The term core training is used widely throughout the fitness industry and is all too easily tripped up as a solution to almost any problem. My lower back hurts while riding: “Have you done your core training?” Struggling to push higher peak power: “Have you done your core training?” Enough Aero Benefits for Time Trial Positions Whether your neck hurts on long rides, your knees hurt, or your saddle hurts, at some point someone will tell you that the problem is in your core.
Before evaluating whether they are right or wrong, let’s define the terms. What is the core and what is core training? Phil Burt, physical therapist and bike fit expert, author of Bike Fit and Strength and Conditioning for Cyclists. , has worked with many of the UK’s top professionals and countless amateur racers. “The core isn’t something you’ll find in any anatomy book,” Burt begins. “What is the core? I haven’t heard a clear answer yet.” In the field, most people define “core training” as exercises related to the core region, mainly the abdominal muscles.
Against this ambiguity, Burt argues that what is important for cyclists is specificity. “We have to hold the handlebars with our hands and touch the pedals with our feet,” he says, adding that as long as our core is strong enough to maintain our posture, no more force is needed. I’m hinting that it might. Core has different meanings depending on the sport. A shot putter’s core needs to be able to handle rotational forces, and a cyclist’s core is needed to stabilize the upper body. Bart questions whether athletes need balance, proprioception, and “core” skills beyond the demands of their sport.
He jokingly points out that bike ability doesn’t translate into combat skill. “Have you ever watched a professional race and seen two cyclists fighting over the finish line? It’s funny, they fall when they get off their bikes!” in the saddle The skills and soupless skills displayed are rarely translated to other sports, raising questions about whether having a super strong core is essential for cyclists. “We want to know where the core trends originally came from,” adds Burt. “So many people buy into it because it makes intuitive sense, but you have to differentiate it.”
Strength is better than core strength
Sports scientist and professional cycling coach Sebastian Sitko clearly recognizes the benefits of core training. Sitko, a lecturer at the University of Zaragoza in Spain, has a PhD in sports science and has worked with more than 200 professional and amateur athletes as a coach. “The world of cycling is often built on theories and assumptions, many of which lack objective evidence,” he says. “For example, it’s widely accepted that spending hours in a plank position somehow improves your cycling performance.” Sitko’s latest research, along with colleagues at the National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia at the University of Lleida, Published this year, it is the first to examine the differences between strength training and core exercises in their effects on power output in road cycling.
Lifting heavy objects may provide greater benefits
Thirty-six trained road cyclists were divided into three groups of 12 participants. Each group performed either no strength training, traditional strength training, or core training for 12 weeks, all with the same cycling training. Peak power output was recorded over different periods (5 s, 60 s, 5 min, and 20 min) before and after the intervention. The strength training group performed half-squats, one-legged leg presses, one-legged hip flexion (quadriceps extension), and ankle plantar flexion (calf raises) twice a week. They were supervised to ensure the exercises were performed correctly and were allowed to increase the load after 4 and 8 weeks of training. Core exercises were glute bridges, abdominal planks, and abdominal extensions.
The results of the study were that traditional strength training was superior to core training (and no training) when it came to power gains over all time periods tested. Five-second power increased by an average of 1.25 W/kg in the strength training group, but only 0.47 W/kg in the core group. The strength advantage over the trunk was consistent across all power durations. With the exception of the 5-second test, core training was little more effective than doing nothing. The findings came as no surprise to researchers, as the benefits of strength training for cyclists are well established. However, the negligible effect of core training on power output has raised questions about whether this type of training is truly beneficial for road cyclists. The researchers acknowledged that not all of the hypothesized benefits of core training (such as improved joint range of motion or joint stability) had been tested, but the goal was to improve power output. This study proved that core training is of little benefit in this case.
Get the latest racing content, interviews, features, reviews and expert buying guides delivered straight to your inbox!
Does this mean the era of core training is over? “Pro teams generally pay lip service to core now because they don’t understand the performance benefits,” Burt says, recalling when core was a buzzword. “Bradley Wiggins was evaluated in preseason camp and was given 26 different core exercises. He came to me and said, ‘I’ve done all the exercises, but I don’t have time to ride the bike anymore.’ I said.”
In a comment that echoes Burt’s anecdote about Wiggins doing so much core training that he didn’t have time to ride his bike, Sitko and fellow researchers write in their paper: I incorporate some type of strength training into my routine. ” They concluded that “cyclists would make better use of their time by doing traditional strength training rather than core training.” Mr. Sitko said: “I think the results are clear: three groups with reasonable sample sizes demonstrate that not only is traditional strength training better than core training, core training is the same as no core training. I did.”
Let’s value our time
(Image credit: Future)
Are you still a core believer? Bart suggests changing your perspective. “Ask yourself why you want to improve your core. Do you have any specific pains or weaknesses? Test your core while riding. Can you reach a bottle? Take off your rain jacket. , can you ride empty-handed?” If you can develop these skills, your core strength is probably good enough as far as cycling is concerned. So why do so many people recommend core work? Sitko has a powerful answer. “Those who support core training and benefit from it will no doubt emphasize its rehabilitation and injury prevention aspects. But my question focuses on the concept of opportunity cost. We take the opposite perspective: If there is abundant and conclusive evidence supporting the use of traditional strength training for injury prevention and rehabilitation, why have we so far given up on alternatives? As I know, there is a lack of scientific evidence for this purpose, right?”
If you’re going to invest time in some kind of training that will reduce the time you can spend cycling, that exercise needs to be effective. In this regard, there is insufficient evidence regarding the benefits of core training. “Core training proponents have many more questions,” Sitko continues. “How do you quantify core strength? In what units? They try to assess the musculature of the abdominal girdle and what’s happening to the abdominal girdle during planks, deep squats, and deadlifts. Have you ever? These are important considerations, but to my knowledge they have never been thoroughly investigated or measured scientifically.”Training time is a precious commodity, so time is of the essence. You have to make a choice about how you want to divide it. Sitko is clear that there is no evidence that core training is worth the time it takes. “If you can’t evaluate or measure something, how can you claim to be improving it?”
join the resistance
So, while core training may be wasting your riding time, is it worth changing your core habits for broader strength training habits instead? Strength training and core training are the ultimate goal. Both are slightly different in execution. Strength training uses resistance and movement to induce muscle contraction. Because it involves movement, strength training usually involves one or more joints. Many core exercises are static, causing isometric muscle contractions aimed at holding or stabilizing posture. “Off-bike strength training makes you a better cyclist, there’s no arguing that,” says Burt. “However, isolated core exercises like static planks have minimal impact. Core exercises need to be part of a larger package.”
Single-leg exercises like the Bulgarian split squat provide greater benefits
(Image source: Getty Images)
One of the benefits of strength training is that when done correctly, it strengthens your core and increases your power output at the same time. “I recommend extensive overall weight training over static core exercises every time, and if you can make it specific to cycling, even better,” says Burt. In addition to strength training, Burt believes that riding on rollers is one of the best ways for cyclists to improve their balance and proprioception, and engage their core in a cycling-specific way.
The term “global” used by strength and conditioning coaches refers to strength training movements that use multiple joints and work multiple large muscle groups. Cycling peculiarities appear when movements follow a similar pattern to pedaling. That’s why split squats and single-leg squats are preferred over standard squats. “Bulgarian split squats help improve movement, coordination, and strength,” adds Bart. “It also stretches the muscles that get tight from cycling. Another example is the deadlift, which also engages multiple muscle groups and movements.” One area that cyclists often neglect is the glutes, says Bart. he says. “If you can strengthen your glutes, it will have a huge impact on your cycling,” he claims. Squat-type strength training is best for this, as the study by Sitko and colleagues showed.
Strength training also has additional benefits that aren’t specific to cycling. Using weights to increase resistance improves bone density and joint health, and adding muscle increases your resting metabolic rate. If you’re aiming for a six-pack, you can do it with strength training. For example, squats activate the rectus abdominis and external oblique muscles more than isometric core exercises.
Burt concludes, “Commercial core training is very unlikely to improve your cycling.” Before embarking on strength training instead, you need to be clear about your goals. “Introspection and professional assessment to optimize exercise and focus on your own specific strengths and weaknesses is essential to avoid wasting time on unnecessary exercises.”
rider experience
Rick Stern (cyclecoach.com), a 55-year-old road racer, time trialist, and coach, avoided strength training for nearly 30 years until a series of crashes prompted him to change his ways.
“At first, I hated the gym because I felt so uncoordinated. Even though I raced at a decent level and was an elite athlete, I felt like a clown, staggered, I couldn’t keep my balance. Once I got over that, I started to like it. The more I got better, the more I got into strength training and started seeing results more consistently. I feel stronger and my sprinting has improved a lot.”
As a coach, Stern only recommends training based on scientific evidence. “When you only have eight to nine hours a week to train, every minute counts. Squats activate your core, further increasing the overall benefits you get from strength training. For those who are less experienced or not physically fit enough, it is recommended to do strength training only during the winter, but for other riders, 45 minutes twice a week is recommended. sessions and are part of the program throughout the year.”
This feature originally appeared in Cycling Weekly magazine. Subscribe now and never miss an issue.
