If my stem is too low, it interferes with my ability to see down the road very far.

If you combine the hand position of top right with the head/back position of bottom right, there's the winner.

Variety is good. Holding any single one of these positions for approx. 6 hours is pretty impractical. Same reason why riders get off the saddle once in a while.

Mentions of "core" always raise a red flag for me. As I've always understood and experienced in my riding, if the bike fit is right for the effort level that you're maintaining, there's negligible weight on your arms because your upper body is supported by pedaling effort, and the core isn't involved at all. To put it another way, any energy expended by invoking the use of core muscles is energy that could and should have gone into pedaling.

In fact, in decades of following discussions of bike fit and riding technique, especially for racers, I never came across the term "core" (or any prior variation) until it started popping up in Bike Forums a few years ago. I assume that it's a term used by body builders and gym rats that's been ported over to bike websites because it sounds vaguely hip and lends an air of authority to the rest of the sentence.

The "core" might be of concern to track racers and road sprinters and to those with various physical deficiencies, but I don't see the point of what seem to be incessant mentions of the core whenever threads like this one crop up.

So don’t read it. Core strength is an integral part of overall fitness, it’s not about being “hip” but if you can’t see how it is beneficial, that’s your problem.

Your pejorative use of “gym rats and body builders” displays your clear bias against such forms of exercise and an overall lack of understanding of the benefits of weight training for all sports.

When I was track sprinting back in the day, I used to call myself a gym rat. The sprint coach for GB calls his sprinters weightlifters who he makes ride bikes to keep them out of the bar. I have also heard
‘bodybuilders who ride bikes occasionally’ to describe sprinters’ 🤣🤣

Core strength isn't an issue (just like leg strength isn't an issue). If you can haul yourself up and out of a chair and onto a bike, you have sufficient core strength to then ride that bike.

If your bike fit is such that you can't hold a particular position, either changing the position or building up incremental amounts of time holding that position is all that's necessary. The idea that you have to go do core exercises to be able to pedal a bicycle a certain way is misplaced. I don't understand posts that recommend such things for improved performance on the bike and agree with Trakhak.

Ugh. This guy's notion of gaining fitness revolved nearly entirely around banned substances. He has bizarre ideas about a number of things and certainly shouldn't be utilized as a reference for anything like this.

What do core exercises have to do with banned substances?

There is a significant difference between being able to ride a bike and improving performance through strength training. I can say unequivocally that once I started strength training, my performance improved on the same amount of mileage weekly, especially on climbs.

We will have to agree to disagree

However, you can't say unequivocally that your performance would have increased substantially more had you devoted that time and energy to better on-the-bike training.

Sounds like you were just weak aerobically and most likely could have gotten even stronger training on the climbs using progressive training methodologies.

Cycling is an aerobic sport, not a strength sport. People forget that looking for quick fixes. Weight training isn't a substitute for long-term aerobic training.

Source credibility and a severe lack thereof when it comes to him.

Statics. Ever take Statics? If your arms aren't supporting your torso, your core muscles are. There's a down vector from your torso's CG, so there has to be a torque to generate an equal up vector. When riders talk about "core," what they mostly mean is "back." Abs do get a little work in the average cyclist, mostly when pulling up on pedals, but I never heard a complaint from a cyclist saying that his abs are sore. OTOH complaints about sore backs are legion, and not all of them are from poor fits, rather most are from poor conditioning. One of my little truisms is, "don't worry about your bike fit as much as your fitness." There's a group of cyclists who, just for the fun of it, ride balloon tired single-speeds with cowhorn bars on an annual local double century.

Several years ago, I had a situation where, for some reason I forget, I became rather egregiously unfit and tore some back muscles skiing. I went through this book, exercising every day, following its well-laid out progression for a full year. Fixed me right up. From then on, I've done strength work every week except for sometimes mid-summer. No more "core" problems. BTW, I never do sit-ups, crunches, etc., except for this one:
Just one set of of that first thing on dumbbell days, which helps my hip flexors, not really "core."

I'm not giving a pass to dopers, but I don't think doping erases their credibility when it comes to the technical aspects of the sport. I certainly would not out-of-hand dismiss training advice from Mr. Armstrong.

That’s an awful lot of assumptions.but again, agree to disagree

Assumptions predicated on a factual understanding of the limiters of cycling performance?

Well, sure it does. Especially when packaged for the masses. Riding a bike fast does not make you an expert on physiology or training. Conversely, being an expert on training does not make you super fast on a bike.

And then:



Such as:

These statements are certainly true, but they apply equally to professional cyclists that dope, and those who don't dope.

"Using ERG mode on your indoor smart trainer is holding you back."

Have you ever met a coach that you agreed with 100% of the time? They all have their own ideas, some a little bit nutty.

no, about any existing or lack of aerobic capacity

Ha. You don't lack aerobic capacity? You're not racing the Vuelta now, are you? Primoz?!

Sure. Equal application to all. However, if the validity of their ideas rests solely on their own cycling accomplishments, then there's an issue. And when those accomplishments aren't even the result of a great training methodology, but rather illicit doping, then that's a double whammy.

He's a particularly nefarious character however, and pretty downright awful any which way you cut it.

Nope, and I don't propagate and defend their ideas.

Okay, but here's a hypothetical question for you: Lance Armstrong is far more nefarious and awful than Danielson. If he wrote a book on training, would you say he lacks credibility because the validity of his ideas rests solely on his cycling accomplishments?

It's easy to say that core is not an issue if one is young (say under 50) and has been riding consistently for many years. If core is not an issue, then why do so many riders complain about sore backs? Danielson's book was of course not written by Danielson, rather by his strength trainer. People do have strength trainers. I don't know if that makes it more or less valid, which depends on one's preconceived notions of what does and doesn't work. IME strength training works when done in a compatible fashion to one's main sport.

Strength training works for any endurance sport. Google "elite marathon strength training", then "elite cycling strength training". There's also this for those interested: https://www.bikeforums.net/training-...e-athlete.html

yah dude, didn’t you know?