This was great interview! As a strength guy and cyclist i think core stability is not totally worthless. Planks and such can improve strength of spine stabilizers. But one doesn't just squat and plank into heaven, there are lots of issues to be sorted out. There are tons of accessory exercises to strengthen one's squat based on what are possible weaknesses of lifter: hamstring curls, good mornings, sissy squats, belt squats, front squats, low bar back squats, deadlifts and lots of others. those all work various muscles differently and based on lifter's strengths-weaknesses one chooses which ones to do. Planks and other core isolating exercises are just cherry on top. In this sense core training misses the mark. It just presumes that simply focusing on core everything follows suit.
N=2: I never did any core work or weights when I was bike racing. I had one of the most aerodynamic TT positions among the local racers, and it was very comfortable for me, and I could handle my TT bike better than most. My wife also never did any core work, she broke the state TT record, got 6th in GC at the Joe Martin stage race, got a pro contract, won the final stage of the cascade classic. Of course none of this means core work is useless, maybe we were lucky, maybe we could have been better if we did core work. But I do strongly believe the relative importance of core work is much much lower than people imagine. It isn't "essential". What is essential is riding a lot. If you have specific issues with your core, address them. If you do not, don't feel pressured that you have to spend time messing with it.
Great chat guys. Very interesting study, and have to agree. I'm a 50 year old cyclist who has been riding for over 30 years. I alway see, and feel a substantial improvement to my performance when I incorporate weight training into my training routine. I Also feel better mentally. Unfortunately I go through phases where I may neglect the strength side of my training probably due to not using my time efficiently enough, but as said above, when i actually start a strength training routine (plan)along with my 8-10hour ave per week riding I see improvement.
One footnote: I think opportunity cost shouldn't be measured in time spend on training, but in terms of recovery cost. Myself, I perform conventional strength training and this need some planing. I don't perform any core stability, but I assume I could add it without the need of more recovery time
Hi, Thorsten! That's a good point. I think both could/should probably be considered. Depends a bit on the context of the rider - a pro has less issues with training TIME, and more so with recovery probably. Whereas a full-time working age grouper may have issues with both.
Interesting, I know in reality there's only so long a study can be held. And I'm speaking from my anecdotal evidence, I feel like after 6 months of legitimate weight training there are significant gains to be made on the bike. #1 RPE, usually 24-48 hours after my hard leg day my rpe on the bike drops regardless of zone (hr stays the same) sometimes high threshold will feel like low tempo. #2 I have less fatigue after doing hard training sessions on the bike or hard races. #3 losing weight while maintaining power, I don't think I have to explain this as the metadata confirms weight training is the most economical way to lose fat with minimum lean tissue loss. #3 all the health benefits associated with weight training especially for us old farts. I have to cut grass, move furniture, climb ladders, and get in crawl spaces, carry tools and 150 pound compressors across shopping mall roofs. All these things are just much easier and quicker to recover from when I am physically stronger( in my opinion ) I can't afford to have cyclist bird bones, I think any amateur bike racer not going to the gym is giving their competition an advantage. I will also acknowledge I may be wrong, just putting a different perspective out there. Great conversation guys, I do agree core only is a waste of time😂
You're addressing a lot of the strong arguments in favor of traditional resistance training here, Mike. Glad to hear it's working so well for you, and thanks for sharing your story.
Just read the paper. Great study. However an obvious and big caveat in my opinion is about the training programme on the bike. The participants only trained in zone 2, for 12 hours a week. I can only assume that it had a massive influence on the end results. Virtually no well-trained cyclist would follow such a training programme, even in base period. What if the higher increases for the strength training group come (in part) from the 2 hours of high intensity and taxing training (ie strength training)? That certainty triggered different physiological adaptations as opposed to the two other groups that essentially did not do any intensity at all. The question is: what would happen to those results if one were to follow a more standard on-bike training programme, say pyramidal or polarized? I am not arguing against strength training. I am convinced by the evidence on the matter. I am just a bit concerned by the design of the study. In my opinion the baseline (only on the bike training) should resemble something that cyclists of that level would actually follow in real life.
That's a very good point in terms of scrutinizing the experimental method. However, other papers have made that comparison (cycling only vs. cycling + strength, in which both groups also did intensity work on the bike). Still with greater results in the bike + strength group (see Vikmoen and Rønnestad work for details).
@@wattkg Sure, but we still don't know what would happen to the traditional strength training vs core strength training groups, if all groups were to follow a "traditional" bike training programme. But again, it's yet another good piece of evidence in favor of strength training, and certainly a well conducted study. Thanks for the reference
@HugoB32 personally, I think the authors have done a good job in balancing statistical power with pragmatic necessities to get this study done. A single study can only go so far in covering all aspects of a question. And no, we don't know what would happen to the core group and the strength group if they did more bike intensity. But do you see the core group coming out better in any scenario? Taking into account the existing knowledge base on both training forms, I'm leaning quite heavily towards strength training myself. Finally, if core stability training is so effective for cyclists, I would expect the cycling + core group to improve more than the cycling only group, regardless of what happened in the conventional strength group. Which wasn’t the case here.
Very interesting interview, thanks Martin. A comment and a question. My comment is that I developed back pain in the form of stiffness at night which used to wake me up. I was doing around 12 hours of cycling and 2 weight training sessions a week. I fixed the back problem by doing the ‘Bird Dog’ exercise as recommended in the ‘McGill big 3’ core exercises to improve stability. It improved within one week and has never returned. So maybe some core exercises are more complimentary to weights than others. My question is whether you are surprised at the significant improvement in w/kg of the strength + Z2 trainers given they were only doing Z2. I can imagine strength training is better than not strength training but an overall improvement of that amount for well trained cyclists surprised me. I’m assuming also the study reweighed the cyclists if they had gained muscle mass. Thanks.
Good question, Jeremy! The paper states that participants underwent anthropometrics testing before and after the 12 weeks - which included body mass and fat mass. So I'm reading that as a "yes". Secondly, we probably need to clarify a few things. Firstly, any athlete or patient case should be considered on individual basis. It will perhaps add to my argument that I clarify that over the years I have had pretty much any stance on core stability that one can have (as a clinician and coach) - from ignorant fanboy, to using it active in clinic as a recent graduate, to being somewhat less impressed with its supposed supremacy after some years in clinic and reading of the original research. I too have seen specific core exercises work miracles on SOME patients. Same with conventional strength training. I guess the point is that on GROUP level, the evidence is rather clear in favor of conventional strength training probably having MORE benefits for MORE people. That is not to say that a certain individual, with the right circumstances cannot achieve great help from doing core stability exercises. Finally, the second we involve pain, we're opening a new can of worms. Because now it's not only about biomechanics, strength and endurance in soft tissue, it's also about your entire cognitive context, your beliefs concerning your pain and a whole host of parameters that impact the experience of pain. Put shortly, in some contexts, core stability training can fix your pain even if the pain wasn't caused by a lack of core stability (same thing goes for any movement / exercise, under the right circumstances). So I'm not saying don't ever do them. But if you're short on time, and you're after the greatest bang for your buck - go heavy :)
@@wattkg Thanks for the detailed response. I agree core training seems more related to injury prevention, though that in turn ultimately translates into to performance if you can’t train due to muscle problems or if you are not recovering through interrupted sleep (as I was getting). Hard to measure that benefit though!
I totally agree that effective injury prevention will most likely translate into performance gains. We know this from studies looking into training availability and performance. And that's exactly the thing. We have convincing evidence that traditional strength training is effective in preventing sport injuries. And it seems to yield greater results for endurance performance. Plus, probably also more positive impact on cyclists' bone health. (I've written more extensively about this here for anyone interested: www.wattkg.com/strength-training/ )
I’m not aware of any claims that core training will improve power or performance on a bike. It’s an injury prevention concept to facilitate consistency in training, which anyone can do at home without travelling for hours a week to get to the gym. I’m not a professional cyclist and I’m in my 50s and I do core training twice a week. I haven’t been injured for 2 years.
I'm glad to hear you've been able to stay injury free, Ian :) As for the claims, they are quite frequent on both UA-cam and Google (simply typing "core exercises cycling power" will reveal a handful).
Personally I have never heard that better core stability will prevent injuries or improve power output. Where did you get these claims? From my understanding it's mainly about position on the bike. To me the results are also not really surprising, since you testet well trained athletes. They already have enough core stability lol Testing amateurs would be much more interesting (to me). The problem is, that you need a much bigger group, because the improvements vary a lot on the lower level. I think this type of traning can improve performance, but not in the way you think. It might only have an effect on people with bad core stability and bad posture. For example, my posture is so bad (developer) that it has a negative effect on my breathing (vo2max). So fixing that, should also improve my performance. But I don't think it has any effect on well-trained people.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This was great interview!
As a strength guy and cyclist i think core stability is not totally worthless. Planks and such can improve strength of spine stabilizers. But one doesn't just squat and plank into heaven, there are lots of issues to be sorted out. There are tons of accessory exercises to strengthen one's squat based on what are possible weaknesses of lifter: hamstring curls, good mornings, sissy squats, belt squats, front squats, low bar back squats, deadlifts and lots of others. those all work various muscles differently and based on lifter's strengths-weaknesses one chooses which ones to do. Planks and other core isolating exercises are just cherry on top.
In this sense core training misses the mark. It just presumes that simply focusing on core everything follows suit.
This is a very helpful study.
Thank you for providing such valuable information.👍
Thanks, happy to hear you enjoyed the video.
Very interesting concept of study. I would like to know what percentage of core stability was dedicated to stretching.
There is no mention of stretching in the study protocol, so I would assume they did zero stretching.
N=2: I never did any core work or weights when I was bike racing. I had one of the most aerodynamic TT positions among the local racers, and it was very comfortable for me, and I could handle my TT bike better than most. My wife also never did any core work, she broke the state TT record, got 6th in GC at the Joe Martin stage race, got a pro contract, won the final stage of the cascade classic. Of course none of this means core work is useless, maybe we were lucky, maybe we could have been better if we did core work. But I do strongly believe the relative importance of core work is much much lower than people imagine. It isn't "essential". What is essential is riding a lot. If you have specific issues with your core, address them. If you do not, don't feel pressured that you have to spend time messing with it.
Thanks for sharing, Jack! I believe you’re on the money here.
Great chat guys. Very interesting study, and have to agree. I'm a 50 year old cyclist who has been riding for over 30 years. I alway see, and feel a substantial improvement to my performance when I incorporate weight training into my training routine. I Also feel better mentally. Unfortunately I go through phases where I may neglect the strength side of my training probably due to not using my time efficiently enough, but as said above, when i actually start a strength training routine (plan)along with my 8-10hour ave per week riding I see improvement.
Thanks, Paul! Happy to hear you enjoyed the talk.
thanks again for this great info
Happy you liked it, Jan!
One footnote: I think opportunity cost shouldn't be measured in time spend on training, but in terms of recovery cost. Myself, I perform conventional strength training and this need some planing. I don't perform any core stability, but I assume I could add it without the need of more recovery time
Hi, Thorsten! That's a good point. I think both could/should probably be considered. Depends a bit on the context of the rider - a pro has less issues with training TIME, and more so with recovery probably. Whereas a full-time working age grouper may have issues with both.
Interesting, I know in reality there's only so long a study can be held. And I'm speaking from my anecdotal evidence, I feel like after 6 months of legitimate weight training there are significant gains to be made on the bike. #1 RPE, usually 24-48 hours after my hard leg day my rpe on the bike drops regardless of zone (hr stays the same) sometimes high threshold will feel like low tempo. #2 I have less fatigue after doing hard training sessions on the bike or hard races. #3 losing weight while maintaining power, I don't think I have to explain this as the metadata confirms weight training is the most economical way to lose fat with minimum lean tissue loss. #3 all the health benefits associated with weight training especially for us old farts. I have to cut grass, move furniture, climb ladders, and get in crawl spaces, carry tools and 150 pound compressors across shopping mall roofs. All these things are just much easier and quicker to recover from when I am physically stronger( in my opinion ) I can't afford to have cyclist bird bones, I think any amateur bike racer not going to the gym is giving their competition an advantage. I will also acknowledge I may be wrong, just putting a different perspective out there. Great conversation guys, I do agree core only is a waste of time😂
You're addressing a lot of the strong arguments in favor of traditional resistance training here, Mike. Glad to hear it's working so well for you, and thanks for sharing your story.
Just read the paper. Great study. However an obvious and big caveat in my opinion is about the training programme on the bike. The participants only trained in zone 2, for 12 hours a week. I can only assume that it had a massive influence on the end results. Virtually no well-trained cyclist would follow such a training programme, even in base period. What if the higher increases for the strength training group come (in part) from the 2 hours of high intensity and taxing training (ie strength training)? That certainty triggered different physiological adaptations as opposed to the two other groups that essentially did not do any intensity at all. The question is: what would happen to those results if one were to follow a more standard on-bike training programme, say pyramidal or polarized?
I am not arguing against strength training. I am convinced by the evidence on the matter. I am just a bit concerned by the design of the study. In my opinion the baseline (only on the bike training) should resemble something that cyclists of that level would actually follow in real life.
That's a very good point in terms of scrutinizing the experimental method. However, other papers have made that comparison (cycling only vs. cycling + strength, in which both groups also did intensity work on the bike). Still with greater results in the bike + strength group (see Vikmoen and Rønnestad work for details).
@@wattkg Sure, but we still don't know what would happen to the traditional strength training vs core strength training groups, if all groups were to follow a "traditional" bike training programme. But again, it's yet another good piece of evidence in favor of strength training, and certainly a well conducted study. Thanks for the reference
@HugoB32 personally, I think the authors have done a good job in balancing statistical power with pragmatic necessities to get this study done. A single study can only go so far in covering all aspects of a question. And no, we don't know what would happen to the core group and the strength group if they did more bike intensity. But do you see the core group coming out better in any scenario? Taking into account the existing knowledge base on both training forms, I'm leaning quite heavily towards strength training myself.
Finally, if core stability training is so effective for cyclists, I would expect the cycling + core group to improve more than the cycling only group, regardless of what happened in the conventional strength group. Which wasn’t the case here.
Very interesting interview, thanks Martin. A comment and a question. My comment is that I developed back pain in the form of stiffness at night which used to wake me up. I was doing around 12 hours of cycling and 2 weight training sessions a week. I fixed the back problem by doing the ‘Bird Dog’ exercise as recommended in the ‘McGill big 3’ core exercises to improve stability. It improved within one week and has never returned. So maybe some core exercises are more complimentary to weights than others. My question is whether you are surprised at the significant improvement in w/kg of the strength + Z2 trainers given they were only doing Z2. I can imagine strength training is better than not strength training but an overall improvement of that amount for well trained cyclists surprised me. I’m assuming also the study reweighed the cyclists if they had gained muscle mass. Thanks.
Good question, Jeremy! The paper states that participants underwent anthropometrics testing before and after the 12 weeks - which included body mass and fat mass. So I'm reading that as a "yes".
Secondly, we probably need to clarify a few things. Firstly, any athlete or patient case should be considered on individual basis. It will perhaps add to my argument that I clarify that over the years I have had pretty much any stance on core stability that one can have (as a clinician and coach) - from ignorant fanboy, to using it active in clinic as a recent graduate, to being somewhat less impressed with its supposed supremacy after some years in clinic and reading of the original research. I too have seen specific core exercises work miracles on SOME patients. Same with conventional strength training. I guess the point is that on GROUP level, the evidence is rather clear in favor of conventional strength training probably having MORE benefits for MORE people.
That is not to say that a certain individual, with the right circumstances cannot achieve great help from doing core stability exercises.
Finally, the second we involve pain, we're opening a new can of worms. Because now it's not only about biomechanics, strength and endurance in soft tissue, it's also about your entire cognitive context, your beliefs concerning your pain and a whole host of parameters that impact the experience of pain. Put shortly, in some contexts, core stability training can fix your pain even if the pain wasn't caused by a lack of core stability (same thing goes for any movement / exercise, under the right circumstances).
So I'm not saying don't ever do them. But if you're short on time, and you're after the greatest bang for your buck - go heavy :)
@@wattkg Thanks for the detailed response. I agree core training seems more related to injury prevention, though that in turn ultimately translates into to performance if you can’t train due to muscle problems or if you are not recovering through interrupted sleep (as I was getting). Hard to measure that benefit though!
I totally agree that effective injury prevention will most likely translate into performance gains. We know this from studies looking into training availability and performance.
And that's exactly the thing. We have convincing evidence that traditional strength training is effective in preventing sport injuries. And it seems to yield greater results for endurance performance. Plus, probably also more positive impact on cyclists' bone health.
(I've written more extensively about this here for anyone interested: www.wattkg.com/strength-training/ )
I’m not aware of any claims that core training will improve power or performance on a bike. It’s an injury prevention concept to facilitate consistency in training, which anyone can do at home without travelling for hours a week to get to the gym. I’m not a professional cyclist and I’m in my 50s and I do core training twice a week. I haven’t been injured for 2 years.
I'm glad to hear you've been able to stay injury free, Ian :) As for the claims, they are quite frequent on both UA-cam and Google (simply typing "core exercises cycling power" will reveal a handful).
Personally I have never heard that better core stability will prevent injuries or improve power output. Where did you get these claims?
From my understanding it's mainly about position on the bike.
To me the results are also not really surprising, since you testet well trained athletes. They already have enough core stability lol
Testing amateurs would be much more interesting (to me). The problem is, that you need a much bigger group, because the improvements vary a lot on the lower level.
I think this type of traning can improve performance, but not in the way you think. It might only have an effect on people with bad core stability and bad posture. For example, my posture is so bad (developer) that it has a negative effect on my breathing (vo2max). So fixing that, should also improve my performance. But I don't think it has any effect on well-trained people.
UA-cam videos, internet articles, cycling magazines, coaches/therapists recommendations (personal experience)…
🙌🏽