Will cycling give me abs?

[trailrider4ever]

Im really looking into getting a road bike very soon and was just wondering if cycling will tone my abs?

 

[Piotr]

Im really looking into getting a road bike very soon and was just wondering if cycling will tone my abs?

Losing weight will tone your abs. Cycling won't make them bigger, but it will help you lose weight. Besides, you don't need super abs. The fact that you're a cyclist should be good enough for the ladies. If it's not enough, run away!

 

[kopride]

Im really looking into getting a road bike very soon and was just wondering if cycling will tone my abs?

Sure, you just need to ride this way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYP_mAlcCa0

In addition to the ab work, cycling will make you a better bike rider. For abs, I usually make sure that I am clipped in on my bike and then I find the steepest hill I can, then I race down the hill while I lay back prone and do crunches on the bike. Then I flip over the handlebars and do leg lifts off the front drops while the bike moves along at about 20 mph. You will absolutely destroy your abs (along with the rest of your body).

 

[TrekDedicated]

Abs = good for cycling

http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-4-20-1052-1,00.html

 

[frenchyge]

Hmmm..... I'll bet his abs are ripped, but it didn't look like he could have ridden out that double to me.

I agree with Piotr, don't worry about your abs because the ladies won't be able to get past your awesome calves and quads.

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

Strong Abs = Strong Cycling
Total and utter ****!!

 

[jsirabella]

You do not need strong abs for cycling. I have seen some really big guts move fairly well. All the sweating may bring those abs out for everyone to see.

You need strong hips. Power comes from hips...and is one of the most overlooked parts of the body, IMHO. It is when I focus on pedal strokes from my hips I generate the best power.

-js

Im really looking into getting a road bike very soon and was just wondering if cycling will tone my abs?

 

[TrekDedicated]

False.

......"In a leg press at the gym, you can press into the back pad to stabilize yourself," says Andy Pruitt, Ed.D., director of Colorado's Boulder Center for Sports Medicine, "but when you push on the pedal, there's nothing to stabilize you except your core." If it's weak, your back fatigues quickly.

Why do I STILL have a gut?

You log thousands of miles a year, but your jersey fits like a sausage casing. The problem isn't a lack of fitness; it's consuming too many calories. Slouching could be exacerbating it. Good posture builds a strong core, but these days we hunch over a steering wheel to get to work, where we hunch over a computer. For a break, we hunch over a handlebar. To shrink your gut, add interval training to your rides to boost calorie burn, lay off the Dunkin' Donuts at rest stops and start training your core.

http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s-4-20-15681-1-P,00.html

Some more links to core strength and cycling:

http://www.cptips.com/exabs.htm

Abdominals & Back Strength
How is your back strength? Your legs do perform most of the work when cycling but they are dependent on your trunk muscles for stabilization and transmission of power. Add back strengthening exercises to your training program and don't forget abdominal work - your abs are essentially the front of your back. As a cyclist, you don't need a “six pack”', but you do need strong abs

http://www.caree.org/bike101backpain.htm

 

[Spunout]

Strong Abs = Strong Cycling
Total and utter ****!!

You'll need strong abs and core to support your upper body (if you aren't riding in a comfort bike position). Core strength also stabilizes the pelvis, which in fact connects to your legs. Pretty important.

 

[jsirabella]

The original question was will cycling give me abs. Most of the posts and I agree with them that it will not give you strong abs but it may make them pop out due to loss in bodyfat/weight.

Now do you need strong abs to generate good power. While I agree having strong abs will help you generate more power as that argment can be made for more parts of your body than just your abs but is it necessary I would not think so.

-js

False.



http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s-4-20-15681-1-P,00.html

Some more links to core strength and cycling:

http://www.cptips.com/exabs.htm




http://www.caree.org/bike101backpain.htm

 

[garage sale GT]

You do not need strong abs for cycling. I have seen some really big guts move fairly well. All the sweating may bring those abs out for everyone to see.

You need strong hips. Power comes from hips...and is one of the most overlooked parts of the body, IMHO. It is when I focus on pedal strokes from my hips I generate the best power.

-js

Unless you ride a recumbent with a very tight seatbelt you need abs to hold the hips steady.

Haven't any of you guys ever worn out your abs on a longer ride, maybe on a new singlespeed? You push and push but just flex your midsection around. It's terrible.

The only question in my mind is whether the abs just get "strong enough" and stop growing, and whether this hypothetical "strong enough" point would result in a nice 6-pack if I ever lost the spare tire!

Plus, why do big guts mean you can't have strong abs?

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

The reason I posted what I did was; when I first joined this forum some 2 1/2
years ago with an FTP of an awesome 130watts, I used to train fairly hard on the weights and had very solid abs. Now, 2 1/2 years later and after giving up weights completely, with an FTP a little higher than 130 watts, I can only describe my stomach as being more like treacle sponge pudding.
Tyson

 

[kopride]

The reason I posted what I did was; when I first joined this forum some 2 1/2
years ago with an FTP of an awesome 130watts, I used to train fairly hard on the weights and had very solid abs. Now, 2 1/2 years later and after giving up weights completely, with an FTP a little higher than 130 watts, I can only describe my stomach as being more like treacle sponge pudding.
Tyson

Training "fairly hard" on the weights and riding some is probably better for keeping your weight down than a cycling only program. You are probably eating more in response to your harder cycling program. It is a vicious cycle. You demand more energy so you eat more, if there is just a little more going in every day than you are burning, you will gain weight. You also tend to become more and more efficient with cycling and cardio training, which means that you are demanding less, ie. burning fewer calories to put out the same or even more work. Resistance training is one of the few things that can interupt this cycle. Grab a hold of Pavel's Naked Warrior routine, it is a failry simple 2 exercise routine (all bodyweight exercises) that easily integrates with cycling. You might also want to look into kettlebells. You will see a big difference from a little resistance. You will see a drop in power intitially, but eventually, you will see gains in wt/kg side. After an initial plateu, I am still increasing my power numbers even with some resistance training.

 

[bubsy]

You also tend to become more and more efficient with cycling and cardio training, which means that you are demanding less, ie. burning fewer calories to put out the same or even more work.

This is not true, it is impossible for anyone to to burn fewer calories for a given time at a certain effort. ie if I was to do 139w for 1 hour @100% FTP l would burn 500cals, fast forward 2 years and now I do that same 1 hour effort of 139w but lt is now @50% FTP I have become more efficient/fitter but still I burnt 500cals, the ratio of fat/glycogen has shifted but the amount of calories will stay the same.

 

[kopride]

This is not true, it is impossible for anyone to to burn fewer calories for a given time at a certain effort. ie if I was to do 139w for 1 hour @100% FTP l would burn 500cals, fast forward 2 years and now I do that same 1 hour effort of 139w but lt is now @50% FTP I have become more efficient/fitter but still I burnt 500cals, the ratio of fat/glycogen has shifted but the amount of calories will stay the same.

Here is an old post by Rick Stern but I might be confused:

"ric_stern/RST
Power (watts) and calories
To work out energy expenditure in joules, you multiply average power (/1000) by time in seconds. Thus, the work done in 1-hr at 190 W avg is 684 kj (0.19 x 3600). To convert this to kcal you divide by 4.18, i.e., 164 kcal.

However, the human body when cycling is only around 25% efficient (normal range ~ 20 - 26%), thus, this needs to be calculated, to work out the human energy consumption, i.e., 164 / 0.25 = 656 kcal.

To work out the exact amount of energy expended you'd need to go to a sports science lab and have your expired air analysed. As a *good* ballpark figure, it's best to estimate energy expenditure simply by quoting the work done in kj as kcal, i.e., in the above example just say you 684 kcal.

Efficiency changes with both cadence, and absolute power output, and also with fatigue. At higher cadences, efficiency *decreases*, while at higher powers it *increases*. As you fatigue efficiency decreases."

In other words, the watts are real, but the estimated kcal used to produce those watts are all based upon estimates and a formula, and the efficiency factor is an estimated factor. Further, it does not remain constant even over a workout. Again, I am not a sport scientist, but as a general proposition, the body does adapt to these workouts and it is my understanding that you require less calories to do greater work over time. So I would think that kilojoules remains constant but the exact kilocalories burned requires lab analysis

 

[kopride]

This is not true, it is impossible for anyone to to burn fewer calories for a given time at a certain effort. ie if I was to do 139w for 1 hour @100% FTP l would burn 500cals, fast forward 2 years and now I do that same 1 hour effort of 139w but lt is now @50% FTP I have become more efficient/fitter but still I burnt 500cals, the ratio of fat/glycogen has shifted but the amount of calories will stay the same.

Here is an old post by Rick Stern but I might be confused:

"ric_stern/RST
Power (watts) and calories
To work out energy expenditure in joules, you multiply average power (/1000) by time in seconds. Thus, the work done in 1-hr at 190 W avg is 684 kj (0.19 x 3600). To convert this to kcal you divide by 4.18, i.e., 164 kcal.

However, the human body when cycling is only around 25% efficient (normal range ~ 20 - 26%), thus, this needs to be calculated, to work out the human energy consumption, i.e., 164 / 0.25 = 656 kcal.

To work out the exact amount of energy expended you'd need to go to a sports science lab and have your expired air analysed. As a *good* ballpark figure, it's best to estimate energy expenditure simply by quoting the work done in kj as kcal, i.e., in the above example just say you 684 kcal.

Efficiency changes with both cadence, and absolute power output, and also with fatigue. At higher cadences, efficiency *decreases*, while at higher powers it *increases*. As you fatigue efficiency decreases."

In other words, the watts are real, but the estimated kcal used to produce those watts are all based upon estimates and a formula, and the efficiency factor is an estimated factor. Further, it does not remain constant even over a workout. Again, I am not a sport scientist, but as a general proposition, the body does adapt to these workouts and it is my understanding that you require less calories to do greater work over time. So I would think that kilojoules remains constant but the exact kilocalories burned requires lab analysis

 

[kopride]

This is not true, it is impossible for anyone to to burn fewer calories for a given time at a certain effort. ie if I was to do 139w for 1 hour @100% FTP l would burn 500cals, fast forward 2 years and now I do that same 1 hour effort of 139w but lt is now @50% FTP I have become more efficient/fitter but still I burnt 500cals, the ratio of fat/glycogen has shifted but the amount of calories will stay the same.

Here is an old post by Rick Stern but I might be confused:

"ric_stern/RST
Power (watts) and calories
To work out energy expenditure in joules, you multiply average power (/1000) by time in seconds. Thus, the work done in 1-hr at 190 W avg is 684 kj (0.19 x 3600). To convert this to kcal you divide by 4.18, i.e., 164 kcal.

However, the human body when cycling is only around 25% efficient (normal range ~ 20 - 26%), thus, this needs to be calculated, to work out the human energy consumption, i.e., 164 / 0.25 = 656 kcal.

To work out the exact amount of energy expended you'd need to go to a sports science lab and have your expired air analysed. As a *good* ballpark figure, it's best to estimate energy expenditure simply by quoting the work done in kj as kcal, i.e., in the above example just say you 684 kcal.

Efficiency changes with both cadence, and absolute power output, and also with fatigue. At higher cadences, efficiency *decreases*, while at higher powers it *increases*. As you fatigue efficiency decreases."

In other words, the watts are real, but the estimated kcal used to produce those watts are all based upon estimates and a formula, and the efficiency factor is an estimated factor. Further, it does not remain constant even over a workout. Again, I am not a sport scientist, but as a general proposition, the body does adapt to these workouts and it is my understanding that you require less calories to do greater work over time. So I would think that kilojoules remains constant but the exact kilocalories burned requires lab analysis

 

[Jeff Vader]

Im really looking into getting a road bike very soon and was just wondering if cycling will tone my abs?

No. It gave me man boobs and I am only 27 years old.

 

[bubsy]

No. It gave me man boobs and I am only 27 years old.

What a pisser!! LMFAO.