- Jun 10, 2004
chero said:“Do you have something objective to say, or can you only muster a pathetic, low, weak-minded, cowardly response?”
Ouch! Alienator, here is what seems to me to be inappropriate and potentially harmful in your post:
“And in what I can only say must be some exception to the overwhelming evidence (or so the marketeers want you to believe), my tackle works fine: no numbness; no failure to mobilize. Imagine that. Hmmm. I guess it just goes to show that saddles are a personal thing and that wild claims (like those by the hack designing the E3 saddle) are a bunch of ****. Everyone doesn't need what the E3, drooped nose, or cutout folks tell you that you need. People just need to find a saddle that works for them.”
You seemed to be saying that since you can ride a long time, that ED from riding is a doubtful proposition. That is sometimes called an “n of one experiment”, and frowned upon by most scientists. You later seem to be changing that to a complaint that people are contending that everyone is affected by bicycle-induced ED, but I haven’t gotten that impression from posts in this thread. The thrust of the commentary is that some people experience numbness, and if neglected, some go on to ED.
I am a person who experienced genital numbness, and then ED, after a few years of commuting 100 miles per week. Changing to the E3 solved my problem. I have no stake in this product, I just ride a bike to work. I got a new bike, and its (different) saddle also was great, no numbness, (making your point that it is not only the E3 that can be a solution, but other saddles as well).
So, if you want to be skeptical about the blood-flow evidence behind the E3, that is fair enough, I don’t find it definitive either (though I think it is a reasonable way to start looking at the problem). But where I think you do others a disservice is to imply that bicycling does not cause ED, or that it is so rare as to be inconsequential, and not worth trying to prevent.
And you also say: “If this were such a prominent issue, we would to see the problem in larger numbers. We'd expect to have seen it in the past.”
As a physician, I am aware of many examples of things (even common things) having been overlooked for a long time. In fact, in medicine there is a saying “You can’t see what you don’t know.” There are many examples, but perhaps the most dramatic is the fact that Helicobacter pylori is the cause of duodenal ulcers. This was missed on pathological sections for about 100 years, but once described, we can all see it now (Marshall and Warren just won the Nobel prize for seeing what they didn't didn’t know in advance).
So, if you don’t get numbness, that is great, and more power to you! And, I agree with you that this is probably the large majority of cyclists. But, those who do get numbness should do something to fix it. Dial in the seat position, stand up more, experiment with other saddles. Don’t ignore it.
Well, my example of myself was not an "n of one experiment" because I was just citing my own experience. The fact, however, that there hasn't been a statistically large number of cyclists is compelling: it suggests that the alleged problem is overstated. For the E3 and that "researcher's" specious methods, I'd say the problem wasn't even a concern: it was an excuse to pocket some dosh.
If you read my posts, you'll see that I emphasize fit and finding a comfy saddle. The vast majority of people can get a good bike fit and get a saddle that works, without resorting to something scientifically dodgy.
Scientifically dodgy? Yup, because the E3 hawkers make their point with measurement magnitudes w/out putting those magnitudes in the proper context. Big number? So what? What's the definition of an inadequate number? What's the lower limit to an acceptible number? Is there a time dependency?
Last, if you'd like to discuss my diabetes, then do so in a PM, Hack, rather than doing so in public. Bringing that up publically and in the context you used makes any objective view of yours about look pretty smarmy.