koffee brown

Ummmmm... said by someone who doesn't know what training is. I train people all the time in pilates with developing a stronger core. That's what pilates is all about. You just reinforced that pilates IS training, dood.

koffee

sprince

So how is that line working for you in getting men to sign up for your classes?

EthanYQX

Explain your concrete progression for strength building, in that case. (I.e 10lbs more per week, a faster or longer run each week, some sort of progression) You're restating your first post and not refuting what I'm saying AND being condescending and rude for no reason.

and no, I really didn't. Like I said, it's fine for exercise or whatever but it isn't training.

koffee brown

I don't need to explain it, dood. You simply don't make sense. Probably because you've got a pretty limited understanding about exercise physiology. And sorry, it's not condescending if it's knowledge.

koffee

wolfchild

If I was going to do a workout which involves only body movements and uses bodyweight, I would prefer martial-arts or maybe even gymnastic style of a workout...Pilates, dancing and bouncing up and down on a bosu ball just doesn't cut it, and is not enough to build real world strength....There is really no substitute for old-fashioned barbell training , gymnastics or martial arts when it comes down to building strength and stamina...

koffee brown

If we told men the truth about everything, they'd never want to do it. Hence, the sneaky lines like "it's core strength training"! or "it's core conditioning and stretching for infantryman and troops", when I was training the Army guys on base. When I called it pilates, I had 3 guys show up. When I called it "core conditioning and stretching for infantrymen and troops", I got like 25 guys. Same exercises, different title. Go figure!

Sneaky sneaky!

koffee

koffee brown

Pilates isn't meant to build mass or size. It's meant to condition the muscles and train the body to develop core strength, which will make you stronger with doing the stuff like barbell training. That's why men use the lifting belts, by the way- it's the equivalent of transverse abdominals, which is one of the muscle groups pilates develops. Men who use pilates don't have to put on that ridiculous belt before going with the heavy lifting. Even with the belt, by the way, there's still a higher risk for hurting oneself during barbell exercises than if you just developed your core.

You ever come to DC, I'll put you on a reformer. I think you'll be in serious pain in.... 10 minutes? Our classes are 50 minutes, by the way.

koffee

P.S. I hate bosus too, though I use them when training older populations for balance and coordination. Then I love bosus.

EthanYQX

You're being rude for no reason again. I have very patiently explained my point already, and you haven't bothered. Read this.

The Important Distinction Between Exercising and Training*|*Mark Rippetoe

It's a start. I'd also suggest Tudor Bompa's "Periodization Training for Sports". The original poster is, or wants to be, a competitive athlete. It behooves him to train like one.

Ill lay it out again for you:

The problem with Pilates (or crossfit or yoga or boot camp or whatever) is that it's impossible or close to it to progress in a linear fashion in order to change the stimulus the body is adapting to. Therefore, the body will adapt to the stress of the Pilates class and no further. The same thing would happen if I went in and squatted 495lbs for three sets of five every day.

Bodyweight work can be progressed, by learning movements that require more strength, but for the athlete it's much more efficient to load with free weights because those movements are high skill, and one thing you do not want in your training program are high skill movements that do not directly transfer to your sport.

Irrelevant. By whatever name, it's still just exercise. Strength is the most general of all adaptations and it is most effectively built with heavy barbell work in a linear progression. This is fact and it is not up for debate.

Incorrect and largely made up, again.

Mass and size are built in the kitchen, not the gym. If you are not eating at a surplus you will not get bigger.

The lifting belt is used to brace against. It's not for leverage. The men you're talking about don't need to put a belt on because they aren't strong enough to move any significant weight.

I've been hurt countless times playing my sport. Never once in the weight room including at 1RM loads. In fact, the more weight I can move in the weight room, the less I get injured.

Another question that you won't be able to answer-what are you considering the "core"? Abdominals? Lower back?

Final question-what sports have you competed or coached in? How many decent athletes have you produced?

EthanYQX

Pretty much what I've been saying.

Gymnastics is actually one of the few ways to progress strength training with purely bodyweight movements. The disadvantage, of course, is that you have to get good at gymnastics to do that.

wolfchild

I never use a belt, even when I am doing 320-350 pound deadlifts , I feel no need for a belt... BTW ,I am not a power lifter or a bodybuilder and have no interest in them.. I just use weights for strength and conditioning.
The best way to prevent injuries during lifting is to use a perfect form and technique.
My favourite way of doing various core/abs workouts is on monkey bars.

wolfchild

+1...You're 100% correct...It's amazing how many people out there are scared of lifting because they think that it's going to make them too big...The truth is that, unless you're also following a mass gaining diet, you will not get very big , no matter how much you lift.

Spld cyclist

I think you're confusing the goals of cyclists performing core strength training with what may be needed for other sports. For cyclists, the smaller core muscles in the abdomen, lower back, shoulders, and so forth need to be "strong enough" to maintain a tucked position on the bike for hours and provide for a stable upper body while the powerful glutes, quads, and hamstrings do the major work of propelling the bike. Cyclists don't need to build massive strength or size in supporting muscle groups. Body weight exercises (e.g. pilates and the types of exercises in books like Core Advantage) are sufficient for that. Perhaps they don't meet your narrow definition of "training", but these exercises are a valuable part of cyclists' training in the way most people think of that term.

EthanYQX

Core Advantage provides a properly laid out training program using progressive overload, it's just done with bodyweight. The majority of Pilates classes do not. That's my issue with Pilates, not the lack of weights. Weights are just the easiest way to elicit a strength adaptation.

My definition of training is anything that elicits continuous adaptation. It's the same principle as doing a longer/harder/faster ride every time you go out until you can do your goal time or distance. That's what training is. What the athlete needs in particular is a different conversation.

sprince

This is a telling statement. You seem to have a complete misunderstanding about "heavy lifting" and general ignorance about lifting in general. When deadlifting 700lbs there may be perfectly legitimate reasons to use the belt, wraps, compression suit, or whatever. I do consider some of these to be cheating if used during competition, but that's just me.

I also have to defend pilates (yoga, martial arts, plain old crunches, etc.) for core training, in spite of your condescending attitude about men and obvious bias towards pilates. There are a number of core muscles that respond particularly well to simple body-weight exercises. A good analogy is working the muscles of the rotator cuff, use too much weight and the larger muscles take over, negating any training effect for the smaller muscles that are absolutely critical to stabilize the joint during heavy lifts.

EthanYQX

Solid post. Shoulder prehab is one of those things I wish I learned how to do years ago.

My belt goes on if I'm beat up from sport training and for anything 90% or heavier. I don't see a reason to miss training when I could belt up and have a great session instead. And I agree with you on geared lifting too

wolfchild

That's only true for pro cyclists who get paid to ride their bike....But for the average recreational rider and daily commuter such as myself, there is nothing wrong with building massive strength or lifting weights to make oneself look good....I think any cyclist will benefit from weight training because it increases bone density and heavy intense strength training is good for testestorone.

Spld cyclist

Based on the OP's earlier threads, which are mostly about nutrition leading up to big events, I would say he is an advanced amateur (or at least aspires to be). I'm guessing that heavy lifting isn't what he was talking about when he asked about core training, and isn't what he needs right now to be competitive. Maybe in the off season he'll be doing heavy lifting, who knows?

I don't see anything wrong with recreational cyclists weight training if they are so inclined, as there are obvious benefits to doing so. But I think there is a point of diminishing returns if cycling is more important to an individual than just getting strong.

EthanYQX

There are diminishing returns to increased strength but they're somewhere north of a double bodyweight squat. As long as one understands that lifting is GPP and can't take priority over sport training, (I.e your squat workout can't make your legs too sore to ride), you really can't go wrong with intelligent barbell work.

bmontgomery87

He does actually make sense. Training has a systematic way of taking you to a given goal.
Pilates is exercise, and if you're "training" people using it, I feel bad for your clients.

What certification do you have??

bmontgomery87

1. It isn't cheating if everyone else is wearing it. That's like saying gears are cheating in bike races.......
2. Put on some gear and try lifting in it, then tell me it's cheating. I pull less in a suit than I do with one on. Using powerlifting gear is miserable. Belts and wraps are totally different.

Pilates, yoga, etc all have their place in exercise, and could be part of a training program. But everyone should be doing some form of strength training, it's incredibly beneficial.

bmontgomery87

+1

If (distance) cycling is your priority then you obviously don't want to go overboard in the weight room, especially if it is taking away from your rides and you can't recover from the training.
Track cyclists live in the gym. As their events are shorter and they need more actual strength than someone doing 100 mile races.

I still think any cyclist can benefit from weight training, we aren't saying you have to strength train 4 days per week or anything. But, provided you're recovering, a cyclist who squats 400 pounds an deadlifts 500 is probably going to beat a cyclist who doesn't squat on a steep climb or a sprint...... If climbing is a weakness of yours, give it a shot.

GeorgeBMac

I suspect that most or all of those trash talking Pilates have never been on a reformer with a qualified instructor... And I agree with you that, if they did, an instructor could have them begging for mercy in about 10 minutes -- but a qualified Pilates instructor would never do that. They know they have to match the instruction to the class...

But we still have the conventional thinking that strength is all about the visible, major muscle groups that get built up with resistance work. Today, more people are realizing that there is simply much more to it than that. The core simply has thousands of tiny little muscles that need work too....

And, BTW, why the major distinction between "training" vs "exercise"? Training involves and includes exercise. Exercise is part of training...

I find Pilates more helpful for skiing than I do cycling. But it does help with both.

sprince

Aren't they? That's one of the things I like about track.

bmontgomery87

x2

I wish I had a velo close to home, I'd definitely race.
I put 100+ miles on my track bike every week regardless.

sprince

I agree with that, except the part about climbing. Going uphill, it doesn't matter if you can squat 1000 lbs, gravity is still stronger than you are.