NYT Article: Bikes and Sexual Dysfunction (Men AND Women)

[The Wogster]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> Article in today's New York Times.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/health/nutrition/04bike.html?pagewanted=1
>
> Serves as warning and to set the path for future research.
> Interestingly, it suggests that women as well as men may be affected.
> But certainly NOT a reason to stop cycling. Bikes are better than sex
> anyway.
>

I suspect that it's one doctor who might know a lot about anatomy, but
not much about bikes. The common problem, I think, is probably with the
"Ass Hatchet" type saddles, which tend to be narrower and longer then
other types, heck some of them seem so narrow, that sitting on the top
tube would be more comfortable, especially since top tubes seem to be
getting wider.

Bicycle saddles have been around since, well Brooks started making
theirs in 1885, so sometime before that. The numbness and impotence
problems though, seem to be quite recent. I think it's largely due to
trying to fit on a too narrow saddle. Remember the saddles of the late
1960's and early 1970's, they were fairly short, but nice and wide.

Perhaps saddles should be sized to fit people, people with a narrow
pelvis, would fit a narrow saddle, people with an moderate pelvis would
fit a medium saddle, and people who are large boned, might need a wide
saddle. It wouldn't be hard to make a sensitized surface, that you sit
on, that measures the distance between the bones, and produces a saddle
width. Then you get the size off a chart.....

W

 

[Mark Thompson]

> It wouldn't be hard to make a sensitized surface, that
> you sit on, that measures the distance between the bones, and produces
> a saddle width. Then you get the size off a chart.....

Like wot people that sell Specialized saddles have in their shop?

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:


> Bicycle saddles have been around since, well Brooks started making
> theirs in 1885, so sometime before that. The numbness and impotence
> problems though, seem to be quite recent. I think it's largely due to
> trying to fit on a too narrow saddle.

Maybe not so much trying to fit on, but trying sit on.

There seems to be a misconception that such saddles are
to be used as chairs. They're not. On a well-fitting
bike a rider should be able to lift off such a saddle
with no straining. The saddle is there merely as a
support, a prop, sharing it's role as a support with
the pedals/cranks and handlebar. In that respect maybe
it could be useful to think in terms of "wearing" the
bike, rather that simply getting on it. Of course there
are bike configurations for which such saddles are
inappropriate for the rider's on-bike posture --
eg: beach-bomber cruisers.

> It wouldn't be hard to make a sensitized surface, that you sit
> on, that measures the distance between the bones, and produces a saddle
> width.

There's a way of doing that by sitting on a a sheet of
paper placed on a carpeted stair, and noting where the
dents are in the sheet of paper.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[The Wogster]

Mark Thompson wrote:
>>It wouldn't be hard to make a sensitized surface, that
>>you sit on, that measures the distance between the bones, and produces
>>a saddle width. Then you get the size off a chart.....
>
>
> Like wot people that sell Specialized saddles have in their shop?

You mean Like what people...? I tell ya, spelling these days, seems to
be fast becoming, a lost art.

To answer your question, a couple of ways of doing it, first a paper
based system, where there is a dye-layer inside, when you sit on it, it
causes the dye capsules to break, you peel off the top plastic layer,
and plop a clear plastic scale on top, giving you a nice measurement,
centre to centre. Another way, would be electronic, where you sit on a
machine, and it gives a nice digital readout. This would then be
converted to a saddle size, bone width in centimetres would be the most
practical, as butt size conscious Americans wouldn't know what it means,
and saddle makers the world over, using metric already machinery,
wouldn't need to learn anything new. Other then what sizes are popular,
and where, for example 13,15,17,19,21,23 might be the popular sizes,
internationally. Question becomes how do you make an ass hatchet 23cm wide.

W

 

[[email protected]]

soup wrote:
> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> >Bikes are better than sex
> > anyway.
>
> Bikes are good but 'better than sex', you must be doing it wrong?

or doing it /much/ better than you

 

[William Holiday]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:39:48 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

<Peter Clinch wrote:
<> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
<>
<>> Serves as warning
<>
<> Serves as warning that this story does the rounds every couple of
<> years and is treated as being somehow "news" each time...
<
<Besides, who wants to register for a pinko commie rag?

You don't need to be registered to read that particular article. It's not
surprising that someone who spews like you do, wouldn't have all the facts.

 

[[email protected]]

In uk.rec.cycling The Wogster <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>>>It wouldn't be hard to make a sensitized surface, that
>>>you sit on, that measures the distance between the bones, and produces
>>>a saddle width. Then you get the size off a chart.....
>>
>>
>> Like wot people that sell Specialized saddles have in their shop?
>
> You mean Like what people...? I tell ya, spelling these days, seems to
> be fast becoming, a lost art.
>
> To answer your question, a couple of ways of doing it, first a paper
> based system, where there is a dye-layer inside, when you sit on it, it
> causes the dye capsules to break, you peel off the top plastic layer,
> and plop a clear plastic scale on top, giving you a nice measurement,
> centre to centre. Another way, would be electronic, where you sit on a
> machine, and it gives a nice digital readout. This would then be
> converted to a saddle size, bone width in centimetres would be the most
> practical, as butt size conscious Americans wouldn't know what it means,
> and saddle makers the world over, using metric already machinery,
> wouldn't need to learn anything new. Other then what sizes are popular,
> and where, for example 13,15,17,19,21,23 might be the popular sizes,
> internationally. Question becomes how do you make an ass hatchet 23cm wide.

the problem mentioned in the NYT article is nothing to do with butt size
and everything to do with angle the pelvis makes with the seat and whether
the testicles and penis are being squashed against the seat.

The effect is well documented and proven to affect triathlon riders and riders
with drop bars the most. Some suggest it is the reason these two groups of
cyclists are so frustrated and unahppy.

 

[Julesh]

soup wrote:
> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
>
>>Bikes are better than sex
>>anyway.
>
>
> Bikes are good but 'better than sex', you must be doing it wrong?

Oh dear, time to trot this out again.


http://www.lotsofjokes.com/cat_201.htm


Warning contains sexist humour and helmut content!


julesh

 

[ReptilesBlade]

Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]> wrote in news:434223bd$0$21244
[email protected]:

> Article in today's New York Times.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/health/nutrition/04bike.html?pagewanted=1
>
> Serves as warning and to set the path for future research.
> Interestingly, it suggests that women as well as men may be affected.
> But certainly NOT a reason to stop cycling. Bikes are better than sex
> anyway.
>
> EFR
> Ile de France
>

But the reason most people buy giant cars and SUVs is because they already
lack sexual function and are trying to make up for it.

Hehehe they are losers.

--
---
END OF LINE.

 

[Tony Raven]

ReptilesBlade wrote:
>
>
> But the reason most people buy giant cars and SUVs is because they already
> lack sexual function and are trying to make up for it.
>
> Hehehe they are losers.
>

Clearly a touchy subject for you.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Bill Sornson]

William "Brain's On" Holiday wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:39:48 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <Peter Clinch wrote:
> <> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> <>
> <>> Serves as warning
> <>
> <> Serves as warning that this story does the rounds every couple of
> <> years and is treated as being somehow "news" each time...
> <
> <Besides, who wants to register for a pinko commie rag?
>
> You don't need to be registered to read that particular article.

According to the link *I* clicked, yes you do. (It gave the lead sentence
and then said: )

> It's not surprising that someone who spews like you do, wouldn't have all
> the facts.

Whoever you are, you woke up without your sense of humor today.
(Translation: Jesus f-ing Christ! Do I need to add a f-ing smiley thing to
EVERYTHING so that undiscerning {invective withheld} can get it?!?)

Sigh... BS (really)

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> William "Brain's On" Holiday wrote:

>> You don't need to be registered to read that particular article.
>
> According to the link *I* clicked, yes you do. (It gave the lead
> sentence and then said: )

(Rats. Cutting and pasting didn't work. IT SAID: "For free access to this
article and more, you must be a registered member of NYTimes.com."

 

[Mark Thompson]

> and whether the testicles and penis are being squashed against the
> seat.

Eeeek! ITYM the vein running down the perinium that supplies the testicles
and penis with blood is squashed. If it were testicles that were being
squashed people would be saying more than "it's a bit numb".

 

[Peter Headland]

None of the urologists I have spent "quality time" with this past year
agrees with that article. The most recent one I saw reckons any
negative effects are more than outweighed by the improved circulatory
function, etc. acquired by cycling.

> Bikes are better than sex anyway.

The reason I have been visiting urologists has kept me off a bike for
over a year and more recently made sex but a happy memory. And it has
nothing to do with narrow/hard bicycle saddles (I had surgery for
prostate cancer 3 months ago). That said, I saw my surgeon yesterday
and he said I could resume riding, but I have to say that I think doing
so is likely to impede recovery of erectile function. There's still a
lot of healing to be done down there - those nerves and tiny blood
vessels can take a couple of years to recover from the trauma of
surgery, if they ever do - and right now even sitting on an office
chair leads to a level of numbness/shrinkage that would have required
several hours riding to acquire a year pre-op.

I have started to give serious consideration to a recumbent of some
kind, but there are so many choices...

--
Peter Headland