Australia
Likes Bikes and Dirt
I also laugh when people's main "core workout" is doing situps.
Care to enlighten us a little on that? Please.
I also laugh when people's main "core workout" is doing situps.
Reckon you need a coach not a forum, 21 hours a week; wait till you have a wife and 2 kids buddy, 21 hours of quality mtb will take you 6 months to rack up!
Unfortunately the article is utter tripe, the key focus of which is someone spruiking a "core workout dvd." If you use a muscle it is being used, no two ways about. Using is training.
As I said most cyclists need core endurance not strength. If you want the endurance, ride lots. If you want strength do squats.
@ Australia the reason why sit ups are not an ideal "core workout" is that they focus on the rectus abdominus. Their primary use is for flexing the lumbar spine. This is not an action which has any real relevance to cycling (very relevant to squats and deadlifts) The erector spinae is a far more important group to focus on. If you want the non cycling or non weight option the back raises and plank option will suffice.
Super informative, super helpful. Given that he's training the likes of Aaron Gwin it'd be safe to assume he actually knows what he's talking about.
no one has proven that anything beats specificity in terms of improving performance.
Care to enlighten us a little on that? Please.
true to a certain extent, for things like flexability, core+leg strength there are definately better ways to train them then on the bike.
That completely ignores the potential damage that long hours in the saddle can do to one's spinal erectors (inactive for long periods) and hip flexors (always tight).
...There's no doubt that you have to ride heaps to get fast, but high profile cycling coaches like Friels and Carmichael advocate strength training...
And Tapeworm you raised the point of the questions left unanswered in some of the comments below the article... he did answer them... several times
adding another 20 min to your ride time and its pretty clear which one will prove more effective.
Potential damage, indeed. This is documented? Or just anecdotal?
Friel and Carmichael, two coaches whom regularly have their training doctrine mocked as being rather antiquated and have had to play catch up with more modern (and successful) approaches. Good at selling lots of books and DVDs though.
No, he didn't. Example:
Question:
"It's true that the lower back should be trained to stabalise. That's the problem with sit ups: they require flexion (bending) of the lower back, something which your lower back doesnt need to do while doing sports (hence there's no reason to train it to do that). It also stretches out the ligaments which hold the spine together, another reason to ditch exercises like the traditional sit up. However post a 'how do I get in shape?' thread in the PB fitness section and a lot of people will still probably tell you to do 500 sit ups a day. It's good that PB is offering some real training advice. However in riding, supplimentary training is far less important that in other sports. Those who ride the best are often those who spend the most time on a bike.
Answer:
mtbstrengthcoach (Apr 12, 2010 at 8:34)
Why is supplementary training far less important than in other sports? Even golfer recognize the need to get in the gym and train and our sport is far more physically demanding. At one time basketball, baseball, hockey and golf all had the "get better at your sport by playing your sport" mindset. Since they realized that was not true the level of play seen in those sports has increased dramatically.
Time on the bike is important but the "we just need to ride more" mindset is holding our sport back. There are things you need on the trail that you don't use enough on the trail to get stronger. That is the essence of real training. "
No-where in that explanation did he explain exactly how this pertains to cycling in any way, shape or form. Only that it has worked for some other sports (note: the cited examples are ball, ball/stick related, all of which require explosive/dynamic actions). The relative forces in cycling are oh-so-low, so why do we need to compensate?
And the kicker - "Time on the bike is important but the "we just need to ride more" mindset is holding our sport back." Oh so funny.
Is there any, ANY, proof that doing core exercises have improved cycling performance? Lots of anecdotes, lots of stories, lots of "I felt so much stronger" but no evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Yep it's very clear. Hint: its the one involving the pedals.
Ah the lack of evidence is evidence itself?
Ask and ye shall receive. If you can ind some articles which prove the core strength improves aerobic exercise then I would like to read them.
http://www.insidemoves.org/articles/Myth_of_Core_Stability_PPA.pdf
http://www.pnfchi.com/fotos/literatura/1233837313.pdf
true to a certain extent, for things like flexability, core+leg strength there are definately better ways to train them then on the bike.
..