Winter Strength training

[Dusty Bin]

Again in my opinion most strength improvements come from just riding and are 99% of all most people will need.

Good post, mostly - but here's a thought. No strength improvement comes from cycling, because cycling is 100% sub-maximal, so you will never see gains in actual 'strength'. The gains you are referring to are all aerobic. All of them.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Good post, mostly - but here's a thought. No strength improvement comes from cycling, because cycling is 100% sub-maximal, so you will never see gains in actual 'strength'. The gains you are referring to are all aerobic. All of them.

The confidence with which you write your posts is quite striking. I won't judge right or wrong but you seem to leave no room for error, further learning or differing opinion. I could ask, for example, if you believe that cyclist A is a skinny 21 year old who can leg press 20kg's once before cycling. Cyclist A then does everything exactly the same for 6 months except for cycle 5 hours a week for 6 months. Are you suggesting cyclist A can still only leg press exactly 20kg's??

Indeed - and by definition that could include training every single muscle in the human body. But I thought we were talking about training muscles which improved cycling performance? As opposed to training muscles which might - just might - give us some gip when we're all 85....

That's not the point. The point is that the power produced comes from the core, hence strengthening this area will effect every single aspect of cycling - position, endurance, power, handling, climbing, sprinting etc etc. To strengthen this area purely by cycling alone would see a rider with poor core muscles take much longer to improve than someone who concentrated more specifically on the area. Strengthen ones weaknesses as it were.

 

[Dusty Bin]

The confidence with which you write your posts is quite striking. I won't judge right or wrong but you seem to leave no room for error, further learning or differing opinion. I could ask, for example, if you believe that cyclist A is a skinny 21 year old who can leg press 20kg's once before cycling. Cyclist A then does everything exactly the same for 6 months except for cycle 5 hours a week for 6 months. Are you suggesting cyclist A can still only leg press exactly 20kg's??

I've no idea, as I know sod-all about weights. However, if 'cyclist A' is keen to improve as a cyclist, then I would suggest that 'cyclist A' measures his improvement on the bike, as opposed to whatever he can press in the gym.

That's not the point. The point is that the power produced comes from the core,

Can I stop you there? Power produced comes from the amount of force you can exert on the pedals, and for how long. By your definition, someone with higher core strength should be able to produce more power and I don't believe there's a correlation there at all. There is no obvious reason why someone with normal body/motor function should have anything other than nominal core strength - and I don't believe there is any evidence (I haven't seen any) to show that developing your core beyond its existing 'nominal' capacity enables you to produce more power than it would otherwise. I'm open-minded though - so if you've got any studies, or anything (not anecdote please, I've had enough of them today) then I'd be keen to see it.

 

[50000tears]

Good post, mostly - but here's a thought. No strength improvement comes from cycling, because cycling is 100% sub-maximal, so you will never see gains in actual 'strength'. The gains you are referring to are all aerobic. All of them.

Not so. Just because something is sub-maximal it does not make all the gains purely aerobic. Now if I was lucky enough (or unfortunate enough depending on perspective) to live in a completely flat area then a huge majority of my gains are going to be aerobic unless I wait for a windy day and try to push a big gear into it.

Now this next bit may open up a whole new can of worms but ............

....... when I hit many of the hills around my way I sometimes end up grinding up them either cause I have run out of gears or I am just too pig headed to change down. Now you could argue about my riding style or attacking the hills too hard but that is that other can of worms I mentioned. But as a result of this by not spinning up the tougher hills, due to whatever reason you want to imagine, my legs are being worked hard and they are getting stronger. My improved muscle definition is not imagined, it is a physical fact, my legs are getting stronger. Many years ago when I ran a lot over mid-long distances my legs got better defined then too and even attracted comments from the fairer sex. Although running does place more stress on leg muscles there are times when cycling hard does that too.

 

[Dusty Bin]

....... when I hit many of the hills around my way I sometimes end up grinding up them either cause I have run out of gears or I am just too pig headed to change down. Now you could argue about my riding style or attacking the hills too hard but that is that other can of worms I mentioned. But as a result of this by not spinning up the tougher hills, due to whatever reason you want to imagine, my legs are being worked hard and they are getting stronger. My improved muscle definition is not imagined, it is a physical fact, my legs are getting stronger. Many years ago when I ran a lot over mid-long distances my legs got better defined then too and even attracted comments from the fairer sex. Although running does place more stress on leg muscles there are times when cycling hard does that too.

Sorry - they are not getting stronger. This is a common misconception. You are simply getting fitter, that's all. Definition is another matter - but definition does not = strength.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I've no idea, as I know sod-all about weights. However, if 'cyclist A' is keen to improve as a cyclist, then I would suggest that 'cyclist A' measures his improvement on the bike, as opposed to whatever he can press in the gym.

Sorry - they are not getting stronger. This is a common misconception. You are simply getting fitter, that's all. Definition is another matter - but definition does not = strength.

They are getting stronger! Strength increase is a byproduct of physical activity. Forget muscle size or mass, i am talking strength. To go from not cycling at all to cycling often up hills (especially low cadence, big gear) and not gaining strength is simply not possible.

I would suggest to you that cyclist A would see an increase in strength from cycling after 6 months. Simply because he/she has gone from doing no resistance training to 5 hours a week of resistance training. The result will no doubt be improved strength as the muscles react to the stress placed on them through exercise and then adapt through recovery.

A pointless argument in my mind but you have stated that cycling does not make you stronger in any way shape or form. This after suggesting that cycling alone was enough to "stimulate" ones core. You are not going to "strengthen" a weak area with stimulation.

 

[50000tears]

Sorry - they are not getting stronger. This is a common misconception. You are simply getting fitter, that's all. Definition is another matter - but definition does not = strength.

Not going to go back and forth over this as internet rows are no fun but we will have to agree to differ on this one. To say that your legs do not get stronger through the prolonged exertion of the many different training efforts we subject them to is to deny the obvious. You are beyond any doubt a far stronger cyclist than me and as said before most of this cycling strength is not pure strength but aerobic fitness. But I cannot agree that you possess the exact same leg strength now as you did before you ever sat on bike as this isn't the case.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Can I stop you there? Power produced comes from the amount of force you can exert on the pedals, and for how long. By your definition, someone with higher core strength should be able to produce more power and I don't believe there's a correlation there at all. There is no obvious reason why someone with normal body/motor function should have anything other than nominal core strength - and I don't believe there is any evidence (I haven't seen any) to show that developing your core beyond its existing 'nominal' capacity enables you to produce more power than it would otherwise. I'm open-minded though - so if you've got any studies, or anything (not anecdote please, I've had enough of them today) then I'd be keen to see it.

Just for starters........pay more attention to the sources, not the article.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/healthandfitness/538109/strong-to-the-core.html

"When you cycle, you need to be able to create force from your legs, and transfer that force through your trunk and through to your upper body. If you think of your trunk as a cylinder, you have a number of dial-ups coming off, which are the muscles. Think of how many muscles are attached in that area. All of them need to be up to a certain level to be able to stabilise the trunk optimally. And that's how I envision it. We try and cover the whole cylinder.

"What I explain to the endurance riders is that if they can increase the total amount of force they can create from their hips and extensors, then they should become more efficient when riding as they won't be pushing as hard."
Martin Evans, strength and conditioning coach at British Cycling

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

This study shows that core fatigue directly affects cycling mechanics - mostly technique from the hips down. Injury becomes more likely.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18076271

According to the study, which was printed in the November issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2007; 21 [4], 1300–1304), “a core fatigue workout altered the mechanics of the lower extremity,” increasing the risk of injury and indicating that core strength development might be a vital training component for cyclists. Study authors suggested that cyclists “integrate a year-round core conditioning program into current training to promote lower extremity alignment while cycling.” Not only might this help performance, the authors suggested, but it could also be essential for injury prevention

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

I thought this was interesting and could contribute to the discussion.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533967/bradley-wiggins-s-tour-de-france-training.html

So Wiggins went back to the gym this winter and did a strength and conditioning programme building the muscles in his core that cycling can't reach, to the depth he needed.

To me that suggests Sky see value in gym work and a strong core

 

[Dusty Bin]

They are getting stronger! Strength increase is a byproduct of physical activity. Forget muscle size or mass, i am talking strength. To go from not cycling at all to cycling often up hills (especially low cadence, big gear) and not gaining strength is simply not possible.

Fitness is generally a by-product of physical activity - not strength. If you say it's not possible, then you clearly don't understand the adaptions that are taking place.

You are not going to "strengthen" a weak area with stimulation.

What do you mean? Of course you are. Do you even understand what the word 'stimulation' means?

 

[Dusty Bin]

Not going to go back and forth over this as internet rows are no fun but we will have to agree to differ on this one. To say that your legs do not get stronger through the prolonged exertion of the many different training efforts we subject them to is to deny the obvious. You are beyond any doubt a far stronger cyclist than me and as said before most of this cycling strength is not pure strength but aerobic fitness. But I cannot agree that you possess the exact same leg strength now as you did before you ever sat on bike as this isn't the case.

It's quite possible that you could bench press a bigger weight than me - right now. How would you explain that?

 

[Dusty Bin]

Just for starters........pay more attention to the sources, not the article.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/healthandfitness/538109/strong-to-the-core.html

"When you cycle, you need to be able to create force from your legs, and transfer that force through your trunk and through to your upper body. If you think of your trunk as a cylinder, you have a number of dial-ups coming off, which are the muscles. Think of how many muscles are attached in that area. All of them need to be up to a certain level to be able to stabilise the trunk optimally. And that's how I envision it. We try and cover the whole cylinder.

"What I explain to the endurance riders is that if they can increase the total amount of force they can create from their hips and extensors, then they should become more efficient when riding as they won't be pushing as hard."
Martin Evans, strength and conditioning coach at British Cycling

That's anecdote. If you are going to start quoting sources, then you need to do your research first. If you did, you would see that the evidence for 'core strength' is equivocal at best. Obviously, if your core is deficient in some way, then strengthening it would be beneficial - but for those whose core is already 'normal', then benefits of core work are at best unproven, as far as I can tell. It's a great sales pitch at the gym though...

 

[Dusty Bin]

This study shows that core fatigue directly affects cycling mechanics - mostly technique from the hips down. Injury becomes more likely.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18076271

According to the study, which was printed in the November issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2007; 21 [4], 1300–1304), “a core fatigue workout altered the mechanics of the lower extremity,” increasing the risk of injury and indicating that core strength development might be a vital training component for cyclists. Study authors suggested that cyclists “integrate a year-round core conditioning program into current training to promote lower extremity alignment while cycling.” Not only might this help performance, the authors suggested, but it could also be essential for injury prevention

Of course fatigue would affect it. But 'strengthening' your core will not help much. Aerobic conditioning, however, will. Suprised you can't see that. It's a bit like saying that the best solution for leg fatigue is stronger legs - which of course, it isn't.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

Fitness is generally a by-product of physical activity - not strength.

If someone undertakes a physical activity say for example weight training, are you saying they only gain fitness and not strength?
Just curious.