SICI rocks

[David Kirk]

A worthwhile read.

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/13978.0.html


Dave

[zeroking17]

Thanks for posting this link! Lots of really interesting ideas there that reinforce the ultimate simplicity of cycling (which we already knew in our heart of hearts).

I love it when researchers question "received wisdom" and state conclusions that run against the grain.

[old_school]

very interesting article - thank you for posting

I must admit, Dr. Hull's assertion that 10 degrees of valgus canting reduces knee strain is a little difficult for me to swallow, but it will be interesting to see how it shakes down over time.

[merckx]

very interesting article - thank you for posting

I must admit, Dr. Hull's assertion that 10 degrees of valgus canting reduces knee strain is a little difficult for me to swallow, but it will be interesting to see how it shakes down over time.

And 10 degrees is a significant amount. Isn't the varus cant that is built in the Specialized shoes only 1.5 degrees?

[Ti Designs]

Lots of really interesting ideas there that reinforce the ultimate simplicity of cycling (which we already knew in our heart of hearts).

A dozen PhD's got together to discuss the ultimate simplicity???

[Hardlyrob]

As in so many areas - simple really isn't that simple when you get down to it.

Now, does a stiffer frame make me go faster?

Rob

[Too Tall]

Being honest is going to get me whacked so hey :rolleyes: A very wise guy I know in said this about fitting systems "once you apply a system you are stuck with it". SICI is no system true and I am gun shy about attending training because I.'m doing OTAY. At some point I'll know it is time to challenge my ideas about fit against others. Guys like Bill Boston and T.K. have all this cr@p in their heads. Bill created a system that folks can use to get them in the right directions...close...but not what's in his head NOBODY CAN!!! That's the point. You have to have a good eye and common sense plus a bag of good methods. NO SYSTEM in the world has all that.

[mike p]

"Using the knee of a cadaver hooked up to tension devices to pull on muscles and tendons while the fixture applies internal rotational and varus (i.e., outward, or bowlegged) bending torques on the tibia, he measured pressure under the kneecap."

All I can think of is a monty python skit when I read that.

Mike

[David Kirk]

Being honest is going to get me whacked so hey :rolleyes: A very wise guy I know in said this about fitting systems "once you apply a system you are stuck with it". SICI is no system true and I am gun shy about attending training because I.'m doing OTAY. At some point I'll know it is time to challenge my ideas about fit against others. Guys like Bill Boston and T.K. have all this cr@p in their heads. Bill created a system that folks can use to get them in the right directions...close...but not what's in his head NOBODY CAN!!! That's the point. You have to have a good eye and common sense plus a bag of good methods. NO SYSTEM in the world has all that.

I might have missed it but I don't recall reading anything about fitting systems. It seemed to me like it was more a report of findings that various folks developed through research.

Dave

[Ti Designs]

I might have missed it but I don't recall reading anything about fitting systems. It seemed to me like it was more a report of findings that various folks developed through research.


I think that was more about the conclusions drawn. The problem with putting a that many PhDs in one place talking about tests on unknown populations is that people who don't know any better come away thinking that's proof of something. Pretty soon you wind up with cookbook fitters adding 10 degrees of valgus.

My suggestion to SICI last year was to take a few new riders and take the time to make them into good cyclists, and document the process. The first thing they'll find is that riders are very different individuals with different fit parameters and different strengths and weaknesses. You can't fit or coach them the same way if you're expecting good results. That makes all of these population tests somewhat pointless as they are indicating the center of the bell curve and people don't come with little indicators on where they are on that curve.

The chances of SICI doing this are about the same as the chances of me winning the lottery...

[swoop]

taking the energy to try and quantify and look at how we think about things is good.

people always site things that confirm views they already have. challenging ones own views allows for growth.

bike position is dynamic.

getting people together that approach from different angles really is less about the answers but more about the questions...

in my profession there are tens of thousands of theoretical orientations that all have some sort of validity. i pick out the few dozen or so that i can understsand with depth and insight and i apply the ones that fit the patient rather than fit the patient to the ones i use.

every level of intervention i present has a reason to be.


bike fitting is like that.

[zeroking17]

"Using the knee of a cadaver hooked up to tension devices to pull on muscles and tendons while the fixture applies internal rotational and varus (i.e., outward, or bowlegged) bending torques on the tibia, he measured pressure under the kneecap."

All I can think of is a monty python skit when I read that.

Mike

In fact, the Ministry of Silly Walks pioneered this type of cadaver kneecap testing, but the experiment was halted when Thatcher's government cut the funding.

Regarding the complexity vs simplicity bent, I guess it depends which sections of the article we glom onto. This was my takeaway idea: Martin says that you are then left with two things to go faster. Hard training and good nutrition, hydration and recovery are the keys to maximizing the power you can produce. And reducing aero drag and reducing braking are some ways you can minimize the power you must produce. That's it. Simple.

.

[paczki]

"And looking at mountain stages, another interesting study was the climb of René Pottier in 1905 up the Grand Ballon d'Alsace. On a single-speed fixed-gear bike, he was the first to reach the top of a mountain in the Tour by not only being the only one to make it up without dismounting, but also by pedaling up it at an astounding 20kph. Earnest's research shows that ride to be an amazing accomplishment even by today's standards, despite the fact that he punctured on the way down, thus losing the stage, and that he withdrew the following day due to tendonitis. Pottier apparently put out an average of 370-390 watts up that entire climb. No wonder he came back to dominate the next year's Tour, winning five stages. "

They should retroactively test his samples for absinthe. That's climbing like an extraterrestrial. :banana:

[Ti Designs]

bike position is dynamic.

Rider position is dynamic. If bike position is dynamic you need to get yourself a torque wrench.

[swoop]

Rider position is dynamic. If bike position is dynamic you need to get yourself a torque wrench.

whatever dude.

[cs124]

whatever dude.

whatever dude.

[paczki]

whatever dude.

what-eh-ver dood :banana:

[David Kirk]

what-eh-ver dood :banana:

Dude?

Dave

[paczki]

DUDE!

There's a great story about Charlie Parker that makes the point well. Benny Goodman was complaining to Charlie Parker about a third player, which he did a lot, and he cursed "He's a mother******! Parker responded approvingly in the player's defense, "No, Benny he's a Mo-ther **-****!" :banana:

[swoop]

can i buy a vowel?

[Too Tall]

I might have missed it but I don't recall reading anything about fitting systems. It seemed to me like it was more a report of findings that various folks developed through research.

Dave
SICI is most definately a certification, a plaque you hang. You got me man, "system" is not mentioned even once. Have you been thru one of these certifications?

[Chris]

taking the energy to try and quantify and look at how we think about things is good.

people always site things that confirm views they already have. challenging ones own views allows for growth.

bike position is dynamic.

getting people together that approach from different angles really is less about the answers but more about the questions...

in my profession there are tens of thousands of theoretical orientations that all have some sort of validity. i pick out the few dozen or so that i can understsand with depth and insight and i apply the ones that fit the patient rather than fit the patient to the ones i use.

every level of intervention i present has a reason to be.


bike fitting is like that.

My exact approach. I knew I liked you. All through internship, they pounded into us that we had to identify our theoretical orientation. That is all well and good for my conceptualization, but I find it much more important to do the work from the patient's theoretical orientation.

I digress. I thought it was really interesting that the research and the anecdotal evidence were diametrically opposed. If I had a nickel for every time that happens...

[stevep]

this is all funny really.
hard training and nutrition.
jeeez,
who woulda thought of those things?
lucky we had the study.

ps
i heard that ti-designs provided the cadaver legs but its unconfirmed.

[Ti Designs]

i heard that ti-designs provided the cadaver legs but its unconfirmed.

They asked, but I wanted no part(s) in their study.

[Too Tall]

(fanning nearly dead embers) I've def. got "buttons" in the professional acreditation arenas. I've got 3 professional licenses in diff. fields all requiring CEUs to maintain. Feeling "gamed" much? Apologies to SICI lovers everywhere it is not out of the question I'll be there.

Below are fav. quotes from my pal Tim (he teaches theoretical statistical models most of us can not spell).

Box's Theorem: "All models are wrong but some are useful"

The Box Corollary: "All models are wrong and some are useless"

Callahan's First Rule: "Garbage in, gold out"

Callahan's Second Rule: "He who has the prettiest charts and graphs wins"

Unknown: "Where there is uncertainty and confusion, there is money to be made"

[AgilisMerlin]

duderonomous(es)'

this study makes me want to throw out my spiddleplay Zero's........... :crap:

[FMS_rider]

I read the article cited by Dave Kirk in VN from the SICI convention with great interest and believe I learned a few things.

However, I would like to second the comments that Ti Designs has posted on this and previous threads (for example, http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=34889&page=1&pp=15).

In general, most scientists categorize their research as basic or applied, and most basic scientists know their place --their findings are only potentially applicable to the real world and more often than not prove to be irrelevant even though they are correct under the conditions in which the experiments were performed. This is a fact that most basic scientists fully recognize and accept. In the medical field, in which I do basic research (on epilepsy), there is a third level --the only one that really matters --the extent to which clinicians can use the findings from this research for effectively treating their patients, if it makes it through the second level of applied research. Unfortunately, there is still a large gap between applied research and clinical practice --a fact that is apparent to everyone as a result of the constant about-faces in widely disseminated recommendations regarding what is “good for you” and what is not.

The problem I see with certain members of SICI (for example in the above link), is that they make direct pronouncements regarding the applicability of their findings to bike fitting and other issues including nutrition and the pedal stroke, which I see as equivalent to the level of clinical medicine in my field. The scientists who do what they consider to be applied research on cycling-related issues may be the worst offenders. In fairness to these people, they include the standard qualifications and disclaimers in their publications, but these tend to get lost on the way to the professionals who attempt to make use of their research. There is an immense gap between the findings obtained under the simplified and controlled conditions that are required for research and the real world.

A disclaimer: this is strictly an opinion off the top of my head in an area where I have no expertise whatsoever. Cycling has long been a hobby and source of pleasure for me, but in recent years has become something of a medical necessity as well. As a result I have been attempting to improve certain aspects of my riding and the benefits that I receive from it. In these attempts I have read the opinions and advice from a large number of people with various sorts of credentials --largely through the internet but I also buy and read just about every book that comes along that I think might be useful. In a number of cases I have read the journal articles that are cited by the authors (or cited by their sources), and am almost always disappointed. It always seems to come back to what I have always done: fumble and bumble along by trial and error because most of what I read is either clearly unfounded at the time I read it, is disproved within a short period of time in subsequent studies, or is dismissed by those with extensive practical experience. Fortunately, I have a fitter whom I trust because he makes me feel better on my bike, just as I have physicians whom I trust because they make me feel better.

Lew

[jerk]

moving your seatpost up and down when you change crank arm lengths is dumb.

jerk

[fiamme red]

Below are fav. quotes from my pal Tim (he teaches theoretical statistical models most of us can not spell).

Box's Theorem: "All models are wrong but some are useful"

The Box Corollary: "All models are wrong and some are useless"

Callahan's First Rule: "Garbage in, gold out"

Callahan's Second Rule: "He who has the prettiest charts and graphs wins"

Unknown: "Where there is uncertainty and confusion, there is money to be made"Margaret Mead's Law of Human Migration: "At least fifty percent of the human race doesn't want their mother-in-law within walking distance."

Montagu's Maxim: "The idea is to die young as late as possible."

Morley's Conclusion: "No man is lonely while eating spaghetti."

[c-record]

moving your seatpost up and down when you change crank arm lengths is dumb.

jerk

Curious to the reason for that?

[Too Tall]

FMS Rider - You are a gift my man.

[Ti Designs]

moving your seatpost up and down when you change crank arm lengths is dumb.


I'm gonna have to question that one as well. When I fit someone I start at what I consider a safe saddle height, where the ball of the foot and the heel are at the same height at the bottom of the pedal stroke. If the saddle height is higher than that the pedal basicly tugs at the foot and can inflame the tendon behind the knee. Base mileage then becomes thousends of stress cycles, which should allow the rider to raise the saddle over time. A change in crank length changes a number of factors including extension at the bottom, so going significantly longer can cause injury. As much as I would like to isolate one parameter in any given study, you can't go from super short to super long cranks without adjusting saddle height.

[FMS_rider]

FMS Rider - You are a gift my man.You obviously haven't read most of my posts --especially my pathetic attempts at humor, but I do appreciate the positive feedback on at least one post --especially since it is from someone who truly is a gift and a man for everyone.
Lew

[jerk]

Curious to the reason for that?


because you want to keep the center of the circle in the same place. there is very little force exerted on the pedals at the bottom of the pedal stroke compared to at the top- the center of the circle needs to stay put; other wise the mechanics at the top of the pedal stroke get even more screwed up.

in general-and i'm sure it doesn't apply to everyone- you want to keep the circle's center in the same place.

jerk

[c-record]

because you want to keep the center of the circle in the same place. there is very little force exerted on the pedals at the bottom of the pedal stroke compared to at the top- the center of the circle needs to stay put; other wise the mechanics at the top of the pedal stroke get even more screwed up.

in general-and i'm sure it doesn't apply to everyone- you want to keep the circle's center in the same place.

jerk

Following your thinking now. I've heard that mentioned by some other fit people also.

[bobscott]

Thanks for pointing out the article, Dave and thanks to Serotta for supporting this conference.

In my mind these conferences are valuable in that they document new studies using different ways to examine the biomechanics of our sport. Most importantly they put forward ideas, which whether good or bad, that can be tested. Progress in all fields occurs in fits and bursts and new ideas(especially if they challenge dogma) push things along in that they stimulate challenge and more study. More study is a good thing.

With my hat off to Serotta,

bobscott

[jerk]

Following your thinking now. I've heard that mentioned by some other fit people also.


i'm not a fit person. i'm a fat bike shop employee. maybe i'll be fit if i ride my bike more.....

look at it this way- there's a narrow range of angles with which the right muscles can propel a bike forward.....there's no amount of mirrors or tricks or lazers or coaching or "trained eyes" that can give a cyclist that "eureka holy shi'ite moment." the best thing any "fitter" can hope to do is get a cyclist into good starting point that can then be verified out on the road. as long as the right muscles are working and there's no great discomfort- the starting point i give you is no better or worse than the one any other self proclaimed expert gives you.

i like the idea of the sici conference...ideas and banter and questions and aswers are always great and should always be encouraged....that being said if you base your position off the third technique in the CONI manul you won't be making a mistake. just make sure the bike is 2cms shorter in the seattube or so because stems point up now and hoods are higher on the hbars.

jerk

[swoop]

jesus jerk.. get out of my head. its like we believe the same things and if you were a girl... it could get ugly.

[c-record]

i'm not a fit person. i'm a fat bike shop employee. maybe i'll be fit if i ride my bike more.....

look at it this way- there's a narrow range of angles with which the right muscles can propel a bike forward.....there's no amount of mirrors or tricks or lazers or coaching or "trained eyes" that can give a cyclist that "eureka holy shi'ite moment." the best thing any "fitter" can hope to do is get a cyclist into good starting point that can then be verified out on the road. as long as the right muscles are working and there's no great discomfort- the starting point i give you is no better or worse than the one any other self proclaimed expert gives you.

i like the idea of the sici conference...ideas and banter and questions and aswers are always great and should always be encouraged....that being said if you base your position off the third technique in the CONI manul you won't be making a mistake. just make sure the bike is 2cms shorter in the seattube or so because stems point up now and hoods are higher on the hbars.

jerk

:) Pretty funny. I think you're being a tad humble though. I've lurked long enough to get the impression that you have a sizable base of knowledge.

I agree that no 'system' is going to result in a magical position that adds watts while simultaneously making the rider more attractive to the opposite sex. Went to SICI last year-definitely a good time. Missed it this year though.

Bikes are fun.

[jmewkill]

i wanna see the youtube video of the cadaver legs pedaling.

[Ti Designs]

look at it this way- there's a narrow range of angles with which the right muscles can propel a bike forward.....there's no amount of mirrors or tricks or lazers or coaching or "trained eyes" that can give a cyclist that "eureka holy shi'ite moment." the best thing any "fitter" can hope to do is get a cyclist into good starting point that can then be verified out on the road. as long as the right muscles are working and there's no great discomfort- the starting point i give you is no better or worse than the one any other self proclaimed expert gives you.

His studies of 16 bike racers of various heights doing maximal sprint power tests of under four seconds duration on cranks of 120, 145, 170, 195, and 220mm showed...

Well, so much for that narrow range of angles...

Ti Designs
Self proclaimed idiot

[stevep]

i wanna see the youtube video of the cadaver legs pedaling.

the cadaver beat the jerk in 3 straight town lines.
thats what i heard.

not by much though.

[FMS_rider]

Thanks for pointing out the article, Dave and thanks to Serotta for supporting this conference.

In my mind these conferences are valuable in that they document new studies using different ways to examine the biomechanics of our sport. Most importantly they put forward ideas, which whether good or bad, that can be tested. Progress in all fields occurs in fits and bursts and new ideas(especially if they challenge dogma) push things along in that they stimulate challenge and more study. More study is a good thing.

With my hat off to Serotta,

bobscottI totally agree, and want to point out that my earlier comments were in no way intended to disparage research of this kind or Serotta's support for it. I am solely concerned with how the findings from such research are interpreted and used by others, which may reflect in part the attitudes of researchers regarding the limitations of their data and how they should be disseminated.
Lew

[jmewkill]

the cadaver beat the jerk in 3 straight town lines.
thats what i heard.

not by much though.

the cadavers weight loss program was dead on. plus the jerk was distracted by the pretty pictures on his iphone.

[David Kirk]

I totally agree, and want to point out that my earlier comments were in no way intended to disparage research of this kind or Serotta's support for it. I am solely concerned with how the findings from such research are interpreted and used by others, which may reflect in part the attitudes of researchers regarding the limitations of their data and how they should be disseminated.
Lew


Yep...........what he said. I don't applaud SICI because it has all the answers or because all the answers are correct but just because the questions have been asked.

I think that the only way to improve is to ask questions and then try to answer them. Some of the "answers" will be bunk and others will be right on. But unless the questions are asked and the things we take for granted are questioned then we are stuck with the same old deal. Anyone want to step back to the days when you looked down and if you couldn't see the front hub then the reach was right?

I just like when folks ask difficult questions and aren't greeted with a "because that's how we've always done it" reply.

Thinking and questioning the status quo is good.



Dave

[FMS_rider]

Thanks Dave. I was beginning to think that I live in a parallel universe because the opinions I have offered on this and other threads have received little or no discussion. I have been benefiting a great deal from following this forum --including the personal level --and I am still trying to find my way in terms of what I might be able to give back.

I have been continuing to think about the issues raised in this thread and previous overlapping threads and would like to make a few additional comments --primarily as a result of re-reading quite a number of Ti Design’s posts, so I would like to direct my initial comments directly to him, although I am sure they apply to others as well. Although I agree with your overall assessment of the relative lack of usefulness of the findings thus far from cycling-related research, I do think you should have gone to the SICI conference. I doubt that you would have come away with much, or perhaps nothing that would have been of immediate assistance with helping your clients with fit or riding issues. However I do think that others at that conference would have benefited from your criticisms and ideas --I believe that many or most would have listened and although many of your opinions would have been publicly disputed, as they are on this forum, I think they would have had an impact on the attitudes of those engaged in cycling-related research, as well in their future choices of questions to be addressed. From one of your previous posts it sounds like you have attended a previous SICI conference and that your decision to not participate this year was based in part on that experience. However, if you look at the history of science (and probably other pursuits as well), persistence is everything --each time people hear new ideas they do sink in a little further, even if they are not consciously aware of it --scientists always forget the real sources of their “new” ideas. I firmly believe that your message is an important one and that it already has had more impact than you recognize.

Although much basic research continues to be done with little consideration of practical payoffs --purely with the goal of slowly building our understanding of fundamental questions with a vague hope that it will eventually prove to be useful --I have seen a definite evolution in attitude in my field in recent years toward thinking in terms of potential payoffs from the start, primarily through a more thoughtful approach to the selection of questions to be investigated. One of the things that really helps in that regard is conferences where people at all levels can interact. In my field that includes funding agencies, scientists working at basic and applied levels, clinicians who treat patients, and journalists who translate the findings for the people who may be able to benefit from them.

From the standpoint of end-users I think it is fair to say that the progress made by researchers in many or most areas appears to be (or is) frustratingly slow, even in areas where there are very large numbers of people involved and funding is adequate. In the case of cycling-related research, things are moving very slowly in large part because there are so few people involved and funding is so limited. But as pointed out by Dave Kirk, if you stand back and take a long view, it is clear that progress has been made, and the pace does appear to be accelerating (to this outsider). Although as I commented in an earlier post, I have not been able to personally benefit to any extent thus far, I do believe I would be able to benefit a great deal more in the future if researchers were to do some soul-searching and those involved in dissemination could learn to do it in a more rigorous fashion --and such changes are not going to happen without effective feedback from intelligent, articulate parishioners --a remarkable number of whom post on this forum (obviously including Ti Designs).

I would appreciate any feedback --the more critical the better.
Lew

[old_school]

well stated, thoughtfully expressed, I couldn't agree with you more
thank you

[Too Tall]

Yep...........what he said. I don't applaud SICI because it has all the answers or because all the answers are correct but just because the questions have been asked.

I think that the only way to improve is to ask questions and then try to answer them. Some of the "answers" will be bunk and others will be right on. But unless the questions are asked and the things we take for granted are questioned then we are stuck with the same old deal. Anyone want to step back to the days when you looked down and if you couldn't see the front hub then the reach was right?

I just like when folks ask difficult questions and aren't greeted with a "because that's how we've always done it" reply.

Thinking and questioning the status quo is good.



Dave

Right on :)

[FMS_rider]

Thanks to os and tt for the kind strokes, and to Ti Designs for a PM.
Lew