalized Triathlon Training Online - [tri-eCoach] (http://www.tri-ecoach.com/art5.htm)
An interesting article.
and also
Pain-Free Cycling, at the Core (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701138.html)
-
Will core training on it's own make Liz faster - No.
Can Liz get faster by just cycling more - Yes.
Will core training enable Liz to train more & harder - Yes.
-
To inc. I guess I was lucky then, following faster wheels DID make me faster.
The thread is about Liz wanting to go from 20kph to 20 mph and asked would core training help. All my post have had that in mind. If following wheels made you faster great but I doubt you were riding at 20kph when you started following wheels and there is no knowing how much faster you may had gone with a structured plan.
The question was more specific. It was "Do I need to improve my core strength to get faster". If we want to be pedantic we could I suppose believ that my core strength improved by cycling alone or something else and not by doing specific exercises on it. I don't know. (I do ride up hills in a large gear with no hands sometimes) I got faster without doing core strength exercises. Let me add that I am not saying that training core strength is a waste of time, far from it, I now do it on a Swiss Ball two or three times a week along with leg and upper body exercises. I was answering the very focussed question from my own experience.
-
Well, looks like we've done core strength ;)
I'd like to have a proper go at improving my speed and endurance next year. Any good web sources regarding progressive training programmes on the bike?
-
I think Inc mentioned a Program from Peter Keen that is free and available - would be good to have a pointer to that?
And further to Inc's points - I don't disagree at all that a structured training program with turbo training etc could make you faster, I'm just suggesting that a structured weights program is likely to give faster results. Here's my thinking:
Assumption is that Liz's CV systems is reasonably well-tuned, lots of long rides etc, so I'm assuming that fuel supply to the muscles won't be an issue (this will change later), and so the initial emphasis should be on getting stronger.
And getting stronger isn't about just sprinting faster - if your top speed is 22 mph then riding at 20mph will feel very stressful, if your top speed is 25mph then 20mph will feel a lot more comfortable.
So periodise your training - couple of weeks to get used to handling weights (expect to be stiff) 10-12 weeks of high intensive weights paralleled with general bike riding, transition to a more bike-based training regime as the weather gets better/nights are lighter with ridng up hills in high gears etc etc,
I think this regime is a) more likely to be followed (yep, gyms can be full of attractive fit people) and b) will give more bang for the buck in timevs results.
And yes, core stability training is vital.
Make sense? Useful?
-
Sorry Inc, you just don't get it.
No amount of cardiovascular work will make you go faster - it will help you go longer, but not faster.
To go faster you need to be stronger.
Do they have gears on the bikes where you live?
-
Just Google for Peter Keen there are a few useful links, this one caught my eye
High Performance Interval Training | Association of British Cycling Coaches (http://abcc.malfirth.co.uk/articles/training-competition/high-performance-interval-training/)
the second paragraph Specific Muscle Fibre Actions makes interesting reading and explains what I have been trying to ( unsuccessfully) explain.
-
Just Google for Peter Keen there are a few useful links, this one caught my eye
High Performance Interval Training | Association of British Cycling Coaches (http://abcc.malfirth.co.uk/articles/training-competition/high-performance-interval-training/)
the second paragraph Specific Muscle Fibre Actions makes interesting reading and explains what I have been trying to ( unsuccessfully) explain.
No, this is great - I think you and I actually agree more than you think!
Both of us recognize that the key to speed is to recruit muscle fibres, just that I'm suggesting a more general initial recruitment phase using weight training (squats are similar enough to pedalling to work at a gross level) before going into a cycling specific phase where those recruited fibres are turned into cycling-useful workhorses.
-
I'm also with inc on doing weights, I don't think it'll have any useful benefit for Liz at all, and probably not much for any cyclists outside of track sprinting. I've seen this view confirmed by some fairly high level coaches too. Weights have a limited place in speedskating, but then leg forces are at least an order of magnitude higher than they are in cycling.
-
To return to the "core" topic ...
I had a thought today - riding along happily on the 'hoods I remembered a time when I just couldn't get comfortable for any time on the 'hoods never mind on the drops. Only really became able to ride that way after working on my core strength - this after years of riding, including audaxes, when I'd tried consistently to get comfortable but hadn't worked.
The improvement in aerodynamics is probably worth a couple of KPH at least. So my practical experience shows a direct correlation between improved core stability and speed.
Obviously YMMV, and Liz may already feel comfortable in a very aerodynamic posiiton, so may not be relevant.
-
My feeling is that that describes to me either a bike setup error, or an incorrect body position. I see this sort of positional error all the time with skating, and it's just because people's own proprioception and body self knowledge has a very different feeling to what they see in others demonstrating the correct position. It's very hard to adjust this sort of thing, and it takes a lot of disciplined care and persistance. I've noticed the same sort of thing watching cyclists - watching body language and movement is my full time job after all, I can't just turn my eye for it off.
Core strength may patch the symptoms, but it won't address the cause of discomfort.
-
The improvement in aerodynamics is probably worth a couple of KPH at least. So my practical experience shows a direct correlation between improved core stability and speed.
I would say it shows a correlation between position and speed, which is well known and documented. If after years of cycling you could not get comfortable on the hoods, less so the drops then your position is most probably wrong.
-
The improvement in aerodynamics is probably worth a couple of KPH at least. So my practical experience shows a direct correlation between improved core stability and speed.
I would say it shows a correlation between position and speed, which is well known and documented. If after years of cycling you could not get comfortable on the hoods, less so the drops then your position is most probably wrong.
Position before core stability training = uncomfortable and unsustainable for any distance
Same position after core stability training = comfortable and sustainable for reasonable distances.
-
Position before core stability training = uncomfortable and unsustainable for any distance
Same position after core stability training = comfortable and sustainable for reasonable distances.
I understood what you were saying but as as others have also said you are treating the symptoms not the cause. You say you have been cycling some time including Audax and could not get comfortable, now after core training you can but you don't say where your previous discomfort was and whether you have altered your position. Every cyclist should be comfortable riding on the hoods, it is where 80% of most riding is done. If your problems were with your back and you have now used resistance training to strengthen your back I would be a little concerned you are masking a basic positional problem which has not been addressed and may return when you overload it either by effort and/or distance.
-
What comes first though, the chicken or the egg ?
Any position is uncomfortable if the body isn't able to cope with it. Making the body cope with it by training makes the position right/a good one. A body changes, is able to adapt as you know.
-
Except it's not a chicken/egg situation. Bad position will eventually cause pain, good position won't.
-
What comes first though, the chicken or the egg ?
Any position is uncomfortable if the body isn't able to cope with it. Making the body cope with it by training makes the position right/a good one. A body changes, is able to adapt as you know.
Your position on a bike should be comfortable from the start. Getting your position right should be the first priority. For the more extreme positions for TTs it would be logically that this would be after training for years for the event with progression to the most effective position for yourself part of this process. I think some of the problem is that most frames seem to come in three sizes and people don't. So a med is right for top tube length but the bars are too low without a pile of stackers and the stem upside down and a large frame with a longer head tube is better for bar height but the top tube is too long. People also buy complete bikes, the shop may change bits but if you don't know exactly what width bars , length stem etc you need you may end up with something close but not right.
-
It has taken me approximately 18 months to get my position on the bike to a point where I can ride 200km's without being in agony. I still have a long way to go however and I know that I have very good core strength. My problems result from asymmetry in the pelvic area and no amount of extra training will correct this. If I had poor core strength my problems would undoubtedly be much worse.
-
I don't really know what you are saying now inc. I don't think you are saying that a bike has to be 100% right from the start and a rider should not have to adapt are you ?
I am not saying that any old bike will do. It is highly unlikely that the correct bar width as defined by my anatomy is exactly 44cm but i have adapted to this width and it is comfortable for me for very long rides day in day out. Same can be said of the relative bar distance, saddle position and height.
-
It has taken me approximately 18 months to get my position on the bike to a point where I can ride 200km's without being in agony. I still have a long way to go however and I know that I have very good core strength. My problems result from asymmetry in the pelvic area and no amount of extra training will correct this. If I had poor core strength my problems would undoubtedly be much worse.
that is what I am saying, it's a bit of both.
-
I don't really know what you are saying now inc. I don't think you are saying that a bike has to be 100% right from the start and a rider should not have to adapt are you ?
For an experienced rider yes, of course, they should know exactly what their position should be and set every bike up the same. For someone less experienced it is more difficult as it is easy to set virtually any bike up and ride it, so off the peg, near enough from some formulae is probably OK. The problems are when the loads go up. Commuting, general riding, usually no problem. But then maybe longer rides, faster rides on the same bike, same position and niggles start. Since the position gave no problems before, it may not be the obvious suspect now but usually is. Finding what gives the most comfortable position takes time and is not always simple. An example would be bars, a some bike fit methods use nose of the saddle to the centre of the bars for reach, (overreaching is probably the biggest cause of back problems) two problems, the saddle nose can give up to 30-40mm difference depending on the saddle, and with so many bars available you can easily have two with the same reach and drop but because of the different bend give the hoods 30mm different position, enough change to make the difference between being comfortable after 3 hours or not. Most cyclist would consider going from a 90mm stem to a 120mm stem a large change but maybe not consider the effect of the bend in the bars. The difference in position between comfortable or not can be just mm.
-
I'm with inc on the bars thing. It is something I did. Removed those anatomic bars, removed the STis and fitted old style curved bars and regular brake levers. That bike became like my others and is now very very comfortable for 200 miles at least. From the recent comments in this thread we should remember that everyone is different; whether people have trained their core or not, some people will be stronger in that area than others and hence more able to deal with the demands put on it.
-
Bump
I've put in the two fastest rides I've ever done, in the last week.
I'm pretty sure this is down to core strength. I did the Hundred Push-up Challenge (though I didn't complete it) over the winter, and have been concentrating on my core at the gym for several months.
I definitely feel like my torso is a more stable platform for pushing out some power on a flat/undulating ride. I still don't think I'm much good at hill climbing, though my Dorset Coast 200 was over an hour faster than my previous fastest.
Core Strength Rocks :thumbsup:.
-
Excellent.
I'll be testing out my core strength (push-up challenge and gym work) soon. I've got 20 hour upper body workout next Saturday; The Elenith on fixed.
-
Bump
I've put in the two fastest rides I've ever done, in the last week.
I'm pretty sure this is down to core strength. I did the Hundred Push-up Challenge (though I didn't complete it) over the winter, and have been concentrating on my core at the gym for several months.
I definitely feel like my torso is a more stable platform for pushing out some power on a flat/undulating ride. I still don't think I'm much good at hill climbing, though my Dorset Coast 200 was over an hour faster than my previous fastest.
Core Strength Rocks :thumbsup:.
Well done! That's the best test really, isn't it - that it works for you. It's certainly worked for me, and it's not just lack of niggles on long rides. It's also the upper body/lower body relationship which seems to be in better balance, and there is more power available in general, not just the legs.
And as I said upthread (if I remember!) it can't do any harm, so why not give it a go.
BTW, talking about the 100 push-up thingie, I reached the target back in December and instantly gave up! On Wednesday last week I remembered about push-ups and gave it a go - managed 100 straight off! Well pleased ;)
-
So which core exercises have you all found the most effective?
-
So which core exercises have you all found the most effective?
Plank with opposing extensions.
my TT position is now much improved.
..d
-
So which core exercises have you all found the most effective?
No one specific exercise - general pilates classes. Pilates is all about developing the core.