J
Jim Riley
Guest
Thanks to all who responded to my question on opening the chest a couple weeks ago. Here's another
one, this time regarding abdominal strength.
Various sources state that cyclists need strong abdominal muscles - something about providing a
stable platform for the leg muscles to push against.
But is that really an issue? Gravity seems to do a pretty good job of keeping riders' bottoms
planted firmly on the saddle despite the mighty forces from the leg muscles below.
Moreover, when there is motion above the waist, it usually takes the form of leaning into each
downward stroke. Preventing that motion would require an upward/backward force, and wouldn't that
come from the back, not the abdominals? (I suppose the obliques might be involved too if the motion
has a side-to-side component.)
Finally (and this is the really heretical part), I'm not convinced that a little upper body movement
is such a bad thing. The conventional wisdom is that moving the upper body wastes energy, but it
also takes energy to hold it very still. It's not obvious to me that the movement always takes more
energy than preventing it.
Comments?
Thanks, -- Jim
one, this time regarding abdominal strength.
Various sources state that cyclists need strong abdominal muscles - something about providing a
stable platform for the leg muscles to push against.
But is that really an issue? Gravity seems to do a pretty good job of keeping riders' bottoms
planted firmly on the saddle despite the mighty forces from the leg muscles below.
Moreover, when there is motion above the waist, it usually takes the form of leaning into each
downward stroke. Preventing that motion would require an upward/backward force, and wouldn't that
come from the back, not the abdominals? (I suppose the obliques might be involved too if the motion
has a side-to-side component.)
Finally (and this is the really heretical part), I'm not convinced that a little upper body movement
is such a bad thing. The conventional wisdom is that moving the upper body wastes energy, but it
also takes energy to hold it very still. It's not obvious to me that the movement always takes more
energy than preventing it.
Comments?
Thanks, -- Jim