RapDaddyo said:
Alienator, this post doesn't seem like you. While I agree with your final sentence, I think this issue (saddle-induced blood supply truncation to the genitals) is a really serious problem. I was not nearly as aware of this problem as I should have been and I became much more informed as a direct result of this thread and the insights offered by CyclingPT. Granted, CyclingPT has two products to sell (book and saddle), but he also has a lot of expertise on the subject. He disclosed from the very outset what his commercial interest is in both products.
I also do not ride with an E3, but two of my cycling club male friends do as a direct result of this thread. My saddle is a Selle Italia SLR and I think the main reason I don't have problems is my saddle's shape (very narrow nose until pretty far back toward the rear of the saddle, then a tight radius flare). And, I'm usually in a pretty aggressive position on the saddle (forward), so I don't think there is any pressure at all on the inside of my thighs. But, I think for male cyclists this is a hugely important issue and the E3 seems to be a good solution (for many, if not all). As I look around at the saddles at the start of my club rides, my reaction is that most of the male cyclists are riding the wrong saddles and many will have future problems. I now think there may be more misinformation about saddles than any other piece of cycling equipment. But, the difference is that misinformation on most cycling equipment doesn't result in permanent damage. This is different.
No studies have been complete and properly designed as far as I can tell. I'm not saying that some people are not going to have problems. Obviously, they do. What am saying, though, is that ED as a result of cycling is not some lurking monster that all us guys face. For the majority of riders, a proper fit with a saddle that's comfy is all they need. Note that I didn't say that's always the case.
I'm not impressed, especially as a scientist, by the E3 studies nor by anything that Specialized has said. It looks impressive to show plots or otherwise relate changes in perfusion as a result of ergonomic changes, but that doesn't mean that said perfusion change indicated a potential problem. If marketeers and pseudo-scientists want there "numbers" to mean something, then they need to come up with "numbers" that define what is ok, what is harmful, and what is potentially harmful, i.e. they need to have a factually based, empirically derived baseline.
I can show you that if I sit in a room with a 100% oxygen atmosphere, that my blood oxygen saturation (O2 sat) will be 100% or very nearly 100%. That sounds impressive, but there's no real benefit over an ambient O2 sat of 96 or 97%.
Example number 2: last summer I characterized the surface of a 1.8m spherical mirror in my lab. The surface was found to be accurate to 200 nanometers RMS. Wow. That means the deviations from a perfect shape for that mirror were only 1/750 of a human hair high (or low). Wait, though. That was a crappy mirror. A good astronomical mirror is accurate to less than 1/3000 of a human hair.
The point is, numbers that reflect changes mean nothing without knowing exactly what those changes mean and how those changes are quantified and qualified.
Also, someone claiming unbiased objective reporting is suspect when they're hawking a product at the same time. People are growing suspicious of drug manufacturers more and more, yet drug manufacturers publish reports showing the benefits of their drugs all the time.
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.