cookiemonster wrote:
1) Yes - that's correct. The first was a general physio, the second a sports-specific-specialist type. Both gave me the same story. I wasnt looking for a different diagnosis particularly, but clearer explanations as to what a "lack of core stability" actually meant in practise. So what if I couldnt balance on one leg? Why should I care? The sports physio was better placed to explain the high-level compensation and fatigue aspects of having poor core stability. The self assessment was due to me not being completely clear what "core stability" is and isnt, how it would affect me and, most important of all, how would I know if my core stability had improved or not? The self assessment gives me the marker in the same way as an 8-weekly power test protocol.
That's still not much of diagnosis. I am still not clear on the suggest remedies for this by the physio.
Quote:
2) Yes, I understand you; if I tense up my abs Bruce Lee-style then I guess my lower back tenses up in response. The distinction here though is between using the "local stabilisers" like the abs to stabilise yourself (which fatigue quickly and restrict your breathing) and your "global stabilisers" such as your glutes, the muscles with broad attachments that can generate low force over a wide area for a long time without fatigue.
Interesting. It is often an over-utilisation of the prime movers for stabilisation which is associated with poor co-ordination and utilisation of the muscular system in sports performance.
I guess this a mis-understanding of how the "core" (just to re-emphasise how I loathe the term but everyone seems to know what it is) works. There is a whole network of muscles in the trunk of the body. These flick on and off constantly to keep us from flopping over like a dead fish and to allow things like the leg pushing a pedal to occur. With the correct co-ordination of muscular activation there would be all sort of funky stuff going on. Primarily would be the inability to pedal a bike. Or walk perhaps.
Quote:
3) My understanding is the kilo riders (and sprinters, TT'ers and everyone else) does zone 2 work in order to build an aerobic base which is required for recovery and repeatability both in training and in racing; not to directly increase their 1 min or other short term power. It sounds like you are proposing that zone 2 training is an effective way to increase anaerobic power production? Or are you suggesting that as 1 min power has an aerobic component albeit smaller than the anaerobic component, zone 2 work can improve the aerobic component and therefore you go faster?
Yes, pure sprinters do very little aerobic work. However in something like the kilo (which for the very good is around a minute effort) there is significant aerobic input, depending on the rider, anywhere up to 45% (maybe a tad more). Even kieren riders have to have some aerobic fitness otherwise they'd pop just following the derny. All of this is relative of course. A sprinter may have an FTP of around 250-300 watts. Which seems decent for we mere mortals. But compare that to a 450-500watt FTP and they're small fry. Also consider the performance of omnium riders who
are aerobic beasts, they can still do a sub 1:05 kilo. And no weights in sight for a least one World Champ. And most omnium riders do most of their training on the road.
Quote:
I agree with the general principle of the second point, but in my case I had a reasonably good aerobic power (placed top 10 in a 3-day, 100 mile each day, event with lots of climbing for example). I doubt that my aerobic capacity was so poor that it was the limiting factor on my 1 min power. Perhaps I misunderstand you?
Without detailed information about power output, training loads, rest, recovery, nutrition etc I will on this rare occasion reserve judgement as to why or why not your aerobic capacity may or may not have been lacking.
Quote:
Your "we use our core when we sleep" statement confuses me. You may have a different understanding of what core stability refers to than I do. My definition is "Core stability' describes the ability of the trunk to support force production, and withstand the forces acting upon it" this does not happen in your sleep, nor is it trained and developed in your sleep. What is your definition of core stability?
Ah! Once again, read closer.
Tapeworm wrote:
...everyone does realise that their "core" is working every second they aren't horizontal sleeping right?...
(emphasise added)
The point being that strength is (usually) not the issue. The core is being worked every second we are walking, sitting, standing, and consequently performing any action. Cycling (aerobic) involves quite low forces, unless there are general postural and stability problems (and my caveat of rehab work comes in there), any given person has enough "strength" to cycle pain and injury free. What people do lack is often sufficient fitness to allow their "core" to work correctly over a long period of time - as we tire the muscles throughout the body will fatigue - and also often an incorrect fit on the bike - causing biomechanic issues will once again, lead to premature fatigue in certain areas. A good bike fit and I mean really good really is at the crux of effective cycling performance.
Quote:
and you have a tendency to belittle other peoples explanations without further investigation - the neck strength thing is example, you are belittling the OP's advice which by his account worked, and are proposing alternative approaches without asking why he choose that route, the specifics of what he advised or how he determined that it was his advice that actually had the effect he feels it had.
Only on the basis of what they post. Friend had sore neck, neck strengthening exercises fixed it. Really
I see that as a very good example of something that should be belittled. If they state that "due to a neck injury sustained in a car accident it left a slight degeneration of the muscle around the cervicothoriac area. Specific strength conditioning work helped to correct the muscle imbalance and consequently alleviated the neck pain whilst riding" I wouldn't have much of an issue with that. BUT they didn't.
So the issue now being that should anyone with a similar issue read this they then think that this is fixed by "strengthing the neck", which they do and maybe it "fixes" the problem. But without correctly diagnosing the problem, without actually working out what is going on with the body then all these home remedies get peddled out by the collective wisdom instead. So yeah, buddy fixes his neck by strengthening it and then ten years later wonders why there is excess wear along the C1-C2 vertebrae causing a spinal disc herniation. Then buddy will know pain.
So yes I belittle and am curt. (Replace the "r" if anyone wants).
Here's a tip, there is a difference between a case study and anecdote. If more "case studies" were posted then there would be less ambiguity. And more decent things to argue about.
FAQ
Search
Login
Register
you type a lot of posts and I read a lot of posts. You can be pretty sloppy with your definitions and explanations (remember "staggering contradictions"?) and you have a tendency to belittle other peoples explanations without further investigation - the neck strength thing is example, you are belittling the OP's advice which by his account worked, and are proposing alternative approaches without asking why he choose that route, the specifics of what he advised or how he determined that it was his advice that actually had the effect he feels it had.
