There has been a link established between cycling regularly and male impotency. Of course, that sounds like it should be true, since a man is resting a very vulnerable part of his anatomy on a very small area. But what is the actual risk of impotency? According to several studies, it's only 4 percent. But what's worse, is that there is no proven explanation for the increased risk of dysfunction compared to runners (4 times as much) or swimmers (twice as much). The common sense theory is the pressure exerted on the perineum (that's the "taint" in the vernacular), over time, damages the vascular and neural systems, uh, down there. However, new saddle designs meant to relieve the pressure, either have no proof that they do (like the "love canal" designs) or are even dangerous for athletes (like the bar design). We need the nose of the saddle to grab with our thighs for control and power, so a noseless saddle is just not going to cut it. Meanwhile, I'll take my 4 percent chances with my all-weather buddy.
"Look at the nose on that thing!" "Cut the chatter, Red Two."
Yeah- I'll take my chances too. I suppose you have to spend the whole time off-the-saddle and sprinting, right?
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't the "seat". It's the pants! We've seen pictures Joe : )
ReplyDeleteRuuners wear those leg baring fly-away shorts (lots of ventilation) and swimmers, although they wear tight suits like speedos, have the cooling effect of the water to help.
Cyclists on the other hand, have their manly parts squished by all that shiny spandex...and no "cooling" water flowing by.
One of the first things MDs have men with low counts do is switch from briefs to boxers (if necessary).
Mariposa:
ReplyDeleteThe pressure causes the heat, which I believe is the concept behind those "love canal" designs, lots of holes for air to rush in and cool "the boys." But like I say, we don't have a study out there that proves it's the "squishing" or the "cooking." I'd like to know...
I vote for the "cooking" being the culprit.
ReplyDelete