COMING SOON

Comments (8)

1. Looking forward to 1. and 3. Thanks Steve.

   1. yes I agree, thanks for the share. nice site.

2. I am looking forward to #2 and #3 on the list…..
   I wear Rudy Project cycling glasses and I sincerely hope they are not on your “challenge” list!! Best regards and thanks.

   1. Some Rudy’s are problematic, so yes. However there is individual differences between the way people respond to the problematic Rudy’s. Bring them with you next time you are up here.

3. I’m really looking forward to #2.

   Frankly, because I’m so sceptical of the whole idea that it I can’t help but wonder how rigorously you assess everything else that you write about as well.

   For instance the subject matter of #3 is of particular interest to me. I’ve had a knee reconstruction following an ACL rupture, although I’m happy to say it doesn’t give me any grief on a bike.

   But when I read your thoughts on bike positioning and equipment there’s always this nagging thought: just how seriously can I take the comments of somebody who happily declares with little-or-no supporting evidence that there’s a force roughly akin to magnetism, electricity or gravity, which apparently nobody else of a scientific bent has come across before?

   So I’m really hoping your video might help me determine whether you’re a particularly insightful, original thinker, or just a somewhat deluded individual.

   Note that I’m not dismissing out-of-hand what you claim, Steve. You’re clearly a sceptical person yourself, for why else would you so readily question the accepted wisdom on many areas of bike positioning. But frankly it seems preposterous to suggest that a human’s performance can be affected merely by unknowingly being in the mere presence of an inert object. And until I see the evidence for myself (preferably in the accepted manner of scientific enquiry – double-blind testing and the like) I can’t help but assume this is yet another example of the power of suggestion.

   1. G’day Michael,
      I’ve no issue with anything you’ve said and am happy for
      you to pass judgement when you see No.2. I’ll have to disappoint you re the double blind test and so on because I’m not a researcher and have no interest in publishing research in the manner you speak of. What I do have an interest in is chasing down any info that will allow me to perform my job more competently.

      What you will see in No.2 I have demonstrated to, I would guess, several hundred health professionals and the occasional scientist (fitting clients) who all had an initial reaction akin to yours, but to paraphrase the variety of their responses, “it is hard to deny what I see of my own body’s reactions”

      I wanted to have No.2 up some time ago but I knew the sort of response I would get (similar to yours). A Physician that is one of the people I have shown this to offered to be the demonstrator. However he can’t arrange to be free for another week or so. Best of all, there is nothing you will see in the video that you can’t duplicate to your own satisfaction with a reasonable knowledge of functional anatomy and a willing subject.

      Lastly, very occasionally, I trip over things via observation that seem to be unknown. At least I can find no reference to them. I keep detailed records on a number of things of this type and one of them that may be of
      interest is this. Again, you can duplicate this to your own satisfaction.

      96% of the clients I’ve seen in the last 3 years (approaching 2,000) display
      a lateral pelvic tilt. Some of them have a leg length difference, the great
      majority do not. With 85%, the pelvic tilt will resolve completely (if no
      leg length difference) or moderate markedly (if there is a leg length
      difference) if the subject covers one eye. Usually but not always it is the
      left eye and usually but not always it is the non dominant eye. So is this a
      visual processing issue (because 20% of the optic fibres transmit info about
      balance and coordination, not ‘sight’)?

      I don’t believe it is, as with all but a tiny fraction, the effect
      disappears when the subject bends forward and flexes their lumbar spine. I’m
      still working on this one but the keys seem to be optimal foot correction
      and / or optimal support of the lumbar spine (via good posture) in standing
      posture. I’ve shown this to neurologists, physiotherapists, chiropractors
      and behavioural optometrists and all scratch their heads. So the search
      continues.

      Once you’ve seen No.2, find a few subjects, duplicate what you will see and
      I will be interested to hear your thoughts. The only requirement is the
      ability to accurately find both iliac crests on a subject who has stripped
      to the waist.

      1. Steve, I’m way out of my depth here!

         I’m not in the medical or sports science professions, I’m just a naturally sceptical schmuck (with a physics and law degree) who has read a few of your allusions to this phenomenon and can’t help but feel that something’s not quite right.

         If I find your video interesting enough to try and replicate it for myself I’ll certainly let you know (I’ve got a cycling friend who is an occupational therapist so I’ll get her involved if it takes a bit more knowledge of the human body than I have).

         And if what you claim is true then I’m sure there will be at least a couple of readers with the necessary knowledge and interest who will want to put your theories to the test in scientifically valid experiments.

      2. G’day Mike,
         I’ve got two reasons for putting up the post we’re talking about. One is that it still does my head in and I’ve run it past a LOT of people without finding out more than I already know; that there is a demonstrable effect that doesn’t help with performance. And two, that if enough people see it, perhaps someone will have the necessary knowledge to explain why. Here’s hoping…

Comments are closed.