"Steve Hogg has this as a fit parameter to determine seat setback and height and guess what, after thousands of bike fits he has stated that he has never seen a cyclist with a core that is too weak to pass the test, only a poor seat position that doesn't facilitate it."

Can you elaborate on this or point me in the direction of more literature?

"Core stability would be the core's ability to fire and engage as needed and if one lacked it, they would buckle from the mid section not topple because of weighting. I think you are confusing the nervous system and coordination with the muscular system's strength and endurance. While the nervous system controls muscle recruitment, the bosu ball fad readily demonstrated why balance does not equal strength and how the two are not mutually connected. Female gymnasts have some of the best balance in the world as do figure skaters and its not linked to their core strength. This is a common misconception about yoga as well"

I understand the nervous system controls the recruitment and that in itself would not necessarily be "core strength" (depending on your interpretation). But what is it recruiting? (Rhetorical)
I'm not sure how you could prove conclusively that the balance of a gymnast is not linked to core strength. I'd imagine their midsection is pretty densely muscled, therefore a trained nervous system AND strong "core" muscles are present.

"You could also read a basic physiology text or anything written by a modern strength coach that works in a sport that requires agility or coordination."

Like this?



And I'd argue those coaches aren't worried about core stability because it's already been thoroughly developed by the time they arrive in the NFL



I appreciate your less aggressive response this time, BTW

Dude, a personal training manual is not a physiology text, that is unless it explains the nervous system, muscular system, and circulatory system in detail. In the US personal trainers are one step above fast food cooks in terms of knowledge, but maybe its different where you are. Look, we're just not going to agree here, so no point in dragging out a flame war and enough info has been provided that parties that are interested in the subject can have a starting point for their own research.

Back to bar width one thing that frustrates me is the width of the flares. I also got annoyed having my hoods perfect but my drops a bit wider or vice versa and never really noticed any advantages to the flare that this setup provides.

Regarding Hogg's balance test here's the original post: http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/blo ... oad-bikes/

My fitter used that and his seat height methodology to set my saddle position and its worked pretty well. The most common thing I see with people complaining of balance/handling problems is their seat is usually too high and/or setback is setup improperly and they're constantly bracing themselves while riding.

Steve Hogg? After reading this blog post I can no longer take him seriously:
http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/blog/2011/08/material-challenges-how-to-lessen-your-ability-to-coordinate-your-actions-without-being-aware-of-it/

(yes, I know it has been discussed at length in another thread, and I don't want to re-open that discussion, but I can't fathom how anyone with any scientific training can pay any attention to someone who spouts such pseudoscience)

So this thread has descended into anarchy.

_________________
Caad10 with Campagnolo

You expected anything less? When people start quoting other supposed experts, that's a pretty good indication of where you're headed.

Simple fact: We are each an experiment of one. There are always doctoral students writing papers about one aspect of kinesthesiology or energy output or another. Do you ever hear from them again? No. It's because data are so spread among any group of riders, even a narrowly selected group of elite professional racers, that the mean is meaningless. No rider can use those data as a serious basis for emulation.

When I post, I almost invariably say somewhere in the thread that you have to figure it out for yourself. Narrow bars are something important to consider. Among many others. Riding your best is about fitness and figuring out how to use your fitness for best results. Saddle nose up, saddle nose down, short reach, long reach, forward cleats, cleats moved back, slammed stem, stem with spacers, one saddle or another, these bars or those, it goes on and on. Nobody on this forum ... nobody ... is in a position to tell you how to ride. All they can do is explain the reasoning and then you can see if it works for you.

Yah he got wacky after a bit with that stuff, but doesn't mean his seat setback article or other ideas are bunk. He's fit and refit a really large number of pros and a lot of normal riders as well so if all of his methods were off I think we'd hear by now.

I have gone the opposite direction. I started on 42, went to 44 for a while, and came back down to 40cm. I tried for years to convince myself that 40 were wide enough and that it didn't make a big difference. But I alweys felt constricted when cimbing with my hands on the flats, just inside the hook-curve, and I didn't feel like I had enough "stability" to really hammer at full strength when out of the saddle with hands on the drops or hoods. This year I went back to 42, and it does make a difference...at least in feel. Even small differences do make a difference.

I am not particularly big. Maybe my shoulders are slightly wider than an average guy of 5'8" (172.7 cm). 42 is about what you would get from the "conventional wisdom" type measurement. But those measurements are alway a little vague, such that you could easily come up with ±2 cm easily. Actually, 44 felt very good also, but I felt I was catching too much wind. I would like to be as narrow as practical.

Wanted to repeat this because it's good stuff.

If you have core issues on the bike, you *may* be able to help it with core exercises... but only in the sense that it alters your posture and muscle engagement... accidentally. It would be better to focus on these things directly. You want to *not* be using your core while riding, as much as possible. Just the legs making the pedals go around... everything else relaxed.

_________________
formerly rruff...

Hi,



And I'll happily repeat it once more as it is the reason why I always keep hammering on the importance of comfort whilst riding.
Comfort through fitting, training, frame and peripherals, tyre quality, correct inflation pressure, anything that can possibly contribute to it.
For it's only then that you can achieve your best performance.

Bar width is one factor but IMO it's a relatively minor one unless the bar's width is way off which would be rather obvious....

Ciao,

_________________
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

Just general road riding I'd agree. I can go 6+ hours on the bike and not feel tired or sore from the legs up.

Thirty minutes into an early season cross race though and my performance is definitely taking a dive because my core isn't what it should be. But I don't need to do any specific exercise, just my usual cross drills to get it back up to just what is needed

_________________
"Step forward the climber and all those who worship at the altar of lightness" - R. Millar

Thank you. The proponents of "core strength not being relevant" are not trying to race. Or don't win. Or are naturally gifted with core strength and don't realize it. If you want to race, or ride really hard, you better have solid core strength or you will have back problems and hip problems, which turn into knee problems, shoulder problems, and generally shitty riding performance.

^ not often I would agree with KWalker but he's right. "Core", "strong core", "weak core" is a load of dingos kidneys. You could get one of then thar machines that measures muscle contractile force and see how hard that "core" works in cycling. Short of a standing start on the track (all ~5 seconds of it) it ain't much.

Truth is, there is no core.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

Core strength is overrated, me thinks.

Pretty damn true. The "core" of the body is basically the entire trunk, which includes the muscles of the upper, lower, and middle back, all of which work in tandem to brace in certain maximal situations.

My anecdotal evidence from the very limited sample of continental and world tour pros basically corroborates what I wrote above, although they tend to do some core work in the off-season, but strictly for cross training purposes and because they lose basic human functionality by sitting on a bike for 25-35hrs a week and then on the couch recovering. For them its just about ensuring that they don't lose some very basic human abilities.

So what keeps you from getting tossed around in JJ? A good base, sure, but there's more to it. I'll agree the "core" isn't a singular muscle but strength/fitness in your trunk has A LOT of value. Perhaps cycling doesn't make the strongest argument for it but reading an argument that says it's completely irrelevant makes me want to hit myself in the face with a hammer.