Arthritis, advice please...

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Nick Maclaren
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
> |> Nick Maclaren wrote:
> |>
> |> > Eh? Surely YOU aren't one of the psychlists who believe that the
> |> > laws
> |> > of phsyics don't apply! X pounds at a cadence of 100 and 2X at a
> |> > cadence of 50 produce exactly the same power, and therefore have
> |> > exactly the same
> |> > effect on the aerobic threshold. End of story.
> |>
> |> I believe in empirical evidence. That tells me that if I go for a
> |> long ride at speed mashing all the way then my legs stop working well
> |> quite dramatically, where if I spin lower gears then I can come back
> |> with much more speed and much less pain.
>
> Fine. So? You may be unusual. For the evidence that low cadences are
> generally more efficient, see Whitt "Bicycling Science".

Which is why Armstrong, with his famously high cadence, performed so poorly
in the Tour de France, I suppose.

You do write a lot of blithering nonsense, you know.

> |> It's the laws of physics as applied at molecular chemistry level in
> |> the
> |> way muscles work, not a very plain force times distance. Otherwise,
> |> why exactly do we need gears at all?
>
> Yes. And, given that, you would expect that the more natural a motion,
> the more efficient it would be. That might not be so, but it the way
> that the smart people guess.

'Natural' and 'normal' are very odd words, aren't they? There's
nothing 'natural' about any position on a bike. We aren't evolved to ride
bikes, and, in fact, the diamond frame bikes which most of us use are not
well evolved for human beings to ride. However, the position you describe
as 'semi-crouched' is comfortable and relaxed for many people (including
myself).

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

 

[Ace]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:49:54 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Ace
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On 02 Aug 2007 19:47:26 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2 Aug 2007 08:59:51 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> At that speed, a double stride might also be 2 metres! Mine is, and
>>>> I am only 6'2".
>>>
>>>Only 6'2", only 6'2". Some of us are a lot shorter than that and have
>>>correspondingly short legs. A single stride of 1 metre is stretching
>>>rather a bit more than is comfortable for me.
>>
>> It's much more than those of us of normal height (i.e. 6'2") can
>> manage too. My legs are in proportion (34" IL) and can only manage a
>> 1m stride if my front leg is bent when it touches down, a bit like a
>> comic Marty Feldman walk - not a comfortable gait, nor one that I'd
>> like to keep up for more than a short time. A more normal stride for
>> me is about 80cm.
>
>I'm 6'1" but was a bit more than 6'2" before I broke my back.

Good point there actually. I've just (a month ago) had removed the two
25cm titanium pins that were holding my spine together, so I hope I'm
still 6'2". But in any case it's quite likely that my still limited
muscle movement is restricting my natural stride somewhat.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-08-03, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting Nick <[email protected]>:
>>> Nick Maclaren wrote:
>>>> Negligible. Look it up. Most of those would (and do) militate against
>>>> a high cadence, anyway.
>>> But Peter was saying the high cadence kept the aerobic threshold up.
>>> i.e. more work.
>>
>> If that were so a) why not have a low cadence and go faster to keep the
>> energy output the same b) why don't the pros all grind at 30rpm, then?
>
> For a) consider the following possibility (note "possibility", I don't
> know if this is how it works, but it's possible)... Output is already
> at a top threshold, and won't go up, but a more efficient stroke will
> use less fuel to achieve that output. However, this is only an issue if
> there's a problem with fuel. If there isn't then it doesn't matter if
> you use a bit more of the stuff, and if that has a recovery benefit from
> less lactic acid build up in the muscles it could give you a net
> benefit, especially if you're planning anything the next day. Before
> the next day's ride, you compensate for using more fuel by eating more pies.
>
> in the case of b), well, quite...

These things may be true but I think there's a simpler phenomenon. The
body has a certain maximum power output and the legs have a certain
maximum force output, and a certain sustainable maximum force output.

I have always found that if I try to climb a hill in too high a gear my
legs have turned to jelly before I'm even particularly out of breath.
Spin a lower gear and it's puffing like a grampus that becomes the
problem. The former is hitting the force limit, the latter is hitting
the power limit. So an excessively low cadence can prevent you reaching
your aerobic threshold, which is a particular power level.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> (a) no it won't;
> (b) what makes you think it would?

Because I can go further at a similar speed if I use high cadences
than if I use low ones, which is characterised by my muscles very
dramatically dropping off in their wants to do any work any more.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > No, no, no!  The legs are positioned VERY differently for a semi-crouch
> > and high cadence and for an upright position and low one.
>
> The pelvis is positioned differently, but I'm not persuaded the legs are.

Well, they are in all of the many dozens of cyclists I have inspected
that aspect of, and in the thousands I have casually glanced at.

|> > Fine. So? You may be unusual. For the evidence that low cadences are
|> > generally more efficient, see Whitt "Bicycling Science".
|>
|> Which is why Armstrong, with his famously high cadence, performed so poorly
|> in the Tour de France, I suppose.

As I said, see Whitt - don't take my word for it. Why didn't you do
so last time? Are you so bigoted that you don't want to sully your
mind with independent science?

Whether or not he could have ridden more efficiently at a lower cadence
is beside the question - there are other reasons to choose cadence than
efficiency. For heaven's sake, Haldane pointed out that riding upright
is more efficient than the other positions he tested, but there are damn
good reasons that racing cyclists don't do that.

|> 'Natural' and 'normal' are very odd words, aren't they? There's
|> nothing 'natural' about any position on a bike. We aren't evolved to ride
|> bikes, and, in fact, the diamond frame bikes which most of us use are not
|> well evolved for human beings to ride. However, the position you describe
|> as 'semi-crouched' is comfortable and relaxed for many people (including
|> myself).

No. If you had bothered to look at the context.

What I was pointing out that exercising in a fashion that is very like
an activity that we have evolved to do over millions of years is less
likely to cause physiological problems than one that is less like any
natural activity. Is that concept so hard to grasp?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-08-01, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> In my experience, a huge proportion of inexperienced cyclists and
> a significant proportion of experienced ones get knee pain when
> attempting to ride in the currently favoured semi-crouched position
> with a low saddle and high cadency. It is entirely unnatural,
> requires considerable adaptation, and not all people can adapt to it.
> Knee pain is only one of the problems it causes.

Why the low saddle? You said something in another post about hamstring
length being the problem, but is that true for everyone? I'm not very
flexible (can't even touch my toes) but adopt a highly aerodynamic
semi-crouched position on the bike and my legs can perfectly well
straighten completely. I have the saddle just high enough that the knees
don't quite lock out when riding.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-08-04, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> And I have said that exercising at high cadences for long periods
> is an UNNATURAL activity.

So what? Cycling is a great improvement over natural activities such as
walking and running. It may be that higher cadences do enable activity
at a higher power and lower force than natural forms of locomotion, and
that this is part of the improvement.

The other thing about traditional-style bikes is that the seat tends to
be further back in relation to the cranks. I find this makes it quite
difficult to push very hard on the pedals-- you end up pushing away from
the seat and having to pull back on the handlebars. Apart from being
undignified that doesn't feel like it's very good for the back. Higher
cadences also don't feel so comfortable with such a layout. I suspect
the reason for this is that to maintain a higher cadence smoothly it's
desirable to use each leg to lift some of its own weight on the
upstroke. This motion is awkward if the crank is too far forward, or
perhaps it's just that I'm less used to it.

Anyway, it's nice to ride such bikes at a lower pace altogether (lower
cadence but not higher pedal force), but cycling only becomes truly
enjoyable in my opinion when you go a bit faster and wear yourself out a
bit.

 

[Roger Merriman]

Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> > If it really is osteo-arthritis, none of that flummery will help.
> |>
> |> That may well be true, but it's not necessarily that after a
> |> *diagnosis* of arthritis it's not possible to recover. ...
>
> Oh, very true. Many medics give quite glib diagnoses.
>
> |> His regime was complete rest until no pain at all, adoption of a
> |> joint-healthy diet, then very lightly loaded knee exercises graduating
> |> to walking when that was possible with no pain. He avoided highly
> |> repetitive exercises, e.g. preferred walking and running on uneven
> |> ground.
>
> Which is what most good physiotherapists would recommend!
>
> |> Over the years I've read complaints on this newsgroup of people who
> |> got knee problems when using cleats which fixed their feet in
> |> position, whose problems went away when switching to cleats which
> |> allowed some foot rotation, so I suspect there may be something in his
> |> idea of avoiding highly repetitive joint exercises.
>
> Yes, but it's not JUST the repetitive nature, but the fact that they
> hold your foot at an angle that may not be right for you. I have
> trouble even with no cleats on a narrow pedal or one I can't get my
> foot over the edge of, as I get iliotibial band syndrome when either
> walking or cycling with my feet straight ahead. I am extreme in this
> (for reasons I know), but a lot of people need to splay their feet
> slightly.
>
sure i have my feet on a ever so slight angle on the pedals.

>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Roger Merriman]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Well, for the past 6 weeks I've been off my bike because of knee pain.
> > I went to the doc. who diagnosed osteo-arthritis (SP?). I've been for
> > an Xray, and have a future appointment with the physio. I've also
> > started to take a vaiety of supplements (cod liver oil, glucosamine,
> > green lipped muscle).
> >
> > I'm desperate to get back on board, any ideas? (Any!)
>
> When I was in my early twenties I had quite bad arthritis in both hips and
> one knee, to the point that walking could be quite painful and running was
> more or less out of the question. This as a result of childhood illness.
>
> Thirty years of regular cycling later, I have absolutely no pain and no
> loss of mobility. The arthritis presumably hasn't gone away but I don't
> notice it any more. Regular cycling - provided you use low gears and spin
> well - is just the best possible way to polish up your joints and get them
> moving smoothly again.
>
> Fit lower gears, and get out on your bike.

to note i find that spinning higher though i do tend to lose a bit of
speed. does help my knees from glowing after a ride. i'm a higher gear
man at heart so i do have to think about it, and find it that i'm not
careful i do spin out.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Roger Merriman]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Ace
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > On 02 Aug 2007 19:47:26 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 2 Aug 2007 08:59:51 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> Colin McKenzie <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>>|> Not sure about your cadence figures. A brisk walk covers 100m in 1
> >>>|> minute. A double stride might be 1.7 metres. Divide one by the other
> >>>|> and you get a cadence of about 59, or about 62 with a 1.6m double
> >>>|> stride. That's slower than generally recommended for cycling, but
> >>>|> well above your 30-50.
> >>>
> >>> At that speed, a double stride might also be 2 metres! Mine is, and
> >>> I am only 6'2".
> >>
> >>Only 6'2", only 6'2". Some of us are a lot shorter than that and have
> >>correspondingly short legs. A single stride of 1 metre is stretching
> >>rather a bit more than is comfortable for me.
> >
> > It's much more than those of us of normal height (i.e. 6'2") can
> > manage too. My legs are in proportion (34" IL) and can only manage a
> > 1m stride if my front leg is bent when it touches down, a bit like a
> > comic Marty Feldman walk - not a comfortable gait, nor one that I'd
> > like to keep up for more than a short time. A more normal stride for
> > me is about 80cm.
>
> I'm 6'1" but was a bit more than 6'2" before I broke my back. My inside leg
> is about 34". My natural double stride is about 1930mm (I've just measured
> it). I'm sure this is variable from person to person, even for people of
> the same height and leg length; but I don't see anything unlikely about a
> two metre double stride.

i'll try the stride later maybe, see how drunk i get...

i'm 6ft though fairly leggy. so 34/36 inside leg.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ben C <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> Why the low saddle? You said something in another post about hamstring
|> length being the problem, but is that true for everyone? I'm not very
|> flexible (can't even touch my toes) but adopt a highly aerodynamic
|> semi-crouched position on the bike and my legs can perfectly well
|> straighten completely. I have the saddle just high enough that the knees
|> don't quite lock out when riding.

It is true for all of the cyclists I have observed. Hamstring
length is the main problem, but not the only one. Let's look at
one of Simon Brookes' pictures:

http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/album/girvan_2007/target85.html

Well, the knee is quite a way from being straight, let alone relaxed,
as it is as you lift it off the ground when walking, but that isn't
the real problem. Look at the other one. It is EXTREMELY bent, and
he needs to put force on it to rotate the pedals. That is NOT good
news for people with many forms of knee problem, and is one of the
most common causes of knee pain when cycling.

Despite the misquoting of the dogmatists, the primary reason for a
traditional riding position is to avoid this, and not to achieve a
low cadence. Assuming that he is the same height as me, my saddle
would be a good 4" higher - to achieve that, I have to ankle, of
course, but it avoids the extreme knee bending.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> > You could try a traditional upright position, with a much lower
|> > cadency, and see if that helps.
|>
|> Is exactly 100% diametrically the wrong advice. The higher the cadence, the
|> lower the strain on the knees, and the better the polishing action on the
|> cartilage - which is what's going to rescue your knees. You want a rapid,
|> smooth, low strain spinning action. You will find this much easier and
|> more natural in a good riding position - what Nick describes
|> as 'semi-crouched'. Low cadence will damage your knees. And yes, I'm
|> speaking as someone who has had quite serious arthritis
|> effectively 'cured' by cycling, so I do know what I'm talking about.

That is dogma, and the 'reasons' are psychling mumbo jumbo. Unlike
Simon Brookes, I don't believe that there is One True Cycling position.

Both personally, and as a result of posting heresy on this group, I
have communicated with many people who have been harmed by the above
advice, or helped by the traditional NON-RACING one (which I am merely
repeating). I also speak as someone with quite serious arthritis that
I 'cured' by my approach, incidentally.

What I can't say is which, if either, approach will help.

|> The only thing he's right about is that you should have your saddle high
|> enough that you are almost fully extending your leg on each stroke. The
|> less bent the knee, the less strain on it.

And the reason that you use the traditional position is to achieve
that, which isn't possible in the racing position. For example, the
following shows an EXTREMELY bent knee - the objective is to NEVER
bend either knee through more than a right angle at any point in the
stroke. It can be done, and may or may not be 'the solution'.

http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/album/girvan_2007/target85.html


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> or, most particularly, this (the race leaders sprinting for a prime)
>
> http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/album/girvan_2007/target144.html
>
> What you will see is that at the bottom of the stroke, the leg is fully
> extended.

In all fairness Simon, it isn't. The knees are visibly bent on
those riders.

> It simply isn't true (or possible) that riders of upright bikes
> have their legs 'less bent' than riders of race bikes.

I think it's not particularly a feature of either position that the
saddle needs to be set an obligatory approximate vertical distance
from the cranks for a given rider. I've come across racers who
have saddles relatively higher than mine, and racers who have them
relatively lower (I have mine higher than most, but not as high as
Nick seems to; my leg is never completely straight but I have my
saddle higher than experienced cyclists I know with longer legs
than me, including Roos, who has plenty of experience of
"traditional bikes", of course).

> Consequently, the issue of strain on a bent knee cannot discriminate
> between upright and 'semi-crouched' riding styels.

Yes, agreed. It is up to how any given rider sets their saddle.

> I suspect - and I know
> Nick believes - that cadence discriminates between the two positions; and
> lower cadence clearly must put more strain on the joint per unit power
> output, because of leverage effects. However, it may be possible to ride
> in an upright style with a high cadence; I've simply never seen it done.

FSVO "upright", of course. I'm more upright on my Brom than most,
and I cycle at typically around 80 rpm if I'm going anywhere near a
brisk rate. Though mine is geared down for hills, I find it suits
me better on the flat too.

> Force on the knees must scale with force on the pedals, probably more or
> less linearly. So Nick's assumption that his style of riding is less
> damaging to knees may be right - but only because the power output is much
> lower, not because of anything about position or cadence.

As has been observed elsewhere, if you're pootling and/or not going
very far, it's a moot point what your cadence is because you're
doing damn all work. One of the beauties of a bike, of course.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-08-04, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ben C <[email protected]> writes:
>|>
>|> Why the low saddle? You said something in another post about hamstring
>|> length being the problem, but is that true for everyone? I'm not very
>|> flexible (can't even touch my toes) but adopt a highly aerodynamic
>|> semi-crouched position on the bike and my legs can perfectly well
>|> straighten completely. I have the saddle just high enough that the knees
>|> don't quite lock out when riding.
>
> It is true for all of the cyclists I have observed. Hamstring
> length is the main problem, but not the only one. Let's look at
> one of Simon Brookes' pictures:
>
> http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/album/girvan_2007/target85.html
>
> Well, the knee is quite a way from being straight, let alone relaxed,
> as it is as you lift it off the ground when walking, but that isn't
> the real problem. Look at the other one. It is EXTREMELY bent, and
> he needs to put force on it to rotate the pedals. That is NOT good
> news for people with many forms of knee problem, and is one of the
> most common causes of knee pain when cycling.

Perhaps shorter cranks would help with that. Then you could have the
up-knee lower without having to put the down-toe down so much.

But higher cadence (with the lower force that that implies) also helps
with that surely? The problem with higher cadence I think you said was
if it's too jerky, but if you can get into a smooth pedalling style
then it isn't.

> Despite the misquoting of the dogmatists, the primary reason for a
> traditional riding position is to avoid this, and not to achieve a
> low cadence. Assuming that he is the same height as me, my saddle
> would be a good 4" higher - to achieve that, I have to ankle, of
> course, but it avoids the extreme knee bending.

4" higher would be a lot. Is it the case then that the hamstring becomes
more of a limit in this very toes-down position?

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Nick Maclaren
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> > You could try a traditional upright position, with a much lower
> |> > cadency, and see if that helps.
> |>
> |> Is exactly 100% diametrically the wrong advice. The higher the
> |> cadence, the lower the strain on the knees, and the better the
> |> polishing action on the cartilage - which is what's going to rescue
> |> your knees. You want a rapid, smooth, low strain spinning action. You
> |> will find this much easier and more natural in a good riding position
> |> - what Nick describes as 'semi-crouched'. Low cadence will damage your
> |> knees. And yes, I'm speaking as someone who has had quite serious
> |> arthritis effectively 'cured' by cycling, so I do know what I'm
> |> talking about.
>
> That is dogma,

Laddie, you're the one who's preaching dogma, and one true position. Unlike
you, I'll happily ride anything with pedals.

> and the 'reasons' are psychling mumbo jumbo.

The reasons are direct personal experience, from someone with exactly the
problem the OP complained of. The fact that it isn't what the gospels
which God personally dictated to you say frankly isn't my problem.

> Unlike
> Simon Brookes, I don't believe that there is One True Cycling position.
>
> Both personally, and as a result of posting heresy on this group, I
> have communicated with many people who have been harmed by the above
> advice, or helped by the traditional NON-RACING one (which I am merely
> repeating). I also speak as someone with quite serious arthritis that
> I 'cured' by my approach, incidentally.
>
> What I can't say is which, if either, approach will help.
>
> |> The only thing he's right about is that you should have your saddle
> |> high enough that you are almost fully extending your leg on each
> |> stroke. The less bent the knee, the less strain on it.
>
> And the reason that you use the traditional position is to achieve
> that, which isn't possible in the racing position.

I have published, on this group today, a number of photographs of racing
cyclists with their legs fully extended. This isn't difficult to do,
because every serious racing cyclist fully extends each leg on each turn
of the pedals. Your God may have told you in tablets of stone that this
isn't possible, but I suggest you use your eyes rather than listen to the
voices in your head.

> For example, the
> following shows an EXTREMELY bent knee - the objective is to NEVER
> bend either knee through more than a right angle at any point in the
> stroke. It can be done, and may or may not be 'the solution'.
>
> http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/album/girvan_2007/target85.html

If your legs are the same length as his, and your cranks are the same
length as his, and you fully extend your leg at bottom dead centre, then
basic geometry says you knee must be exactly as bent as his just before
top dead centre. Extremely short cranks would alter this, but I'm prepared
to bet you don't ride with extremely short cranks. The uprightness or
otherwise of the torso affects this bit of basic mechanics not one jot.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ben C wrote:

> Perhaps shorter cranks would help with that. Then you could have the
> up-knee lower without having to put the down-toe down so much.

I did suggest that a day or two ago, but nobody commented. It
strikes me as a much more straightforward way to limiting knee bend
and they are increasingly widely available and indeed increasingly
used, and not just for short riders.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-08-04, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> Perhaps shorter cranks would help with that. Then you could have the
>> up-knee lower without having to put the down-toe down so much.
>
> I did suggest that a day or two ago, but nobody commented.

Sorry, yes I didn't notice that.

> It strikes me as a much more straightforward way to limiting knee bend
> and they are increasingly widely available and indeed increasingly
> used, and not just for short riders.

Definitely, I think the very toes-down position may cause further
problems perhaps with the tendons in the ankle. Having the seat so high
is also rather inconvenient when it comes to stopping at red lights.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ben C wrote:

> Definitely, I think the very toes-down position may cause further
> problems perhaps with the tendons in the ankle. Having the seat so high
> is also rather inconvenient when it comes to stopping at red lights.

I find even with the standard "straight leg, heel on pedal" rule of
thumb, unless it's a bike with a low BB (like the Brom or the 8
Freight) I have to step forward of the saddle to get a foot down
anyway (unless it's by a kerb), so since I have to do that anyway
on most conventional bikes it won't be any more of a hardship than
it already is. That was certainly the case on the Dutch bikes I
rented in NL when I'd set the saddle where I wanted it.

If Nick really wants to use his upright position because of its
alleged natural motion just like climbing a steep slope or stairs I
don't really see how such pronounced ankling comes into it. Also
the case that a typical step up a hill or stairs is rather less
than twice the length of a standard crank, so again it would make
sense to shorten the cranks rather than stand on tiptoe every
cycle. Pronounced ankling, just like high cadence, is a learned
thing and not a "natural" one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-08-04, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> Definitely, I think the very toes-down position may cause further
>> problems perhaps with the tendons in the ankle. Having the seat so high
>> is also rather inconvenient when it comes to stopping at red lights.
>
> I find even with the standard "straight leg, heel on pedal" rule of
> thumb, unless it's a bike with a low BB (like the Brom or the 8
> Freight) I have to step forward of the saddle to get a foot down
> anyway (unless it's by a kerb), so since I have to do that anyway
> on most conventional bikes it won't be any more of a hardship than
> it already is. That was certainly the case on the Dutch bikes I
> rented in NL when I'd set the saddle where I wanted it.

Yes, good point, I normally have to do that too, or invade someone's
personal space by leaning on their car roof. I bet they really hate
that.

> If Nick really wants to use his upright position because of its
> alleged natural motion just like climbing a steep slope or stairs I
> don't really see how such pronounced ankling comes into it.

Not wanting to put words into Nick's keyboard but I think the point is
you need the pronounced ankling in order to get the leg straight at the
bottom but not have the knee so bent at the top of the stroke.

The upright position is I think meant to be required to allow the leg to
be fully extended at the bottom, including this extra 4" or so that's
taken up by the ankling, without the hamstring causing a problem.

> Also the case that a typical step up a hill or stairs is rather less
> than twice the length of a standard crank, so again it would make
> sense to shorten the cranks rather than stand on tiptoe every cycle.
> Pronounced ankling, just like high cadence, is a learned thing and not
> a "natural" one.

Certainly if you try walking around on tiptoes it gets tiring very
quickly and isn't natural at all unless you are a ballet dancer.

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> Sigh. You are STILL quoting figures for extreme athletes as if they
> were suitable for ordinary people doing routine recreation. This will
> probably be my last post on this. Let's take the figures in that paper
> as gospel, to avoid at least one argument.
>
>

I noticed you missed out (or ignored) the bit in my subsequent post
where I said "There is nothing definitive I could find in the arthritis
literature in a quick search but what there is certainly seemed to
support a high cadence over a low cadence"

Tony