"Going to the gym". What does that even mean? The consensus is that strength training is a less than ideal allocation of time to get faster on the bike. There is great benefit to working the core and no one has claimed anything to the contrary. Core can be trained at the gym, my living room floor seems to do fine for me. If you want to go to the gym and get stronger just do it, but you are gonna have a tough time getting validation from anybody that bench presses will help your cycling.
LOL NO! But I can only point to my own experience that strengthening my core and being engaged in an active stretching program allows me to maintain a more agressive/aerodynamic position on the bike more comfortably and with less injury and there are many studies that will support aerodynamic advantage as being a major contributor to speed on the bike.
Well, if you read the whole thread you'll see my own experience that is exactly the opposite. Even core strength has been the holy grail in fitness world recently and no doubt it is beneficial for everyday life, I still wouldn't jump to conclusion that it is automatically helpful for cycling performance. Quite many actually think that the thing that most helps in riding in aggressive position is .... riding more in aggressive position.
180cm/65Kg according to this site http://london2012.olympics.com.au/athlete/jack-bobridge/scheduleOriginally Posted by dominikk85 .
Irony? that guy is a beast with legs like tree trunks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GBlKqaAVxc
I did read the whole thread, and I would agree that adding deadlifts to an activity that already focuses on hip/glute extension, and the spinal erectors/multifidus groups of the lower back has potential for ovekill. I'm thinking more along the line of hip and trunk flexors - upper and lower ab and oblique work like leg raises, planks, pilates ball, etc, and to stretch, not strengthen those muscle groups which would primarily be involved with your deadlift, and which already spend considerable amounts of time contracting while on the bike. One could have a monumental deadlift and still have a weak overall core. Personally much of my core work focuses on one single exercise, the slow pushup, with focus on contracting in the midsection holding the top of the pushup for 10-20 secs. The value for the bike comes from the contracting abdominus, the value for the beach comes from the contracting pectoral, deltoid, and tricep.
If I cared about Boardman's opinion or anyone's opinion on training I would ask them direct.
I have worked with riders to teach them to use their abdominal muscles to stabilize when riding. Other riders are concerned that too much core work leads to hypertrophy and that reduces power to weight and makes it harder to achieve an aerodynamic position. I think one study showing that subjects who did core work had less lateral movement of the knee but no significant change in performance to the control group.
I can guarantee you don't do a monumental dead lift with weak abs or you will literally have internals coming through the abdomen wall. Obviously overall core strength has always been a part of training for olympic and power lifts in one way or another, it's just that the lifting folks don't make huge fuzz about it.
I'd loose that contest in a hurry - my minimal drop actually limits my choices in headtube sizes. There's no disputing strong abs are not the key factor in getting lower. However keeping the hams flexible allows me to go lower, and keeping the ab side of the core strong balances out my glutes and erectors and helps keep my back from going out, especially once I'm beyond the base period and spending more time hammering in the drops putting more stress on the posterior muscle groups.
well core training is doing things like sit ups, planks, pull ups or med balls right?
I suspect this is where some of the misunderstandings occur. I put the exercises you mention into core training, however for some it may mean squats and deadlifts, in addition to or maybe even in lieu of the exercises you mention. These two are the examples used for core strength exercises in the link in Frost's post while the term plank and the position it implies is not. In essence they are all core exercises. Understanding context is probably a good way to avoid misunderstanding just as the phrase "going to the gym" can have different implications for different people.
Well 99% of all training is because somebody before did so. Babe ruth tried to emulate Joe jacksons swing. and ted williams watched babe ruth. the young teammates of coppi probably did what coppi did. most things are really done because of tradition and even pros do a lot of "bro science" things because "we always did it so". Pros do generally train well but they also have perfect genes and can get away with some things. especially in baseball and football you will often see terrible training and eating habits, as well as a total lack of understand of mechanics and still they are the best.
After actually reading it a second go around I'm getting your rotfl - sometimes I'm multitasking at work. Funny I never thought of the deadlifts and squats as core in more recent years, but then thinking back to my earlier weightlifting days the squat the deadlift and the bench were the core exercises. Apparently my definitions have changed
Please provide the examples of how the scientists are ineffective at what they do. I think you misunderstand what science is and how it's done. As for what's developed in the field, you should keep in mind that there is no shortage of things that have at one time been effective training methods only to be found later to not do what is claimed or to do so sub-optimally.dominikk85 said:
Clearly no idea of what science is about. Also why would a person without a background in sport get involved in sport science? The pay is pretty **** and there is little glory.
