You are reading a single comment by @EdwardZ and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
    1. Cleat fitting - incorrect cleat fitting accounts for most knee issues we see.

    Current models seem to indicate that its unclear just where the cleat is best. A number of studies which moved the foot forward--- axel towards the middle of foot--- seem to indicate that the assertion is incorrect.

    1. Adjustment - when we get you on the bike we will start to look at optimum measurements for saddle height, reach to the handlebars

    Never put that word in your mouth: "optimum". Its like having someone tell you about the absolute best tasting whiskey. There is NO such thing, for example, as optimum saddle height no more than one could speak about optimum sleep, eating or training. There are models and models are belief based and hardly static. Is the Guimard model of saddle height optimimum or does it reflect a popular training model? Is the empirical observations of what saddle height a winning elite cyclist uses evidence of "optimal" saddle height or of the popularity of a model? Sean Kelly, for example, ran a low saddle? Did he have more knee problems than Bernard Hinault? Current empirical research seems to indicate that positions that provided better Vo2 and power and those that seem to reduce injury don't intersect.

    1. Pedalling technique – the Retul 3D analysis allows us to assess how your knees move during your pedalling action

    And what does that tell you? Look at the stride of runners at the elite level.. Look at marathon runners and one quickly understands that its as individual as one own genetic makeup. Variability is the norm and not "what looks good" (other than the observation that winners always look good).

About

Avatar for EdwardZ @EdwardZ started