Core Stability Training: Are You Wasting Your Time? | Sebastian Sitko interview

Summary

En este video, el científico del deporte y entrenador ciclista Sebastian Sitko discute si el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo vale la pena. Comparó el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo con el entrenamiento en bicicleta y con el entrenamiento de fuerza convencional. Los resultados mostraron que el entrenamiento de fuerza mejoró significativamente más la potencia de la bicicleta que los otros dos métodos. Sitko enfatiza el costo de oportunidad, sugiriendo que el tiempo invertido en el entrenamiento de fuerza podría ser más beneficioso.

Takeaways

• 🚴‍♂️ El entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo es comúnmente recomendado para mejorar la potencia, eficiencia y prevenir lesiones en ciclismo, pero hay escasa evidencia científica que respalde estas afirmaciones.
• 🧐 Se realizó un estudio para comparar el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo con el entrenamiento en bicicleta y el entrenamiento de fuerza convencional, buscando medir el impacto en el rendimiento del ciclismo.
• 🔬 El estudio se basó en la medición del rendimiento y no en la prevención de lesiones, debido a las dificultades y el tiempo requerido para evaluar la incidencia de lesiones.
• 👥 Los participantes fueron divididos en tres grupos: uno solo realizó entrenamiento en bicicleta, otro grupo agregó entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo y el tercer grupo realizó entrenamiento de fuerza convencional.
• 📈 Los resultados del estudio mostraron que los que realizaron entrenamiento de fuerza convencional mejoraron significativamente más en la potencia de salida comparado con los otros dos grupos.
• 🏋️‍♂️ El entrenamiento de fuerza convencional incluyó ejercicios como sentadillas, prensa de piernas y flexión plantar de tobillo, realizados con intensidad de tres series a la máxima repetición hasta el agotamiento.
• 🌐 Los participantes tenían diferentes niveles de experiencia, desde profesionales hasta aficionados, pero en general se consideraban bien entrenados.
• ⏱ El periodo de intervención del estudio fue de 12 semanas, considerando que es un tiempo normal en la investigación de ciencias del deporte para ver la respuesta aguda al entrenamiento.
• 🤔 Aunque el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo no mostró un beneficio adicional en el rendimiento, el estudio no evaluó su posible efecto en la prevención de lesiones.
• 💡 Se sugiere que el tiempo invertido en el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo podría ser mejor utilizado en el entrenamiento de resistencia o en otras actividades que han demostrado un mayor impacto en el rendimiento.
• 🔑 El estudio destaca la importancia de considerar el costo de oportunidad en el entrenamiento deportivo, es decir, elegir las actividades que ofrecen el mayor beneficio para el rendimiento en el tiempo disponible.

Q & A

¿Por qué decidieron realizar un estudio sobre el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo en ciclismo?

Se decidió realizar el estudio debido a la falta de evidencia científica que respalase las afirmaciones comunes sobre los beneficios del entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo en el rendimiento deportivo, a pesar de su popularidad en blogs y revistas especializadas.

¿Cuál fue la hipótesis principal del estudio llevado a cabo por Sebastian Sitko y su equipo?

La hipótesis principal era comparar el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo con el entrenamiento en bicicleta solo y con el entrenamiento de fuerza convencional para ver cuál era más efectivo en mejorar el rendimiento en el ciclismo.

¿Cómo se estructuró el estudio en términos de los diferentes grupos de entrenamiento?

Se estructuró en tres grupos: uno que solo realizó entrenamiento en bicicleta, otro que agregó entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo a su entrenamiento en bicicleta y un tercer grupo que agregó entrenamiento de fuerza convencional.

¿Cuál fue la duración del estudio y cuál fue el período de entrenamiento de los participantes?

El estudio duró 12 semanas, que es un período común en la investigación en ciencias del deporte, y los participantes se entrenaron durante este tiempo.

¿Qué tipo de mediciones de rendimiento se realizaron en el estudio?

Se realizaron mediciones de potencia máxima en diferentes tiempos (20 minutos, 5 minutos, 1 minuto y sprints), así como mediciones de esfuerzos neuromusculares y VO2 máx.

¿Cuáles fueron los resultados del estudio en términos de mejora en la potencia de los participantes?

El grupo que realizó entrenamiento de fuerza convencional mostró una mejora significativa en la potencia, mientras que el grupo de entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo no mostró una mejora adicional en comparación con el grupo de solo ciclismo.

¿Qué implicaciones tiene el estudio para los ciclistas y entrenadores que consideran agregar entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo a su rutina?

El estudio sugiere que los ciclistas y entrenadores deberían ser cautelosos al invertir tiempo en el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo, ya que no parece ser tan beneficioso como el entrenamiento de fuerza convencional en términos de rendimiento.

¿Qué es el costo de oportunidad mencionado en el estudio y cómo afecta las decisiones de entrenamiento?

El costo de oportunidad se refiere a la elección entre diferentes formas de entrenamiento y cómo invertir el tiempo de entrenamiento limitado. Si se invierte tiempo en un tipo de entrenamiento que no mejora significativamente el rendimiento, se pierde la oportunidad de mejorar más en otro tipo de entrenamiento que sí lo hace.

¿Cómo se comparó el estudio con investigaciones previas sobre el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo y la fuerza en el ciclismo?

El estudio fue innovador ya que no había estudios previos que compararan directamente estos tipos de entrenamientos en el ciclismo y midieran el rendimiento como resultado final.

¿Qué es la medición de la estabilidad del núcleo y por qué es difícil de medir según el estudio?

La estabilidad del núcleo se refiere a la capacidad del núcleo para mantener una postura estable y soportar cargas. Sin embargo, es difícil de medir objetivamente, lo que hace que sea complicado evaluar la efectividad del entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo.

¿Qué tipo de participantes tomaron parte en el estudio y cómo se seleccionaron?

Los participantes eran ciclistas con licencia, incluyendo profesionales, sub-23 y ciclistas de recreación. Se seleccionaron basándose en su disponibilidad para participar en el estudio durante el período pre-temporada.

¿Qué tipo de ejercicios de fuerza convencional se utilizaron en el estudio y cómo se compararon con los ejercicios de estabilidad del núcleo?

Se utilizaron ejercicios como sentadillas, presión de piernas, flexión de cadera con cable y flexión plantar de tobillo. Estos se compararon en términos de tiempo invertido en el gimnasio con los ejercicios de estabilidad del núcleo como los puente gluteal, tablas abdominales y extensión dorsal en prone.

¿Qué es la opinión del entrevistado sobre el uso de ejercicios de estabilidad del núcleo en el entrenamiento de sus atletas?

El entrevistado expresa escepticismo sobre el uso de ejercicios de estabilidad del núcleo aislados, ya que no se sabe cómo medir su efectividad y hay formas más efectivas de trabajar la estabilidad del núcleo, como parte del entrenamiento de fuerza convencional.

Outlines

00:00

🚴‍♂️ ¿Es la entrenamiento de estabilidad central una buena inversión?

Este párrafo inicia una discusión sobre el valor del entrenamiento de estabilidad central para los ciclistas. Se cuestiona si este tipo de entrenamiento es una buena utilización del tiempo de entrenamiento y se presenta a Sebastián Sitko, un científico del deporte, como invitado especial. Sitko es doctor, entrenador de ciclismo profesional y profesor en la Universidad de Zaragoza. El diálogo se centra en un estudio reciente de Sitko que compara el entrenamiento de estabilidad central con otros métodos de entrenamiento, como el entrenamiento de fuerza convencional en el gimnasio, para mejorar la potencia y la eficiencia en bicicleta y prevenir lesiones.

05:03

🧐 Resultados del estudio sobre entrenamiento de estabilidad central

El segundo párrafo detalla el estudio de Sitko, que dividió a los ciclistas en tres grupos: uno que solo entrenó en bicicleta, otro que añadió entrenamiento de estabilidad central y el tercero que añadió entrenamiento de fuerza convencional. El estudio duró 12 semanas y se midieron las mejoras en la potencia máxima antes y después del periodo de entrenamiento. Sitko destaca la importancia de la elección entre diferentes formas de entrenamiento debido al costo de oportunidad, es decir, la necesidad de elegir entre hacer ejercicios de estabilidad central o entrenamientos que podrían ser más efectivos para mejorar el rendimiento en ciclismo.

10:03

🤔 Discusión sobre el rendimiento y entrenamiento de fuerza convencional

En este segmento, se discute en profundidad los resultados del estudio de Sitko. Se revela que, aunque los participantes que realizaron entrenamiento de estabilidad central mejoraron, no más que aquellos que solo entrenaron en bicicleta. Por otro lado, el grupo de entrenamiento de fuerza convencional mostró una mejora significativamente mayor en la potencia. Sitko y el entrevistador reflexionan sobre la lógica detrás de los ejercicios de estabilidad central y cómo estos no parecen ser tan efectivos como el entrenamiento de fuerza para mejorar el rendimiento en el ciclismo.

15:06

🏋️‍♂️ Reflexiones sobre el entrenamiento de estabilidad central y la resistencia

El cuarto párrafo profundiza en la perspectiva de Sitko sobre el entrenamiento de estabilidad central y la resistencia. Sitko plantea que las personas a menudo eligen el entrenamiento de estabilidad central como un mecanismo de afrontamiento para evitar ir al gimnasio y realizar ejercicios de fuerza. Se discute la importancia de considerar el costo de oportunidad y cómo invertir el tiempo de entrenamiento de manera efectiva para maximizar el rendimiento en el ciclismo.

20:08

🔬 Análisis de la evidencia y la metodología del estudio

En este apartado, se abordan las limitaciones y la metodología del estudio de Sitko. Se discute la difícil tarea de reclutar participantes para estudios de esta naturaleza y cómo Sitko decidió dividir su muestra en tres grupos para comparar diferentes tipos de entrenamiento. También se menciona la posibilidad de que el entrenamiento de fuerza convencional pueda tener efectos secundarios positivos, como la prevención de lesiones y la mejora de la densidad ósea, aunque estos no fueron medidos en el estudio.

25:08

🤷‍♂️ Perspectiva del entrenador sobre el entrenamiento de estabilidad central

El sexto párrafo presenta la visión de Sitko como entrenador de ciclismo sobre el entrenamiento de estabilidad central. Sitko cuestiona la forma en que se miden y se mejora la estabilidad central y comparte su experiencia de que realizar ejercicios de fuerza, como sentadillas y prensas con pesas, activan más los músculos estabilizadores que los ejercicios de estabilidad aislados. Argumenta que, en lugar de ejercicios de estabilidad central aislados, el entrenamiento de fuerza convencional podría ser más efectivo para mejorar la estabilidad central y, por lo tanto, el rendimiento en el ciclismo.

🚀 Conclusión y futuro del estudio sobre entrenamiento de estabilidad central

En el último párrafo, se concluye la discusión sobre el estudio de Sitko y se plantean posibles futuros trabajos de investigación. Sitko expresa su deseo de investigar otros temas, como el entrenamiento de torque, ya que considera que el tema del entrenamiento de estabilidad central está bastante resuelto. El diálogo finaliza con una reflexión sobre la importancia del costo de oportunidad y cómo elegir el entrenamiento que realmente mejora el rendimiento en el ciclismo. Además, se invita a la audiencia a seguir el trabajo de Sitko a través de sus canales en YouTube y Twitter.

Keywords

💡Entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo

El entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo se refiere a un conjunto de ejercicios destinados a fortalecer los músculos del tronco y mejorar la postura y la eficiencia en el ejercicio. En el video, se cuestiona su efectividad en comparación con otros métodos de entrenamiento, como el entrenamiento de fuerza convencional, y se destaca que no ha sido ampliamente probado en el ámbito de la ciencia deportiva.

💡Estudio de Sebastian Sitko

El estudio de Sebastian Sitko es una investigación que compara el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo con el entrenamiento de fuerza convencional y el entrenamiento de ciclismo solo. El estudio es relevante en el video porque pone a prueba las afirmaciones comunes sobre los beneficios del entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo en el rendimiento deportivo.

💡Fuerza de potencia

La fuerza de potencia es una medida del rendimiento físico, especialmente en deportes como el ciclismo, donde se mide la cantidad de potencia que un atleta puede producir. En el video, se menciona que el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo se dice que puede mejorar la potencia, pero el estudio de Sitko cuestiona esta creencia.

💡Entrenamiento de fuerza convencional

El entrenamiento de fuerza convencional implica ejercicios como sentadillas, prensa de piernas y otras formas de entrenamiento de múltiples articulaciones que se realizan en el gimnasio. En el video, este tipo de entrenamiento se presenta como un método de referencia para mejorar el rendimiento en el ciclismo y se compara con el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo.

💡Oportunidad de coste

El concepto de oportunidad de coste se refiere a la idea de que cada hora invertida en un tipo de entrenamiento es una hora que no se puede utilizar para otro tipo de entrenamiento. En el video, se discute cómo elegir entre diferentes tipos de entrenamiento debe basarse en la efectividad de cada uno, utilizando el tiempo de entrenamiento de manera eficiente.

💡Medición del rendimiento

La medición del rendimiento es un aspecto clave en el estudio de Sitko, donde se evalúa cuánto mejora el rendimiento de los atletas en diferentes pruebas de potencia después del entrenamiento. En el video, se destaca la importancia de medir el rendimiento para determinar la efectividad de diferentes programas de entrenamiento.

💡Carga de repeticiones máximas (RM)

La carga de repeticiones máximas (RM) es una medida de la cantidad de peso que un individuo puede levantar una vez en una determinada ejercicio. En el video, se utiliza esta medida para describir la intensidad de los ejercicios de entrenamiento de fuerza convencional, donde los participantes realizan series con intensidad de 6 RM hasta la falla.

💡Ciclismo de larga distancia

El ciclismo de larga distancia es un deporte que implica la realización de carreras o entrenamientos a gran distancia y a alta intensidad. En el video, se menciona que los beneficios del entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo en el ciclismo de larga distancia no están bien establecidos y es un tema de investigación.

💡Ejercicios de estabilidad del núcleo

Los ejercicios de estabilidad del núcleo son una serie de movimientos diseñados para fortalecer y estabilizar los músculos del tronco. Ejemplos de estos incluyen los puente gluteal, los planks y las extensiones dorsales en posición prone. En el video, se cuestiona la efectividad de estos ejercicios aislados para mejorar el rendimiento en el ciclismo.

💡Evidencia científica

La evidencia científica se refiere a la base empírica y rigurosa que respalda una afirmación o práctica. En el video, se discute la falta de evidencia científica que respalce los beneficios del entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo en el rendimiento deportivo, lo que lleva a la conclusión de que otros métodos de entrenamiento pueden ser más efectivos.

Highlights

El estudio cuestiona la efectividad del entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo en el ciclismo de endurance.

Sebastian Sitko, científico del deporte, comparte sus hallazgos sobre el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo.

Comparación entre entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo, solo entrenamiento en bicicleta y entrenamiento de fuerza convencional.

El estudio no encontró evidencia científica sólida para respaldar los beneficios del entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo.

La dificultad de reclutar grandes muestras en estudios de ciencias del deporte.

El concepto de costo de oportunidad en el entrenamiento deportivo.

El entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo no mejoró significativamente la potencia en comparación con el entrenamiento en bicicleta solo o el entrenamiento de fuerza.

El entrenamiento de fuerza convencional mostró una mejora significativa en la potencia de la bicicleta.

El estudio no evaluó la prevención de lesiones, un beneficio a menudo atribuido al entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo.

La importancia de medir la estabilidad del núcleo y la dificultad de关联ar su mejora con el rendimiento deportivo.

El entrenamiento de fuerza puede ser una forma más efectiva de mejorar la estabilidad del núcleo que los ejercicios aislados.

La necesidad de comparar los resultados del entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo con otros métodos de entrenamiento.

El potencial impacto de invertir el mismo tiempo en entrenamientos alternativos.

El estudio sugiere que el entrenamiento de estabilidad del núcleo no es una utilización óptima del tiempo de entrenamiento.

La discusión sobre la falta de evidencia científica para respaldar los beneficios de ciertos métodos de entrenamiento.

El interés de Sitko en seguir investigando otros temas, como el entrenamiento de torque, en lugar de continuar con el tema de la estabilidad del núcleo.

La importancia de considerar el costo de oportunidad al elegir entre diferentes métodos de entrenamiento.

El llamado a la prudencia antes de invertir tiempo en técnicas de entrenamiento sin evidencia científica sólida.

Transcripts

You probably already know that in order to improve your power output, become more

efficient on the bike and to prevent injuries, you should be doing core

stability exercises.

Or should you?

In today's talk, we ask the question: "is core stability training a worthwhile use

of your training time?"

To help me discuss this topic, I got a guest today who is a sports scientist,

he is a PhD,

he is a professional cycling coach and also a lecturer at the University of Zaragoza,

Sebastian Sitko.

It's such a pleasure having you here for this talk today.

Many thanks for the invitation Martin.

It's always a pleasure to discuss recent scientific findings and also share a

little bit of knowledge if it's useful.

Now I have been looking forward to this talk for...

before I even knew it was going to happen.

And the reason for that is you recently...

published a study that I've been waiting for for years, quite literally.

I didn't know you were doing it, but I was so excited when you let me know.

And you actually did something that surprisingly few scientists have done.

You took some of the claims that people typically make about core stability

training for endurance sport and actually put it to the test to see how much effect

did we actually get.

And especially when we compare it to different alternative methods that we

could be using.

Could you start by telling us a little bit about what you did in this recent core

stability study and why you decided to do it in the first place?

Yeah, if you do a short review of podcasts, blogs, or even cycling

specialized journals, you will see lots of articles talking about the benefits of

core stability training for improving power output, for improving the position

on the bike, and also for reducing the risk of injury.

And it's for me, it's like the same as with torque training, which is like

everybody's talking great stuff about this, but we do not have real scientific

evidence to show that it works.

So with my team, what we did attempt to do was not only compare core stability

training versus doing only on bike training, but also we tried to compare it

to what

for me would be the goal standard, the reference method for strength training,

which would be conventional multi-articular exercises, which we normally

perform in the gym.

So I should point out that the nature of the study was based on performance

measurement and we did not intend to measure injury prevention because

it is...

much more complicated to do and you require... the length of the study

would be increasingly long.

So it will be very difficult to recruit like a large sample.

So that's what we tried to do.

Yes.

So, you did a study where you had cyclists and you split them into three groups.

From what I can recall about your study.

And then, one group did cycling training only.

And another group added core stability training on top of the cycling.

And then the third group added conventional strength training.

Yes, I knew I was able to recruit like between 30 and 40

participants.

And I think that it's important to point out that when we are doing sports science

research and we are doing interventional studies, it's very difficult to get a

huge sample, because at the end of the day, you will

need the participant to do what you... that's like the same training for

everybody know so it's not necessarily the best training for that particular person

so imagine that you're potentially wasting like

one third of their season know so it's very difficult to recruit and you of

course you need like a homogenous, like a very similar subjects so it's quite

difficult to get large samples know and i i potentially knew that

if I split the sample into two, which will be only bike training versus core

training plus bike, I knew that I would lack very important information regarding

conventional training, which is for me the most important thing is to compare to this

method, because there is one concept

I know I'm mixing here science and practical knowledge, which is the

opportunity cost.

Okay, so in training, you have...

8, 10, 12 hours per week, a normal person that's the time they have.

So you need to use your time wisely.

So if you spend two hours on bike, you don't have these two hours to spend it in

the gym or at home doing core exercises, no?

So you need to have the knowledge to use your time correctly.

And that's why you need to know whether...

adding these two hours or three hours or four hours for training would be better

than doing nothing or using these hours on the bike.

So, just for clarity, how long was this intervention period? For how many,

for how long time period did you follow them and measure pre and post?

Yeah, we tested them, like peak power output with the Coggan conventional test

and they trained for three months, 12 weeks.

Which based on previous research, the acute response to trainings occurs mainly

after six to eight weeks.

So 12 weeks was like, I think that's normal time period in sports science

research.

Yes.

I personally haven't read any study on cyclists, and also very few studies on

other enduring sports, surprisingly, that actually does this full intervention study

that actually look at performance as the outcome.

Have you found any studies in your research that actually did that before?

No, my experience is similar to yours.

Basically, no previous studies as far as I know.

We only found a few studies that did perform this conventional core exercises

that are normally shown in the journals, etc. , but included into conventional

training, which include the squat, leg press, etc.

And indeed, we based...

our protocol on the number of sets, repetition, et cetera, that in this

previous studies, they used, they have planned, etc.

Yes.

I've been in this business of rehabilitation and the medical

side of core stability work for quite some time.

And my mind is still blown that we have this million, if not billion

dollar industry built around core stability training, and we don't actually

have a single study, almost,

to show that it actually has a measurable effect on real-life

performance.

So it'll be interesting to discuss what you found.

Can you go a bit more in detail on the two different protocols that you used,

because obviously one group added core stability training and one group added

conventional strength training with bigger loads, heavier lifting and so on.

How often did they train and how many sets and how many reps and what exercises did

they do?

Yes, all participants did 12 hours per week of on-bike training in Zone 2

based on power output.

And apart from that, the conventional strength training group performed squats,

leg press, cable hip flexion, and also ankle plantar flexion, which are commonly

used exercises in previous studies with conventional strength training.

They performed these sessions twice weekly

and performed three sets of each exercise, with six Repetitions Max intensity until failure.

And because of this concept of opportunity cost, we tried to equal the time spent at

the gym with the time spent doing the core exercises.

So the group that performed the core exercises did the glute bridges, abdominal

planks, and...

and prone back extension.

Okay.

They did eight sets of 10 repetitions, which were composed by a little bit of

concentric, eccentric and isometric contractions.

Okay.

That was like a bit of mixture, which was based on previous research with these

exercises.

So in the end, they spend more or less the same time doing either one session or the

other. Okay.

So the investment was the same.

Yeah.

Yeah, that will be it.

Perfect.

And in terms of the cycling training, did you say was it only low intensity training

or was there any moderate high intensity in the mix?

Yeah, because the only time period in which we will be able to recruit that many

participants will be the pre-season.

So people didn't want to incorporate this weird training into their competitive

season.

So they told us, okay, I can participate in the study, but we do it between October

and December, basically.

That was the main reason to say, okay, so let's do it as close as possible to the

training you would perform on preseason.

So that's the reasoning behind it.

Yes.

And these subjects, it's always a good question that people often ask and a very

relevant one when you look at the outcome of any study,

and how it applies to yourself or to someone that you're applying it on -

what can you say about the performance levels of these riders, like novice,

amateur, age groupers, professionals?

Yeah, I will tell you two things.

First, the main requirement to participate in the study was to have a cycling

license, which in Spain would be a pro cycling license, a masters and under 23.

Or even on recreational to participate in second sport is okay.

So we felt like a big mixture of levels.

Let's tell it that way.

But the fact is that the average level once measured in the pre-measurement was

quite good.

The average level was for 20 minutes with five watts per kilo, around five watts per

kilo, and for five minutes with six watts per kilo, which I think that's, you could

classify the average of the sample as,

well trained or very well trained.

Yes.

I think any age grouper who has done an FTP test would agree that if you hit five

watts per kilo, you're pretty decent to say the least.

So we had like four or five pros, but seven or eight under 23 which were white

wood.

So that of course increases the level of the sample.

Yeah.

Pulls it up.

Yes.

Was it all males or any females?

All males.

Yeah.

And did they have any experience or background in strength or core work from

before?

I'm just thinking about how the conditioning that they came into the

experimental period with.

We requested them to have a detraining period for three months, in which they did

not include any kind of strength training.

Yes.

So even if they had done strength training from before, they should be able to see an

effect if it's there.

Yeah.

And...

In terms of results, what did you see?

If I'm remembering correctly, you tested for the entire power curve.

Sprints, neuromuscular efforts, VO2 max, 20 minutes, five minutes, one minute and

sprints.

Yeah.

And in terms of the power outputs from pre to post those three months, what did you

see in the different groups?

Basically,

the people who performed the core training improved, but improved the same as the

people who performed only on-bike training versus the people who performed

the conventional strength training, which improved much more -

plus 0.2 to 0.3 watts per kilo in 5 and 10, 20 minutes, which in

relative power outputs is quite a lot, I would say.

I think I'm looking at the paper now and if I'm...

If I'm seeing it correctly, then the 20 minute power in the conventional strength

group went up from 4.99 to 5.21 watts per kilo, which was considerably more than

in both the other two groups.

And this was quite consistent, wasn't it?

Across all the measurements, 20 minutes, five minutes, 60 seconds, five seconds

even.

So was this surprising to you or was it what you expected when you started out?

I didn't have any kind of expectations, but for me, like the logic behind core

stability training and the improvement, the supposed improvements in performance,

for me it was not consistent, you know, the claims made

behind it and the possibility, you know, and so I was like, let's see what

this brings us.

And in the end, it's not a novel finding

regarding the conventional strength training, because in the end,

there's a huge amount of previous evidence suggesting that this is the case.

But I think that it's important to point out that there was no increased benefit

for the people who performed core training added to the bike.

So the conclusion here will be be careful if you want to spend these extra two

hours per week doing so, because...

doesn't seem to be very beneficial, at least from a performance viewpoint.

As you will remember, I will tell you that we did not assess injury rates here.

So this is the other claim that is brought regarding core training.

Adding to that, that being said, the injury preventative effect of

conventional strength training is so well documented.

So...

I'm just thinking how strong is that argument in the first place

when you got something that you know work really well, both for the cycling

performance, but also for injury prevention?

You know, I think this will be a controversial take here, but I think that

people who resort to core training generally it's a coping mechanism

because they like

outdoor training, the bike, the air on their face, but they do not like going

indoors, going to the gym, etc.

Spending an amount of money on the gym, etc.

So they want the benefits, but without the...what you have to do.

So I think it's a little bit of coping mechanism here.

Yeah, that's a really interesting take.

Do you think...

one also important aspect of this is that they did spend an extra two hours or I

don't know if it was two hours or one hour or one and a half.

Yeah, more or less two hours per week.

Yeah. Per week.

What do you think would have happened if you added those two hours into endurance

training?

I'm quite sure that at this level, at these volumes, which are 12 hours per

week, if you had two hours extra, which will go to 14 hours per week, the

improvements would be much larger than doing these exercises.

Of course.

Yeah.

It's at least worth considering.

The opportunity cost.

Yeah, definitely.

If I were to play the devil's advocate and there's always someone looking at your

study, trying to pick it to pieces and that's the scientific method.

So it's a part of the game.

And you did mention some things that you could have potentially also done in your

study in terms of the outcomes that you measured and didn't measure.

Do you think, is there anything you...

that you could have done differently, that you believe could have potentially changed

the results that you got?

Well, I think that first of all, we have the problem with the study sample, which I

already said before that it's quite difficult to recruit larger samples in

this kind of studies in sports science.

Of course, I have the opportunity to just do two groups and have more...

subjects in your image group, which would give me more statistical power.

But again, if I compared core versus strength, people would tell me that:

"maybe core improved more than just bike training.

Okay, so there's always something to tell.

I attempted to do the best comparison possible, which for me was, you know,

let's...

reduce a little bit of statistical power, but instead with the sample we have, try

to compare all three groups, which I think all three are relevant.

And of course, some people may argue that we did not assess some relevant

performance factors in cycling, for example, cycling economy.

But still, and this is a practical take -

I have yet to see one case in which cycling economy improves in a noticeable

way -

and this does not reflect in improvements in our outputs.

So for me, like the best predictor of performance is performance itself.

Okay.

So, yeah.

Did you notice any...

I don't know if you analyzed this like formally, but did you notice any, were the

big individual differences in the effect sizes in how big improvements people, the

individual subjects got within the groups?

Yeah, we did assess that, but they didn't report it because the differences, the

inter individual differences were quite small.

So yeah.

Yeah.

In general, all improved.

Some improved a little bit more than others, but in general all improved.

of this margin.

Yeah.

It's interesting talking to you because you're also a cycling coach yourself.

I'm interested in hearing, do you use core stability exercises at all in your, with

your athletes?

Do you see any use of it?

Well, the problem with core stability for me is that first we do not know how to

measure it.

Okay.

So if you do not know how to measure something,

How do you know that you're improving it?

Okay. Yeah.

But for example, we do know that a half squat, improvements in half squat

transform very well to improvements in second power.

So you can measure your one Repetition Max either directly or indirectly with a squat.

But how do you measure your core stability?

The amount of time you can be at a plank position?

That's really a measure.

And for me, I also do my unofficial scientific experiments with my trainees.

And for example, when you assess muscles with electromyography, you

will see that when you're performing a squat or a leg press or a deadlift with

quite a little bit of weight,

you will recruit more the core stabilizers than doing a plank.

So at the end of the day, if I'm going to waste one hour of your time, I will do

these kinds of exercises.

That's my take.

Yeah.

And I think that what you're onto there, what you're saying lastly, there is such a

big takeaway for me because I think a lot of people aren't...

aren't that aware of or consciously thinking about that.

The fact, say if you're loading your shoulders or your upper body with 60

kilos, 80 kilos, 150 kilos, and you're doing a squat and you're pushing with your

feet to move that weight of your shoulders, you need to transfer that

energy and those forces through your torso.

And it's just literally impossible to do that without stabilizing and controlling

your core.

That's such a big thing for me that if you, okay, maybe core stability isn't

necessarily the "evil", if you're going to put it that way.

But the real question is core stability exercises, isolated core stability

exercises, is that necessarily the best method to improve your core stability?

Maybe it's conventional strength training, gets the job done.

I think that there's a little bit of misunderstanding regarding core stability

and I think that the problem began when they presented us with several exercises

which were intended to work this kind of core stability in the most efficient and

effective way.

And I think that the problem is not core stability per se and of course you can

work on your core stability.

But the way they want you to work on your course stability, I think that the error

is there, I think.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I think up until this point, the only thing I've been able to come

across in terms of literature,

the very typical studies would take athletes from a certain

sport and then they would have them do dead bugs and planks and side planks and

whatever.

And then they would measure to see if they got stronger in doing dead bugs and planks

and side planks.

Without measuring the actual performance in the sport they're supposed to

participate in.

That's why I was so amazed to see that someone that you guys actually did the

work.

I think that if I measured after 12 weeks, if I measured their ability to spend time

on the upper plank position, of course that increased.

That did not transition into increased power output.

That's what matters for me as a coach.

Yeah. Yeah.

Are you planning on following up on this study and doing any more?

I know that's always a hard question to answer sometimes, but...

Well, the fact is that I would love to continue studying this.

This is the preliminary evidence, which is nice because at the end we have the first

study assessing this.

The problem here is that there are lots of topics to study.

For example, for me, what...

Another interesting one is torque training.

And I mainly work with the same sample.

So if I have to choose the next year, I would prefer to doing something different

than continuing on this trend.

Because for me, I know that it's not fair to say that with that limited evidence,

but for me, the topic here is quite simple.

And from what I have seen, I don't need to continue working on this

to prove my point or at least to prove my point for me, which is for me the most

important part.

So I would prefer to do something on torque training because this is a controversial

topic for me.

That would be super interesting as well.

Because there is always the chance that, you know, you hear the arguments that,

"yeah, but coaches are ahead of the science with the lack of evidence isn't

necessarily evidence of lacking effect."

You pretty much answered it, but do you think that applies in this

case of core stability training?

Well, first, I think that if something truly works, it's not that difficult to

prove it works.

I think that it's not that difficult.

So if you were trying to tell me that core stability training works, then I think

that you can prove it.

The same goes for torque training, which there are several coaches in the world too

saying that it works quite well.

So I think it's...

for them, especially, it's not that difficult to, you know, recruit a sample

and prove it.

Until then.

Yeah.

Then we'll have to stick with what we got.

And that's quite, I would say that's quite convincing, especially in terms of the

magnitude of evidence that is within conventional strength training.

Again, and I think that's a good way to finish this talk -

the opportunity cost.

You have something that is proved that it works quite well.

And you have something that to date has not been proven as effective.

And you will have to spend the same amount of time doing both.

So why would we choose the riskier machine?

And it works for your cycling power output.

It works very well for injury prevention, potentially also for the bone density

issue.

Although that hasn't been empirically proven yet.

So there's so many benefits there.

Sebastian, I think that was the perfect way to summarize this brief talk on your

study.

Thank you so much for participating and I hope we can make another one on

another topic sometime soon.

and also you do have a YouTube channel yourself and you're also quite active on

Twitter.

So I'm going to make sure I drop the links to your channels below and I would

encourage everyone to have a look.

Okay, Martin, many thanks again for the invitation and of course count on me for

the next time.

my pleasure.

I look forward to it already.

Bye for now.

Bye bye.