core stability work

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by bikerjoe
and the benefits with regarding to climbling,sprinting etc.cheers

Next to nil on all counts IMO (or negative if you have to cut out some climbing, sprinting, etc).

I think they are a good idea though. Too much cycling has to be bad for posture, although it probably won't affect you on the bike for a good few years if ever.

I do a routine everyday of certain pilates exercises and other strengthing exercises for my butt and back, but in saying this I have only just started doing it, recovering from an injury in my hip, which we believe was caused by weakness in my butt back and abs... if I had been doing them before perhaps I would not have missed 3 very important track events, laying on my back unable to move .....

since starting I have felt alot better on the bike, alot less pain in my back, and I am more aware of each muscle and its role in my riding, my times on the track are coming down ( I cant comment on whether thats due to training or the exercises ) however I feel much more comfortable on the bike and that for me is a major plus

W

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by bikerjoe
Tend to be really lazy in this area.I go through in spells about doing crunches, leg raises..etc etc, but hoping to be a bit more productive for next season.

Wondering who all does some core stability work and if so, how many days per week and what exercises are you doing, and the benefits with regarding to climbling,sprinting etc.cheers

I had some back problems a few months ago (see my thread "Lower Back Pain"😉 and started a bunch of stretches recommended by people on this forum and they were helpful. Then recently started going to the gym to do weight lifting as discussed in Friel's "Cyclist's Training Bible", but also used a lot of other back and core machines and my back problems totally disappeared. Previously I would have some lower back pain if I didn't stretch every morning but since doing the weight training I don't even need to stretch.

My gym schedule is kind of hit or miss but typically it's 2-3 1-2 hour sessions per week. It's only been about a month since I started but besides the obvious benefits of being able to ride without any back pain I've already noticed increased power - though this is also due to excercises which focus on leg muscles. It's also been good to get in some spinning when the weather is not cooperating.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
Next to nil on all counts IMO (or negative if you have to cut out some climbing, sprinting, etc).

I think they are a good idea though. Too much cycling has to be bad for posture, although it probably won't affect you on the bike for a good few years if ever.

Earlier this autumn I ended up by accident in a core-strength class at my gym after the class I wanted was cancelled. I spent an hour doing some pretty extreme pilates and lots of fit-ball stuff, pushing my puny mid-rif to its limit (as in physically couldn't do any more crunches by the end).

The next morning my whole body felt fine except my stomach muscles which were pretty stiff, I thought they don't make much difference to cycling, so went on my hour ride before work as normal. For the whole ride my legs just flopped around, the muscles felt fine just couldn't transmit any power to the road because my core was so worn-out.

It's pretty unscientific but since then I've been firmly of the opinion that if no core strength makes riding impossible then the more core strength the better.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by rob of the og

The next morning my whole body felt fine except my stomach muscles which were pretty stiff, I thought they don't make much difference to cycling, so went on my hour ride before work as normal. For the whole ride my legs just flopped around, the muscles felt fine just couldn't transmit any power to the road because my core was so worn-out.

Sore muscles hurt under the slightest strain. There is no doubt that the core muscles have to produce tension during cycling, just not phenomenal amounts. And they aren't in a position to output power (although they might be able to via bobbing motion).

Your torso would have to twist/stretch against inadequate muscle tension to dissipate energy. If significant I reckon this would be clearly visible.

I think the stabilising muscles will develop as required on the bike but that cycling may modify the "natural balance" of the core muscles in a way that could cause problems.

very important. do these for a start

http://www.netfit.co.uk/bacmen.htm

http://www.netfit.co.uk/abdmen.htm

Lance mentioned that he spent time working on his hip flexors and back extensors; I believe he said that in reference to position.

Lance has also got a busted back which makes any advice based on his position and training for core stability etc a bit dodgy

In this case Lance does what Lance needs to do and so its not much help to anyone else.

I'm not knocking Lance, the man is obviously a superb athlete but i think everyone should be careful about trying to copy his training too closely.

You need to do what is right for you.

I'm a Coach and I spend a lot of time fitting riders on their current bicycles or for custom bikes. As a key element of the fitting process I assess each athlete's riding and injury history, flexibility, range-of-motion and core strength. Good flexibility can significantly enhance the athlete's bio-mechanical efficiency, improve comfort on the bike and allow for improved aerodynamics, while poor flexibility can be very limiting in all of these areas.
Core strength provides muscular stabilization for the lower back and the pelvis giving the athlete a stable platform from which to achieve a strong and powerful pedaling action.
I firmly believe that many cyclists will show significant improvement in their performance by enhancing their core strength and flexibility with an appropriate, custom-designed, exercise program.

IMO, core training is really important, especially whenever you're out of the saddle. But, what ever. Do it if you want- don't if you don't think it'll help. The most important part is doing them right. Try this:

-Lie on the floor, feet flat and your knees at 90 deg.

-Tuck you tailbone upwards so that your back is flat against the floor, your abs should contract a little and there should be no arch in your back now

-Put your hands behind your head and cradle your cranium. Your hands should never really support or pull up on your head, this just gets them out of the way.

-As you "crunch" off the ground, think about pulling your abs in, not puching them out. For me, it helps if I visualize pulling my ribs together right beneath my solar plexus. Slowly, roll your torso up and then back down. Don't worry if there isn't much range of motion, if you do it right ther wont' be. Pause at the top for a second.

Most people don't do their core stuff right.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by serottarider
I'm a Coach and I spend a lot of time fitting riders on their current bicycles or for custom bikes. As a key element of the fitting process I assess each athlete's riding and injury history, flexibility, range-of-motion and core strength. Good flexibility can significantly enhance the athlete's bio-mechanical efficiency, improve comfort on the bike and allow for improved aerodynamics, while poor flexibility can be very limiting in all of these areas.
Core strength provides muscular stabilization for the lower back and the pelvis giving the athlete a stable platform from which to achieve a strong and powerful pedaling action.
I firmly believe that many cyclists will show significant improvement in their performance by enhancing their core strength and flexibility with an appropriate, custom-designed, exercise program.

Cycling is probably the only sport where all participants are
recommended by their coaches to place their lower backs under
continuous strain in order to produce the resistance necessary
for powerful competitive pedaling even though, just like weight
lifting a safe lower back strain free and far more efficient
technique exists. This explains why the medical experts are no
closer now to solving the problem of lower back pain than when
they first started. The perfect pedaling technique soon finds its
own ideal bike set-up and most powerful position.
Trying to prepare a weak lower back to cope with this unnecessary strain is an impossible task, just like trying to dig
your way out of a hole. The back pain and injury will continue to
increase until the rider is forced to quit the sport.
It has been proved by medical experts that the lower back is
put under most stress if strain is placed on it when one is in a
seated leaning forward position.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by serottarider
Good flexibility can significantly enhance the athlete's bio-mechanical efficiency.

Do you have a reference for this? How does being flexible make you more efficient or faster on a bike?

Quoted post said:

Core strength provides muscular stabilization for the lower back and the pelvis giving the athlete a stable platform from which to achieve a strong and powerful pedaling action.

True, but wheres the evidence to suggest we don't have enough already?

Quoted post said:

I firmly believe that many cyclists will show significant improvement in their performance by enhancing their core strength and flexibility with an appropriate, custom-designed, exercise program.

Do you have any data or a tight physiologica justification otherwise it could just be your imagination.

I think core work might be good for repairing the damage cycling might do. Whether a "custom designed program" is worth the investment would depend.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by andrewbradley
[B]Do you have a reference for this? How does being flexible make you more efficient or faster on a bike?

This is simple mechanics. The human muscolo-skeletal structure is a system of levers and pulleys. For example, the quadriceps produce power in contraction. They are opposed by the hamstrings, which limit the range-of-motion of the quadriceps. Tight hamstrings will limit the contraction of the quadriceps at an earlier stage in their contraction.
Using the formula work = force x distance, applying power over a shorter range-of-motion (distance) will reduce the work (power) applied to the pedal. Improved flexibility leads to an increased range-of-motion which in turn will increase the distance part of the equation.
You may have enough flexibility. In fact, you may even be be hyper-mobile, which is an interesting issue all by itself. However, my position here is based on both anecdotal, documented and empirical evidence. I have personally observed significant improvement in my own, and in other athletes', performance as a result of improved range-of-motion. If you read the literature you'll find that stretching is advised by a very high proportion of well-respected coaches, bio-mechanists and physical therapists. There are dissenters, of course, but then there are still believers in a flat earth too.




True, but wheres the evidence to suggest we don't have enough already?


Good core strength stabilizes the pelvis, provides support for the lower back and permits other muscle groups, for example, the glutes, to work more effectively. It's providing an athlete with a stable fulcrum for the various levers and pulleys to work against.

In my original post I did say that many cyclists could benefit from attention to core and flexibility improvement, not all cyclists.
I can't speak for you. You may have great core strength. I simply don't know about an athlete's core strength until I've screened them for it.
I can say that it's an area that my colleagues and I have observed as a limiter to our athletes' performances and also as an area which has shown significant rewards once addressed effectively. We feel sufficiently strongly to be holding a series of Core strength (and a series of flexibility) sessions for our clients early in 2004.


Do you have any data or a tight physiologica justification otherwise it could just be your imagination.

I think core work might be good for repairing the damage cycling might do. Whether a "custom designed program" is worth the investment would depend.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If, as you state, (and most of us will confirm), core work is good for repairing problems caused by cycling (among other things), why would it not be a smart move to head the injuries off "at the pass" by improving core strength before an injury occurs?

As to a custom-designed program the human body isn't a "one-size-fits-all" device. Athletes get a much better bang for their buck from a customized training program designed for their individual strengths and weaknesses and this applies in this area too.

In the final analysis, it's up to an individual to determine their own training program, since you can follow a training program or ignore it. You can include core and flexibility work, or not. It's your call.
However, as a completely legal potentially performance-enhancing activity.......

That's musculo-skeletal LOL.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by serottarider
This is simple mechanics

Should be straightforward to understand then.

Quoted post said:

For example, the quadriceps produce power in contraction. They are opposed by the hamstrings, which limit the range-of-motion of the quadriceps. Tight hamstrings will limit the contraction of the quadriceps at an earlier stage in their contraction.
Using the formula work = force x distance, applying power over a shorter range-of-motion (distance) will reduce the work (power) applied to the pedal. Improved flexibility leads to an increased range-of-motion which in turn will increase the distance part of the equation.

I would hardly class the hams as core muscles but the mechanism you describe doesn't apply to cycling. It is bike setup that imposes the (very limited) range of motion during cycling, not other muscles. Granted tight hams can impose a lower saddle which may have an effect.

Quoted post said:

If you read the literature you'll find that stretching is advised by a very high proportion of well-respected coaches, bio-mechanists and physical therapists. There are dissenters, of course, but then there are still believers in a flat earth too.

I do ham stretching myself but a reference to proof of the remarkable benefits of flexibility to the cyclist is all I ask. I prefer data and reasoning to well-respected coaching opinions, don't you?

Quoted post said:

Good core strength stabilizes the pelvis, provides support for the lower back and permits other muscle groups, for example, the glutes, to work more effectively. It's providing an athlete with a stable fulcrum for the various levers and pulleys to work against.

If your core muscles were not strong enough to do all this wonderful work how would this manifest itself physically?
If these muscles were struggling they would ache after a ride, and then they would adapt and become stronger. It is said to be excentric contractions (the only ones likely to hinder performance) that make muscles sorest, so if that were happening as you rode I reckon you'd definitely know about it next day.

I don't see how five minutes of gym mysteriously bestows staying power on these muscles that a fifty mile ride doesn't.

Quoted post said:

I simply don't know about an athlete's core strength until I've screened them for it

Man is that another test we need doing? Sounds like theres a lot of marketing going on here.

Andrew, I'm beginning to suspect from your tone that you're not interested in participating in an intelligent discussion, but rather out to maintain a flame war.

That's not going to happen.

Clearly hams are not core muscles. If you had taken the time to read my reply you'd see that I used them as an example of a tight muscle restricting ROM.

For you to state " the mechanism you describe doesn't apply to cycling", which I can only take to mean that musculo-skeletal leverage principles and the actions caused by opposing muscle groups do not affect your biomechanics when riding, can only be described as an unusual viewpoint.

The fact that you do at least some stretching suggests that you have some confidence in the benefits that stretching brings. It seems odd that you are taking the apparent stance that stretching to improve ROM is unimportant.

If your pelvis is firmly supported by strong core musculature it will take a greater force applied as part of the pedaling action to move it than if the core is weak. More of the force generated by the pedaling muscles can then be transmitted to the pedals.

As for "five minutes of gym mysteriously bestowing(s) staying power" you're absolutely right. It takes more than that, but the time it takes is significantly less than the time you probably take for your "fifty mile ride".

Core strength screening is only one part of the assessment process for any potential client. Hardly marketing.

Good riding, Andrew.

i can't possibly see how doing "core strengthening exercises" can possibly improve your bike performance for endurance cycling performance or anyone that doesn't have some form of functional disability.

as Andrew rightly points out, if your 'core' muscles ached or weren't strong enough they'd adapt to the required level simply through riding a bike. in fact, i'm pretty sure this happens to most peopl and very quickly, i.e. you start cycling a few upper body muscles ache and after a few rides they don't - you've adapted.

the forces that are required to hold the body during cycling, are very low (even lower than the very small forces required at the pedals to propel your bike). it's the ability to hold that position for many hours (i.e. endurance) which is distinctly different to strength.

if everyone stopped wasting time lifting weights and did more on the bike training they'd have less soreness and would get fitter quicker. basically, except for a few circumstances, weights and core strengthening are a complete waste of time (in terms of endurance cycling performance)

Ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by serottarider
Andrew, I'm beginning to suspect from your tone that you're not interested in participating in an intelligent discussion, but rather out to maintain a flame war.

Apologies for giving you that impression Serrotta Rider, I am used to usenet groups populated by tightfisted retro grouches. I am trying to get to the substance of the issue, beleieve it or not, but you read like an infomercial at times.

Quoted post said:

For you to state "the mechanism you describe doesn't apply to cycling", which I can only take to mean that musculo-skeletal leverage principles and the actions caused by opposing muscle groups do not affect your biomechanics when riding, can only be described as an unusual viewpoint.

See there's a general jargon-packed statement when the specifics are that you claim it is the hamstrings that restrict the range over which the thighs can do work. I don't see how and say it's bike setup that controls such things.

In any case, when pedalling you WANT tension in the hamstrings near the bottom of the pedal stroke if only to provide reverse torque about the knee as pedal force shifts in front of it. I say the hamstrings fire up and thus produce tension for valid reasons, you seem to regard any tension in them as an undesirable side effect of a lack of flexibility.
If your hamstrings are shorter than normal for some reason you may require a lower saddle than normal. This may be detrimental I agree.

However the fact that riders of all sizes get fitted with basically the same cranks seems to suggest that (respected) bike manufacturers don't consider special leg flexibility a requirement.

Quoted post said:

The fact that you do at least some stretching suggests that you have some confidence in the benefits that stretching brings. It seems odd that you are taking the apparent stance that stretching to improve ROM is unimportant.

You seem to want to promote the idea that MORE flexibility means better performance. I would like to see some numbers on that.

I do stretching on and off in the hope of maintaining my current ROM as I am getting on. I don't do it specifically for cycling nor believe it makes me faster. Maybe my saddle would be a centimeter or two lower if i didn't do them, maybe not.

Incidentally and anecdotally, I once practiced stretching over several months to see if I could raise my saddle. I couldn't, but the limitations to saddle height were only felt after a few hard miles.

Quoted post said:

If your pelvis is firmly supported by strong core musculature it will take a greater force applied as part of the pedaling action to move it than if the core is weak. More of the force generated by the pedaling muscles can then be transmitted to the pedals.

Tell us about power because that's all that counts. Where is the power loss in riders who don't do core work?

Again, I think upper body exercises are a good idea for general long term health, but have not noticed any improvement on the bike during periods when I have done them, and they do require time and energy.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by serottarider
Andrew, I'm beginning to suspect from your tone that you're not interested in participating in an intelligent discussion, but rather out to maintain a flame war.

Apologies for giving you that impression Serrotta Rider, I am used to usenet groups populated by tightfisted retro grouches. I am trying to get to the substance of the issue, beleieve it or not, but you read like an infomercial at times.

Quoted post said:

For you to state "the mechanism you describe doesn't apply to cycling", which I can only take to mean that musculo-skeletal leverage principles and the actions caused by opposing muscle groups do not affect your biomechanics when riding, can only be described as an unusual viewpoint.

See there's a general jargon-packed statement when the specifics are that you claim it is the hamstrings that restrict the range over which the thighs can do work. I don't see how and say it's bike setup that controls such things.

In any case, when pedalling you WANT tension in the hamstrings near the bottom of the pedal stroke if only to provide reverse torque about the knee as pedal force shifts in front of it. I say the hamstrings fire up and thus produce tension for valid reasons, you seem to regard any tension in them as an undesirable side effect of a lack of flexibility.
If the hamstrings are shorter than normal for some reason a lower saddle than normal may be required. This may be detrimental, I agree.

However the fact that riders of all sizes get fitted with basically the same cranks seems to suggest that (respected) bike manufacturers don't consider special leg flexibility a requirement.

Quoted post said:

The fact that you do at least some stretching suggests that you have some confidence in the benefits that stretching brings. It seems odd that you are taking the apparent stance that stretching to improve ROM is unimportant.

You seem to want to promote the idea that MORE flexibility means better performance. I would like to see some numbers on that.

I do stretching on and off in the hope of maintaining my current ROM as I am getting on. I don't do it specifically for cycling nor believe it makes me faster. Maybe my saddle would be a centimeter or two lower if i didn't do them, maybe not.

Incidentally and anecdotally, I once practiced stretching over several months to see if I could raise my saddle. I couldn't, but the limitations to saddle height were only felt after a few hard miles.

Quoted post said:

If your pelvis is firmly supported by strong core musculature it will take a greater force applied as part of the pedaling action to move it than if the core is weak. More of the force generated by the pedaling muscles can then be transmitted to the pedals.

Tell us about power because that's all that counts. Where is the power loss in riders who don't do core work?

Again, I think upper body exercises are a good idea for general long term health, but have not noticed any improvement on the bike during periods when I have done them, and they do require time and energy.