Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:In article <[email hidden]>,
David Wagner said:I just read the article on saddles at: drmirkin.com8733.htmlOpen ↗
Dr. Mirkin advocates use of bike saddles that have no "nose".
Yah, "doctors" have promoted all sorts of saddles over the years. My favotire is the "hygeinic"
saddle of the late 1800's which was shaped remarbaly like a toilet seat. It was intended to
"protect" women cyclists from "nervous excitation" (read: genital stimulation).
Quoted message said:This made me wonder, what is the purpose of a saddle's "nose". We certainly don't want to sit on
it. I think it might help the rider maintain lateral control of the bike. But maybe the main
purpose is to make the bike look "racy". I am interested in hearing what y'all think.
I think the good Dr. Mirkin is a quack. The nose is there to keep your boys from flopping around
when riding on bumpy surfaces. They'd get mighty sore after a while.
I happen to know Dr. Mirkin and he is not a quack, which is not to say that I agree with him
necessarily on his choice of bicycle seats. Mirkin is a life- long athelete who turned to cycling
from marathoning for a less injury prone exercise. He and his wife are strong tandem cyclists,
especially for their age group.
He *is* known for bucking the medical establishment in some areas, in particular treatment based on
the documented coincidence between bacterial infection and some types of arthritis, and other types
of infection that have been correlated with chronic disease syndromes.
I would say that the saddle he recommends is somewhat extreme, but that there might be something
to be learned from the principle involved, which would probably be that a well designed saddle
maybe should not have a nose that is the source of any significant pressure on the soft tissue of
the cyclist.
JP